Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive87

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

Noticeboard archives


Unilateral redirection by User:ScienceApologist[edit]

ScienceApologist has shown to be non-cooperative with not placing a mergeto and mergefrom tag at the page and has unilaterally redirected the page. He continued to do so without discussion. J. D. Redding 16:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"Paraphysics"? Geez, I can't really blame him for wanting to merge nonsense out of existence. --Cyde Weys 16:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Misrepresentation: Discussion on Talk:Paraphysics shows that Reddi has been unwilling to discuss the rationale for redirecting the article beyond a simple protest. --ScienceApologist 16:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I have asked you repeatedly to place the mergeto and mergefrom tags on the appropriate pages. Ifyou want to move the page, please follow procedure to do so. J. D. Redding 16:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
If you have anything substantive to add to the discussion for why mergeto and mergefrom tags need to be placed on the page rather than simply instituting the redirect, please explain on Talk:Paraphysics. Thanks. --ScienceApologist 16:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Please follow procedure to merge and redirect. J. D. Redding 16:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
He did follow standard procedure. --Cyde Weys 16:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It is fine to be bold and merge stuff without putting merge tags on. I use merge tags when I think something might need merging and am not sure about it. If it is obvious, I go ahead and merge. If someone questions it, it is simple to revert the redirect back to the pre-merge state and start a discussion. Carcharoth 16:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Please follow procedure and discuss on the talkpages. I don't see any argument for why the article should be kept as independent of parapsychology, nor do I see any content worth keeping. This is all listed at the appropriate talkpage and all I'm getting back from you is Wikilawyering! --ScienceApologist 16:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I think SA made the right choice by merging. Mangojuicetalk 16:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I still haven't seen anything on the talk page of that article explaining what is in that article that isn't already covered by paranormal. Seems like reddi is insisting on process for its own sake at this point. --Minderbinder 16:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:MERGEing is a standard editing action and does not require formal discussion beforehand. >Radiant< 10:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool kinda useless bit of trivia[edit]

Time 100, page 74 top left (article on Brian Williams) - very interesting use of the wikimedia trademark there........ -- Tawker 19:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

in mine hes page 144, 74 is an ad? The Placebo Effect 19:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are referring to. please clarify. DES (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Tawker gets the Canadian edition of time, not the US version, explain what you meant Tawker please? The Placebo Effect 19:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It talks about "wikimedia" as a generic term for citizen generated media. -- Tawker 20:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikimedia is turning into a household name.... much like Kleenex and Coke. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation should try to protect it's trademark to stop it becoming genericised. Even the smallest amount of enforcement should stop it happening... it's just a matter of sending off a couple of letters -Halo 21:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, free advertising though :) Admittedly I can't see it, but... Prodego talk 22:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone care to post a scan of this on their own website or email a copy off? I'm not sure exactly what is being discussed. --Gmaxwell 15:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of vandal-fighting tools in edit wars[edit]

