Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive97

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

Noticeboard archives


Vandalism levels

I am currently doing an interview for a newspaper and they want to know about vandalism levels. Has it gone up or down in the past few months in your experience? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say down. I took a few-week break from admin'ing recently and noticed a definite reduction when I returned to it. The days of WP:AIV being 15 IPs deep seem to be gone. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
A lot of schools are out for the summer, which probably helps. ELIMINATORJR TALK 14:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Down, absolutely and without question. School letting out changes everything. In my experience, it will pick up sharply as school lets in, then slow again as the blocks get reinstated. The Evil Spartan 19:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Seems like it's been mostly around level 4 the last couple of weeks, prior to that it was mostly level 3 or even sometimes 2. Gandoman 21:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies in advance..

If this is the wrong place to put this, but I tend to not just blindly revert edits. This morning, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive61 was edited, with selective sections removed, by User: (See revision differences Here.) I was hesitant about editing any admin pages without asking first, (unless obvious language violations,) so I thought I'd let an admin take care of it. Hope that's okay! Cheers, ArielGold 14:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Can't see a valid reason to edit an archive unless it's to remove evidence of wrongdoing, so I've reverted it. ELIMINATORJR TALK 14:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I would say that anyone who's deleting selective sections of an archive is vandalizing, and probably for a specific reason. Any revert would be welcomed. Natalie 15:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you both for the input. While I'm not hesitant in reverting obvious vandalism, I tend to take quite a bit longer with things that are not so obvious, and when in doubt, I feel it is better to ask for other opinions. :) (Also, I know bots archive the Admin pages so I did not want to mess anything up there.) Again, thanks for the speedy replies, and the solution! ArielGold 15:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
And he's back as, same edit. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I semiprotected the page. That should stop him. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Suspicious edits to noticeboard archives from that range are almost certainly by the Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/George_Reeves_Person. Look at its extremely interesting history and deletion log if you are curious. He still edits here, typically on boxing-related articles (Rocky Marciano is where he most commonly edits), but I haven't seen him blatantly vandalise in a while now, other than to try to remove, in sneaky fashion, old discussions about him. His misspellings, comma splices, non-native diction, and obsession with removing threads about him give him away. Usually he edits from a Chicago Public Library range. Antandrus (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
George Reeves Person (also known as User:Boxingwear) is obsessed with proving that he/she is not Boxingwear (among other things), and so tries to delete sections from the archives related to that. If he/she notices one person constantly reverting and you have email set up, you'll start getting barely coherent emails. (Imagine a poor English speaker completely wasted and typing with one hand. It's that incomprehensible.) Don't bother answering - they'll just end up threatening various acts of violence. Natalie 23:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you fully protected it. Can someone correct this please? --Edokter (Talk) 01:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

High Database Server Lag

Resolved: The Evil Spartan 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The high database server lag is so annoying. NHRHS2010 Talk 17:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

And I am having a hard time spotting and reverting vandalism. NHRHS2010 Talk 17:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
This isn't really an issue requiring administrator attention, and unfortunately there is no Developers' noticeboard. Administrators can't do anything about the lag. Leebo T/C 17:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, but not much the admins can do. The closest you can get is WP:VPT, which the developers watch a lot. The Evil Spartan 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

trying to contact someone

Resolved: The Evil Spartan 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Will the administrator who posts as "Xeth" on Slashdot please contact me?

Thank you. Moryath 17:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If "Xeth" from Slashdot is a Wikipedia administrator, wouldn't it be easier to ask him directly what his username is? Leebo T/C 17:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've asked there too but slashdot doesn't have a method to directly message another user; all I can do is respond in a given thread. I figured this might help find him.

That would be me. --Eyrian 18:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Railpage - Urgent

As the Railpage Australiaarticle stands it is vanity advertising [1]. Pending the outcome of Peer Review[2] to prevent it from becoming more blatant and to eliminate "Blitzkreig" editing [3] please lock or semi protect. Thank you.Tezza1 20:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Protect or semi protect (from anonymous IP users) is still required [4], a Administrator will eventually have to do it, either now or after the edit war [5]. Even though I have issues with the content, I'm happy leaving it as is, see Discussion - Recent Changes - need for third party review [6] I'm trying to organize some Peer Review [7], that's a bit hard attract if there is a "flood" of editing (you'll drive them away- maybe thats the purpose?). Thank you.Tezza1 21:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Tezza, did you see my action at WP:COIN? DurovaCharge! 21:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, people have the right to disagree, there are some who can't play by the rules. Request some sort of lock on the Railpage Article until some independent input arrives.Tezza1 21:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you see my point. Your e-mail isn't enabled, so please contact me offline. DurovaCharge! 21:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how, but my mail seem to be okay. Send againTezza1 22:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The link from your user page isn't working. You can reach me through my page. DurovaCharge! 22:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I haven't heard from Tezza1 so here's the long and short: considerable disruption has occurred on that page (a third AFD on the page closed on 23 July and a fourth opened and closed while I was dealing with this). I issued a 24 hour block for WP:NPA on one of the IP addresses. Then, after I was pretty certain the block had been evaded, I proceeded with a WP:RFCU request on my list of suspected socks. Additions to the checkuser request are welcome if any others are hidden in the corners of the drawer. Once I posted that request I semiprotected both the article and its talk page for a week...or perhaps I should say I placed the lid on the honeypot. DurovaCharge! 03:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, FailpageMustGo (talk · contribs) has been canvassing a bunch of people, including myself, for spurious AfD nominations, like the one he just filed. --Haemo 04:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked before I got to it. DurovaCharge! 06:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer on a rampage.

Sockpuppets of User:Meganium are on the loose, vandalizing several articles abut animated programs (particularly Class of 3000}. Be on the watch. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've protected Class of 3000 for a few days, hopefully that should stop the problems for the time being. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Block review requested

I just blocked User:SChiz414 for reinserting a cut&paste copyvio on Perry Ellis International after I had previously removed it and warned him. Since I had been involved in cleanup of this article previousl, to some extent in conflict with this user, i request a review. DES (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Good block if you ask me, you warned him, he repeated his action and got blocked. Cut and paste moving is serious but understandable for users that don't really get the copyright implications - this user got told bluntly and continued. After reviewing the users talk page, it seems that they don't care too much about copyright by all the non free image warnings they have. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Looking at his talk page, he's got some real issues with licensing too. He hasn't worked out how to use his talk page either: [8]. No objection from me--maybe someone could sit down and work with him? Mackensen (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Note, this wasn't a C&P move it was a paste-in of info copied from an external web site (Specifically the corporate hoem page of the subject firm). Info that is significantly NPOV, to boot. DES (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Contemplating a Block Notification Bot.

Just FYI, there is a discussion happening at AIV about a potential bot request for a bot to automatically put a message on the talk page of blocked users. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea, contrary to WP:DENY, some admins may choose not to leave a message to an attention seeking vandal. Until(1 == 2) 15:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think an automated message from a bot would give an attention seeker a lot of satisfaction. Personally, my only concern with the idea would be if it led to less information going onto the talk page than currently happens. If people stopped putting talk page messages and didn't put the information into the block log instead, that would be a problem. But I don't think that's likely. I expect that people will either put all the information into the block log, which would be a good thing, or they won't do anything different to what they do now, which would be just fine also. Regards, Ben Aveling 17:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
There are times when very good arguments can be made against the creation of a user talk page, when a user has created a username with serious libel or privacy violations. We don't want such pages showing up in Google. The blocked user gets an automatic message on the screen when he tries to edit, informing him of the block and of whatever steps he needs to take if he wishes to contest the block. And the reporting editor should see the report being removed from WP:AIV by a bot as soon as the vandal has been blocked. ElinorD (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to satisfy my curiousity about something I've wondered for a while, what exactly is a blocked user faced with when they try to edit? Is it a template I can look at, or a simple text message somewhere, or a big red X? Is there a screenshot available? Does it happen when they first try to edit, or when they try to save? Do they even have an "edit this page" tab? I can't figure out a way to see it without getting myself blocked first. Also, is the message they receive different when the account is blocked, vs. when the IP is blocked, vs. when a range of IP's are blocked? As with most of my questions, no need to explain here in detail if simply giving me a page link somewhere is sufficient, but I have looked around a little and found nothing. --barneca (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm not talking about the "you've been blocked" templates. I want to know what happens when they try to edit if they haven't received such a template. --barneca (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
They will see MediaWiki:Blockedtext (or MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext if it's an autoblock) when they try to edit. the wub "?!" 09:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Seems pretty clear to me; assuming the blocking admin gives a reason in their block log, these pages help a mistakenly blocked editor much more than a template on their talk page does. I suppose the problem is people get mad about being blocked, and don't take the time to read this. --barneca (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please make this user remove the image in his signature


