Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

 Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Pay-per-edit?

[1] Just dropping a note. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hiring an independent source to repair inaccuracies seems like a fine way to avoid conflict of interest, if that was really the deal. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo has stated, and I agree, that this is a very unethical practice. It should be discouraged. Very strongly. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Jimbo said it then that is another matter... HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I quote:

“ Any potential customers of MyWikiBiz are warned that paying someone to write an article for Wikipedia is very strongly frowned upon by the community. Policy in this area is still evolving, because we have recently come to understand how serious this problem can be. I personally strongly recommend against hiring MyWikiBiz or any similar "consultants" to help you get a listing in Wikipedia. This is counterproductive and unethical.--Jimbo Wales 04:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC) ”

Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jimbo. The whole point of Wikipedia is that we are all volunteers, who are in this just for the love of it. We have no vested interests in this project, we have nothing to gain and nothing to lose (besides an off-wiki life ;). Paying someone to edit Wikipedia for you is absurd. Besides, wouldn't this make the blogger Microsoft's meatpuppet? And I don't think hiring meatpuppets will circumvent WP:COI. Aecis^Bravado 00:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea of hiring an independent source is common but inherently ridiculous. You're not independent of someone if you get paid by them. Again, if you have a problem with your Wikipedia article (or another article you have a conflict of interest in), post to talk, but don't try to edit it yourself. Superm401 - Talk 19:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Boy, I thought Guy was joking last week about not getting paid. You other sysops aren't getting the anonymous deposit of $5,000 (USD) from a numbered Cayman Island account each month? Teke ^(talk) 01:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• I knew there was more to it when I didn't pass my RFA last week... so who got the extra cash? AH! HA! It was you wasn't it? (eyes turning left ... then right) Seriously though, what would be wrong, if considering I am a notable enough subject, WP:V, WP:NOR, etc... lets say Phil McNeely. And I wanted to pay a student to make sure my article was well balanced per wiki policy... or even to start an article on my bio. Perhaps, he may even defended the article on my bio from being edited or having information that may be libelious and negative to not only my political campaign but my life as well. If someone can obviously argue his way through the system, such as lawyers often does for their DUI clients, then I see no reason why we (an experienced wikipedian) can't be payed. Perhaps my hidden skills as an expert writer, lawyer, or something else will help propogate my POV. Perhaps a real paid lawyer could give me a fair representation during my debates. Perhaps a well experience wikipedian will know how to contour the rules in this persons favour. Remember every article is full of POVs (see the quote on my user page). I'm not saying we should keep the information, but if Microsoft wants to spend 10'000 $ during the launch of Windows Vista to make sure that certain POV are well sourced and properly reference as per wikipolicy, I'll make sure to argue it the best I can per my knowlege and experience in advocacy at AMA and as per my education. Jimbos opinion is exactly the same as mine. It's one man's opinion. --CyclePat 02:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

P.s.: It's funny you quote WP:COI. That "guideline" says "avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors;" however as an independant contractor writing for an organisation, technically, I would not be related to the company. I obviously wouldn't be arms lenght but technically, I wouldn't be editing an article related to my organization. --CyclePat 02:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Letter vs. spirit. —bbatsell ¿? 02:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

First, we don't let subjects of articles decide they're notable; that's vanity. Someone you pay to edit is not going to be inclined to make the article POV, even if they say otherwise. If they're trying to stop the article from being deleted, that's yet another conflict of interest. Just because you know how to game the system doesn't mean we have to let you. And no, you don't get to wikilawyer either. Finally, to state the obvious: The authority of the Wikipedia founder (a current Wikimedia Foundation board member) is not equal to that of a regular editor. Superm401 - Talk 23:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• People who take advocacy as you do make me question my membership in the AMA. What part of unethical is hard to get your mind around? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • LOL, Well... where do I start.... (self referene back to my above comment? nah). Well, in general, being a prosecutor (attacking), I think, doesn't require much imagination, but being a defence lawyers requires a lot more imagination. ie.: He might have been here, he migth have been there, we could done this instead, the wikirule might have meant this, etc... (oops! Advocates aren't lawyers that's true.) Anyways, being an advocate is about the same because you are somewhate making a choice to defend the other side, all while remaining still technically being honest and ethical. However, again, it always requires, a lot more imagination to defend someone. "There is always another way of seeing things or the possibility of another solution to what is being alleged." Surely, and I mean this as a compliment, your little train that could still has some imagination to remain an advocate and undestand that there is really nothing unethetical about arguing other possibilities!!! How else would we protect the right of the trully innocent wikipedians! ;) (smiles) (Don't worry, like the Bernado case, a good defense lawyer eventually releases even incriminating videos) p.s.: good one Bbatsell! --CyclePat 03:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A few things here.

• COI is a guideline, and has next to no teeth. (All it says is try to avoid them)
• The whole point of Wikipedia isn't about the "love of it", but is about writing an encyclopedia.
• I thought the whole treatment of the MyWikiBiz scenario was an absolute farce, and involved drawing up some of the worst guidelines ever. (It involved the paid party writing articles off wiki for other unrelated users to copy over, which pretty much meant in was incredibly hard to trace compared to say drawing up articles in the userspace or AFC)
• I have no qualms over Wikipedia:Reward board.
• I believe that you can be paid to write something an still maintain a neutral encyclopedic stance, even if you are being paid by an involved party.
• I believe that if we maintain a high level of accountability of paid-edits they can be beneficial to Wikipedia. And a lot less damaging than the hordes of drive by vanity anon spam that we get.
• Having your firm/services connected to the use of a paid-editor is a hell of a lot less damaging for your publicity than having crap erroneous articles about your firm/services.