I have observed several times recently some users that utilize vandal-fighting tools, such as "god-mode" scripts, popups, and others, to revert other editors in edit wars. I would argue that such use is inappropriate and would be a blockable offense after the user has been warned no to do that. Do we have any tools as sysops to delete such scripts from user's monobook.js or similar? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Not being an administrator myself, I'm not entirely sure but I would have thought you could probably blank and fully protect their monobook.js if it came to it. Will (aka Wimt) 00:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
You are probably refering to "Undo" button as the "vandal-fighting tools". If so, it is like a revert. The same policy applies then. Why do we need new policies? --Aminz 00:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Being the one that recently abused these tools to editwar as you did here and here, and then deleted my warning from your talk page, I would say that you would be ill advise to argue here for special pleading. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Jossi, I may report you for harrassment soon if you continue it. --Aminz 01:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Am I missing something. It looks like you provided 2 diffs for the same edit? --OnoremDil 02:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
OK. I'm guessing this and this is what you meant. I agree with not using undo for content disputes. I disagree with your edit warring over making sure the warning remained on the talk page. --OnoremDil 02:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Report me? I am acting on my duties as an administrator of this project. If you believe that I am in violation of excerisiing my admin duties, by all mean report it here. Just be aware of the unintended consequences that that may entail. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
What reason would you have to report Jossi, Aminz? Jossi's request that you accompany reverts with an explanation as opposed to an automated summary is completely reasonable. Unless you would like to accuse Proabviouac of vandalism, spam, or copyright violations, I think you should try writing an edit summary when you revert him. Better yet, don't revert him at all, and work out a compromise on the talk page instead. Picaroon (Talk) 01:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Picaroon9288, Jossi harshly threatened me with accusations of disruptions and blocks for just two reverts I made on a page(his arguments boil down to lack of usage of edit-summaries). The content dispute related to these two reverts date back to long ago and has been discussed without any consensus. These are old disputes. Aside from the tone of the warning, Jossi applied double standards with only threatening me of blocks but leaving nothing on Proab's user page as if he is looking for a pretext to block me.
I ignored these because I'd like to focus on content disputes but Jossi tries to discount my comment above (at 00:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)) by straw man. I think my above comment here deserves to be heard. Yes, I'll make a report if Jossi continues this. Otherwise, I'll leave it as it is because such report doesn't benefit wikipedia. --Aminz 01:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Just stop edit warring and do not use popups to editwar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to focus on the actions (edit warring) rather than the tools. There are already policies about the actions, so the methods used are not too important. CMummert · talk 00:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet, these tools were not designed to encourage editwarring, but to assist these editors in vandal-fighting activities. If such abuse is persisted upon, I would not hesitate to block for disruption, remove the popup script from the user's monobook.js and protect it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The "edit this page" link wasn't designed with vandals in mind, yet it is sometimes used that way. Blame the behavior and/or editor, not the method. EVula // talk // // 01:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not referring to that, EVula. I am referring to using "god-mode" scripts to editwar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I still don't think it matters; a user can engage in an editwar without scripts, and it would be equally disruptive. EVula // talk // // 02:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, the tools were provided to help fighting vandals, not to edit war. If you're using those tools to edit war you're abusing the tools along with edit warring. RxS 01:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, and when people abuse the edit button we take it away. Same principle applies -- abuse the tool, lose the tool. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but abuse needs to be defined objectively: Bad faith excessive usage? --Aminz 02:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Bad faith is not necessary for abuse to occur. You are now aware that use of these tools in content disputes is not appropriate. Persistent inappropriate use of the these tools constitutes abuse. Simply refrain from this behavior in the future and there is no problem. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes an admin can edit others' monobook.js but be aware that unlike just fixing a policy-violating userpage, this directly affects how a user interacts with all of Wikipedia. I think unless there is really egregious abuse (which would deserve a block anyway), the user should be cautioned about edit warning and warned that if they continue abusing the tool it may be taken away. —dgiestc 01:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I think abuse of tools such as popups should only be used to revert rule violations, vandalism and similar things. If you think that someone else's edit, which was good-faith and designed to improve Wikipedia, shouldn't have been made - use some revert method which sllows you to give a good edit summary. Od Mishehu 05:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is not how they're edit warring, but that they're edit warring. Whether they use tools or do it manually is irrelevant. >Radiant< 10:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Block review[edit]

It is asserted on OTRS that "a lot of people" are angry and being "banned" by Hu12 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). What this boils down to is that a small group of users and IPs who wanted links to a fansite and/or its associated forum in Rule of Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

This is form the original blocks:

Adsense pub-4696585109196199
Spam sock accounts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
SirShiek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

To which we can add RedRosePrincess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Now, I believe that at least some of these are differnet individuals. They are extremely bitter about being prevented fomr arguing for thier links and form editing the article. It is asserted that many of them know each other only after this incident, that I would not care to judge. SirShiek and RedRosePrincess almost certainly are the same individual per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SirShiek, but there are definitely others involved.

You'll particularly enjoy the fact that one of these complainants states they are SirShiek, while another has the handle RosePrincess. User:RosePrincess is taken, and in use by another editor.

That said, their purpose on Wikipedia did seem... singular. I have explained to them that we typically do not distinguish between a single editor using multiple accounts, and multiple editors repeating the same problematic behaviour. This has, so far, been spectacularly unsuccessful in persuading them to stop emailing OTRS.