This user Cunado19 (talk · contribs) is adamant on keeping an image in his signature, which is against policies. Can someone please warn this user with a block? There's no other way he's going to remove the image unless he's threatened with a block. --Matt57 13:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I won't block him - we should not block punitively - but I'll join the discussion and try to convince him. Nihiltres 14:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Having a non-disruptive image in your signature really isn't a blockable offense. WP:SIG is just a guideline...WilyD 14:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. I don't think any admin will block this user for an image-containing signature. Nihiltres 14:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry yes it was the same request, nothing has changed. Basically he ignored my request again to remove the image. Hopefully he'll respond to the other two admins who responded there. --Matt57 16:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The image is pretty ugly and obtrusive, of course, but the main problem with it is that it's soap-boxing. It's some kind of religious symbol. Plastering talk pages with religious symbols is not something I'd like us to encourage, or even tolerate. --Tony Sidaway 16:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it will be good not to be so harsh with others. The image is small enough and not offensive. We lose nothing in letting him keep it. What is wrong with people here? Please let him be happy with small compromise in your part. --- A. L. M. 16:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
ALM, policies cant be compromised. Can I too use a picture in my signature then? Commonsense says that its wrong to compromise on policies. Please dont encourage violation of Wikipedia policies. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 17:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Repeatedly calling it a policy does not make it so. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, its a guideline then. Regardless people cant be allowed to have images in their signatures because then I'll want one for myself too and so on. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 17:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Have you seen how many links are in the file links list? Imagine if everyone starts doing this, it will be impossible to ever find where an image is being used, because it will be buried in 1000s of other links. I'm pretty much a noob here, but already have over 500 talk page edits, meaning if I had used an image there would be around 500 links in the list (mainly leaving vandal notices). And the comparison with templates is incorrect in my opinion, because in the case of Image:European flag.svg for example, nearly all the pages listed will have in some way a link to Europe. This is not the case for every page a user signs. The only relation in between such pages is the user him/herself. Personally I dislike all signatures other than the standard one though, so my opinion may be biased. Just so people with fancy signatures know, I don't remember a user because of their signature, but because of their edits, and all the fancy signatures serve me no purpose because I can never know in advance what is going to link where anyway, also they create clutter in the code and make it harder to read in edit mode. Please consider removing your image before you clock up too many talk page edits. Also what will you do if the image is deleted ? Go back and change every single talk page you edited, or just leave big read links all over the place. Jackaranga 17:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that I am more concerned now as a result of Tony's response. I didn't know what the image was, but I've now discovered that it is a symbol associated with Bahá'í Faith. I recall recently an RFA which received what I remember to be (correct me if I'm wrong) significant opposition based on the use of a cross in the signature. In that case, it was Unicode I think, but the message was that religious symbols should not be used in signatures, regardless or whether or not it is an image being utilized. This is perhaps worthy of more discussion than adherence to a guideline about image use. Someone should correct all this or post some links if my memory is failing me. --After Midnight 0001 18:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You may be thinking of this Rfa, which closed with a final tally of 69/2/1 - hardly significant opposition IMO. I could be wrong; that is the only recent Rfa I can recall with this issue. It was indeed unicode not an image. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You are correct that that was the RFA that I was thinking of, and also right that the number of opposers was small. I do note however, that whether it was a result of that discussion or something else, both Pastordavid and Will Beback have since modified their signatures to no longer use that symbol. --After Midnight 0001 19:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Come on, guys. It's just a signature. ––  Luna Santin  –– [[ Talk to me (leave a message!) • My contribs ]]  Nuvola apps package toys.png SPECIAL Kitten Shrine Nuvola apps package toys.png ;) 21:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL Flyguy649 talk contribs 21:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yea, well, the use of color is over rated. And some flashing colors have been known to cause seizures in some people. You may also want to fix your talk page, the TOC is totally too small to read! Vegaswikian 21:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
oO... Thankfully that's not your usual sig! 20 lines! And on a serious note - huge sigs are a problem. I recently had cause to edit while on holidays, and my only web access was via a mobile phone. Having to wade past multiple lines of people's sigs got very old very fast. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:SIG is not optional. The developers have stated very clearly that templates and images are not allowed in signatures due to db load problems (it's not a big deal if one does it, but if everyone does it it's a huge problem, so banning it outright prevents that slippery slope). Thus, I have blocked the problem user until he removes the image from his signature. --Cyde Weys 03:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. He removed the image now and another admin unblocked him now. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 13:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Lovely MLM editors at Usana

Usana is a pyramid scheme/MLM for (surprise!) nutritional supplements and distributorships. In other words, it's a new Herbalife. Consequently, we are getting IP after IP trying to remove all criticisms, insert advertising, and overall use the article as a recruitment for other victi... er... customers. We have one editor, a new user, Jean314, trying to keep the thing accurately written, and he or she is up against loads of IP's. I put the article on my watchlist when someone removed it from speedy deletion. I'd appreciate it if some other administrators (if they're not Usana distributors, of course) adding it to their watchlists as well. The current form may read too favorably, but it's nothing compared to what the IP editors want. Geogre 11:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please block a checkuser confirmed sockpuppet of a permablocked editor


I filed a Checkuser on a permablocked user here [9]. The connection to the IP vandal was confirmed, can someone please soft block the IP to prevent his further racist trolling? (a full block would probably be okay since this person is the only one who has ever used this IP and I think it's static, but whatever you think is right). The Parsnip! 13:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Softblocked for 1 month; the contribs suggest it's static, but it's tagged as a shared IP. MastCell Talk 15:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This is really, really weird: controverial picture

Resolved: Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhm. This is the strangest 'possible edit war' I've ever seen.

Last night, I went to see a preview of Stardust, the new Claire Danes movie. Danes was there, and I took a picture of her, because I work on the edge of the SF industry, and so I have a lot of opportunities to take pictures of authors or actors or other notables to release to public domain for Commons.

I posted a picture[10] and a clipped version[11] for an infobox, and released them into the public domain.

I then posted it to the Claire Danes page. It was removed this morning by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg , with the comment "that picture is so disgustingly horrible it has to be a joke". No change has been made to it aside from fixing red eye (and among the many things I do freelance, I do graphic work professionally, and I changed about 20 pixels of the whole image).

I undid his entry, and explained to him on his talk page that the picture was good, not a joke, etc., that really is what she looks like when not primped for the camera. He removed me asking him what he thought the 'joke' was, because apparently my asking him to clarify what he thought was the joke or what was so horribly disgusting about it was an 'odd comment'. He then undid my re-adding the image, stating, "removing, still assume this is a ploy for attention or a joke."