hahnchen 02:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

For a similar situation, see the Arch Coal DRV. - hahnchen 02:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see paying someone to write an article about your buisness to be any better or worse than doing it yourself. If you are notable enough and its not written like an advert noone will ever know and it will probablly stick. Otherwise you will have wasted your money and possiblly caused yourself other problems (like seeing the deletion debate for your article as the first result for a google search on your name). Plugwash 02:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't quite agree with Jimbo's stance on this. While I understand somewhat his opposition to the MyWikiBiz, and even agree with it partially, this is somewhat different IMHO. Microsoft appear to have down this in a fairly resonably way, approaching a blogger who I presume was considered fair and neutral, not someone who wrote about Microsoft the best company in the world all the time. Their conditions clearly didn't require any level of performance and as this blogger wasn't running a business, it seems far less likely they would care much whether they kept their hirer happy. Indeed, as a blogger with a reputation to keep, it would seem not that likely IMHO. Definitely it's far better then the goodness knows how many companies who have employees doing it on company time. Perhaps MS should have done this via the Wikipedia:Bounty board or Wikipedia:Reward board and gone for FA or something 203.109.240.93 17:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, this story has reached the front page of cnn.com, so it seems to be getting a lot of attention... ATren 18:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if someone wants to pay me $5,000 to put what they want in articles, as long as they can give me a reliable source, I will happily do so. HEck, it doesn't even have to be reliable. Or be a source. Just give me money, please. Proto::► 21:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't this already get taken care of? Geo. 20:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've considered asking a client of ours at work if they'd like me to more actively maintain their article (right now I just keep it from being vandalized) as part of our usual services we do for them. I don't see an automatic COI, as long as a NPOV is being maintained (and I don't see that as a mutually exclusive concept). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

All points of view should be represented in the article. I am not sure why a commercial interest shouldn't be able to contribute to an article, as long as they don't prevent others from expressing different views. The problem is when a commercially motivated editor camps on an article. If somebody does a PR/SEO job, it's very easy to spot, tag and clean up. I think it's better to welcome and educate such editors, rather than persecuting them. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

JuJube's annoyances

This user (Danny Lilithborne (now JuJube)) has to be stopped. A long time ago, we were having a long argument about heights and weights of Street Fighter-characters. There are many different versions of the heights and weights of these characters. Now JuJube has removed these Heights and Weights because this is too difficult to verify. Other users have asked him why the heights of these characters have been removed and JuJube blames me and says that these things have been removed because of my "constantly editwarrings". But to me, he said that the heights have been removed because this is too difficult to verify. Well, JuJube harasses me and I'm afraid that if other users would add the heights and weights to these Street Fighter Characters that JuJube would blame ma again and I'm also afraid that he would add a sockpuppet-shield to those users who would add the heights. And these problems are very frustrating for me. Please do something against JuJube and I'll be very happy. Thanks. Sergeant Gerzi 11:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• About my old username. Well worked under the username [2] and then I've created a new account because it was too difficult to understand the "changing username" link because I'm from a foreign country and my English is not very well. Well, I've created a new account because my old username is a name of an existing character and everytime when I type my old username into the google-web machine, my contributions also appear and also JuJube's sentences about my old username also appear. Please don't forget to tell JuJube that he should use my current username in any cases. Well, I've left you a comment because JuJube has to be stopped, as I mentioned. Sergeant Gerzi 11:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm also helpless and I can't defend myself against JuJube because I'm from a foreign country and my English is not well. So I ask you to help. Sergeant Gerzi 11:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• JuJube has been here a long time and he has a point about the difficulty of verifying these figures. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Height and weights doesn't seem to be verifiable. I agree with JuJube on this one issue. Savidan 04:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

They're often in game or in manuals. Similar to TV plot summaries, can't you just reference those?-137.222.10.67 20:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if they are verifiable, they're ultimately unimportant (and address the character in a decidedly in-universe fashion). We got rid of them in the Mortal Kombat articles a while back, and they're all the better for it (they were often at the center of mild edit wars). EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And guess who started many of those edit wars? In any case, I already addressed this at WP:ANI, so as frivolous as it was then, it's even more so to do it again here. JuJube 07:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else see this as a possible misuse of the userspace?

User:A Study of Wikipedia appears to be soliciting interviews on his/her userpage and Helpdesk. I have not contacted the user yet; just wanted to see what the general thought on this was first. To me this is pretty clearly against WP:NOT#WEBSPACE.--Isotope23 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, everything this person is doing is about wikipedia so I'd be inclined to leave 'em alone. Besides, I wouldn't want to guess how it would impact the book if they got booted. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen surveys, and polls done on Userpages before rather successfully, and personally I don't see any issue with it, nor can I think of any better way(off the top of my head) to get interviews of Wikipedians. It may be in some measure against policy, but I'd leave it. Canadian-Bacon 20:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the argument is that it doesn't further the goal of building an Encyclopedia. I disagree with that sentiment... I think both public relations and research both have a indirect but real effect in furthering our goal. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In principle, I think it's a bit of crystal-ballism to say that this will further the goal of building an Encyclopedia; it might... or it might be an absolute smear job (or it might just be something that never goes anywhere). That said, I don't have any plans to start unilaterally hassling the editor over this.--Isotope23 20:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That's very true... but if its going to be a smear-job then I'm not sure why they would even bother with a survey. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it could possibly be defamatory, but unfortunately I doubt we have a way to figure this out beforehand. I however, am still willing to AGF on this case. Canadian-Bacon 20:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am strongly against using Wikipedia for commercial interests -137.222.10.67 20:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed Crud3w4re 06:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• I don't see this as mis-use (or at least not serious enough to hassle the user about it). It was claimed this is "not part of building the encyclopedia", yet it might well be part of building it up in the long term. Regardless, I don't see there being a high level of harm being caused by this or even a significant possibility of harm existing. Mathmo ^Talk 06:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• What your user page is not states that a user page is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion. User page states that Wikipedia provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in the project. Webspace provides that user pages may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. Review: User:A Study of Wikipedia appears to have plans to utilize user space to solicit and store content (editor opinions) for a commercial enterprise (the book). Wikipedia's user space seems to make collaboration for the commercial enterprise easier by facilitate communication among participants in the book. This internal spamming, self-promotion, and lack of project/encyclopedia purpose seems to be at odds with What your user page is not and Wikipedia:User page. Oddly, the information proposed to be collected and stored would seem to have some relevance to working on the encyclopedia (were it to be use for that purpose) as indicated by Webspace. By posting at Help desk, the person behind User:A Study of Wikipedia seems to be proceeding cautiously and sincerely in requesting assistance to accomplish their commercial goal without violating Wikipedia policy. -- Jreferee 18:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy and Ludvikus

