Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive84

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

A point with copyvios[edit]

Wikipedia:Speedy deletions#Non-criteria warns about ""Copyright violations" whose sources copied Wikipedia". But there seems to be another possible case, where the same user put the same text and/or image in Wikipedia and in the external site. Anthony Appleyard 06:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a valid point, but it should not affect the policy. Often, a band will create their own website or myspace page, then copy its content word for word to Wikipedia. I guess we consider that other website to have its own copyright even if the same people authored the content. Maybe an expert can clarify this. YechielMan 16:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean. The authors of the text hold the copyright and are free to license it under many different licenses if they wish, including a GFDL license which wikipedia can use). However the onus is on the poster to demonstrate copyright and if the other copy doesn't appear to be under a compatible license we need to be careful. e.g. An official release sent into OTRS. Though the easiest way is for the owner to update the source website to indicate the GFDL licensing for the section being used on wikipedia. If they do get deleted as a G12 and sufficient evidence of rights are put forward the deleting admin should be willing to undelete. --pgk 17:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that if we must err, it should be on the side of enforcing copyright too vigorously, because the consequences of not doing so are higher than the consequences of enforcing copyright too laxly. Natalie 18:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, when the person who uplaods text is the original author, but has also posted it to another site, that person can license it under the GFDL and then we are fine. But we need clear evidence that the uploader here is in fact the person with rights, and that that person has in fact relased the text (and any images) under the GFDL. We oftne asak that the other site be altered to include a GFDL notice, which establishes both points at once. Failing that, an email to the fopundation's permissions department is often requested. Such an email is usually sufficient. See Wikipedia:Copyright. DES (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
If I'm reading this right, we are referring to instances where Person X wrote a Wikipedia article about (say) Band X first, and then copied it to www.BandX.com. In that case, both the Wikipedia article and the copied text at www.BandX.com are automatically released under GDFL; it doesn't matter who does the copying, as no one has rights. The content at www.BandX.com doesn't need to be specified as being released under GDFL; it is automatically released by having been on Wikipedia first; however, in this case, www.BandX.com needs to credit Wikipedia. (The person who wrote the text might find it odd that he has to credit "his" work, displayed on his web site, to a second party, but he does, of course.) If Wikipedia (or another GDFL-releasing entity) is not credited, then it's probably safe to assume that the material is undercopyright, absent proof otherwise. Herostratus 20:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The original post is very specifically about it being on the other site first. (As Anthony Appleyard notes, the speedy deletion criteria already warns about sites who have copied wikipedia content). But there are several misconceptions in the rest. As an author I can license my work under multiple licenses if I want. I can post it here under the GFDL which then enables others to make derivatives etc. A magazine may want to produce such a derivative but not want to be bound by the GFDL, they can arrange a different license with me for the same material, to enable them to do that, the magazine published version wouldn't be under the GFDL (Though of course anyone wanting to use my part could rely on the GFDL licensed version to make their own derivative). "as no one has rights" - the original author retains all his rights under copyright law, the GFDL licensing is the author exercising those rights. "www.BandX.com needs to credit Wikipedia" - No they need to credit the authors of the article in accordance with the terms of the GFDL, Wikipedia isn't the one to be credited since the wikimedia foundation as no rights in regard the material as they have no authorship and no assignment from the author, they are merely using the material under the terms of the GFDL as anyone else could. The original author could place a copy of his own work elsewhere (just his work, not derivative content) without crediting where he posted it first (be it here or elsewhere), he has full rights, the GFDL is about the rights of others to use his work, it isn't binding the author to follow those same terms for reuse elsewhere. --pgk 20:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
You are correct that an author may license his or her own work in different was in different places or fora. When a person copies content from a website, claiming to be the original author of the content, it is often asked that the person have the site post a GFDL release. This is partly because doing so will prove pretty clearly that the person controls the site (or that whoever does control it is OK with the upload to WP) and that the person does indeed intend to release under the GFDL. (There have been cases of people copying from their own sites and then attempting to claim that the content is copyrighted and can't be changed on wikipedia without permission. This is an obvious attempt to violate WP:OWN as well as the GFDL, but it can cause unwanted conflict and time spent dealing with the situation) The usual alternative is that the unloader send a release statement to the permissions department of the foundation asserting that s/he does have rights to the content, and agrees to release it under the GFDL on wikipedia. This email is normally to be sent from an address associated with the site, so that it serves as evidence that the person sending it did not simply make an unauthorized copy. As to what needs to be done when another site copies an article from wikipedia, the GFDL's requirement for a transparent copy of the original is often interpreted as requiring a link to the copy on wikipedia, and in any case proper attribution is better served by mentioning wikipedia as the forum in which the content was previously published, as well as crediting the specific authors (as required by the GFDL). DES (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Not to flog this too relentlessly, yes they could link back here in order to show where it came, I don't consider that to be "crediting" wikipedia, the original authorship needs to be credited, in the case of derivatives the GFDL (IIRC) says you need to credit at least the 5 most significant contributors (how you work that out is of course the fun). If you were merely copying an article as a one off exercise (rather than mirroring current content), the approach of merely pointing back to wikipedia maybe insufficient, we may delete the article here and all record of authorship becomes invisible, we may allow a recreation by different authors and different material, in which case the back reference becomes more confusing. Like all things if this level of detail is important for what you are doing, you need to take proper legal advice, but as already agreed from wikipedia's perspective the onus is on the editor to demonstrate the ability to use the material under the GFDL and if that isn't clear or obvious we will err on the side of caution. --pgk 08:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Nancy Drew books overfilled with articles that fail CSD A1[edit]

I do not have the time to find them all, but this category is overfilled with CSD A1 candidates, and I cannot delete them all. I left a warning at User talk:Hedwig0407 not to create these kinds of articles anymore in the main space, and to create them in her userspace and then move them when they meet Wikipedia:Stub. Jesse Viviano 03:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... just noticed that. I'll have a look through later.--Wizardman 03:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Forgive my ignorance, but what is CSD A1? KV(Talk) 03:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:CSD#A1, "Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context for the article to qualify as a valid stub." --Iamunknown 03:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Bah, you beat me to it. hbdragon88 03:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Ugh, I hate hate hate it when people do that. Mak (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
"Hate hate hate" ? But remember what Jimbo said: "Wikipedia is built on trust and love." -- BenTALK/HIST 06:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Meh, I don't. --Iamunknown 06:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I attached the speedy tags to all of the deletable ones at about 8am (utc). Most of them are still there. You've got some work to do. MER-C 09:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Consider them gone. Michaelas10 16:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The bigger problem is the copyvios. The first one I looked at is one line of content and the rest a copied description, probably from the back jacket. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD sanity check[edit]

Can someone look at Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion_by_user as the few entries left in there are not tagged as CSD nor are they in the category when you look? I can't see how they're ending up in there unless something is transcluded that I'm somehow missing. Can someone else take a peek? - Alison 04:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Meh! It's something to do with the deleted page User:Mawfive/Titan destroyed being transcluded. Weird ... - Alison 04:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Green tick.svg Appears to be fine now. Harryboyles 07:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah it will have been the job queue backlogged, the transclusion of that subpage will have done it, when the page was deleted job queue entries get added to update the details like category ownership etc. for those pages. You can see the current length on Special:Statistics --pgk 08:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

2nd admin view on WP:RFCN, please[edit]

Could we get a previously uninvolved admin to review a username discussion at WP:RFCN#The way, the truth, and the light and meta-discussion at WT:RFCN#The way, the truth, and the light, in light of WP:U#Offensive, specifically WP:U#Religion? The original closing admin has suggested getting such a "second opinion". Thanks! -- BenTALK/HIST 09:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

And no one ever answered my question about the 99 names of God, either. Are these fine as user names? --Ali'i 16:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Offensive email sent[edit]

Resolved: Quarl (talk) 2007-04-23 10:48Z

Anyone else received the following offensive email?? (content not posted here for WP:BEANS reasons) It came from KingDon9000 (talk · contribs) - who appears to have registered solely to spam people, and it contains personal attacks.

Why I got this, I have no idea. But it's not very funny, and I've just had to block the email address to prevent any further spam from this user. --SunStar Net talk 10:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that the individual is who he claims. Mostly because the last that I checked, Don Murphy and Wikipedia made up and are now on good terms (yes, I have the e-mail, and that is not the real e-mail address).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Normal troll. A private checkuser determined that the IP belonged to a website that features 4chan memes.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming Dmcdevit method[edit]

We'll be trying some of Dmcdevit's thoughts out on Global Warming.