So, people might want to have a mull over this one for a minute. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The main account is User_talk: Confirmed sock puppets of this IP are SirShiek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and RedRosePrincess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). further reading can be found in these discussions.Geocities link flagged as spam, Fight for the Fansite!, Geocities link, Possible compromise on external links. Many editors have spent allot of time attempting to explain the policy and appropriateness of the link, which only resulted in further spamming of the link. Its fairly evident the sole purpose ( and Forbidden uses of sock puppets) was to use Wikipedia to promote that website and its forum. The blocks placed on IP were for removal of good-faith warnings, modifying other users' comments and personal threats to editors. The IP Block log shows 2 previous blocks for spamming far prior to my involvement. It was explained to this individual the link is not a WP:RS, and per the External links policy, a Link normally to be avoided. also there is conflicts of interest ( WP:COI ) and then quickly escelated to become a WP:SOCK and WP:POINT situation. Any assertion that "a lot of people" are angry and being "banned" is false. Most likely its a further attempt by this individual to deny culpability for the sockpuppet accounts operated, and claim they are different individuals, such as this instance. Since Policies apply per person, not per account, only the related and confirmed sock accounts have had administrative action applied for policy violations. As evidenced by Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SirShiek, and the multitude of discussions, this user takes great liberty in falsely arguing bogus "shows of support" for a position. Unfortunatly this ongoing deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for sole purpose of promoting a site, trolling and circumventing policy is unacceptable. Seems this is just another ongoing attempt in "Gaming the system" to thwart policy and disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.--Hu12 16:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:ORLRDVXL - previously indef blocked for solicitation of child porn[edit]

The user identifies himself as O-TOWN'S AT on his user page, who was an indefinitely blocked user for illegal activity. Just thought I'd let someone know. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked on the username alone. Folks can't be expected to have to remember a random string like that. --kingboyk 13:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, well, if he identified himself as the previously-blocked user, I'd take his word for it... this was just linked in IRC, one of his old posts why he was indeffed... – Chacor 13:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, I blocked him. If you want to now go over and make it more robust, feel free to remove my comments and replace with yours. Cheers. --kingboyk 13:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep a look out[edit]

Guys, please keep a look out. Cheers. – Chacor 14:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

 :( Oh well. Start the RFCU now? ;) --Gmaxwell 15:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
That might not really narrow it down seeing as he claims he's about to change his IP with his provider as well as registering a new username. Will (aka Wimt) 15:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The data for the previous account is stale though. Voice-of-All 16:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ed g2s protecting pages on which he's currently an involved editor[edit]

This discussion had been deleted, I've moved it to WP:ANI since it's more appropriate there. Please make any further followup there. --Minderbinder 15:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeat incidents that aren't addressed[edit]

Hi everybody, it have come to my attention that the same user has been brought up in 3 different incident reports and none of them has been commented upon by non-involved users. The first here on 23:46, 1 May 2007, the second posted on 20:27, 2 May 2007 and the latest on 03:28, 6 May 2007 posted here. Even the latest incident had to be brought out of the archive (by me). I even broke protocol here by posting it further down in the incident page hoping to get someone, anyone's response. I'm really pleading here, someone look at the incident report, anyone. MrMacMan Talk 03:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this looked like something that should have gone elsewhere (WP:ANI not being the Wikipedia complaints department), for instance dispute resolution or requests for comment? There's no rule saying that just because something is reported to administrators they have to respond; also, if no reply has been received three times, the possibility exists that the wrong forum has been chosen in the first place.  ⋐⋑ REDVEЯS 18:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


User:Burntsauce is constantly going around blanking pro wrestling articles, just because they don't have enough sources. He refuses to let us know, and is totally taking the rules too far. WP:BIO says delete things with out sources that controversial, not just delete everything.

Can an admin ask him to stop blanking articles, and to just leave a notice at the WP:PW notice board that it needs sources? Whenever we question him about it on his talk page, he immediatly deletes the messages.