A request for a community ban on Ludvikus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was posted on WP:AN on 24 January, due to a strong view from editors and sysops that "the community's patience is exhausted" (WP:BAN). It was suspended [3] when I was asked to mediate the matter and "attempt a reconciliation" last week. I am concerned that even after just a week, I feel there may be strong evidence that the views of the complaining editors seem plausibly founded, and that this user may be pivotal to amicably resolving the matter.

I would like to present the information I've noted in this last week, for evaluation and comments now that I've been mediating a week on it. If feedback is not greatly adverse to Ludvikus I shall continue working as at present. But I need to clarify that aspect before spending further time, especially as one of the cites appears to show clear wilful intent, scant regard for the project's aims, and possible view to wikilawyer.

I have included DIFFs for matters I myself have seen. I have not included any diffs that others might make if it was taken further. For now, as a mediator, I would simply like independent WP:AN feedback on the posts that I have seen this last week. I would also like to check whether the evidence tends to support a view that "the community's patience is exhausted", as some have suggested, and whether editor concerns over Ludvikus should be addressed before progressing further. Many thanks for any insight and opinions.

Link to cites: User:FT2/Evidence pages/Philosophy. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There can be no doubt that there is a consensus for a community ban amongst the editors of the Philosophy article. The only question here is, is that sufficient to ban someone from the Wiki? That is, as I asked before: For the purposes of a community ban, what counts as "a handful of admins or users"? I am of the opinion that in this case there is sufficient evidence of mischief for a ban to be enacted. Banno 01:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ here, there may be some consensus but it is not a strong one and comes only from one "edit war" to which many of the "ban" editors were drawn in by their friends. So it is not widespread and is largely from a certain bunch of editors who contacted one another about the same edit-war. This handfull of editors were involved in this edit-war and disputes were fairly drawn out but not totally unreasonable, but this edit-war ended a number of days now. Nor had he disturbed much the actual articles. Now I witnessed the whole thing and if someone started being nasty or using bad language etc. it was not Ludvikus. Now different people react to such provocations in many ways, his reaction was perhaps strong but I cannot say he has not changed nor that he may be a young or inexperienced user. To not give fair warning on this matter I believe is not inline with wiki policy, and the "community ban," which I never heard of before, came out of nowhere and is largely post-factum. Also I notice the evidence gathering may be biased against him. It was these other editors who started using foul language and strong insults, Ludvikus just started reflecting them back many-fold. I also think the litigation thing is a red herring, there really were many editors drawn in and taking cheap shots at him. -- Lucas (Talk) 03:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

After looking over the evidence (and this edit particular), I feel a ban is in order. The user's conduct is appalling, and is of negative value to Wikipedia (sorry, I realise that's very utilitarian). That being said, I would urge you to consider removing the 'behavioural analysis' section, which is not helpful - diagnosis by proxy of the user's psychological state is wildly inappropriate. The editing speaks for itself. Proto::► 09:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

While I only have a minor background in philosophy (arg, looking back I didn't mean that as a pun), I get the feeling that I should link to this page in case I should ever want to write a textbook on disruptive editing. Vague legal threats, mentions of 'fisticuffs', persistent and admitted incivility (even if the admission was for a retaliatory portion), as well as the content edits themselves... When it actually becomes more brief to mention the types of problematic editing user isn't engaging in, and the behavior doesn't change and has a noticeable and pressing harmful impact, what really remains as a question? Bitnine 17:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The above user has come on board of Wikipedia on January 21, 2007:

    Yup, I'm a fairly new user.  That being said, while it may bar me from a level of familiarity
    with certain practices and workings, it certainly doesn't mean
    I have to act like a new user.
    Also, I don't usually fill out user pages due to laziness.
    Let's see if this here's an exception...
    * I have the ability to keep my cool when discussing things on the internets.
    Apparently that's something akin to a superpower, from what I've observed.
    ...apparently not so much. 

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 20:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not that complex of a matter. Responding to disagreements or even incivility with combativeness and mounting incivility is wholly inappropriate and disruptive. The actions of other editors might in cases serve somewhat as a mitigation, but never a justification. And actions an editor would take "on the street" are entirely irrelevant. I'm also unsure that showing that you find the above appropriate is something that you really want to announce, particularly given the nature of this section. Bitnine 00:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue is quite simple really. Two administrators, who control the Philosophy page, and other pages, for content, maintain that it is Wikipedia Policy to rate an Editor on the Bristol Stool Chart. Administrator User:Mel Etitis has rated me to be between a 6 and a 7. Apparently, the Community to which he belongs suports this Rating System. Administrator User:Banno also suppots this rating system, and has failed, repeatedly to take appropriate action. I have asked Mel for an apology, but he has not yet done so. It seems clear to me that he has such a great reputation at Wikipedia, that he can tream me as shit'. If this community fails to take the appropriate action against those who condone such disgusting behavior I do not, and will nor, have anything to do with Wikipedia in this vulgar and primitive stage. It is funny how my remarks are being misconstrude. I've effectively said that in the streets of New York, who someone calls you SHIT, you punch him out. But this is Cyberspace. So gentlemen, all I ask is that Mel and Banno apologize to me for the repeated use of said chart. But before you banned, I ask all of you judges, who are now asked to judge me, image yourselves in my predicament. Just click on Mel and Banno's Bristol Stool Chart, and ask yourselve how you would feel if you were so rated? If you allow powerful Administrators, like Mel and Banno, to be that abusive to editors, then I do not want to have anything to do with any of you myself. So why waste anyone's time, just answer my simple question: are these two powerful administrators, Mel and Banno, going to be permitted to indulge in such disruptive behavior? If yes, than out the door I go.