We're unprotecting now. Could folks please keep an eye on the page, and block any Edit warriors on sight? (Note that you can block for edit warring even when there has been no strict 3RRvio, but do be careful of what you call an edit war, nevertheless.)

Hopefully no-one will actually be editwarring, but since we're unprotecting a contentious page, you never really know for sure.

--Kim Bruning 03:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Appreciate the help, and the attention. However, I assume no one here is going to do something radical like actually find some way to propose a real compromise, or try to ameliorate some of these issues.
weird how this article keeps going around in circles, and people keep proposing all kinds of actions, but no one proposes any sort of solution, or even offers some slight objective insight on what is causing all this. Just my two cents. I know people want to stay neutral. However, I think some objective guidance might be useful. My own personal request would be (in case you asked) can someone please tell the status quo faction to occasionally let some new sub-topics in? Does that seem like a valid compromise? Please feel free to comment, of course. Thanks. --Sm8900 04:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
This didn't last long. I've already blocked Jacob Buerk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for performing a mass reversion without discussing first on the talk page. Naconkantari 04:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Um, can Jacob's right to use TWINKLE please be revoked? --Iamunknown 04:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Any administrator can remove a user's rollback scripts by editing their monobook.js file. Naconkantari 04:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an administrator. :-( Although a warning should probably be given first. --Iamunknown 04:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Anyone noticing that the article was unprotected that fast was most likely following this thread and knew about the repercussions of edit warring. Naconkantari 04:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Striking this per an email I received. The editor has been unblocked. Naconkantari 04:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a controversial topic at the moment. I don't even know if it is possible to stabilize the article, until the situation in the real world also stabilizes. --Kim Bruning 04:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have give one-hour blocks to Tjsynkral (talk · contribs) and Nrcprm2026 (talk · contribs) for edit-warring. Admins should note that Nrcprm2026 has been banned from editing certain other articles by ArbCom (depleted uranium case) for disruptive behaviour. Physchim62 (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
A box-like message would be far better, a comment can be easily skipped by editing a determined section. -- ReyBrujo 04:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Question, I don't see any edit war like behaviour from Tjsynkral? He made a single edit this evening that doesn't even seem to have been challenged by anyone. Could we get some evidence of where he was "warring" cause I apparently have missed it? This block happiness NEEDS to stop. Kyaa the Catlord 04:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The edit warring needs to stop. Naconkantari 04:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:EW: "An edit war is when two or more contributors repeatedly revert one another's edits to an article."
I did not revert. Not once. Are we blocking users for edit warring or are we blocking them for editing? --Tjsynkral 05:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, point me at the edit warring that has caused these blocks? I'm seeing VALID edits and editors being blocked without reason. The blocking without valid reasoning needs to stop. Kyaa the Catlord 05:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Tjsynkral's edit was on a bit of the lead that's been intensively fought over the last few days, and arguably involved a tendentious misreading of the cited material. I do think the block was a bit too fast, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, these blocks are coming much too fast. This is not a good solution, especially since a number of the editors involved in the "war" are administrators and can now block anyone who edits in a way they don't agree with and have the "edit warrior" excuse to cover their behaviour. Kyaa the Catlord 05:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, the above pair of blocks were reviewed by Naconkantari who declined both of them. I'm sorry, I'd like to see a third party become involved in this, cause I don't see that their edits were obvious edit warring and based on the previous false blocking by Nacon I do not believe he's weighing this from a neutral POV. Kyaa the Catlord 05:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The edits immediately before Tjsynkral's plainly violated WP:NPOV by taking a firm position on a controversy that different scientists disagree about.(e.g., "40%", "primary factors" vs. insert of "insignificant"). There's no comment on the talk page supporting that new conclusory evaluation of multiple points of view. That's one way to achieve stability for an article if a different standard for blocking is applied to edits that fail to adhere to the favored POV than those that do: eventually only one POV will be reflected in the article. -- THF 05:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I did say be careful. The article merely needs to be watched. Only block if people are clearly edit warring. --Kim Bruning 04:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm gonna feel my way around here, and maybe I will make a mistake and get blocked because it seems kinda random. Sort of like Russian Roulette. But reading Dmcdevit's article, I think this is a good way to go. Even if I run into a fan blade, I agree with the decision. --Blue Tie 06:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't object to the Dmcdevit approach (so long as there is adequate notice that 0RR applies), but I do object to the way it is being applied in the article, and apparently without repercussion. THF 06:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that only a few can edit. ~ UBeR 16:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


P.S. Skyemoor is back to his usual nonsense and undiscussed reverts. When will he be blocked? ~ UBeR 23:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd, you put in POV material you know will be reverted, and you do not seek discussion of controversial language. It's a case of "Physican, heal thyself", and "Thou protesteth much." Now that I've read the above, I realize you inserted previously removed material as apparently 'revert bait', hoping that editors would not have read the discussion in this thread. Almost seems like a clever tactic, if it weren't for your good faith. --Skyemoor 00:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Changing "hypotheses" to "tiny minority views" into text is reverting POV as opposed to inserting it? (And there's absolutely no talk-page discussion.) I have a real concern about the double-standard being exhibited here. If there's going to be a 0RR rule, it needs to be applied evenly, and what's happening is that it's not being applied at all to the politically correct while those who wish to apply NPOV are getting blocked simply for making edits. As a result a page that already violates NPOV is getting considerably worse. THF 01:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
To you first question; yes. Say "other hypotheses" implies an unsupported significant minority that has not been established. Don't confuse political and pundit level of debate with the scientific process; even the sceptics admit to the overwhelming consensus. If you are attempting to establish a perception that climate change skeptic scientists are anything but a tiny minority, then you have your work cut out for you. Attempting to brand my edit as NPOV is wikilawyering, mr. attorney. --Skyemoor 01:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
If you wish to demonstrate the double standard I'm complaining about by engaging in a personal attack on the AN page, you've succeeded. -- THF 13:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Update[edit]

Some edit warring going on again at Global Warming. Would folks keep it in their watchlists and keep an eye on it? Thanks! --Kim Bruning 02:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming is an ongoing situation, so please keep watching that page! --Kim Bruning 16:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your attempts, but global warming has been an "ongoing situation" at least since I joined Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz 16:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The Global warming article could act as a poster child for why the Wikipedian, any yahoo can edit the article, approach can never stabilise on certain hot-button political issues. No matter if the ratio of the science were 1000:1 favoring one direction or the other, if it serves the political and economic needs of certain folks to have the article fall the other way, then the article will be under constant editing as they try to drive its PoV in the direction favored by those who have political power or money at stake.
Short of having an actual authority-based structure in our editing process, there is no way this crisis will ever be permanently resolved as there's always a new yahoo arriving to take up where the old ones left off (or were forced to leave off).
I rather wish we had a template that said something like:
"This is an article about a politically-contentious subject and is likely to be
constantly whip-sawn between at least two irreconcilable points-of-view. In fact,
at any given moment, it may be nothing more than a complete pack of lies!"
It needn't be this way, but Wikipedia is far too tolerant of editors who make it this way.
Atlant 16:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Isn't this just a battle between the 1) scientists who insist that their ReliableSources should use the standard of "Verifiability, not truth" versus 2) others whose ReliableSources use a much weaker standard of mere "Attributability, not truth"? --Rednblu 23:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I estimate there might be ~3000 articles that have issues, while ~3M do not. If you look at it that way, you might think we could just ignore the problem pages. Unfortunately many of these pages often happen to be on some of the most visible issues.