I'm certainly not going to take this to an edit war, but can someone please have him either explain what he thinks is wrong with the image, or leave the picture alone? While it amuses me that he thinks I'm doing this for attention, his edits and POV pushing (even if he doesn't think it is) are peculiar, and unmerited (since regardless of what she looks like in his mind, that's what she looks like from the third row of a screening room). --Thespian 01:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Claire Danes to me.Proabivouac 01:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I can understand why some people think the pic is joke but if I wrote it down then I would break WP:BLP. Probably User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg was in the same dilemma and did not how to solve it. Andries 01:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe. Except that it wasn't a joke, he assumed bad faith right off the top by saying it was disgusting and must be a joke, he deleted my attempts to find out what he thought the joke was, and then reverted it again accusing me of posting it to try to get attention. And it doesn't break WP:BLP to post that picture; it's not defamatory or anything, as far as I can tell, he just doesn't think she looks like that. --Thespian 02:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not very flattering, and as an editor I would prefer to use any more flattering picture rather than that one, but any free image is better than a pretty copyrighted one. Thatcher131 02:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe that was the best shot you got at the event. --Haemo 02:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) this is why I'm a freelance journalist, not a freelance photographer ;-) Then again, people were commenting on their own pics afterward; I don't think she was going to take a glamour MOVIE STAR photo last night, regardless. She really was looking like that. My others were indeed worse; her eyes closed, blurred because the light was low, etc. She was onstage for about 3 minutes, tops, no questions, nothing. She was supposed to be at the VIP event beforehand, but didn't even show until 10m after the movie was supposed to start; they were delaying the screening for her.--Thespian 02:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
That's not really a bad picture. If anything, it looks more like limitations on the camera (camera cell phone, I assume?). Her expression is fine, and the angle isn't bad. -- Ned Scott 02:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
That or really low lighting will do that to even a decent digital camera. -- Ned Scott 02:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Call me a fan, but she looks fetching enough to me. It's a candid, what do you want? The fact that Danes is willing to dress and act casually speaks well of her. Thespian's photo captures that nicely.Proabivouac 02:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've adjusted the histogram and cropped the original image a bit. Maybe the original editor - whom I supppose has a higher res version - could get better results. Brighten it up and adjust the colors a little and it's all right. DurovaCharge! 02:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I took the bold liberty of correcting the gamma on both images, they were basically underexposed. Hope you like it. --Edokter (Talk) 12:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It's nice to have an image that's all our own, but the pic in question isn't high-enough quality, i.e., no reputable encyclopedia would ever use an image like that. IronDuke 02:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what all the fuss is about. Looks fine to me. Hasn't anyone looked at the pic on the Suzanne Vega article lately? Or Gillian Anderson? Or Patti Smith? Or Catherine Bell? wikipediatrix 02:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Posting unflattering photos like the ones you list probably isn't strictly a violation of WP:BLP, but it feels to me that it should be. As for the Danes photo: the camera noise mars her complexion, the background clutter is distracting, and when cropped tight enough to be usable it's pretty low-res. It's not a photo I would be willing to sign my name to as photographer. Surely we can do better. —David Eppstein 03:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
May be, but only in extreme cases, I believe. This is not an extreme case. I think the following pic of Geert Wilders would be borderline. This pic is on the Nederlandse_Omroep_Stichting website which is a serious journalistic resource. It also appeared in other serious media, as far as I remember, and is, I believe, not doctored. A pic of somebody who has accidentally his or her pants down should not be used. On the other hand, I believe that a screen shot of movie showing Uri Geller's acts allegedly proving him to cheat is okay. Andries 04:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of you talking to him on his usertalk. Also, is there a specific admin action you'd like to resolve this that discussion won't? - CHAIRBOY () 03:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Check the history; he deleted it saying it was an 'odd comment' right before deleting the image a second time and saying I was re-adding it for attention. Mostly in needed admin attention because he was repeatedly accusing me of doing it for a joke/for attention (accusations of bad faith). He isn't going to listen to anyone 'at normal level' --Thespian 05:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, we need more photographs like this on articles (rather than that fair use crap). That way, when the actress reads her article and sees an unflattering picture, she can complain to her publicist, and her publicist realizes she has no point but to release a previously fair use promotional photograph under a free license. Then everyone wins. --Cyde Weys 03:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've personally found that works really well. Videmus Omnia Talk 04:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
A good point, but I still don't think it's a bad picture. -- Ned Scott 04:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It's not beautiful, but it's entirely passable, and it's certainly better than nothing. And anything's better than the one at Michael Stipe. --Masamage 04:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Or Cher. Videmus Omnia Talk 04:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Paul Stanley. Only free photo I have come across to ever be roundly rejected from an article, and with good reason. That Danes pic isn't awful, if anything it will encourage others to provide a better one. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The girl in this picture is very attractive. If there is awkwardness, it is only endearing.Proabivouac 11:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The Parable of the Dog strikes again. (The parable is my own invention, but here it is. I drop popcorn on the floor. My dog wants it but doesn't see the kernel. I point at it. The dog stares at my fingertip. I keep pointing, more and more excitedly, and he keeps examining my fingertip, more and more avidly.) Thespian came to argue about rude edits, unceremonious removal, and accusations, and all you folks can do is talk about if the picture gets you excited? Sheesh! Look at the popcorn, not the finger, please. For what it's worth, I agree with Thespian: he was treated poorly. The image folks, like article folks, need to explain themselves and use their words, not their buttons, first. If there is a dispute, assume non-vandal as well as good faith, and be prepared to answer. If you're too busy to answer a question, you're too busy to do the deletions. Geogre 11:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
On that note, I've let User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg know about this thread. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that if you seriously examine Wikipedia administrators and their actions, you'd find that they are not all that dissimilar from those of the common canine. Now excuse me, I'm off to chase my tail for an hour. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I consider it flattery to be compared to a dog. "History is more full of the example of the fidelity of dogs than of friends," Mr. Pope said. My point was about Wikipedia discussions, though. It happens over and over again. "Well, I can think of a hypothetical where that isn't true." "Oh? I reject your hypothetical. You should see this." "That's not so bad. There is another hypothetical where...." Meanwhile, the guy with the problem is sitting in the corner wondering why none of us are talking to him. Feel free to find Moshe's actions just, or his complaint valid, or my verdict wrong. Long live difference. It's just that the poor fellow felt insulted and couldn't understand why. I sympathize with him and think that Moshe was wrong to be brusque. We are all wrong to be brusque.
I can even tell you why we're often rude when we should be nice. It comes from vandal watching and copyvio cleaning. It gets into your head. You start to see every mistake as vandalism and every doubtful case as wrong. As admins, we must fight that. Geogre 03:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow I can't believe there is this many responses about something I did, I feel almost flattered. I guess in most ways this is my fault for assuming too much and not checking enough. When I saw the picture I assumed that somebody had basically gone through every picture on the internet they could find and found the ugliest one, I mean I wouldn't say I pay any attention to Claire Danes' career or anything, but I think we all agree that she is at least prettier than the picture seems to imply. I should have checked whether or not Thespian was a serious editor or just some guy with 8 or so bizarre edits. I mean I think we have all encountered so many odd people on wikipedia that when anything happens that is even remotely strange our first thought is that the person is doing something for attention, vandalizing wikipedia, or has some other motive in mind that we can only guess about. If anything I'll take this as a lesson that assuming first is usually not the best idea. I'll also say that if anyone seriously thinks that is a good picture, I must be an awful judge.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF is your friend! A good lesson learned. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 20:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Geogre and Jonel are exactly right that the crux of the problem is to be patient and polite, and, exactly as you say, avoid assumptions. Sounds like you've figured that out now, so, hooray! Onward. --Masamage 22:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, I will point out that following the link to the image would have shown you that I had taken the picture myself that night, not that I was trying to make her look bad. When I posted to your journal asking you what you thought was a joke about it, instead of just deleting my comment, you should have replied - a vandal isn't going to go that way. You assumed bad faith from the start, and your comments made that obvious; I wouldn't have felt I needed to seek backup if you'd WP:AGF assumed good faith and respected me, regardless what you thought of the photo I took. Finally, as soon as you removed a legitimate, free picture a second time, after I'd attempted to get you to explain the problem was (and indeed, I don't think it's an unattractive picture, though the quality of it could be better) you headed off to edit war. That tendency should be checked if you're doing it with editors who aren't quite as experienced/involved as I am; me, I was just amused; with the praise I've gotten for my Signpost stuff and my DYK and a potential featured coming up, I have enough attention coming my way. You could drive a first or second time contributor off. --Thespian 00:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Probably around 95% of my edits in the past 5 months or so are simple wiki-gnome type stuff so I generally do not talk to people that much anymore. While my actions were unfair and wrong, I do not necessarily consider it edit warring, in fact if I was reverted one more time I probably would have started looking over your previous edits and the picture's fair use and understood where my previous assumptions led me astray. I also still stand by my belief that at the very least the picture should not be the primary photo in the article (if it appears at all).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk
Right now, though, it's the only picture available in the article. If we had a usable Claire Danes pic, I would have just skipped it, but we didn't, and as many people have said in this thread, a picture really is better than none, which is why I uploaded it. This isn't the first time I've seen her, I just only recently started to take pics with the intent of releasing them to the public domain for wikipedia, so it's not unlikely that I will do better some other time. --Thespian 05:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy check

I'm discussing block/ban policy wording with other editor/s on those pages, over concerns that the wordings of WP:BAN doesn't completely describe day-to-day reality and usage. Although basic noob points and in some cases stated in WP:BLOCK or WP:BAN, it would help to re-check some fundamentals, as input:

Q. Comment/example
1. Which types of removal of editing access are properly described as "bans"? For example, editor 1 picks up a 1 week block for repeated personal attacks on co-editors on an article, editor 2 is banned by an admin from editing on religion for a month following lesser blocks and personal attacks on atheists there, editor 3's edits are all personal attacks and the editor is indef blocked by an admin, editor 4 is indef banned by arbcom for incessant personal attacks - are these all "bans"?
2. Is a ban always the social construct of removal of an editor for a period and a block the technical means of implementation? (See WP:BAN) For example, would it be accurate to describe users who pick up a 24 hour block for disruption, as technically being short-term banned with the ban supported by a block?
3. In some cases (eg vandal only SPA) an account is usually described as "account/user X indef blocked, vandalism". In other cases (eg at arbcom) an account is usually described as "account/user X indef banned from Wikipedia for vandalism". Both seem to have the identical aim and effect: to protect the site from vandalism by long term excluding the vandalistic user. Are these in fact the same thing? Different? Comment: My impression is that we tend to use ban to mean, long term exclusion of an editor who is/was part of the community from the site (or part of it), and block to mean the removal of someone who never was part of the community, or is not being long term excluded from it. (As well as using "block" for a technical means of enforcing a ban via software.)
4. WP:BLOCK refers to partial bans to protect articles, referring to WP:BAN for more detail. But WP:BAN focusses on long term/indef bans. Neither of these document a user being short term partial/topic banned by an administrator from an article or page (eg to avoid losing good edits elsewhere). What is communal understanding on short term article/topic bans? Example: User Z has good edits generally but POV wars on sexuality. A 1 week ban is now reasonable for repeated OR/CIVIL on sexuality related topics, but rather than giving a 1 week block that will affect all edits on the site entirely, an administrator decides to ban him just from sexuality related topics (only) for a week, to protect those topics and without losing good contributions elesewhere. Is this an option open to unilateral administrator decision?