Thanks, Kris 02:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Admins don't have any special power to warn people. If you think that a block may be warranted, you can make a case here with diffs of when he/she blanked the pages and when he/she was warned. It is considered courteous to leave a message on Burntsauce's talk page pointing out that there is a discussion here about him/her. I'll leave one for this thread. CMummert · talk 02:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Burntsauce has been doing a commendable job ensuring that our articles comply with WP:LIVING policy, and should be thanked for the thankless job he is carrying out. There is no issue here which requires administrative attention. RFerreira 02:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
That is ridiculous. He is completely blanking out pages with out letting us know. Those articles are protected by WP:IAR, and he is nothing more then a vandal. Look at his talk page, even Lid brings up the fact that he doesn't even read external links, he just assumes that it is not there and blanks them. The member that posted above me is also a vandal, completely blanking pages if not sourced, with out giving any warning. Kris 02:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Diffs please. It would help if you could cite specific examples of the vandalism you are referring to. Removing unsourced material from biographies of living people is not vandalism. RFerreira 02:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
This editor was blocked for trying the WP:IAR excuse on one of these articles recently, so his attempt to claim WP:IAR trumps WP:BLP is incorrect. One Night In Hackney303 02:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, blanking pages is generally discouraged, even with BLP articles. But he/she probably has good intentions, as do you. You have to make a case if you want admin action, and then people here will discuss it and decide if any action is warranted. This is not a personal investigation service. CMummert · talk 02:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Right. [1] Ignore all rules needs a huge fucking asterisk next to it, because if there is one rule we do not break around here its the policy we have in place for living people. RFerreira 02:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This person is not trying to do good. When questioning him about it on his talk page he will delete the message. If he were trying to do good, he would respond to the messages, let us know it needed to be sourced before blanking, and if he did blank articles, he should at least let us know. Kris 02:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You are giving us airy rhetoric, not actual policy violations. —210physicq (c) 02:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
He is going around blanking pages. All he does is go around blanking wrestling pages. Why? I don't know. Maybe he hates wrestling, and doesn't feel it belongs on Wiki, but I would catagorize him as a troll when all he does is look for wrestling related articles with a lack of sources and blank them. Kris 02:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Removing unsourced information from biographies of living people is not only allowed, but mandated. Your assertions are false, misleading, unsubstantiated, and insulting. —210physicq (c) 02:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo said it best here "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