We may need to work on a different set of guidelines for those ~3000 pages. (and that in turn might take some experimentation)

--Kim Bruning 00:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think we could work out some understanding among the different camps about the proper standard for ReliableSources on global warming? --Rednblu 00:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you were asking me, but I'd have to say, frankly, "No". It's an information war going on out there in the real world and it's only to be expected that it spills into our little corner of "the media" as well. Control the information and you can control people's perceptions of the "truth".
Atlant 13:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I acknowledge there is an information war. But sometimes Wikipedia policy has offered editors' insights, such as WP:NPOV, into how the editors can come to working agreements despite the information war. I am wondering if there is not some analogous policy having to do with editors' consensus and recognition that the ReliableSources themselves must use the "Verifiability, not truth" standard in reporting what is asserted in the Wikipedia page. Something similar serves as a tacit understanding among the editors on the gravity and truth pages to develop a consensus that keeps the information war merely "Attributable, not true" assertions off the page. --Rednblu 17:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
But you're assuming good faith, as WP:AGF requires for how we treat ordinary Wikipedian editors. But at least some of our editors aren't here to create a wonderful NPOV encyclopedia; they're here to get their content added and, often, our content deleted, and they won't rest until they've achieved their goal. I realize it busts a shibboleth to openly state that, but it's obviously true to anyone who's been editing here for a while. That's why I brought up the information warfare metaphor; it's the same principle upon which Fox news was founded.
Atlant 12:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Update 2[edit]

One of the most regular edit warriors continues to do so unchecked diff diff. What happened to blocking edit warriors? Does that only apply to people who aren't pro-global warming? If we've gone back to a free for all up to 3RR a day, then let's make that clear so that both sides can all hit their 3RR and we can be right back where we started. --Tjsynkral 23:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying those two edits would justify a block? I'm not certain what standard for "edit warring" is being suggested for this article. This user may have a history of which I'm unaware, but those two edits on their own don't seem too bad. CMummert · talk 12:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There is an ongoing edit war for inclusion of the globalboiling external link on this page. One block's been handed out, but there are multiple people revert warring, can we get someone to investigate? Kyaa the Catlord 13:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at it some last night and this morning. It looked like only the blocked editor went over 3RR. If people are going to be blocked for 1RR, it would be worth putting a notice to that effect on the talk page. CMummert · talk 15:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I was blocked by User:Physchim62 for making one non-revert edit. --Tjsynkral 01:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The standards, as I understood it, were that edit warring and reverts were going to be strictly prohibited. Under that rule Tjsynkral was blocked, even without a revert. Now reverts are happening and there is no repercussion. I do not understand what rules the page operates under. They were declared -- as a special set for that page only (and a notice put on the talk page) -- and now those special rules are not being enforced. Or perhaps enforced selectively. If no admin is going to take some responsibility for enforcing the new rules, then the page should go back to the standard wikipedia rules. I suggest that the admin's involved in this decision go and remove the special notice or else enforce it effectively. --Blue Tie 16:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree completelky with Blue Tie. it is not true or valid to say there is no solution to all this. There is a simple solution to this.
We need a period where all good-faith, valid, relevant and sourced edits are accepted, and permitted to becomne part of the discussion. We need a halt to constant edit wars, reverts and deletions. Part of this means not removing perfectly valid edits due to some so-called problems with minor considerations. Doing this will allow the article to function like most Wikipedia entries; occasionally in a process of change, but not just reflecting only one person's idea of what is valid and what is not. --Sm8900 16:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, Mr. Arritt disagrees, and removed the warning. ~ UBeR 19:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Shall we expand principle of indef blocking vandalism-only accounts and nuke COI-only accounts?[edit]

Over at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard I see a fair number of accounts that exist for no other purpose than to promote some person or company. A representative example is Uibs. This account exists to promote the Barcelona Business School, an instution of learning which the only independent source described as a one room campus that was founded by the same individual who created its accrediting body. This account blanked warnings from its user talk page repeatedly,[1][2] removed advertising and COI tags from the article under the guise of rewriting,[3] and left a rather disingenuous message at the article talk page, particularly in light of subsequent attempts to promote the institution at Wikipedia.[4]

Another example is Jeffrey Babcock, whose sole contributions to Wikipedia since June 2006 have been self-promotional. This editor has deleted warnings to his user talk page during his block and, via e-mail, has both accused me of vandalism for reverting his spam and announced his intention to violate Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets. Excerpts of his messages follow:

Your deletion of links for Jeffrey Babcock is inconsistent. There are other former personalities on the sites where I am listed who have such links. Your deletions are vandalism. Please refrain from well intentioned but misguided vandalism.
I can of course have a third party make an edit. Kind of a waste of time. You seem to be caught in a form vs function trap.

The real waste of time is supposing that such people would develop into decent Wikipedians. In light of Brad Patrick's statement on COI accounts,[5] I ask the community to support the following approach:

  1. For obviously Conflict of interest-only accounts, first leave a message at the editor's talk page advising the person of site standards.
  1. If the editor continues acting in a solely promotional manner, treat the account history as a sophisticated breach of Wikipedia:Vandalism and indef block.

Editors who doubt the need for such an approach are invited to spend a week tending either Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. DurovaCharge! 14:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes please. I've been thinking we should have stronger shoot-vanity/promotion-on-sight policies for a while now. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 14:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, maybe this will cut down on the # of vanicruftisements that people who are trying to build a better encyclopedia have to deal with. SirFozzie 15:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
As a non-admin, I would wholeheartedly support admin action on this front. I know that no area is immune but wine articles get targeted quite a bit with these spam-only accounts and it really does get tiring. Quite a few link to Wine Library TV, which I just discovered has a Wikipedia article possibly created by a COI-SPA. AgneCheese/Wine 15:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I belive that this would require a policy change (or at least clarifiction) in WP:BLOCK but I would support such a change. DES (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Arguably, this already fits within WP:BLOCK#Indefinite_blocks: Inappropriate usernames, policy-breaching sockpuppets, and single-purpose abusive accounts that have not made significant constructive edits can be indefinitely blocked on sight, and should be noted in the block summary. Is not single purpose violation of COI, WP:SPAM, WP:ADVERT, and WP:AUTO abusive of Wikipedia, its volunteers, and its readership? DurovaCharge! 16:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Arguably it does, but I think it is better to spell this one out. I have therefore proposed it on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. DES (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Do I doubt the need? By no means. But an indef block buys us at most 24 hours of autoblocked reprieve, and the spammer's back the next day with a less obvious username and no history of abuse. —Cryptic 16:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and the single purpose soon shows itself. This is easier to spot and halt than garden variety trolling because the troll can be more flexible about methodology. We don't let the risk of future abuse deter us from necessary action. DurovaCharge! 16:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
No, but we should be taking the right necessary action. Indef blocks are only effective against accounts that try to integrate into the community. The net effect of blocking User:Spamsalot.com is that Spamsalot.com will be re-created by User:Innocuous in four days; for COIs inserted into other articles, we don't even get that long unless the article's semiprotected. After that, even the stupidest spammer will know to create accounts in advance. The only thing that blocking an unestablished user account does is delay, often indefinitely, use of our only effective tool: page protection. —Cryptic 16:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Change proposed at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy DES (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I support this, but we should think about updating Template:uw-coi so it says something ominous like "Those who use Wikipedia for blatant self-promotion may be blocked indefinitely without further warnings." Jehochman (talk/contrib) 16:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I would generally support this too. In a lot of ways, spamming campaigns are worse than simple school-type vandalism, because they're tougher to detect. If someone's adding 20 lines of profanity to an article, it just gets reverted on sight, there's no valid reason for anyone to do that. There are a lot of valid reasons to add external links, so it requires more work to figure out if it's spam. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Both proposals sound very good to me. DurovaCharge! 16:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with teh template change, too. DES (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Having a simple rule that allows the blocking of COI-only accounts would give more teeth to our COI rules. Posting COI problems at WP:AN/I doesn't always give any concrete results because of the perceived complexity of these cases. If there's a simple rule, administrators would be more willing to take action. EdJohnston 16:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd support this. A reasonable idea which would, as others have said, add teeth to COI rules.--Alabamaboy 23:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A significant change like this should be proposed on WT:COI, not just here. Please keep in mind that such a proposal could have serious consequences in NPOV disputes. It is not uncommon for partisan editors, who may fall under the campaigning section of COI, to be involved in NPOV disputes with each other. Hopefully, both sides are more or less proportionately represented, and the article on a whole becomes neutral. WP:COI#Conflict_of_interest_in_point_of_view_disputes suggests conflicts of interest in NPOV disputes should not be brought up, in keeping with assume good faith and the principle of commenting on the content, not the editor. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 23:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. As proposed, this clarification will not be effective in such cases. Presumably these people are editing articles besides one about themselves or their organization. The statement only applies to single-purpose accounts that engage in blatant self-promotion. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 12:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
For those interested, the conversation has moved here. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 13:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Use of jargon and abbreviations made this discussion extremely difficult to follow. I have expanded most of the abbreviations. Please avoid habitual use of abbreviations to denote policies because this makes Wikipedia an extremely difficult environment to follow. At the very least, name the policy page in full (all policies have full names) when you first introduce it. --Tony Sidaway 10:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
A fair comment, although I doubt many of the people who populate this board need full name descriptions of every policy. What do you think of the discussion at the policy talk page? Proposed new wording met with mostly approval and a couple of articulate objections. My original request here was for community support of an interpretation I would like to apply to the blocking policy's present wording? Let's remember the main issue is more important than semantics: conflict of interest manipulation is a serious problem at this site and we need a stronger response to combat it. DurovaCharge!