Even though the above points are (apparently) referenced somewhat by policy, it would help to have communal double-checking. Thanks :) FT2 (Talk | email) 09:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

None of that looks very good to me. First, no one should be getting blocked for "NPA." Second, absolutely no one should be banned for NPA-related anything. If anything like that is occurring, I can only hope that the subjects of the blocks are appealing them. Some Wikipedians use the term "ban" when what they're talking about is by no means a ban. WP:BAN is right: it's reserved for very special cases. A ban is a ban -- don't come back. We have had very, very, very few bans of established editors, and a good many of those were later reconsidered. A ban is for Willy on Wheels. This is different from a topic/article ban, which is usually conditioned additionally by time. "You are banned from editing booger for six months." First, such things don't generally have genuine force without going through RFAR but really are consensual or contingent (e.g. when I see you at snot, I decide that you're violating the booger-ban and block you, with the block being the contingency). In general, no one should be using the word "ban" for something an administrator does, because administrators cannot, should not, and must not desire to ban someone. That's ArbCom's job. Geogre 11:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Please see WT:BAN for further discussion. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrator FT2 Talk abuse of status

The following information was brought to my attention and I post it here for an administrator to review: FT2 appears to be unfair to critical editors and biased towards NLP promotion. FT2 also seems to be collaborating with or supporting other pro NLP editors and is taking this into the dispute regarding Attachment Therapy Ex: [[12]] with threats.

It looks like the story starts when RalfLender begins to critically edit on the NLP article [13] after communicating with another critical editor [14]. RalfLender was then "warned off" by FT2 [15]. Since then FT2 has taken an interest in trying to overrule prior admin checks that say we are not meatpuppets [16]. So after closer investigation of the NLP article it seems that there is a strong pro NLP agenda trying to influence the arbitration on Attachment Therapy. Fainites (who also seems to be working with FT2) seems to be keen on making sure that NLP is not mentioned as a pseudoscientific fringe method of attachment therapy. FT2 seems to be supporting Fainites in this effort. From a look at the state of the NLP article seems clear that FT2 and Fainites (and another editor with a strong and obvious COI - Comaze (AKA Action potential[17]) have been working together to make sure that critical views are not presented clearly. They have been working there consistently and the critical views are still not presented properly, pseudoscience information goes missing and is not replaced, and the article seems to be kept in an ugly state simply to obscure the main science views. The last peer review says criticism is mild [18]. Since then criticism has become milder and more obscured. I suspect FT2 of being highly involved in NLP in terms of history and probably qualifications. Considering FT2's prior attempts at OR; FT2 and other related editors seem to be trying OR at even the article level [19]. Now that it was suggested that more OR (eg, [20] has been presented [21], FT2 starts to defend NLP yet again by posting extreme warnings on the talkpage [22]. I think this is the most obvious and extensive example of agenda motivated bullying from an admin I have ever seen on Wikipedia. DPetersontalk 12:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Note to admin: This is probably an overspill from this RFAr: [23] and this User RfC [24]. I believe the evidences has shown DPeterson to be guilty of multiple abusive sock puppet accounts. I also believe that the RalphLender account is another suspected sock puppet account, though currently 'unproven'. Peace.Lsi john 13:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

FT2 (Talk | email) 14:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that FT2 is abusing admin status by working with another editor Fainites on the NLP page and taking that dispute into the dispute regarding Attachment Therapy. RalphLendertalk 15:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(Note: Behaviorally evidenced DPeterson sock, checkuser unverified at this stage, evidence here).
Ralph, all that's asked of you is, don't edit tendentiously, fabricate claims, or conflict with policy. Enough said. The several warnings given to you by myself and others, as an admin, on problematic and disruptive editing, stands, the offer to coach or explain stands if it would help or you don't understand why these things matter, and if you continue to edit in breach of policy then WP:BLOCK may apply, since nothing else appears to be able to protect articles you edit on from mis-editing, or explain the need to change your approach, and the project isn't here as a battleground.
This rather flimsy and unfounded complaint seems to be an attempt to later claim (if blocked) that it's due to a personal conflict.. in which case I think that fails; I have precisely zero involvement except via dispute resolution responses, and giving warnings as an admin. My efforts are going into seeing good editing, but I see no evidence of that at present. Trying to claim spurious COI (as DPeterson et al have elsewhere against others), would be a type of game only. It doesn't get much simpler. Please heed this and re-read both the offer of help, and warning on misconduct. Both stand. (Note: user's case in hearing at arbcom, hence the preference to warn rather than block.) FT2 (Talk | email) 16:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
We are in the middle of an ArbCom in which DPeterson has already ben shown to have abused policies with the use of multiple sockpuppets. He and RalphLender suddenly appeared on the NLP page and were bullying and offensive to a newbie. I am content to stand by my edits and comments on NLP going back many months, although my involvement has been intermittant recently. Readers should be aware that alot of damage was done recently by a pro NLP Headley sock called SteveB110. There are distinct elements of Headley in the allegations, concerns and language of this ANI. Where is the 'information received' from? Fainites barley 16:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
FT2's note is rather appropriate given that DPeterson and RalphLender are continuing to engage in the tendentious behaviour that led to arbitration (e.g. edit warring on Advocates for Children in Therapy, audacious wiki-lawyering, this strange complaint). Their edits ought to be limited to the arbitration case and its subpages until the case is concluded. This is especially true given DPeterson's amazingly flagrant abuse of sock-puppets (using four socks to submit evidence during arbitration) and given that RalphLender is a likely sock of DPeterson. shotwell 19:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This is material that would be appropriate to bring up in the ongoing arbitration involving these editors. Not here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use outside of mainspace

I am running a script that simply identifies images that are being used outside of mainspace. This is not allowed per our fair use criteria, as fair use is only for articles. The list is at User:Eagle_101/fu. I would appreciate anyone that wants to work on it, I will have more in an hour or so. If you want to blank them as you go have at it, but I will have the script run every so often to keep this problem in hand. —— Eagle101Need help? 16:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

i know there is a bot that replaces fair use images with some ugly svg that says something like "this non-free image has been replaced." hbdragon88 22:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I operate that bot, this time through I chose to post the results, and let humans deal with the mess. —— Eagle101Need help? 23:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Graphics Lab images

The Graphics Lab has been working on many images which are tagged for deletion in the effort to produce images which are usable on wikipedia. These images which are tagged for deletion may be vital to the success of creating a free image replacement. A new template {{glhangon}} is now being used so that these images can stay on wikipedia while being worked on. Please do not delete images with the {{glhangon}} tag. The graphics lab appreciates your cooperation in this matter. -- For the Graphics Lab, BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 16:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

How long will this take? You guys can always request undeletion, if you guys know what imaegs you are going to work on in a month from now. —— Eagle101Need help? 17:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Graphics lab images are ongoing, hence the tag. Each image takes on average between 1 and 2 weeks. We work on a case-by-case basis, so we don't know which images someone will nominate a month from now, we just don't want images we are working on to be deleted. --BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 02:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Bot to clean the sandbox