At the same time, if you take the trouble to look, I have listened carefully to FT2 and used all my Wisdom to end the Philosophy Wars. I've even award Barnsters to those of my adversaries with whom I've had honest difference of opinion, but who have not been abusive. I am very curious if it is possible for Wikipedia to be just to me. Banno and Mel have been here a long time. But I'm a new person. So they are very arrogant. They have complete confidence that they shall prevail. And of course, they have many friends at Wikipedia, who will, and are, siding with them.

I have contributed several hundred articles already. And I have never been subjected to such abuse.

My recommendation is that you also consider a Conflict of Issue problem. Mel is Wikipedia's In-house Philosopher. And that's why he wants me banned. It is simple, I know more philosophy than he does - and that's a threat to him. He complains how horrible the Philosophy page is -- all the time -- but he's its ghost writer. --Ludvikus 19:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Having just been involved with User:Ludvikus in the last few hours, I have to agree with the proposal for a community ban. He is continuing to make wild and baseless accusations, attacking anyone he disagrees with in an unacceptable manner. He is currently under a 24 hour block for a fairly serious and utterly baseless personal attack. He is driving good editors away from the Philosophy article and is IMHO a serious impediment to progress on Wikipedia. Gwernol 19:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

In a similar vein, please see this sixty (I think) line message - somewhat disturbing, and signed as Socrates - which I think illustrates why the Philosophy talk page is now essentially deserted. [[4]]KD Tries Again 22:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)KD

The signiture was prefixed with "(Just kidding)", and the link still went to the write userpage. On that one point it is not anything serious at all (then again I'm not saying a zillion other more serious points do exist...). Mathmo ^Talk 06:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Talking of which... with ludvikus now blocked for a week by Gwernol, I've changed your link to a permanent diff, and will now archive the talk:philosophy page to a clean slate. Feel free to unarchive any valuable threads. --Quiddity 01:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

[moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Salted pages]

Add Category to protected template

Template:Context should appear in Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup. It seems to be fully protected. Please add. TonyTheTiger 20:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

In the future, you can just add {{editprotected}} to the talk page. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. TonyTheTiger 23:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

ED discussion page

Could an admin please review this page that I created and decide if this is appropriate content for Wikipedia. I would like to help organize an effort to have lawsuits filed against the owners of Encyclopedia Dramatica for their blatant violations of others' privacy (e.g. posting <an editor>'s e-mail addresses), but I'm not sure that legal discussion such as this is considered appropriate on Wikipedia. Thanks.--Azer Red Si? 01:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely sounds like WP:NLT might cover this. (→Netscott) 01:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this would definitely best be hosted on your own webpage somewhere. Otherwise you're essentially involving the Foundation in your legal effort against their will. Chick Bowen 05:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I normally dislike WP:IAR. However, since ED is trying to ruin the lives of many notable Wikipedians and has succeeded somewhat (e.g. harassing MONGO enough that his good judgment was messed up so he started to overreact and therefore caused him to be relieved of his administrative duties in the Seabhcan arbitration case), this is one of those rare cases where WP:IAR should trump WP:NLT this time. Since that site coordinates attempts to abuse Wikipedia, which could be considered computer crime in a technical sense, Wikipedia should take steps to defend itself. Maybe a police complaint should be filed about ED. Jesse Viviano 00:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't stoop to their level; it would just make Wikipedia look bad. There are people out there with entire forums devoted to whining about Wikipedia and how they're going to sue us some day; they all come off as a bunch of losers. So do we if we do the same thing. If ED is doing something illegal, take appropriate action; otherwise, it's best to just ignore them; they probably crave attention. *Dan T.* 00:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

False Welcome of New Users

User currently using sockpuppet NoobStr (talk · contribs · count) is continuously adding user boxes to user pages that says something to the effect of "this users doesn't mind vandalizing the work of others". He did it earlier under a diffeent user name Tryerlop (talk · contribs · count). The user seems to be doing this by a java script he has added to his monobook. His edit summaries look inoccuous, like welcoming user with {{subst:welcome1}}" and welcoming new user using VandalProof. He is adding around 7 per minute, and it will not be possible for me to keep up with him. HELP! Jerry lavoie 01:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Somebody with access to some really cool tools has cleaned it all up. Makes me wonder how y'all do that... there isn;t even any evidence of it having occurred. It would have taken me hours to undo all that vandalism,, and someone did it in like 20 seconds. THANKS! Jerry lavoie 01:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, I just did a search for that text on user talk pages, to see if there were other incidents of this user box being added. I found only one time: Yuser31415 (talk · contribs · count) added it to page on 24Jan2007. Is this an actual authorized template??? Should Yuser31415 have added that to the users page along with an antagonistic message? It is possible that this pissed-off vandal then copied the user box and contrived this scheme to put it on other new users talk pages. Jerry lavoie 02:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It is possible that the IP in question had created that template and that is why it was placed there. Cbrown1023 02:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been a problem all day. I deleted the original template but the vandal is using the raw code. If the template is recreated it should be deleted on sight. Chick Bowen 02:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted one as well, and blocked one of the users. However, I don't think Jerry is an admin... in that case he should place {{db-t1}} on it. Cbrown1023 02:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, I've missed exactly what the focus of the discussion is, but the userbox I added was found at WP:RCP#Userbox Vandal Templates (removed, I have just noticed, by Drini: [5]). I had absolutely no idea the userboxes were being used in bad faith. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed this before, and reported it here. How on Earth is it reverted so quickly? J Milburn 12:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

More discussion of this at WP:ANI#Welcoming new users as vandals. FreplySpang 11:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a warning to MediaWiki:Clearyourcache(which shows on all .js and .css pages) so that should reduce the amount of people actually copying this or future worms using this method. A couple other admins tweaked it, and one copied it to commons. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

A Man in Black

I am having a continuing issue with user, A Man in Black. He is deleting the image galleries for TV stations, WVBT, WVNS, and WUSA and citing rules WP:FUC #3 and #8, for which these pages are not in violation of. Most of these logos or images have been up for quite awhile. Some, in the case of the WUSA page, are former logos through their WTOP, WDMV, and now WUSA days...which is a along time. I have reverted the pages back to their previous versions, only to have them re-reverted. Have tried responding to A Man in Black to no avail. Assistance and advice would be greatly appericated.