(unindent) Hi! Just want to point out that accounts initially perceived as single-issue, COI accounts can sometimes work out. Can even become administrators. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Looking back at my oldest edits, I find this one, which provoked a gentle warning from the famous User:Kim Bruning. I ever go for RfA, I'll have to get some kind of pardon for my early edits. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 03:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Request to remove AfD on Virginia Tech massacre timeline[edit]

Someone unwisely AfD'd this highly visible topic: Virginia Tech massacre timeline. Could this be done a Speedy keep, debate closed and the template removed by an admin? thanks. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 13:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. --kingboyk 13:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Just as a note, Merging is not the same as keep. This sort of article belongs as a subsection of the mother article and at wikinews if they want it. The fact that when it was closed that a merge was refferred to as the same as a keep is a bit troubling. These unneeded articles just serve to clutter up main space. I might nom it again with a well reasoned argument for a merge and delete (redirect wouldnt be important, no one is likely to type that name into the search box. -Mask? 19:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Help requested by another user[edit]

Another user has requested help from me because, as he says, "I "can't" clarify sentences properly and have a touch of asperger's" (some background here and here). His contributions can require significant work to revise them and are often deleted. Can anyone suggest any help – possibly guidelines, policies or previous experience regarding users with such difficulties or support for them? I’ve already been told there is a user category for Aspergian Wikipedians by the way. Also are there guidelines or policies regarding dealing with the type of contributions he makes (other than continuous copyedits or the like)? Mutt Lunker 16:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Since posting the above it occurred to me that a sympathetic adopter could be helpful, so I've suggested he could request that. Also, to avoid the frustration of having his edits removed for lack of notability etc. he could (whilst continuing with appropriate contributions to Wikipedia) find another forum where the info he wants to add would be acceptable; possibly starting his own website or blog, or finding suitable third party sites (e.g. comprehensive details of shopping centres is one of his interests). I wouldn't know how to help him further with these suggestions though. Any ideas? Mutt Lunker 13:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions[edit]

What on earth is that annoying box, and when did it get there? I can't seem to find any recent modifications that would apply to Special/Contributions in MediaWiki Recent Changes. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It was a change made at the developer level, an update, by VoA. Prodego talk 21:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... kinda figured that's what it had to be. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Annoying? I find it extremely helpful and timesaving. Bishonen | talk 23:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC).
I especially like the new feature at Special:Newpages that lets you find new pages/images created by a single contributor... really helps with checking histories of suspected copyright violators. Sancho 23:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
That feature has been there at least since June. I remember seeing it when I created List of minor Andalites, whcih was on 20 June 2006. hbdragon88 23:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it considerably handier than having to delete my username from the Special:Contributions page and typing in someone I want to check on. hbdragon88 23:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There have been a few changes to MediaWiki recently, mostly cosmetic ones like this, that have been on hold for a while until database schema updates could be performed on all of the live servers. Once the updates were on the new changes could come live; that's why it seems that lots is happening all at once. --bainer (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

About 100 revisions worth of changes (which is slightly unusual). If you find any bugs, please report them to BugZilla, as this is the testing period for MediaWiki 1.10alpha, which is going to be made a stable release soon. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

blocked range 77.182.0.0/16[edit]

hi there!

de:user:Lyzzy got blocked on en.wp for six months, commented to be a "spambot" (see screenshot done by her). i can assure you that she definitely is not a spambot. ;-) the admin who blocked the ip (ip-range?) did not answer her request for an unblock via mail. who can help her? how can she edit here again? --JD de {æ} 17:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

77.182.0.0/16 (#455265) are dynamic IP addresses that belong to 1&1, one of Germany's leading ISPs. Please unblock the range again. -- kh80 19:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Lyzzy (talk · contribs), presumably the same person, has a completely clear block log. Natalie 19:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It's about her IP range (see above). The admin unchecked the box "Block anonymous users only", so she can't edit anymore. -- kh80 19:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I have asked the blocking admin to weigh in - they may have had a reason for their actions. Natalie 20:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I fixed should be anon only, I have seen some spam bots recently originating from that range. I did not receive any e-mail. (it might have been spam filtered or junk mailed by accident). If there are any other collateral from this please feel free to unblock. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 23:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
If 77.182.0.0/16 are dynamic IP addreses of one of Germany's leading ISPs, shouldn't the block not be "account creation blocked"? Where are ISP-users supposed to go to create an account? --Iamunknown 23:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, e-mail function is not as unfailing as it should be. --Lyzzy 09:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

A Wikipedia software bug: cause found?: a strange effect of a missing template file[edit]

(1) In Category:Broken redirects for speedy deletion I found three biochemistry-related pagenames including Carbohydrate metabolism. But they proved to be not redirects and not speedy-delete-tagged. When I went into edit mode with Carbohydrate metabolism, the resulting transclusions list at the bottom included the name Template:Gluconeogenesis, which was red, showing that that template did not exist. I gave Template:Gluconeogenesis the dummy contents {{}} , and after that Carbohydrate metabolism was no longer listed as a speedy-delete-tagged broken redirect. Anthony Appleyard 12:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(2) This happened again, with User:Wlmaltby3/Depth chart/sandbox, which was listed as {{db-self}} because it transcluded the missing template file User:Wlmaltby3/Depth chart. Anthony Appleyard 20:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(3) This happened again on 20 April 2007 as I was going through Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user. I found listed there a big bunch of files all in the same user's user space ((e.g. User:xxxxxx/..... or User talk:xxxxxx/.....)). Most of them were "scratch paper" template-type files which he had db-userreq tagged after he had finished work developing something, and accordingly I deleted them. But 4 of them were discussion archives with no speedy-delete tag, but yet they were listed for speedying - because they transcluded (directly or indirectly) a template which contained a speedy-delete tag, as is well known.

But those 4 archive files were still listed in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user after I deleted the speedy-delete-tagged templates. I went into one of them in edit mode, and at the bottom 3 of the names of transcluded templates showed as red = 404, so I recreated those 3 templates with the dummy text {{}} , and after that the 4 archive files no longer listed for speedy-deleting.

Afterwards I contacted the user, and he thanked me.

Cause?[edit]

I suspect that, for speed, Wikipedia's server accesses templates (or at least commonly used short templates) not straight from the template file but from a copy in a buffer in RAM. That buffer seems to be correctly updated from the template file when the template file is written to. But likely that buffer is not cleared or blanked when the template file is deleted. As a result, accessing a deleted template file (to transclude it) results in Wikipedia'a software accessing the template's buffer and thus behaving as if the last version of the template file was still there complete with speedy-delete tag.

In case (1), likely one of his templates contained a #redirect to a file which someone later deleted, and later someone tagged that template as Category:Broken redirects for speedy deletion, and then someone deleted the template.

Anthony Appleyard 05:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes as I pointed out when this was mentioned the other day, it is all to do with the job queue, it doesn't buffer in RAM (though MYSQL might be), just follow the link and read. Any edit to the page (not just removing the now gone template) will resolve it for that page. --pgk 07:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Happened to me yesterday as I was clearing the WP:CSD#G7 category & I reported it here. You just have to be careful that the page for deletion truly is tagged with {{db-owner}}. It seems to be always down to a transclusion that was itself only recently tagged and speedy-deleted - Alison 07:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Problematic external link on galaxy being added by anonymous user[edit]

An anonymous user with several different IP addresses (User:62.69.36.240, User:62.69.36.109, User:62.69.37.127, User:62.69.37.217) has been attempting to add a "bad" external link to galaxy. The external link is a problem because it resizes the windows browser, and it annoys those of us who have been maintaining the article. The link may also be spam; I have certainly never heard of the website.

Since the user clearly has multiple IP addresses, contacting him/her is difficult, as the user may not read any messages left at a specific user talk page. The user also has not noticed the note left at Talk:Galaxy or the notes that I now leave in the revert edits.

In the past, I think I encountered something that blocks the addition of external links to websites that are advertisements. Is it possible to institute that for the website that this anonymous user continues to attempt to edit?