People keep removing this ({{Please leave this line alone (Sandbox heading)}}) template from Wikipedia:Sandbox, so I have a suggestion that there should be a bot that cleans Wikipedia:Sandbox every time that the template I just mentioned, is removed. NHRHS2010 Talk 21:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm... perhaps a job one of the RC monitor bots could handle? MartinBot in particular comes to mind, since it's already active and already apparently checking recent changes; I don't know how difficult it would be to check edits to the sandbox to see if the template had been removed, but based on my understanding wild guesswork of how the bot works, I bet it's feasible. Similar problem, although less frequent, can be found at WP:INTRO. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
MartinBotIV does normally reset the sandbox every few minutes; however it appears to have been temporarily offline for the last few weeks as its owner has been away. =/ Krimpet 06:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I have set up Seedbot to reset the sandbox every half hour until MartinBotIV gets back online. I'll obviously be monitoring the bot and I don't anticipate any problems but feel free to just block it (it has the big shiny button on its user page) if its misbehaving in any way. S up? 14:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and, if there is any interest, I could probably put together some code over the weekend that checks the feed and just reinserts the template if it's been deleted. S up? 14:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser block

I have blocked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 3 months per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Verdict. User:Verdict is indefinitely banned. Verdict returned to editing Brock Lesnar (a previously edited article) without logging in today, within 2 days of the block expiring. Just notifying all incase there is something else I haven't factored in. James086Talk | Email 09:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If it is a fixed IP (as it seems to be), I would suggest an indefinite block. Perhaps someone with CU privileges could check and act if necessary. Physchim62 (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
We don't usually block IP's, even apparently static ones, for much more than 6 months at a time. The exception is known open proxies. Even static IP's can change hands - people change ISP's, they move, etc. Three or six months is a long time; if the problem flares up again, another 6 months can be tacked on. MastCell Talk 17:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ponzi scheme

Resolved: At least for now.

Is this edit valid under WP:BLP? I don't even really think it's a Ponzi scheme, anyway. Corvus cornix 18:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Source says the subject was arrested and accused, but it doesn't appear the case has gone to trial; if we do cover it, it needs to be clear there's no conviction. Until such time as there's a conviction of some sort, though, it seems unnecessary to post the full name and hometown of every accused criminal (is this one getting more press than I realize?). – Luna Santin (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I had never heard of the case before this. comes up with a grand total of three hits for the accused. Corvus cornix 20:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. I see you've removed the potentially offending content, I'll mark this resolved for now and see if I can check back later. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If the money used to pay "investors" is coming from new "investors" rather than from the fruits of the investment, then it's a Ponzi scheme. Rklawton 00:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Fed Up

Resolved: Article (re-)deleted by Eyrian. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 20:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Fed Up was not deleted despite a consensus to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fed Up. --Uthbrian (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Eyrian 20:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, it had been deleted if you look at the log, but someone must have recreated it. So the deletion log for jully 28 is incorrect. Jackaranga 20:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, but the article was essentially the same. --Eyrian 21:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Such a recretaed article after a consensus deletion is a speedy delete candidate and that's what I would advise you to do if this happens again, SqueakBox 21:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It is what I did. --Eyrian 21:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe SqueakBox was telling Uthbrian to tag future recreated articles for speedy deletion rather than bring them here. Leebo T/C 04:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about causing a ruckus here; I forgot to check the article's log and just saw the AfD notice. Will keep the advice in mind for next time. --Uthbrian (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, Eyrian...I guess you were...fed up with the article, eh? hbdragon88 04:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

283 citation tags in an article

Resolved: The issue is being resolved on the talk page and does not require any further administrative oversight. --Hemlock Martinis 19:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:History_of_Russia#283_citation_tags_in_an_article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Request block/unblock review

Resolved: perfectly acceptable block-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I recntly blocked User:Inneronceaisasockpuppet for an invalid (attack) username after the name was raised at WP:UAA. The user is now requestign unblock on the grounds that the allegation in the username is accurate. Even if that is true, i didn't think we allowed such usernames. Am i incorrect? DES (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That's disruptive and inflammatory, see WP:USERNAME point 5. I wouldn't permit it. --Eyrian 20:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
They've been declined now by someone else as "incoherent unblock message", which indeed, it is. They've also been blanking pages - Alison 20:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
It's definitely a completely unacceptable username, no questions asked. The vandalism only drives the point home: you did the right thing. Nihiltres(t.l) 20:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
No questions asked here, you did the right thing. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

8,000 image backlog at Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons

There's currently an (approximately) 8,000 image backlog at Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons, some dating back to the 8th July - a 12 day backlog. Anyone feel like lending a hand sorting it out? Mike Peel 21:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been working on this on and off the last few days too, but would welcome more help. It's not generally very difficult – simply verify that the image really is the same, has appropriate permissions and history logs, and belongs to appropriate categories on the commons (or add categories if necessary). —David Eppstein 03:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I just emptied Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons as of 8 July 2007, making it a 7750 image backlog. James086Talk | Email 04:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Mauricio Soler and WP:BLP

There are reports in several reliable sources that Colombian cyclist Mauricio Soler has tested positive for doping during the 2007 Tour de France. These reports have not (yet?) been confirmed by the Tour organisers. The reports are mentioned in the article Mauricio Soler, and it is explicitly mentioned that they are reports. This meets WP:V. But does mentioning an unconfirmed positive doping test violate WP:BLP? AecisBrievenbus 23:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Has been mentioned as unconfirmed reports in multiple reliable sources, so there isn't an issue as long as it is meade clear that the Tour organizers have not yet confirmed those reports. In the future, please take this sort of thing to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. JoshuaZ 23:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Review

The review relating to the above-named arbitration has been closed without action because User:Certified.Gangsta has not edited for several weeks. Should Certified.Gangsta return to editing, the review may be reopened. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

The above titled Arbitration Case has closed and the decision has been published at the linked location. Dradin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and any other editor who is involved professionally or avocationally in the paranormal is cautioned regarding aggressive editing of articles which relate to the particular subjects they are involved with. Kazuba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is cautioned to extend good faith to Dradin if he edits and to avoid including disparaging material about Dean Radin on his user page. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 03:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

On July 18 JoshuaZ blocked Daniel Brandt with the summary, it has come to my attention to Hivemind is back up, brandt is not going to be welcome here as long as he runs an outing website. period

I hadn't been following the issue and wasn't aware of that until someone e-mailed me a link to a well-known critical site where Brandt demanded that either I or SlimVirgin restore his editing privileges and block JoshuaZ, or else Brandt would list us at the Hive Mind page on his website. I won't link to that thread here but it should be pretty easy for anyone who knows the ropes to find it.

Now really, if Brandt had objected to that block on technical grounds I might have considered the request, but I find it completely unacceptable that he attempts to compel the use of administrative tools by threats regarding the disclosure of what he believes to be personal information. This is not the first time he's used this tactic with me: last month he tried it when he accepted my offer to nominate Wikipedia's biography of him for deletion, and I nearly withdrew my offer because of the attempt to compel action. At the time I overlooked that issue because I had already extended the offer before he attempted the pressure and, in good faith, I thought the fellow was just at wit's end about the page.