You people need to quit your bitching about articles being massively cropped... find some sources to back the content and poof the problem goes away. These articles have remained in this unsourced form for months, with "Citation Needed" templates all over many of these pages... this is an improvement!  ALKIVAR 02:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've sat back for too long regarding this. I am sick and tired of this issue being discussed over and over and over again, ad nauseum. The back and forth of "Stop blanking, it's vandalism", "Unsourced material violates BLP", "No, only contentious material violates BLP" is useless when it comes to building an encyclopedia. You know what? I'm a member of WP:PW and if anything, Burntsauce's blanking has made us step it up a notch when it comes to sourcing. Also, results from wrestling shows (especially ones televised) are not any sort of "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information, nor are they negative, so that quote from Jimbo Wales goes right out the window. Should they still be cited so they are verifiable? Absolutely, just don't call something "pseudo-information" that isn't. I don't see any concrete policy violations on anyone's part (I'm going to AGF for all parties involved here). My one and only issue with Burntsauce is that he seems to be targeting only pro wrestling articles for this sort of action. I could be wrong, but that's just what I've seen, and to me is the only cause for any sort of concern here. Quite honestly, I think if any cropping and stubbing should occur, it should be for more famous people, since those articles are viewed more often. Bmg916SpeakSign 03:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Is Burntsauce actually blanking pages, or just cutting them down to stubs? CMummert · talk 03:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Cutting them down to about two or three sentence stubs, if that, from what I've seen. Bmg916SpeakSign 03:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
That is perfectly in accordance with policy on BLP articles with loads of unsourced information - cut them back to stubs and let them grow again, just like overgrown hedges. CMummert · talk 03:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
This is an example of what he does: It's not just him blanking articles, he refuses to let us at WP:PW know when he blanks an article, he refuses to actually help source the articles or discuss anything at the wrestling WikiProject, and whenever anyone confronts him he just erases their comments and says "talk to Jimmy Wales". Several of us have pointed out non-wrestling bios that are also poorly sourced (or unsourced), yet he NEVER blanks any of those. The only bio articles he blanks are wrestling related ones. If he was trying to help WP, why does he only target wrestling articles? BTW, he does misinterpet BLP since BLP since to remove 'contentious material. TJ Spyke 03:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with that, it forces sourcing. My main concern is his seemingly delibrate targeting of only pro wrestling articles. Bmg916SpeakSign 03:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
If that's what he's interested in, it still means the overall encyclopedia is being improved - this is volunteer work after all. Eventually there won't be any pro wrestling articles left to prune. CMummert · talk 03:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
That is a good way to look at it, I guess I just wish we could source as fast as people were stubbing. Oh well, to be honest, I just wish this discussion about Burntsauce's actions would cease already. This is about the 5th time this topic (in some form or another) has come up, and the conclusion, whether everyone agrees or not, is the same everytime. Bmg916SpeakSign 03:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
How about as a compromise, that Burntsauce at least let the folks know which articles he's stubbing, that way the PW Project can spend their limited resources properly? SirFozzie 03:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
That would be nice, but what are the chances he would comply? Every time someone questions him on his talk place it is deleted. Why would he agree to help out here? Kris 03:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Try rewording it. I found that the previous notices were a bit brusque. And if he still does not respond to your satisfaction, use other means of dispute resolution. —210physicq (c) 03:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(Outdenting) I have made a request of Burntsauce here to ask that he make a good-faith effort to notify the PW folks (or at least a PW editor) of the articles he's stubbing so that the articles can be properly sourced. SirFozzie 03:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't responded yet, but continues to go to work on other pages. Hopefully he will at least reply. He did put a mention on at least one talk page that he stubbed, which is at least a step forward (although if the page is not on any active editors watchlists, it wouldn't do any good, which is why I suggested he let the project or an editor know.) SirFozzie 17:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted Burntsauce blanked Adrian Adonis citing BLP issues on the talk page. What makes this notable, and supports the not reading an article before blanking it position, is that Adonis has been deceased for nineteen years. Applying WP:LIVING to the dead is a little amusing. It also supports that Burntsauce is targetting wrestling related articles for blanking simply because they are wrestling related, citing policy to back himself up. –– Lid(Talk) 20:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce has now changed the stock comment from "biographies of living persons" to biographical articles. –– Lid(Talk) 20:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous, I can't believe this thread is still open. Yes I have removed unsourced information from this article, and no I have not, "blanked" the article. I would appreciate it if you'd make a note of the difference between the two terms. Burntsauce 20:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Admin Myleslong (talk · contribs), who has previously protected other Burntsauce "edit warring" related articles has not protected Adrian Adonis. A little peculiar considering the edit war consisted of me making only two reverts, hardly an edit war by any stretch. If this is what is considered an edit war these days I think 3RR needs re-writing. –– Lid(Talk) 21:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
And Burntsauce has not responded (although he hasn't blanked the talk page either), and just gone on his merry way. SirFozzie 16:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Whoops. Spoke too soon. Rather impolite of him to not respond. Unfortunately, the policy's titled WP:CIVIL, not WP:IMPOLITE. SirFozzie 18:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[edit]

I just dropped a note on this IP's talk page that it isn't an educational IP at all - it's the shared address at my local library. Still shared, of course, but probably handled differently. Let me know if I can help from this end. -- BPMullins | Talk 03:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's strange. Checking on the WHOIS, it looks like the California State University (CSU) system. Also, it looks as though both the WHOIS and an independent, non-Wiki source show the IP coming from San Mateo and the ISP is the CSU system. But, there is no CSU San Mateo (I should know). There ARE three CSUs within striking distance (Hayward, SFSU and San Jose State), but I'm not sure how a library could get a CSU ISP, unless it's a school library--Ispy1981 20:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Useful toolbox on contrib pages[edit]