Any other suggestions would be welcome. Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 09:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

File a request at WP:RFP to prevent anons from editing. hbdragon88 09:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The meta spam list is a better option than page protection - anyone have the link handy? Spartaz Humbug! 09:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
m:Talk:Spam blacklist, but they won't list it unless it's a significant problem affecting multiple articles, usually on multiple language Wikipedias. Guy

(Help!) 10:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You can also put something on my talkpage to request that the link be added to Shadowbot, which I've done in case they don't get the idea. Shadow1 (talk) 12:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a week. Hopefully, they'll get bored - Alison 11:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:62.69.36.240 has added links to the same "Space and Astronomy News" website (or possibly mirror sites) on other Wikipedia pages; see [6]. Some of these other edits have been reverted as spam. Could this be a justification for taking further action? Dr. Submillimeter 12:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I warned the accounts {{uw-spam2}}. If it continues, escalate up through {{uw-spam4}} and then report at WP:AIV to block. If the person evades blocks via dynamic IP after that then we'll consider blacklisting the domain. Quarl (talk) 2007-04-23 10:47Z

Living bios in need of attention[edit]

User:Messedrocker/Unreferenced BLPs - go through, give a severe sourcing critique, remove from list (or from Wikipedia) - David Gerard 17:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I can't beliee that Dave Brubeck is unsourced. I think we should take some Time Out to fix that. I'll be Far more Blue if it's not fixed soon... 80.176.82.42 22:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sockpuppeteer notice[edit]

How does one deal with removal of a sockpuppeteer notice? See here. I've reverted that with an edit summary with links to the appropriate sections of WP:USER#ownership... and WP:SSP#reporting.... But I have a strong feeling this won't go away. Otheus 19:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's how you deal with it: Don't put a suspected sockpuppet tag on the userpage of someone who hasn't been banned for abusing sockpuppets. How would you like it if I stuck one of those tags on your page and started edit-warring over it? If you have the PROOF of him using sockpuppets abusively, then he should be banned. If you don't have the proof for that, you shouldn't be tagging him. Frise 21:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually WP:SSP explicitly states that you should. -Amarkov moo! 21:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
That's why it's called "suspected" sockpuppet. JuJube 22:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know what it states. This is something that needs to be tempered with a little common sense. There might be thirty or forty people I suspect of being sockpuppets, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go around taggging them. There are three or four people I know for a fact are using sockpuppets, but since they aren't abusing the policy I'm not going to tag them either. Edit warring on someone else's user page over a suspected sock tag is incredibly silly. If you KNOW they're abusing socks, then they can be banned. Frise 22:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
But the point of WP:SSP is discussion. That involves getting people who interact with the alleged sockpuppets to comment. And it doesn't say that you can tag everyone who you suspect of being a sockpuppet, it says you can tag people who you suspect of being an abusive sockpuppet, and have a SSP report open on them. -Amarkov moo! 22:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Edit-warring over a suspected sockpuppet tag is as dumb as edit-warring over the removal of a warning. The community has come down hard on the latter, and the same conclusions reached apply to the former. - Merzbow 04:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but so far, no comment on exactly how to deal with it. Do I report it to AN/I as removal of a warning? Otheus 05:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
This has already been dealt with, but in general it might make sense to find out why the tag is supposed to be added. After all, the report is still on WP:SSP and will be dealt with decisively at some point, so a tag is not strictly necessary. —Centrxtalk • 05:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Centrix has a point. I have filed three SSP cases, and in each case, the users got fairly angry. Is that a classic guilt response? I'm not sure. But posting it on their user page didn't seem to "help" encourage "discussion". But at the same time, the community and the accused need to be aware of the suspected puppetry and case. In this case, it was resolved quickly, but in other cases, it might take quite a while. So while there is an ongoing investigation, there should be some kind of notice. Otheus 06:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the notices on the user page are necessary. The suspected master + puppets should receive a notice of the case on their user talk page, which makes sure they're informed. I'll start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets to remove tagging the user pages from the steps in filing a case; anything that makes the procedure simpler and reduces futile edit warring is probably a good thing. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Um... warning removals don't need to be reported, because they are not actionable. If this is like warning removal, then you don't report it at all. -Amarkov moo! 05:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Tonyppe[edit]

Resolved: User:Tonyppe blocked by Ryulong. Quarl (talk) 2007-04-23 10:38Z
Thread retitled from "Offensive?".

I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this one... I'm not a terribly big fan of the typical user page on wikipedia, so I decided to put this image (which happens to be featured) on my userspace because I love the artist's work. I hadn't logged in for a while, and then I noticed this edit on my talk page requesting that I remove the image because it offends gay muslims (?). I would normally be quite willing to take down an image that someone found offensive, but I noticed the same user had made several edits tweaking vandalism notices I had placed [7] [8]. Any thoughts? I wanted to get an outside viewpoint before I contact the user with my reply. RookwoodDept. of Mysteries 02:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call this "tweaking". Looks more like vandalism to me. Natalie 02:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
True, but the editor seemed to be making (a few) reasonable edits as well, so I was trying to assume good faith. RookwoodDept. of Mysteries 02:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Your userpage is fine. Tonyppe is asking for a sharp warning for personal attacks for this sort of thing. – Riana 02:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
There's no good faith to be assumed about his insulting edits. JuJube 02:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
User blocked—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I admire your good faith approach to the user's message, but I'm afraid I'll have to concur with the judgement they were most likely trolling. I know that we have some Muslim editors, if any of them can figure why this image would be offensive, please do point it out. Personally, I like it. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:CtK19, CTK[edit]

Thread retitled from "Blanking".
Resolved: Quarl (talk) 2007-04-23 10:40Z

I'm not sure this is the right place to put this, please correct me if it's not. Would someone have a look at this article? The entire contents was replaced by User:CtK19 some twelve hours ago. It seems to me that this user is promoting himself on WP, and also that the article does not meet WP:NPOV. I think this edit is vandalism, be it intentional or not.Cassandra B 10:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it to the previous disamb page and left a notability message to the user. Thanks for spotting it! -- lucasbfr talk 10:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ampersands on my "command line"[edit]

I don't have a clue where to look for the reason for this, but my command line just went from this:

   * Jd2718
   * My talk
   * My preferences
   * My watchlist
   * My contributions
   * Log out

to this:


   * Jd2718
   * My talk
   * My preferences
   * & lt;my-watchlist& gt;
   * My contributions
   * Log out

I think somebody's monkeying around with something they shouldn't be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jd2718 (talkcontribs) 11:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Wayne Crookes suing Wikimedia[edit]

According to a whole bunch of news websites, this guy's suing Wikimedia along with pretty much the rest of the internet. Shouldn't his page be office protected or something? Who do we notify if anyone? Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been protected - though not at OFFICE level. x42bn6 Talk 14:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:AIV[edit]

Just thought you should know. Spartaz Humbug! 16:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like its done... good job guys --Spartaz Humbug! 16:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Offensive user name (n*)[edit]

User:Knights who say Ni...Grrr who seems to be editing in an "unhelpful or unconstructive" way has a user name that is offensive when it's read out loud.Sjö 16:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

For future refernece, this sort of thing should be filed under WP:AIV. I've indef blocked the user. Rklawton 17:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'm new to the English version.Sjö 17:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A curious request[edit]

Hi, folks. King Lopez (talk · contribs) made a curious request of me: he wants to know what Special:Blockip looks like. I have the capability to make a screenshot, but I wasn't sure whether doing so was kosher or a good idea. Theoretically, there's no harm in showing him what the page looks like (and there's a screenshot of part of the blocking page at Wikitruth anyway), but something doesn't smell right about the request, so I wanted to run it by some other admins. (It seems that he asked Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) first, and Khoikhoi declined because he didn't have time.) What do y'all think about this? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 23:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not a big deal. I am just curious about it. Thank you. King Lopez Contribs 08:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If it worries you, show him [9]. I doubt it is harmful. x42bn6 Talk 00:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd probably ask them why first. Note that they were blocked 1 week in January for 'abusive sockpuppetry', so hmmm .... - Alison 00:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, it's not the sekret page :P The page is released under the same licensing as all the rest, I do believe. Users without the flag just can't see the page because to access it would be for its use. I see no problem. It's something I've never considered before so I add the "I might be wrong." Teke 05:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Plus, the page used to list the AOL proxy blocks and others, which it no longer does. It only lists the ranges of the Canadian, UK, and US government IP blocks. Furthermore in my it's no big deal. Teke 05:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It's GPL'd, so it's not even secret - he can go to any other site that runs MediaWiki 1.10alpha and request it there. There's no issue here. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, he's not asking for checkuser results or real names or something. I have a small wiki on Mediawiki running on the machine next to me for some collaborative projects with a few friends, anyone else could do the same and find out exactly what it looks like. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Just show the appropriate mediawiki page. ViridaeTalk 00:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, everyone. After some thought, I decided that it was harmless and uploaded Image:Admin's toolbox and Image:Block user.png, and answered his question at Talk:King Lopez#Re: Question. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 04:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Block of Reddi[edit]