Thanks....SVRTVDude 05:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It is very unlikely that galleries of unfree images meet our Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. It's really up to the user to make such a compelling case for claiming fair use that no reasonable editor would disagree with it. Frankly, even if it was freely licensed content, it is not obvious to me how encyclopedic a gallery of logos would be, but I suppose that a case could be made. Jkelly 05:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

To no avail? I did reply to your comments on my talk page.

To those not familiar, articles about television stations tend to accrue galleries of non-free images of the station's previous logos. There is little to no commentary on these images (so they fail WP:FUC #8), and there's little need to have galleries of as many as two dozen images to identify a single station (so they fail WP:FUC #3).

I have made a practice of removing such galleries, for the last several months. It's just that there are so very many station articles. It's unfortunate that this necessary work amounts to undoing the good-faith work of others, but it is nevertheless necessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a logo or a picture, how much commentary do you need. "Image:XXX was the logo from XXXX to XXXX"...all the commentary necessary. Unless other information is available, then in most cases, it is given...otherwise, that is all ya got.

I personally don't see how it is necessary by taking away images that have to do with the histories of stations. In some cases, logos that can't be readily found elsewhere. If it is unfortunate that you have to undo "the good-faith work of others", then don't do it. There is much more that can be done than taking out a couple logos here and there. SVRTVDude 05:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use requires "critical commentary." This is most preferably done in a history section, where one talks about eras, histories, etc.; see LACMTA and how I intergrated a gallery of 4-5 images into the history section. Fair use is a legal issue and this requires sweeping intervention; this is out of the domain of the regular grinding and slow progress of other issues. Hbdragon88 05:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It might have been a better idea to have instead of just taking it upon himself to axe every gallery with just a curt note saying "rm gallery -- fair use", to have (a) started a discussion at the project page with the concern, and perhaps tried to integrate the images better into the article if the article actually discussed the image. If there was 27 images, you could still go and delete all of the ones that didn't have any mention in the prose of the article -- that's what these discussion pages are for. A Man In Black managed to go about this in a way that could do nothing but provoke people, and the cavalier way he seems to dismiss the concerns that others have don't help any more. I absolutely understand the bind you folks are in with this, but reaching out could have stemmed this ill-will many people have over the removal of the galleries. SterlingNorth 22:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, if it is a legal issue, then how come I can post just about any logo or image I would like on my website (which by the way is a radio and television website) and have no problems what-so-ever. Am just confused...and sadly this is the second time I have come in contact with situation like this and it is slowly making me re-think updating pages and trying my best to provide accurate information and images for a site that obviously doesn't want them. So, if you would please, close this discussion as it is evident (sp) no good will come from it. SVRTVDude 06:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the difference is that your website does not tell people that its content it is freely available for republication like wikipedia does. Your liability on your website ends at the site itself, which you can easily continuously monitor and ensure your use of images does not infringe on the rights of the owner. On wikipedia, since the content is mirrored and included in so many external sites, it is not possible for wikimedia or the editors of wikipedia to police all that external use. Therefore cerefully written image copyright guidelines have been established and are aggressively enforced. Hopefully you can see that this is not an attempt to curtail your good faith edits, but rather to protect the encyclopedia. Jerry lavoie 07:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't that we "don't want them"; it's that copyright law simply prevents us from using and redistributing them without the permission of the copyright holder. Fair use is a very limited exception to copyright law that varies by country. As far as your personal website goes, it's simply that either the copyright holder(s) don't care, or that you're not a big enough target for them to have even noticed. If your website happened to be one of the most visted websites on the Internet, you would have plenty of copyright issues. Fair use does not convey unlimited permission to use the work, or immunity from legal action: see Image:Crosstar.png for one instance. --Slowking Man 09:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• More than happy to support A Man in Black. Galleries of former station idents and logos need critical discussion to be worthy of inclusion under Wikipedia policy. Your website does not operate under Wikipedia policies, but the terms and conditions of your provider most likely limit what you can display. Steve block Talk 00:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See the RFC at Wikipedia:Fair use/Historical logos in galleries and my commentary at its talk page. There is no legal reason why we shouldn't be able to have historical logos in an encyclopedic article about the logo's subject; this is an entirely fair use of these images. When there is no legal issue, Wikipedia policy is supposed to be decided by consensus. And there is no consensus that Wikipedia policy forbids these images in this context. Given that, there is no good reason why these logos should be removed. Although the discussion has failed to reveal a clear consensus, the fact remains that these logos were added by hundreds of editors over the last few years, and now ONE single adminstrator has recently taken it upon himself to delete them all. Where's the consensus? DHowell 21:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

ACQ-Kingdom Broadcasting Network

Hi. I'm looking more for an admin opinion or two than particular action. Sorry to post here, but the involved admin seems to be on an extended break. The question is about ACQ-Kingdom Broadcasting Network, which was recently deleted [6] as part of a 25-article group. Although participation on that mass AfD was sparse, I'm sure most of the deletions were fine. This article though, passed a previous AfD, and I think it accidentally got caught up in the sweep. Should I just let this one go? If not, is there a more casual route to bringing it back than Deletion Review? That seems to be a more dramatic route than I'd like. Thanks, William Pietri 08:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Restored and relisted--seemed like the most straightforward way. I also deleted a couple of ones from the original AfD that had been recreated, but those may show up at WP:DRV eventually. Chick Bowen 05:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a fine way to handle this. William Pietri 19:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure (MFD?)