Please take a look at fr:MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer or ru:MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer and modify our MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer the same way. This should add the following footer on the user contribution pages:

The links go to either Wikipedia Logs or public tools on Toolserver. Very handy, no drawbacks. P.S. Some other logs (like block log) can be added; some tools should probably be removed because of the huge enwiki lag on toolserver. Alex Smotrov 16:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This requires discussion. Please take this up at MediaWiki talk:Sp-contributions-footer, and link there from the village post or other prominent places. Thank you. Chick Bowen 19:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I did just that, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Useful links on user contribution pages. However I have a feeling that it might go unnoticed. At the same time, some other major changes are often done without any discussion… oh well ;) Alex Smotrov 23:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What constitutes a reliable source?[edit]

Is there any imaginable scenario under which a GEOCITIES website can be used as a reference in a biographical article? Burntsauce 22:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of non web-savvy foundations etcetera use GeoCities websites for "official homes", but otherwise, I can't think of any. SirFozzie 22:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Unless you made this post in order to solicit support for excluding such a link, this question should have been brought up elsewhere. If you are indeed here to seek assistance with suppressing this link, then please don't do it again. Wikipedia policy is on your side in this editorial dispute, but there is no need for administrative intervention. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, that's all I need to know. Burntsauce 22:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


File:09f9 ... ahh fuckit.jpg Oh yes. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's Image:09f9 ... ahh fuckit.jpg for those of us who aren't drunk. – Steel 23:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Shared account?[edit]

Happened to have a look at this new account, Rod & Todd Flanderises (talk · contribs)

Its name seems to imply a shared account--not sure if this is consistent with policy, can someone look? Thanks ... Blueboy96 23:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I am unaware of any policy against this and if this is one I would like to know as my wife has made edits through my account (image uploads), SqueakBox 23:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain this is just a reference to Simpsons characters Rod and Todd Flanders. JavaTenor 23:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:USERNAME#Sharing accounts explictly forbids shared accoutns, and says that any such accounts may be blocked. But in this case there seems to be doubt as to the actual sharing, and even if shared, we should assume good faith and simply advise the user(s) to create new accounts, as there are less than a dozen edits on thsi account to date. I have informed the user of the relevant policy. DES (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

David Ostad and BLP[edit]

BLP listing: [[2]]

Article: David Ostad

I wrote this just now. I also put it in the BLP board. Please review and comment, if needed. I am seeking administrators' comments because the article is very negative but attempts to be fair and well referenced. An AfD has been placed on it minutes after the article appeared. I think that's a bit quick but I am not seeking adminstrators' comments on the AfD listing speed.

Disclaimer: I do not know Ostad, do not have any family or friends who know him or have been treated by him. I only saw him on TV.Newcolex 23:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

External Links to sites with malicious code in them posted by Doma-w[edit]

I can't find any policy on this, but I was reading an article on the bbc website ([3]), about how you can get key loggers from sites like this. Now I don't know why Doma-w, is posting this stuff, but I was thinking it may be possible for a wikipedia user to post a link to a site he created or hacked into, in the hope that a wikipedia administrator may click the link and reveal his password, through keyloggers or other Trojans. I'm not saying this is what Doma-w is doing because I don't know why he is posting these links.

The report from Avast anti-virus was 12/05/2007 03:24:53 SYSTEM 1624 Sign of "Win32:Nimda [Drp]" has been found in "h ttp://" file. (I replaced http by h ttp, so you can't click the link by accident). This is a Dropper and if you look at Doma-w's contributions, you will see he has added the link in many articles he created, such as Collier Cudmore for example. I don't want to cause a fuss and Doma-w seems like a good editor apart from this. Perhaps he is a victim of the malware, in this case please accept that I am posting this here not to incriminate the user, but rather to avoid that other users be tricked. I would recommend administrators be careful in particular, if investigating this, for the reasons I said above, and you should read the page from the BBC website, apparently 1 page in 10 is infected, so this may be an error on Doma-w's behalf. I would expand on the issue further but WP:LEGAL prevents me from doing so.Jackaranga 01:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps something should be added to WP:EXTERNAL, because currently it is not possible to warn a user