As a result of talk page spamming and forcing people to sign a memberlist at WP:PARANORMAL (which there is another one that he was unaware of), I blocked User:Reddi about 12 minutes ago for 15 minutes.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm blocking him, again, this time for 31 hours in his personal attacks against User:ScienceApologist, which includes trying to remove him from WP:PARANORMAL (I also have reason to believe he was spamming the talk pages of the members to influence this decision or that of the recently opened Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
For his actions, see this diffRyūlóng (竜龍) 03:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Everything is some sort of conspiracy with him :\. Seems like a valid block. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Not sure how related it is but this editor redirected Electrostatic levitation to Electrogravitics which is a completely separate concept... I reverted this and there was nothing more of it but I was rather puzzled/disappointed to find this redirection. (Netscott) 03:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Prod backlog[edit]

Hasn't gone away. See Category:Proposed deletion as of 15 April 2007, Category:Proposed deletion as of 16 April 2007 and Category:Proposed deletion as of 17 April 2007. Needs some work with a plunger. MER-C 07:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Starting to nab some, but being at work, I can't get into hardcore "psycho admin with a mop of doom" mode. EVula // talk // // 20:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Another one: Category:Proposed deletion as of 18 April 2007. MER-C 04:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Yamla protected[edit]

If I may say, I believe this is inappropriate. I have no way of contacting this user. The idea was that it was protected because of an "edit war", but there were only a few edits over several days in this "war". It is totally inappropriate to fully protect (not just semi) an administrator's talk page. Unfortunately, I can't complain, because his page is protected. Part Deux 15:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In general, your view would be absolutely correct. In this instance, there are other reasons for this protection which unfortunately should not be discussed on-wiki. Please e-mail the user if necessary. Newyorkbrad 15:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Could I have a link to the discussion? I'm not seeing how not letting us know why his page is protected could in any way harm this user.
In any case I wanted to know why on God's green earth he didn't protect User talk:A young n***a from da street for abuse of the unblock template and WP:POINT problems. 15:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It could. Please e-mail Yamla. --Iamunknown 15:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
In any event, any administrator can address the issue on the "User:A young..." page. Newyorkbrad 15:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
While I'm not buying it, do you think he could add a link to the top of his page saying "email me"? Part Deux 15:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Not buying what? I don't appreciate that implication. It wasn't even him that protected the page. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 21:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know about this discussion until now. My page was protected as a result of an attack I considered rather serious and the only way to protect myself was to protect my page. The protection expires after a week from the initial incident and I'm seriously hoping this is enough. If it is not, I am not sure what I will do. I considered this protection to be necessary and a last resort. Semi-protection is occasionally necessary in the short term but admins should rarely need to fully protect their page. I note, however, that I am always available via email. As to protecting that user's talk page, I still don't see a need to protect it. My involvement was limited to deciding whether or not to unblock the user. While that username was not acceptable, the word in question was bleeped out (I would not tolerate someone using the full n-word in a username) and a single unblock request only rarely is grounds for protecting the page, even if abusive. --Yamla 21:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Lyude5/monobook.js (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[edit]

Resolved

This page created by banned user Lyude5 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) needs to be deleted. I tried to put {{delete}} on it, but users cannot edit others' monobooks. Please take care of it. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 19:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

 DoneSteel 19:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow unblocked[edit]

I have unblocked T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (talk · contribs). T-man was blocked for six months after the moderation imposed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic was deemed to have failed. I increased the block to indefinite after the user used sock puppets to evade the ban and also carried on making personal attacks. However, I have been in email contact with the user and he indicates he will not engage in such behaviour again. He also states he has not created other sock-puppet accounts since I increased the block; something I have not confirmed, taking the user at their word. I am applying good faith here and repealing the extension of the six month ban to an indefinite one. The six month ban itself expired on the 11th March, I believe, being reset after the sock puppetry was exposed. [10] Hiding Talk 20:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

CAT:CSD Backlogged[edit]

Just reminding everyone, CSD is getting hopelessly backlogged with image deletions, specifically Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons. If anyone could hop on over, I'd really like some help clearing the backlog. As a reminder, NPWatcher helps a crapload. ^demon[omg plz] 01:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A query with some images tagged for deletion "no source"[edit]

Seems in order to me. Aksi feels s/he has reason to not trust the licences, has asked for further clarification and has been met by User:ParthianShot not answering the question, rather squirming out of it. The question is simple enough: "[Can you] add proper image descriptions?", but the answer is a long diatribe about why the question is improper, rather than providing the information or asking for clarification. If you don't want to delete the images based on the conversation, then leave it for somebody else or ask Aksi for clarification.
You did at least contact Aksi after bringing this here, didn't you? It's common courtesy to do so.   REDVERS  SЯEVDEЯ  19:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Finally I understand the strange message you left me on my talk page. There are 2 issues here. The images I tagged on 8 April, and the images uploaded by ParthianShot. As Redvers has said I have a reason to doubt the images uploaded which I tagged on the 8th. Those images look like really professional images to me. They are of a very respected politician of India and it is difficult to get such good images of a person like that. Hence I asked for a source for the images. No source has been provided by the uploader even though it is now 12 days since I tagged the images which leads me to suspect that the images were taken from some other source and are not free images. Hence we should err on the side of caution and delete those images. They can always be retrieved later if the uploader comes with proof of source. About ParthianShot, it is a different issue. The website from which he has taken the images has commited copyvios and hence all images taken from that website should be removed from wikipedia. I haven't tagged any of those images yet. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. My problem with Aksi is not the deletion of the images, but his misuse of his admin privileges. I believe that he has blocked me on basis of a private request by another user (FullStop). The matter was originally raised by another contributor ([[User talk:MedianLady), that Aski and Fullstop had to have private email exchanges regarding this matter. (Please see: [11], [12]), [13], [14], [15], [16]). However, I would greatly appreciate if someone look into this matter. Regards ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 10:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
PS. Images tagged for deletion "no source", by Aksi, is in continuation of his wrongdoings, possibly under Fullstop instruction. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 10:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Here we go again.- Aksi_great (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Here we go again? When the above issue was resolved, that you believe it has been brought up again unjustly? ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 10:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Images must have a source. Images without source information may be deleted 7 days after being tagged. That's policy. Regarding images uploaded by ParthianShot, the dituation should be discussed at Possibly unfree images to determine whether they are reliable. Regarding ParthianShot's images, he uploads images sourced to a web site that has a prominent GFDL license posted. However, that web site has been proven to post textual copyvios, therefore the accuracy of the GFDL release for the photos is also in question. Thatcher131 18:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Thatcher131: ...However, that web site has been proven to post textual copyvios..! May I ask how and when it was proven? Can I see the evidence for this claim? Thanks. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 08:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal of RfArb request[edit]

Please direct all communication regarding blocking of pedophilia advocates directly to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org Fred Bauder 12:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC) for the Arbitration Committee.

CSD[edit]

>400. I cleared A and B, but I'm out for the night. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 03:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And don't forget the Tracking Speedies page. At first glance it functions just like the category, but hit the history tab and you get the full benefit of the added dimension of time. --Cyde Weys 06:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Trans Thane Creek[edit]

Recently, while on vandal patrol I noticed that someone from an anonymous IP had created the article Trans Thane Creek in the articles talk space rather than the article space. I assume that the article's creation was in good faith as it seems benign, so I moved the article info to the appropriate spot. Only problem is I could not move the edit history (as found in Talk:Trans Thane Creek), I worry that anyone seeking information on that subject may try to contact me for clarification. I didn't write this article, just did a minor fix and moved it; I don't know anything about the subject. - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 07:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You should use the move button, it worked last time when I did this. MER-C 08:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Tried that, but because the correct article exists now it won't let me move the info. But, I have just found Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen, I will post the same message there and hopefully someone will get to it. - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 08:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Update: this problem has been fixed. - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 12:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Please delete NN article[edit]