Would these pages be candidates for MFD? Regards, Navou ^banter 19:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. --Rory096 20:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything there... .V. _[Talk|Email] 23:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Check the logs; they pointed to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Masky/Quests/Quest1Index. James086^Talk 12:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Severe backlog at WP:CFD

WP:CFD still has a severe backlog. 13 pages of discussion still have discussions that need to be closed. The pages extend back to 7 January 2007.

This seems to be a frequent problem at WP:CFD. How can this problem be solved? Dr. Submillimeter 21:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• It can be 'solved' if there were more administrators with the time to do this. Closing CfDs is frequently not easy. When I do it, I need to have 3 windows open so that I can cut and paste to the various places. Then there is the content that has to be reviewed. Sometimes this is not an issue. In other cases the various opinions require the administrator to closely read through the comments and see if they can find some consensus. In one recent case, there was no consensus on a new name, so rather then just close this as no consensus, I closed as no consensus and relisted with a rename vote for the two options hoping for a consensus. In some cases, I simply don't understand the discussion and have to skip it. Also, administrators need to avoid closing discussions that they are involved in unless there is a clear consensus. This sometimes keeps some administrators from closing specific discussions. Vegaswikian 21:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Good points. Can we perhaps change the process to make it easier? The reason I don't close CFDs is because I don't have a bot to do the recatting/decatting. >Radiant< 13:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Same here. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Space Cadet

Searching something on my talk archives, I noticed my exchange with Space Cadet (talk · contribs · count). A click later I was on his userpage. One thing that immediately struck me was his military-like barnstar, along with a Polish description. With my knowledge of Czech, I deduced its meaning to be "For the war of justice and the wounds you have suffered in war (ban)". As this seems to be in reference to the user's frequent disputes about Polish articles, and some ban in relation to them, my question is, is rewarding behaviour contrary to the rules of the Wikipedia allowed? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Try talking to Space Cadet. It's been there since mid-2005 so it probably isn't too bad, but maybe he or she will refactor it voluntarily. Durova^Charge! 17:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Second. Try discussing the issue with the user first before bringing it up here, that's usually a good rule of thumb.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just interested in finding out if it's allowed, before rushing to Space Cadert's page and accusing him of breaking any rules. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What is this all about?

I've been trying to work out what Wikipedia:WikEh?/Home/ is all about. Similar stuff at Wikipedia:WikEh?/MoreStuff/ and Wikipedia:WikEh?/Images/. The WikEh? 'home' page is actually a transclusion of User:Masky/Wikeh/Home. I've already put a note on the user's talk page about the MfD of an unrelated set of his user pages. Could someone else look at this lot and talk to the user and find out what is happening and what should happen here? Thanks. Carcharoth 11:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Somebody might also want to look at the mass of user subpages here: [7] Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This might be tidier. Nothing wrong with having lots of user subpages. It's purely a question of whether they are appropriate and related to work on the encyclopedia. Please, please, please talk to the user before nominating anything for deletion (if anything). I notified the user about an unrelated MfD, as I feel it is courteous to do that. But because of that, anything about this WikEh? stuff might be best coming from someone else. Carcharoth 14:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked at 'whatlinkshere' and found that Wikipedia:WikEh? is hardly linked from anywhere. The only useful place it is linked from is Wikipedia:Searching, and the link was added here by the user who created this 'new' internal search engine. Is this really new? It seems to me to just be an alternative to the search box, but with a very slightly different interface. It is ultimately based on what is at User:Masky/Searchbar1. So does anyone know if this really is new, or just the old search box in a new guise? Carcharoth 15:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yo guys, sorry about hosting WikEh? search engine on my userpage, then redirecting it there. I didn't really expect this to happen. You can delete it if you like. I don't really need it anymore. Masky (Talk | contribs) 20:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand what this talk of a WikEh? search engine is all about. Since it doesn't seem to be linked from anywhere, and the creator doesn't mind it going, I'll MfD the WP namespace page at some point unless someone speedies it first. I'll wait another day in case someone says that this WikEh? thing really is a different search engine, which I doubt. I'll leave the user pages alone (they were transcluded to the WP namespace), as that is useful experience in experimenting with coding. Incidentially, is it frowned upon in general to transclude from the less formal namespaces to the more formal ones (other than template namespace to other namespaces)? Is that similar to not wanting cross namespace redirects? ie. Is transcluding from user namespace to WP or article namespace, or from WP namespace to article space, generally bad practice? Carcharoth 00:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:WikiEh? does exactly the same thing as the normal search function, accessing the same pages, so is serving no real purpose (and has a confusing name). I would suggest speedying it as 'user requests deletion'. Proto::► 13:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Cartoons Controversy

Please remove the cartoons image and links to it.

One can argue on behalf of this artical as: >>The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions, or wikipedia is Secular bla blaa...

Now my comment will be inflamatory but you must degest it for the sake of argument. My comment will not personally insult an administrator but its a general metaphor for a person to give reasons.

If you allow your sister's private parts to be shot by photographers, does that mean It is obligation for me to let it do for my sister? If Christian allow the fetish cartoons and images about The Honored Jesus (PBUH) does that means Muslims must allow the ugly cartoons about their Prophet? (Even Muslims wont like Jesus (PBUH) to be portrayed). A Royal family does not comprise our faith. Faith is something beyond if you really are a Christian you must agree. If people do not mind their cartoons to be made then who allowed cartoonists to make cartoon of every person? How the hell a person make my cartoons and publish in papers without my permission? Its simply violation of my personal possessions and an abuse same as somebody can not print my picture. (there had been many cases of sue for taking and printing pictures) 1 2 3 If many people dont mind their cartoons then why take it as granted for every person of the world to make his cartoons? Just because those people think like this who allowed their own cartoons?