I posted to Brandt's user page this morning to the effect that, regardless of other circumstances, I now heartily endorse his siteban until such time as he disavows pressure tactics toward Wikipedia sysops. If WP:IAR is the necessary basis here I'll stake a claim to it; common sense demands that coercive threats have no place in administrative actions. That started a thread so I'm taking it here. DurovaCharge! 20:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Brandt's being unblocked while he runs a site that stalks administrators makes an implicit statement that serious harassment and egregious privacy violations are not an impediment to being considered a user in good standing. I heartily support Joshua's actions. ElinorD (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC) And for the record I supported, and still support, his right not to have an article about him against his wishes. ElinorD (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I fully support that block. People who threaten to (and do) out others who don't do what they say will never be accepted at Wikipedia, period. It doesn't matter whether or not they made the threat on-wiki. -Amarkov moo! 20:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If this discussion is going to be conducted here, it may be reasonable to unblock Brandt with the understanding he can participate in this discussion and "make his case", as it were. That said, I'm not sure that he'd want to, or that it'd be worth his time. WilyD 20:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I've offered to accept an e-mail rebuttal from Brandt for reposting to this thread. A second invocation of WP:IAR, but I think fairness demands it. DurovaCharge! 20:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. WilyD 20:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Having privacy means respecting privacy. Brandt seems to think it entirely goes one way. He can't continue to post everything he can find about anyone at Wikipedia, but expect Wikipedia to take the high road in respecting his privacy (and I do believe he exceeds notability requirements). The problem is the 'system' caved to him already. He has no reason to believe he can't bully us. --Thespian 20:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weakly oppose Brandt block Durova is referring to the WR forum. I certainly dont support Brandt's desire to see Josh blocked even temporarily for blocking DB but nor do I think that seeing SV returned to HM and Duriova put on that page to be acceptable either and therefore I think, given his editing pattern here, that Brandt should be unblocked. Is there any kind of policy that allows blocking for off site attacks as if there were and it was shown to me I might change my mind, I'm certainly not fixed on this one. What I'd really like to see is negotiations with Brandt for the specific purpose of removing HM2, SqueakBox 20:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It doesn't really matter where he made the threat. We know that he is willing to threaten people who don't do as he says, and we know that he is willing to carry through on those threats. It does not matter that the comments which told us this were not made on Wikipedia. Such a thing is still totally unacceptable. -Amarkov moo! 20:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the merits of JoshuaZ's action I think attempts to coerce administrative actions should be bannable. If that's not written in policy already it should be. DurovaCharge! 20:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I certainly don't support what Brandt is doing, but was it proper to block him in the first place given that normally blocks are not given here based on things that people do off-wiki? *Dan T.* 20:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If he had simply e-mailed me a polite request to review the block on that basis I would have opened up precisely that discussion. The course he chose instead IMO supplies an entirely new reason for sitebanning. DurovaCharge! 20:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Regardless of whether hastily blocking Brandt over the existence of his outing website was fair, blackmailing admins into unblocking him is completely out of line, period. An indefinite block is justified on the grounds of his threat alone. Krimpet 20:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • And after reading below the additional details of how removal of the "hive mind" site was one of the stated conditions of his previous unblock, I concur that the original block was justified as well. Krimpet 23:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I absolutely support blocking Brandt, based on his past and continuing behavior, and no reasonable expectation that it will stop. If people like this threaten our volunteers and see that it gets them what they want, then they and others will threaten our volunteers. Seeing abusive jerks accommodated again and again has become tremendously disheartening. Tom Harrison Talk 20:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse block - Blackmailing editors is intolerable. - Crockspot 21:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Please refactor that epithet. DurovaCharge! 21:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Question: Is unblocking Brandt likely to allow him to make disruptive edits? I really think that the only reason a user should be blocked is for directly disrupting the project with their account, not any secondary reason. --Eyrian 20:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Directly disrupting the project from off-wiki is certainly something that can be taken into account. - Crockspot 21:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The primary issue here is that he was unblocked in the first place under certain conditions, and the Hivemind list being taken down was one of them. However, when Wiki Abuse was started, Brandt put the list back up because he was itching to help that project. Since he went back on one of his promises, JoshuaZ acted on his own to reblock Brandt's account.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes, but is that really a good reason? I understand that many users are justifiably upset about his outing site, but does blocking him here really change that? --Eyrian 21:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
One of the conditions set forth by Jimbo to Brandt in the unblocking was that he take down the hivemind. For about 3 weeks, the Hivemind was taken down. When Wiki Abuse went up, he brought the Hivemind back up (which he advertised on their site). JoshuaZ found out, took the initiative to resetting the ban, and because someone decided to suddenly discover this at WR, Brandt has resorted to these tactics.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
My logic was as follows: we cannot have users allowed to edit while they are running websites that attempt to blackmail and out users for the same reasoning that we cannot allow users who are making legal threats: it is impossible for other editors to work with them in any productive form when such activities are being made. That is the main reason have blocked, do block, and will continue to block people who run outing sites and that is why I blocked Brandt. We cannot allow such activity to continue and long expect the project to function. The fact that the site going back up involved Brandt going back on his deal is simply further icing on the cake, and to stretch the metaphor Brandt's latest attempt to intimidate Durova and Slimvirgin makes the cake so sickeningly sweet I doubt anyone would be able to eat it without choking. The bottom line is that we have yet more evidence that Brandt does not respect site policies and will not do so. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and if someone cannot play well with others then we have no reason to continue to keep them here after many chances. JoshuaZ 21:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If I thought the block would lead to he end of HM I would strongly support it. In order to protect our voluntary staff here we should, IMO, do what it takes to get that site removed from the web and blocking DB from wikipedia, far from doing that, has the opposite effect, SqueakBox 21:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Eyrian 21:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
We have no idea actually whether blocking DB will help get the site removed or not. However, given that he has shown to be a liar and blackmailer, the disruption and intimidation of users that continues with his presence on the project is simply not worth it. We don't give in to blackmailers and we certainly don't give in to blackmailers who won't even keep their word. JoshuaZ 21:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
JoshuaZ, please refactor the tone of that statement. DurovaCharge! 23:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't see a reason to. As per the Wikipedia article Blackmail, "Blackmail is the act of threatening to reveal information about a person, or even do something to destroy the threatened person, unless the blackmailed target fulfills certain demands" since Brandt has done that he is a blackmailer. If you are concerned about legal implications it should be apparent that that type of action is not generally legally actionable. JoshuaZ 23:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I just don't think it helps things to express sentiments in inflammatory terms. Regarding liar then, are you sure he actually promised to keep Hive Mind offline or that he engages in habitual falsehoods? I agree what he's done is a low blow, especially after I went out of my way to respect Brandt's privacy concerns. Those actions speak for themselves to anybody who knows the facts and there's no need for name calling. DurovaCharge! 00:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec)*Endorse Block. How many times are we going to deal with him? Block indef and let's move on. Brandt is not a typical editor his extraordinary behavior demands extraordinary measures. JodyB yak, yak, yak 21:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose block. Blocking someone for something they said off-Wiki makes zero sense to me. It doesn't matter that he agreed to take his Hivemind page down before - he really shouldn't have been pressured to make such a promise in the first place. If Brandt's page has off-Wiki ramifications, then let it be dealt with off-Wiki. I don't approve of his Hivemind page, but I also don't approve of him having a Wikipedia article. Isn't there some way this endlessly escalating Mexican standoff can be resolved without both parties using the web for revenge purposes? wikipediatrix 21:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipediatrix, I can understand a principled defense of the Hive mind page per se, but your comment doesn't address his attempt to coerce administrative action. Do you defend that as well, and if so on what grounds? DurovaCharge! 23:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If Brandt had shown some sort of desire to actually make useful contributions to the project, I would have endorsed unblocking him. It would have been great if one of our most outspoken critics had decided to help us fix the problems he thinks we have through constructive editing. He would have of course realized that he'd be monitored closely. But his outright blackmail of two administrators is beyond comprehension; did he even think that through? Did he really think we'd bow to threats? Does he expect us to welcome him back warmly? It's bewildering. Keep him blocked. --Hemlock Martinis 21:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse block per JoshuaZ. - Philippe | Talk 21:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse block. Brandt actively advocated trying to force me to leave my PhD program via blackmail. Phil Sandifer 21:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse community ban his off-wiki attacks drive good editors from the project, which ultimately weakens it. He also brings down the entire community's spirit. Disruptive individuals like him have no place here. -Nard 22:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The proposed dichotomy between on-wiki and off-wiki behavior is belied by the circumstances behind this latest threat, directed as it is towards editors with whom Brandt has recent on-wiki interactions. Allowing him back risks further negative interactions which might lead to resentments and subsequent threats against still more editors.Proabivouac 22:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse block - Editing Wikipedia is not a right.--Jimbo Wales 23:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
... it's an adventure! -- Seth Finkelstein 00:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse block per Tom Harrison. Poindexter Propellerhead 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse block - The hivemind website is irrelevant, but repeated and persistent coercion of admins is unacceptable.--Fahrenheit451 00:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse block - This is HARASSMENT. period.-- SYSS Mouse 00:30, 2007 July 28 (UTC)
  • Comment Aiii, the drama. Folks, I understand there's a lot of ill-will. But, to be objective, I assert these sorts of kerfuffles are counter-productive. Yes, yes, I understand the group-bonding aspect: "Daniel Brandt, we banish you, you are cast from our sight, you are An Enemy Of The Project, all see what is done to those who transgress". But, step back for a minute. He doesn't care. And it's not going to change his behavior. Plus, if he does want to do editing, he'll use an IP, and hence every related discussion will have sockpuppet-theatre as IP's are accused of being him. Frankly, in my view, you're far better off just letting these little incidents pass, because: 1) This stuff looks really petty from the outside, and 2) As a practical matter, it's far better having him do any discussion-edits under his own identified name. That's my advice, given with full awareness that I'm a cultural outside, so it may not be welcome. -- Seth Finkelstein 00:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Seth Finkelstein, your position makes sense if the Brandt case is viewed in isolation. But wikipedia community choices create precedent/pattern/habit in that with our agreed on choices we inform both ourselves and others what is acceptable and what are to be the consequences. For example, Jeff Merkey has responded to an arbcom case concerning him by threatening to sue the foundation and each arbcom member. We can not allow content choices to in the end be decided by whoever threatens the most or the loudest. WAS 4.250 14:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no other option. Kudos to Durova for staying the course on this one, in the face of things, and my recommendation is to indef. Folks, people should not compel other people to do things that are not right, off or on wiki in references to the project. Navou banter 00:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Seth, Brandt isn't like to edit anonymously as that would be akin to taking away the wood he used to erect his cross. It's hard to be a martyr in anonymity. •Jim62sch• 16:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Daniel Brandt has acknowledged his awareness of these developments by adding me to his Hive Mind page. He's made no response to my offer to accept an e-mail rebuttal. Actions speak louder than words. I'm heading over to Wikipedia talk:Banning policy to propose an amendment about coercion. Anyone from this discussion is welcome to join me. DurovaCharge! 00:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Awwww, he likes me too! Of course, given that I use my picture on my userpage and my real name on the mailing list, I don't know what he was trying to out about me. All the same, it's the thought that counts, so I fully endorse the block. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Well done, Durova. You've absolutely done the right thing. --Deskana (banana) 01:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the sentiment of support, Deskana, but please refactor the expression of it. I have no desire to fan the flames, just check the validity of my actions and update policy appropriately. DurovaCharge! 01:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I changed it a bit. --Deskana (banana) 01:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. DurovaCharge! 02:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin

This arbitration case is closed and the decision has been published at the above link. Miskin (talk · contribs) is cautioned to gain a consensus on article talk pages before making further edits if his first edits are reverted. Swatjester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is advised to take into account the length of time between previous blocks when blocking users, and to treat all editors violating the three-revert rule fairly. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 13:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Doc aberdeen talk page vandalism

I just indefinitely blocked Doc aberdeen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), based on his vandalism to my user talk page [28] [29] [30] and to NeilN's talk page [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44], et cetera. I'm sure the block was justified, but I'd like to doublecheck, and I'm wondering if there's some way we can put a size limit on divs to prevent this kind of vandalism (which relies on huge divs, see example: [45]), which on my browser, at least, was debilitating to the page (I rolled back by manually selecting the url of my talk page's history, because the diff was overloaded). What can we do to prevent this tactic being used in the future? I recommend that bot operators of anti-vandal bots add this type of vandalism to bots' blacklists. Nihiltres(t.l) 16:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Help for a newbie admin, please

Resolved: situation clarified; page reverted back--Kubigula (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a request at WP:RFPP earlier today for help with the article Apartheid Wall, where there is an edit war going on over where the article should redirect to. The result of an recent AfD on the subject was that it should redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier. Given the edit war going on, I went with consensus, redirected it to Israeli West Bank barrer and fully protected it for 7 days.

I then received a note [46] from User:Jayjg saying I had abused my admin powers. Note that I do not, and have never, edited articles on this subject - I merely went with what the consensus was. I've put the protection down to semi for the time being, but was a bit put out by an accusation like that on my first day of adminship. Comments and help gratefully received. ELIMINATORJR TALK 18:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You are in the right, here. Don't let such things discourage you. Issues regarding the Isreaeli/Palestinian conflict are fraught with bad editors, so not wading into them until you're more sure of yourself might be a good idea. --Eyrian 18:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:AGF needs to apply to admins too, I hate to see people being threatened like they were when there actions were most certainly do not show nefarious intent. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh don't worry, I've always kept away from the issue and had I not believed there was community consensus I'd have left it for someone else. ELIMINATORJR TALK 18:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Have you tried talking to Jayjg about it? It seems like they just made a mistake in ignorance ... your action was perfectly reasonable, but might appear sketchy to someone without all the facts. WilyD 18:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I left a note on his talk page. ELIMINATORJR TALK 18:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Jay doesn't exactly seem like a neutral party, here. Unless I'm missing something, a threat of that nature seems awfully premature, and actually concerns me more than any question of whether the protection was appropriate. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've only just noticed that the AfD was in June 2006, not 2007. It's still being referred to in the most recent edit-warring, though. ELIMINATORJR TALK 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The page history shows you did not make any edits prior to the protection of it, dont let this person get you down as you've done nothing wrong, I think he should have checked his facts before accusing you. Regards, — Rlest (formerly Qst) 19:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to being an admin EliminatorJR... didn't they tell you when they sysop'd you that you are always wrong no matter what you do? Seriously though, I don't see anything inappropriate about your actions and you explained your rationale clearly and concisely. Jayjg would appear to have something of an interest in this article... In the future, just point them to m:The Wrong Version; because it always is the wrong version.--Isotope23 talk 19:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Except that he deliberately changed it to the version he wanted first. Jayjg (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
He changed it to the consensus version sanctioned by the AfD. --Eyrian 03:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
He changed it to one of the contested version in an edit war. He took sides. See also the comment below regarding what was "sanctioned" by the AfD. Jayjg (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg - I believe you thought he was taking sides when you posted your comment on his talk page, but I'm disheartened to see you repeat that after reading his explanation here. It seems beyond question to me that EliminatorJR was trying to implement the AfD resolution, which he apparently thought was a lot more recent than it actually was.--Kubigula (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I've had similar problems form Jayjg when it comes to Jewish related articles. Not to harp on him - he's a good admin, but he needs to stop. The Evil Spartan 20:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
"Similar problems"? I've stated that you abused admin tools? Jayjg (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
If this is a pattern, there are remediations available, either via discussion or even a request for comment. - CHAIRBOY () 21:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
To go back to the issue that touched it off, I think the concern was that EliminatorJR redirected it himself, then protected it. Let me be clear that a) I think EliminatorJR correctly interpreted consensus, as based on the prior AfD, as to where this redirect should point, and b) this is not "admin abuse" but clearly a good-faith action. That said, when full protection is necessary, items are usually protected in whatever state they happen to be in, regardless of its "correctness" (the only exception being BLP issues). The fact that EliminatorJR redirected the page himself, then immediately protected it, is what raised eyebrows. Though he was clearly acting in good faith, that approach (of protecting the "preferred" version) has been used abusively by other admins in the past. Jumping all over EliminatorJR with the abuse charge was hasty, but it's all part of being a new admin, as Isotope23 said; I've done worse, I'm sure. MastCell Talk 21:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, everyone. I'm sure it's all part of the learning process :) ELIMINATORJR TALK 01:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
User:MastCell is correct regarding the issue. In addition, the AfD in question was ancient, and many of the conditions surrounding it have since changed; for example, the material that was supposed to be merged from that article into Israeli West Bank barrier is now actually in Allegations of Israeli apartheid, hence the concern regarding the re-direct. Also, an editor on the Talk: page had proposed a compromise, which EliminatorJR reverted before protecting. Jayjg (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You cannot take sides if you did not know that the factions existed. —Kurykh 03:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he should have investigated the issues more thoroughly before acting, then. Jayjg (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Then perhaps you should not be accusing him of nefarious intent (or what you seem to be saying)? Or did I interpret incorrectly? —Kurykh 04:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't accuse him of nefarious intent; please review the discussion above for more detail. Jayjg (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I know that the words themselves were not stated, but it does seem like an issue of assumption of bad faith. Or perhaps your reply to MastCell negated that. —Kurykh 04:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't back down just because an established admin jumps down your throat. Make your case and let the people decide. They're quite good at it when you give them a chance. --Hemlock Martinis 04:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The current edit war started with the edit 19:04, 5 July 2007 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) (46 bytes) (fixed) . Before that, we had a fragile compromise which had been a de-facto consensus for a few months. EliminatorJR was making an honest attempt to stop an edit war. If Jayjg (talk · contribs) is unhappy with that effort, dispute resolution is appropriate. Threats are not. --John Nagle 04:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to say, that at first I was sympathetic to EliminatorJR's description of his plight, but having scratched beneath the surface, there's a little more to EliminatorJR's interest in the topic than his discription here would lead us to believe, and that the reality of the situation aligns more with Jayjg's depiction of events and EliminatorJR's. I support Jayjg's caution to EliminatorJR on those grounds, and on the fact his description of his interest in the topic is less than complete. FeloniousMonk 04:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Supporting evidence? I'm curious to see what you found, if it sheds light on the tone of Jayjg's message. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've looked through my contributions and can't see any evidence of that, unless you count a Keep vote four months ago on the AfD for Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, which was completely based on policy rather than opinion. ELIMINATORJR TALK 11:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