I tagged this with the prod tag and its expired now, could someone go delete this junk? Thanks! Have_You_Got_It_Yet? The Parsnip! 13:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The prod tag puts it in the correct category, and an admin will get to it in due time. There is no need to duplicate the request here. CMummert · talk 13:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
/me saw it and headed off to try and find a copy ;) Thanks for the heads up! --kingboyk 13:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Might be better running this through AfD. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't dispute the prod. If this were a music site with less stringent sourcing requirements, it would be a clear keep. Although I found it a useful and interesting article I don't think it belongs here. (Writing this on the assumption that nobody else has disputed the prod since I wrote). --kingboyk 13:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry :-), I just nommed it for AfD, I think it would be better to get a greater consensus before deleting, maybe someone will find some better sources. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
No worries mate. That's how prod works and you don't have to justify your decision to me :) --kingboyk 14:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Why did you remove the prod tag? It was tagged for the correct amount of time, nobody took issue with it, now it's supposed to be deleted (I think). I don't get it. I was going to list it at AfD originally but the AfD page says it should be prodded first. This place is confusing... :-O I don't think it's right to give special treatment to this just cuz you like it or something. The Parsnip! 14:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Calm down, I contested the prod, I don't feel this article should be deleted without getting further comments into it, I may be wrong and it may be speedily deleted, but the prod still had 5 hours to go, you can still comment on the AfD. I'm not giving special treatment and I resent that accusation. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Dude, I thought it said the prod was expired. Why do you think it needs more comments? If it's not notable then it's not notable. Anyway, whatever. I voted delete at Afd. The Parsnip! 14:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
When you prod an article, the reason that the deletion is not done automatically when the tag expires is to give one more chance for a human to review it. If there is doubt that the deletion would be uncontested, it is perfectly appropriate to change to AFD, and there is some element of discretion in the process. Now that the prod is contested, the page shouldn't be speedily deleted. (Note that I have had nothing to do with that page except to comment here). CMummert · talk 14:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I just believe it's best to give people chance to review this with an attempt to find some sources for it, I've found a couple of ones already, but let's take this to the AfD page now, not here. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Peterhowitt (talk · contribs)[edit]

As he was requested to do, this user has proven his identity with the OTRS department. Don't know what you want to do with this, but I thought I'll report it... --Mbimmler 15:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Orange "You have new messages bar" not showing up[edit]

This issue hasn't been receiving much attention so I thought I would bring it up here. Whenever you receive a new message the orange "You have new messages bar" should show up but it does not under an IP address or it malfunctions and stays stuck. So for all those who revert vandalism, the warnings being posted on IP talk pages may not be received because the messages bar doesn't show up. To confirm this, just test it out yourself. Send a message to your IP address and see if you receive it logged out. This issue only affects IP addresses. -- Hdt83 Chat 01:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


See for more details:

I did check it, and it worked perfectly for me. Anchoress 01:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't work for me, and hasn't done so in a while (I've been testing with my uni IP address). What's worse is that I blocked the IP as a test for a few hours, and the orange bar only came up when I looked at the block message. – Riana 01:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I tested it as well, and it didn't come up. I recall an incident early on in my administrative career where I blocked an IP, and then the IP requested unblocking because he/she didn't know that he/she was getting warned on the IP's talk page. Maybe they had the same problem. // Sean William 01:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Just tonight a similar thing has started happening to me. My issue is that the messages bar shows up in white and not that unattractive, yet highly visable, orange color. So if I wasn't used to the way pages should look (article text starting at a certain point down the page and such), I might just not even notice that it's there. And yes, this is while I'm logged in. Dismas|(talk) 05:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Dismas, I suspect that you have an entirely different problem; try bypassing your cache. --ais523 11:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for two AFDs to be closed by the same admin[edit]

Is there any way I can get two AFDs to be closed by the same administrator? One of the noms is on a single article, while the other nom is on multiple articles. Both of these should've been combined into one AFD, but were not. Both of these have been open for four or five days, so merging the two discussions now would be impractical. Many people cross-posted on both of these, and I don't want the points brought up on one to be missed by the one who closes the other. Regards, Tuxide 06:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you might leave a request to that effect on both AfDs. Sandstein 21:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Web screenshots[edit]

I just went through Category:Screenshots of web pages and deleted over 20 images that were tagged with {{web-screenshot}} but which were actually just pictures someone found on a web page. There are a LOT more that need deleting: I only got through the As. There may be a way to help avert this problem with better wording at the Mediawiki interface or the tag wording, too. Mangojuicetalk 14:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Non-free content/templates for an attempt to clear things up. --Iamunknown 15:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see that as likely to help much, if the redirect remains in place. But it's something. I updated MediaWiki:Licenses to be a little more discouraging about the use of the tag. Mangojuicetalk 04:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Legality of changing speedy-deletes into prods?[edit]

  • Some speedy-deletes are contested with {{hangon}}, and a long argument develops on its talk page. An example is Clacket Lane, which was speedied {{db-band}} at 06:31, 23 April 2007 and (at date) more than a screenful of closely-typed inconclusive arguing (4109 bytes) has been put in its talk page. When that happens, the delete is no longer de facto speedy. What would be the legality of removing the speedy-delete tag, and any hangon tag, and putting a prod tag in instead? Or turning it into an AfD and cut-and-pasting the arguing into its AfD discussion page? Anthony Appleyard 18:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Since prod is supposed to be for uncontested deletions, in these casaes there is obviously a contest, so i would say that AfD was the way to go. I see no objection to copying part of the reason from the DB tag into the AfD nom, but the nominator would probably want to exapand on the stock tag text. DES (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh I would not advise cutinng and pasting other people's comments into a new AfD, Instead add a pointer to the previous discussion in the AfD, and perhaps one to the AfD on the talk page. DES (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I suspect that some users do not know about {{prod}} but always speedy-delete to get something deleted. Anthony Appleyard 18:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • It would really depend on why the speedy is contested. In most situations, an AfD would be appropriate, but if it was contested simply because it did not meet any criteria (they are intentionally specific) a PROD wouldn't necessarily be wrong. For example, if an article about a person asserts notability but no sources are available anywhere to actually prove notability, a PROD may work, in theory. However, it is likely that the user will simply remove the tag. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Generally, if a speedy is contested, and the objection is legitimate, I would take it straight to AFD and link (but not copy) any relevant discussions. I think that's what DES said. YechielMan 19:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
          • It depends on the situation. I have changed speedies into prods before, where no one disputed the speedy tag (and often the article was the original author's only edit and they're never heard from again), but where the article does assert notability but I can't find a thing to support it, or otherwise doesn't meet any speedy criteria. On the other hand, {{hangon}} is not the "this won't be speedied" tag-if it's still unquestionably a speedy, it will be speedied. If it's a borderline case and someone's actively contesting the deletion, probably best to just take it to AfD, if after listening to them you still believe deletion is warranted. And of course, sometimes they'll make a good enough case, or be able to direct you to some sources, so that that's not even necessary! Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Edit conflict but I agree with Seraphimblade here.--Isotope23 20:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Mr.Z-man has a point. If soemone contests the speedy in the saense that it should not be deleted at all, prod is a poor idea. But if soemone says "Yes, this ought to be delted, but it does not fit any of the speedy criteria, then converting a db tag into a prod tag may be a good idea, and I have done this myself on several occasions. But the original poster specified that a hangon tag had been used, so thre was substantive, not merely procedural, objection to the speedy. in that case i wouldn't use prod. DES (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Block Review Request from User:Kkrouni[edit]

Resolved: Unblock denied

User:Kkrouni has requested an available admin look in on his block. Thank you. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 20:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is already effected through the {{unblock}} template, which places the talk page in CAT:RFU. That category is regularly patrolled by admins; additional alerts are usually not required. In this instance, Kkrouni (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) was blocked as a sock of Cowboy Rocco (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected), which appears quite credible. Unblock denied. Sandstein 21:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of referenced text[edit]

User:Noah30 keeps removing text (1 2 3 4 5) from the Kosovo article (which is on probation) even though the text has two references, one of which Noah rejects as POV (from the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts) and the other one is a book published in Germany. Could someone please tell him to stop removing referenced text from this fragile article? --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Noah was blocked, now User:MaGioZal keeps removing the same thing - 1, 2. --GOD OF JUSTICE 00:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Suitcivil‎[edit]

Resolved

reported to RFPP ~Crazytales 02:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody please protect User talk:Suitcivil‎? Corvus cornix 23:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Reported to protection requests. Spamming his talk page. -- Hdt83 Chat 23:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

MASSIVE backlog at AIV[edit]

Resolved

I don't know if there's a concerted vandal attack going on, but it took me 6 edit conflicts to get my report in. About 20 items in the list. Anchoress 02:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was a quick cleanup. Backlog gone. Anchoress 02:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
/bows. El_C 02:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
/appluads. --Iamunknown 03:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Winona Gone Shopping[edit]