Thanks again for your time. VirtualEye 12:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, it's not going to happen. This has been debated at great length and in the end the view is that Wikipedia is not censored. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• I understand that Wikipedia is not censored. That does not mean an OpenSource website starts to publish the Mircrosoft Windows source code on its website. If Muslims themselves do not want their Sacred Personalites be disgraced then who the hell are others? Just because Wikipedia's moderators and admins are not Muslims, does this make them free to abuse anyone's Faith? Faith is much more sacred than someone's father or mother, yet I would ask: Can I make abuses to your father? or can I publish his evil cartoons or will you mind it?

VirtualEye 13:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As Guy says, this has been debated loudly and for a prolonged time, and the result of the debate was that Wikipedia is not censored by anybody for anybody. And some of our administrators are Muslims - in fact, I think most religions are represented in our admins. Thanks. 〈REDVEЯS〉 13:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

there is always room for debate, even on policy, but this page isn't the right place for that. If you want to discuss policy, you need to present a proposal on Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not; if you want to make a proposal on the layout of the cartoons article, do it at Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. The last poll result is here, concluding in 200:16 against removal. If you have reasonable cause to assume consensus has changed since then, you may suggest doing another poll. If you find consensus is still against your position, you won't be able to do anything about it. dab (𒁳) 14:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate for me to go against consensus and remove those images. You could attempt to influence that consensus if you wish, but it's unlikely you'd succeed at this late date. Durova^Charge! 17:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you all for your attention. I must say, what is a consensus? If some people just capture one person and sell him somewhere, will you listen to them on the basis of majority (Democracy/Poll) or will you look for the ethical possibilities? If 90% people want to abuse remaining 10%. Does it mean that abuse becomes 'OK' on the basis of Democracy, Policy or whatever?

Do you have to follow the ethics too? or just name the dog and kill on the basis of majority? An article on Wikipedia has to be scientifically written if you can call it a scholastic article (Given that the policy of wikipedia is secular then only scientific facts can be digested). While you admins might know better than me that any poll/edit conducted on the internet is never considered scientific but just an idea with and amount of doubt.

The situation of articles on wikipedia is like this: 1- you bring allegations then you ask the victims to disprove with references. 2- When victims say they are very few and dont have enough resources to prove their innocense. 3- You declare them guilty.

Pardon me but I see a lot of bias on many many wikipedia articles. Just because a huge majority of wikipedians are non-Muslims is an evidence in itself to make it a bias. Well, you might not agree with me on this, but I would ask, will a Christian like an Islamic point of view on a topic related to Christianity? NO. Will a Muslim like a Christian point of view on a topic related to Islam? He cant, simply because poll means 'all' here in wikipedia.

Any Christian can add whatever rubbish hugely biased link mongering the hatered against Islam and that is justified. A Muslim can not add a link even under that topic. Just take few examples: 1- Christian terrorism 2- Islamist terrorism

Try to compre the size and comprehenssiveness of both articles. Behold, In the topic Christian terrorism how cleverly a reader is diverted to a very minor example of 'one person' killing 'one other person'. How nice? In all 2 billion Christians in the world, only this stupid example is available? All Christians are pious? while this one murder is the biggest example of terrorism? How about I define the "Islamic extremist terrorism" as the killing of Dr. ABC by some Moron? Will you accept that example in the article? I am 100% sure that the so called majority will not let it place even at the end of article.

Now I give you my last example before you trash my arguments to the basket of wikipeida:

1- A leader of a group named "ABC" Claims whatever major acts he does is actually told to him by God. 2- That group is evident as daylight that it is doing mass murder of people on the basis of lies. 3- That hypocrite group ruins the people in the name of self-interest or democracy while totally forgets about democracy when some dictators help that group to achieve its goals.

Will you let that group cite in the wikipedia's articles related to terrorism?

But just because unfortunately that group called 'ABC' is the same one who certifies any organization to be terrorists, so 'ABC' itself can not be cited as terrorist in wikipedia source, right?

This group leader is Mr. Bush. Ok this is not what I am saying, this is cited here:

• God told me to invade Iraq
• News

I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it. and their lies to the world about Iraq and invading other countries are evident to all except blind.

Will majority of wikipedians accept the acts of 'American Regime' as an example in the articles related to terrorism? NO, because majority rules and not 'POLICY'. Policy can only work to kick out those few people who are aggressively angry upon the hypocrisy.

• Elaborative Example of Hypocrisy

My above points my look as random, but these are just to prove the points:

• Majority rules and minority has no right. (Polls to decide)
• Might is Right.

Thanks to you all for your time in reading my comments. VirtualEye 11:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you've seen the discussion over at the cartoon article - even if this were the right venue (which it isn't) you have not raised any arguments which have not already been raised, discussed and dismissed. I suggest you simply leave the article and don't look at it if it offends you. Guy (Help!) 19:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are on a mission from God then sorry... Wikipedia is not the place for you to edit. As for the drawings maybe you should do as Guy said and stop looking at them. They are, after all, just drawings. MartinDK 20:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is not majority vote − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Guy! No matter my arguments are valid or not, how about I manipulate and publish the pictures of your mother having sex with some pervert? or her drawings? and then I ask you to not look at them? I know this is offensive (Pardon), but you gave very very dumb argument. Your argument is same as I tell someone "if I abuse you openly in public then just close your ears and dont listen but let me abuse you", is this right?