EliminatorJR, welcome to being an admin. The fact that you've never touched articles on the subject doesn't mean that you don't have bias: we all do. We should not mix editing with admining, unless we deal with a disruption. In this case you have mixed these two functions, and IMO Jayjg warned you properly. As can be seen from talk, this is one the most contentious and polarizing corners of WP. Everyone is bound to make honest mistakes once in a while, and AGF works both all ways. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Eliminator, the problem is that you redirected to a title of your choice, then protected. The AfD was over a year ago, and in any event, AfDs can't decide on redirects: they decide whether a title should be deleted or kept, nothing more, no matter what the participants say. If it's kept, it's up to the editors on the page to decide what to do with it. In future, if you want to protect to stop an edit war, it's best to protect on whichever version you find it, unless there are BLP or similar problems, or a 3RR violation. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say that if an AfD with broad participation on a controversial article reaches consensus to keep with a specific redirect, then, generally speaking, that consensus should be respected and not undone without prior discussion. So, if the AfD had been in June 2007 (as Eliminator apparently thought, and I certainly assume he is being truthful), I would conclude his actions were appropriate. Given that the AfD was actually over a year old, the consensus there clearly carries less weight and Eliminator's reversion and protection is more questionable. Thus, I think it was appropriate for Jayjg to question the actions. So, I'm personally comfortable that both parties were acting in good faith, and I hope they have now come to the same conclusion. Speak up if you don't think we can mark this as resolved.--Kubigula (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
That way, you always ensure that you protect The Wrong Version (tm) and people can engage in dialogue instead of edit warring. --Haemo 06:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: after reviewing the history more thoroughly, I have reverted back to the compromise version that existed yesterday. I will leave the decision on whether to protect that version to someone else. Someone may also wish to look at Apartheid Wall (note different capitalisation) which points to the West Bank barrier article.ELIMINATORJR TALK 11:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This may be resolved, but I want to point out that I feel Eliminator has exhibited extraordinary amounts of common sense in that he engaged in dialogue reviewing his actions here, maintained good faith, took the advice, support and criticism he was given, and made the necessary changes, admitting that he made a mistake. (actually, admitting it twice, once with the revert, and once noting that he thought the AFD was recent). I find that quite encouraging. SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s admin bot went on a protection spree in February..

Resolved: WP:BOTREQ#Automatically adding protection templates is an adequate solution-- 21:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

..but it never added protection tags to any of the hundreds of articles it indefinitely sprotected. Could somebody remedy this?-- 21:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you talked with him and can you offer some kind of diff? JodyB yak, yak, yak 21:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
His talk page has always been sprotected, there's no way to talk with him. His protection log shows pretty clearly that while his bot is capable of automated protections, it's not capable of adding protection tags. It's been so long since anyone's tried to alter curpsbot source code that there's probably no way for his bot to modified to add protection tags. Maybe if a second bot were commissioned to add protection tags to protected articles that might slove the problem-- 21:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I think there's a proposal for that at WP:BOTREQ#Automatically adding protection templates right now. Flyguy649 talk contribs 21:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you shouldn't be allowed to semi-protect your talk page, same should go for the talk page of a protected article, in my opinion. Jackaranga 22:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
This is going off on a tangent, but there certainly are valid reasons for semiprotecting one's talk page. Mine used to be hit by a AOL-using vandal who kept replacing it with a vandalized version of my user page (after I'd protected that). My solution was to semiprotect my talk page, create an unprotected subpage, transclude it onto my talk page and direct anons and newbies there. That way, everyone could still communicate with me, yet, even if the vandal had hit the subpage, the damage would've been limited. Eventually, the vandal got bored and I unprotected my talk page again. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I asked him about this in April, when I was tagging dozens of anon talk pages with {{pp-semi-usertalk}}, but I never got a response. GracenotesT § 21:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Improper image use

Resolved Resolvedproper tag/rationale added ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:LittleGamersComic.jpg Shows as being in the public domain, which I find extremely unlikely given the copyright notice on the comic, the page, and the "Don't steal this shit" comment also on the page. I'm not sure if this should be deleted and/or replaced, or just have the tag on the image changed, though, which is why I brought it here. --Lie! 00:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi ban enacted

Per the discussion at the CSN, Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs) has been banned from the project. Notice has been left on his user_talk as well as by e-mail, and his block has been extended to indefinite. - CHAIRBOY () 18:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Coincidentally, he's just been banned on too. Since his two main editing outlets have been shut down, I'd expect to see a lot of IP socks. Hopefully that won't be the case, but that's been his pattern in the past. pschemp | talk 22:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ban on a certain user of an open proxy

There is someone who has something against Firefox who had been operating out of (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). He has since been using TOR proxies and sleeper accounts to attack my block of the hosting range that the initial proxy was on (a /20), and then has been editwarring with me on Mozilla Firefox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Talk:Mozilla Firefox (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs). I don't know if it's possible to consider an individual only identifiable from what proxy they had originally been using, but at this point, it's easier to treat this guy with WP:BAN and WP:RBI rather than continue the sockpuppetry after I block the TOR nodes and sleepers. Comments, assistance, etc.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

To cite one of the current thread on WP:ANI: "What part of "This is a content dispute" do you not understand?"? Your protection of talk page of Mozilla Firefox and your persistent removal of civil dispute about relevant external link was totally immature and completely unnecessary. 22:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and yes, I noticed that you've "archived" thread in question. Smart trick indeed, you are very talented player in Wikipedia game, but it was wrong, it should stay, because there was unanswered question there. 22:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I will appreciate it if you do not misquote me. —Kurykh 22:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Amazingly, this TOR node user is the man just who I was talking about.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
You mean the IP user, not me. —Kurykh 22:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
But the real question is, barring further disruption by the IP user, is a ban possible?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh man, not again. Hasn't it been established that this fails WP:EL six ways from Sunday? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Please, tell me, what is the reason for current full protection of Mozilla Firefox? Check history... Hint: it is completely unrelated with firefoxmyths. Some friend of Ryu has protected it, because some person was doing sth against Ryu (blockable/bannable offence, regardless of merits, because Ryu is always right, no?). 00:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for revealing a new open proxy.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If it is a content dispute probably better to leave the blocking to someone else, as you stated "edit warring" with you. Regards, Navou banter 00:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Additionally, just because someone uses a TOR NODE, does not mean they are banned, or a bad user... unless the edits themselves prove to otherwise. Folks are permitted to edit from open proxys untill those proxys are blocked. Regards, Navou banter 00:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No, I would have a hard time supporting a ban in this context. Regards, Navou banter 00:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
But, it is obvious that they are open proxies and TOR nodes as well as obvious sockpuppetry, that is why I am doing the blocking.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
So there is no ban in this context? I understand that people can use proxies until we discover that they are proxies, but what if they continue to abuse process and editting after that initial proxy block with other proxies, and they are easily identifiable as being the same individual?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If they like, they can jump from proxy to proxy, and we only block, no reversion, just block. The policy is "Open or anonymising proxies may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked...". Proxy use in itself is not abusive editing, even if it is the same user. A content dispute alone does not equate abusive or disruptive editing when proxys are used. Additionally, lets ensure we are not blocking non static IP's indef.
  • On another note, sockpuppetry that is abusive if in violation of WP:SOCK.

Regards, Navou banter 01:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You are not answering my question... Can I consider the individual who is abusively editting and using proxies to do so banned?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't really answer it, in this context. Could you post differential edits to support this? Perhaps post at WP:CSN. Navou banter 03:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't wnat to use the votes for banning.
Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I won't support a siteban based on those differentials. Just those diffs alone, looks like a content dispute. Maybe some socks, but I won't comment too much without investigating myself. Sorry. Navou banter 03:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


I just blocked Wired076 for 24 hours for repeated spam, and recreation of deleted spam, and putting spam on other articles. Carlossuarez46 05:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You could give him a username hardblock, for advertising. I tried to report him at WP:UAA, but the bot keeps reverting me saying he is already blocked, even though I am asking for a hardblock not just a one day block. Jackaranga 14:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone else did it. Jackaranga 14:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Username blocked per WP:U#PROMOTIONAL. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Today's POTD

Somebody needs to fix Image:Hawaii turtle 2.JPG. While the Green Turtles are funny, I don't think it's the right picture to use UnfriendlyFire 06:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Today's POTD is about salt mounds, not turtles. The green turtle picture in in the DYK section, and there's nothing remotely funny about it at all. --Kurykh 06:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Try clicking on the turtle picture. Someone's playing silly buggers over at commons. Leithp 07:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
There's a persistent Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles troll on Commons. I uploaded a copy of the correct image here at en:. Prolog 07:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
That commons account links to Gemberling (talk · contribs). TMNT are still showing as the commons preview image, could a commons admin delete the vandalized revisions? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Done. —David Levy 07:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Permanently semi-protecting date articles

There was a discussion on this at the village pump, which a read through indicates a rough consensus supporting at least a trial period for the idea. I thought I'd test the water here, see what people think. Hiding Talk 14:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Which of the criteria for full protection in the protection policy would justify this?