This user was blocked July 2006 for various things. I have deleted the talk page several times as they seem to want to use it for a blog and linking to their myspace. Today though they asked for a block review. I declined to unblock based on the fact they said it's a role account and the implied legal threat. Of course I could be reading too much into what they said so others might want to review it as well. I'll advise the blocking admin, Tony Sidaway, about this. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Shared account ("giving passwords away" is shared in my book), edit summaries like "I'm just here to piss on stuff. Particularly, on Jimbo Wales", implied legal threats, regardless of their excuse just now ... I think it should stay declined. - Alison 11:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Username concerns as well. Newyorkbrad 12:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • My inclination would be to delete and salt the talk page (e-mail and myspace links are back). Rklawton 12:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Good block. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the talk page - given the rant and the links to myspace and email, and I have protected the page. Feel free to revert me, no hard feelings, I just think that this block was very much justified and Wikipedia does not have a need for users like these, especially as they state they don't intent to edit ever again. There's always the unblock list if they truly want to have their block reviewed, so that's not a reason to let them edit that talk page in this case. --JoanneB 16:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse - I don't remember all the details of the original blocking - but I do recall this user was bad news.--Docg 16:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Endorse too. Just for background, this was previously a good account (under a different name) until about a year or so ago, when the user suddenly either freaked out or really gave up his access to somebody else. Ever since then it's been only trolling. If the original user ever wished to return to actual editing, he'd have silently created a new account by now. Fut.Perf. 16:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Good deletion, good protection. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Cambridge Bay Weather and Doc Glasgow encountered the user months after the user was already blocked, when the user was claiming to be multiple users and using the talk page for sundry purposes. However, all this came after the block. The user was never suspected of being "multiple users" till it claimed to be so after being blocked. The user was blocked for two offensive edit summaries, quite simply. I can go back and discuss the details. All this talk of "multiple users" and this morning's "legal threat" (Mark Geragos posting on the talk page) are after the fact. 68.126.248.18 21:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Who here is actually familiar with why the user was blocked almost one year ago? 68.126.248.18 22:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I would support an unblock, if the user promises not to troll or use his userspace inappropriately. As Fut.Perf. pointed out, this was a good user, and I think we should give him another chance. Khoikhoi 22:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm the user :) and I promise not to "Save" any inappropriate edits anywhere in Wikipedia if I am unblocked. 98% of the bad edits came after I was blocked. And there was no sockpuppetry (ever) or vandalism of articles (besides my User Page and User Talk Page) since then, and classifying those edits as vandalism is controversial. I have not started a new account since I was blocked on July 26th 2006. I don't need sockpuppet charges. 68.126.248.18 22:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The two offensive edit summaries: the one referring to Jimmy and another one which you will find in the initial User talk:Winona Gone Shopping, an edit summary made on July 24th, 25th, or 26th. For no reason, I stated (addressing no one, and there was no talk of anyone banning me for anything, it was out of the blue): "Here is my death threat: permanently ban me and I will kill you. Your move, tough guy." This was not addressed to anyone. It was a "silly" threat, as noted. Those two edit summaries are the reason why i was blocked. If I hadn't made those edit summaries I would not be blocked now unless I did something else later. 68.126.248.18 23:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
JoanneB, I restored the page for now. I think it's important that others see the odd style that comes from that user or users.
Winona, I knew about you well before your blocking but saw no need to comment at that time. As to what you did in the past that had nothing to do with my declining to unblock you. It was because you said that the password had been passed on to you by Alexander. Who knows how many others he passed that on to. I thought I saw an implied legal threat but I wasn't sure so I brought the matter here.
Take a look at User talk:Winona Gone Shopping. It appears from the comments, all made by 68.123.235.63 that there are, again, more than one person using that page. I really don't think they need to be unblocked. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand your concern better now. If I had passed on the password to a friend, then he could have passed it on to who knows who and the account would be unreliable. 68.126.248.18 00:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a dynamic IP, but they're all the same person. Khoikhoi 00:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they're all the same person. What happened after the block IMO is not as important as what happened to initiate the block (two edit summaries). And what happened after never exceeded some bizarre edits to (my)Userspace. I apologize for claiming to be more than one person, but I have friends/fans in MySpace who want to believe that I'm Winona Ryder (officially I am not, I assure you) and I know they check up on my activity in Wikipedia because they have told me so. It's "funny" that in MySpace they believe I'm Winona claiming to be Alex while in Wikipedia most believe I'm Alex, perhaps having shared his password. It's all one user. All the edits in my Userspace are not the issue of my block. Unblocked or not I'll refrain from them. My MySpace was quite busy before, the hugest Winona in MySpace till I had to reduce hundreds and hundreds of "friends" because of time constraints. If you search "Winona Ryder" in MySpace, I am the only one. If you search Angelina Jolie, you get like 50 different pages. I'm so unpoopular after the Saks Fifth Avenue scandal :-) gotta go, thanks for your time 68.126.248.18 00:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I know the various IP's are the same person but they talk as if they were different people even when using the same IP. Look at the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk is now protected from being created and deleted. There's no reason to let it go on.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I find the overreactions, belief in multiple users, protectiveness of Jimbo Wales and general ******** here to be very interesting. However, how am I going to change my Username if I am blocked? 68.126.248.18 06:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I want something like User:W.L.H.. 68.126.248.18 06:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I would be interested in being unblocked only so I could change my username, then I can be blocked again for those two earth-shattering edit summaries, for which I have already apologized. I mean, what do you think I'm going to do if I get unblocked? I no longer agree with the GFDL license so I don't want to (but I might) edit; I assure you no one has the password except me. If people beyond my control have the password, why would I request the account to be unblocked? 68.126.248.18 06:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
If you just want a name change and then leave, can you e-mail one of the bureaucrats from your account and request a name change through that channel? We'll take care of the userspace pages afterwards. Fut.Perf. 12:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I would settle for that, at least for the forseeable future. Thanks! At first I created the MySpace profile with the same name (in the URl) as my username in Wikipedia to show the identity of the two. But now since I no longer use the Wikipedia account yet I'm still using the same URL in MySpace I want to begin disconnecting the two. Not because I am worried of any serious troubles: I am not impersonating Winona Ryder. I always say that I'm not her. If they don't always believe me that's not my fault. In fact, I may possibly (I can't verify this because Wikipedia is too wide open) be in contact with people who know her, and my page has been up for so long and it is so noticeable (being the only one with that display name) that it is quite likely she knows about it and would have sent an ICBM if she really had an issue with it. I have had another profile deleted under mysterious circumstances which was probably the result of somone taking issue with what I was doing. Anyway, a google search readily shows to people that there probably is a connection between the WGS in MySpace and the WGS in Wikipedia (and I am well aware that a google search will also bring up this page). Changing my username in Wikipedia will help to tone down the connection. 69.224.231.23 19:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Should I just log in and send the emails or should I get confirmation that this suggestion is possible ? Once I log in, my IP will be blocked till it changes again. 69.224.231.23 19:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Merely logging in shouldn't trigger an autoblock. You can log in and go to people's userpages and use the e-mail function. Give them a link to this discussion. I can't guarantee they'll fulfil the request, but I don't really see why they wouldn't. Fut.Perf. 19:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh...Alex, welcome back! ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.63.34.110 (talkcontribs).

Oh yes, I forgot. You have to log in and attempt to edit a page, then your IP will be blocked. Thanks for the welcome. 69.224.231.23 22:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, the theory of multiple users may have some truth to it. I just received orders from Operation Necronomique: "WGS" has served her purpose after 9 months. She gave birth to...something in the fourth dimension. That MySpace was discontinued. This edit will probably be reverted, however I think this whole section should be removed now that we have discussed the problem and resolved it? Thanks anyway. 69.224.231.23 09:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this the place to tell admins if DYK is backlogged and you need an admin to clear the backlog?[edit]

I asked on ANI, but was referred here. Ironically, the backlog was cleared a few minutes after I posted on ANI, but I'd just like to know for future reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaypoh (talkcontribs) 14:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps the best way is to contact one or more of the admin participants listed at DYK; several provide the times at which they are likely to be available in order that you might know whom to contact straightaway. Appending {{Adminbacklog}} should also work, although I, for one, don't think there's anything particularly wrong with one's posting at ANI should there be a significant backup and should DYK not have been updated for 8+ hours. Joe 19:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I hope I don't have to post to the talk pages of 10 admins to get the DYK backlog cleared. I'd rather make one post on a noticeboard. Besides saving time, it would encourage more admins to get involved in DYK. Will admins read the {{adminbacklog}} tag? --Kaypoh 07:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The understanding of "abuse" and admin misbehavior[edit]