I am not on a mission here, You can be on mission from which source? what is your source of mission? conscience at maximum right? because you chose so. Now do I have the right to be on mission from God, because I chose so? Will you people dictate me which source of inspiration should I chose for any mission? And bye the way, did you even give a damn reading my post or just read first couple of lines and comment on them? VirtualEye 09:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Where do we have pictures of Mohammed having sex with perverts? I don't understand your reasoning here, VirtualEye. If Guy's mother was as notable as he is, we would have a picture of her. yandman 09:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

Reading the Power Rangers: Mystic Force page today (a subject with which i have no especial knowledge, hence my unwillingness to go on a revert spree) I found large quanities of the content deatil appeared to be implausible -- male characters given female names, the characters said to morph together to produce a third, reference to "Gays" -- so large as to make me believe that a vandal atttack may have taken place. Sincerely, Simon Cursitor 13:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was all vandalism. But it's all dealt with by now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Simon Cursitor 09:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible MyWikiBiz-like editor

User Wikimotion (talk · contribs) popped up in the IRC link feed after inserting a link to several koozie-related web sites. The name alone sounds a little suspicious, but nothing is showing up on Google. Any thoughts? Shadow1 (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is definitely looking suspicious to me. At the very least, someone is trying to promote koozie manufacturers. --Cyde Weys 16:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:AFD. Durova^Charge! 17:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Letit22113snow

Could someone have a look at this user, all that the account seems to be for is chatting between two people. They also seem to have multiple accounts for this sort of thing juding from some of the comments in the chat. I left warnings, which they seem to have ignored, and I'm not really sure how I can chase this any further, or if it is appropriate to. If someone could take a look I'd be grateful.

Thanks 212.85.28.67 16:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours.--Isotope23 16:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that they have other simular accounts, don't know if anything can be done about digging those out though. Cheers 212.85.28.67 16:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser could, but I blocked it so they can't create any new accounts and if they log into any accounts they already created from that IP it should block them as well.--Isotope23 17:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:RobJ1981 AGAIN!!

Can an admin please talk some sense into this user before he starts ANOTHER edit war over ANOTHER trivial issue? Henchman 2000 19:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Some diffs would be useful. 〈REDVEЯS〉 20:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivial issue? If you think it's so trivial: leave the article alone. No one forced you to revert the edits about a "trivial" edit to articles. Wikipedia is for everyone to edit, don't contribute to articles if you can't accept changes. (I know there is some guideline that clearly states this a bit better than I just did). I would like to point out: Henchman continues to threaten me by saying "stop or I will have an admin block you from editing". That type of thing isn't good faith: Wikipedia:Assume good faith is a pretty good read. RobJ1981 20:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This is essentially a content dispute not an WP:AN issue and I suggest you guys try dispute resolution. I will also say that reverting on a content dispute and calling it "vandalism" is not a good idea. I will also say that an arbitrarly, incomplete, unsourced list of mini-games probably doesn't belong in the article.--Isotope23 21:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of uncited information doesn't qualify as vandalism. I second the opinion that this is a content dispute. Try WP:RFC or WP:3O and try to keep things calm. More hype of this sort could land you at WP:LAME and that's not a good place to be. Durova^Charge! 22:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Proabivouac passed due date

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Proabivouac was never certified and is quite past the 48 hours allotted for certification. Instructions state that such RfC's should be deleted. Could an admin please look into this. --BostonMA ^talk 20:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

10 days, no certification - vaporized. 〈REDVEЯS〉 21:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

68.88.167.155

Despite being warned several times before, 68.88.167.155 continued to vandalize up until here. I have just reverted everything that was unconstructive from this apparent IP user and I shall double check if I had missed any other pages that were screwed up by him/her. Please block this person for being a dick. Thanks! Power level (Dragon Ball) 22:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, will no one block this person? Power level (Dragon Ball) 03:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not suitable for this page; use WP:AIV instead. Anyways, this user hasn't vandalized past the recent test4. If he does, add the user to AIV. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

subst:irony

Just noticed that {{subst}} (the friendly userpage note reminding people to subst: their templates) still mentions {{test}} rather than the wizzy new {{uw-test1}}. I was about to change it when I saw, irony of ironies, that very very very many pages are using it unsubstituted. Changing it could wreck the servers, I'd imagine. Anyone got a bot handy that would like to subst: {{subst}} so we can change {{subst}} without incurring the problems that subst:ing templates is meant to avoid? 〈REDVEЯS〉 22:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no substitute for good irony. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I just made the edit. Unless a change has occurred in the time between your post and mine, I don't see much of a problem. Many of the pages in what links here just link to Template:Subst rather than use the template unsubstituted. And even still, there are fewer than five hundred pages. -- tariqabjotu 22:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Question about open proxies

I know it's against policy to edit directly from open proxies, but is it against policy to edit with an account over an open proxy?--Azer Red Si? 22:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• As far as I understand open proxies are block on sight. Any editor who finds one shoudl report it and it should immediately be blocked. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

from No open proxies - "Users are prohibited from editing Wikimedia projects through open or anonymous proxies..." --pgk 22:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Tuff luck China. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Monobook

I have recently adopted User:Boswell and he would like to add navagation popups to his monobook, however, there seams to be a problem with it and as I'm not an admin, I can't edit his monobook. Could someone possibly add exactly what is written on my monobook to his monobook? Also, please could you remove what is in his monobook already. Thanks RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for sorting that out, its greatly appreciated RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionomics

It might be that this needs to be procedurally closed since the article is currently subject of an ArbCom case, which wasn't mentioned in the nomination (and probably not know to the nominator). I already participated in the discussion, so someone else, maybe with more ArbCom experience, should look at it. ~ trialsanderrors 23:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I would not mind, if you can show policy to that effect. I could not find it on my own. Also, there is no temporary injunction on the case page preventing changes, deletions to the article. Regards, Navou ^banter 00:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm asking here. I have no idea what the protocol is wrt articles that are under ArbCom review. I hope someone knows, otherwise we probably have to let it run. ~ trialsanderrors 00:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, barring intervention from the arbcom, it may just have to run. I don't know if there is even a precedent for this, but I'll look. Regards, Navou ^banter 01:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I notified one of the editors who voted "Delete" that the article was part of the RfA one full day before the RfD was filed.

Also, the editor who nominated the article for deletion knew of the arbitration case within a few hours of submitting the RfD, and said as much on the main page of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionomics:

"Response to Rgfolsom -- who is, it should be noted, a paid member of the 'Socionomics Institute' … [his] response is cut&paste from an RfA he's involved in…"

I also respectfully ask the administrator to read the nominating editor's comments -- and my remarks under "This AfD is 'out of process'" -- and assess if this AfD was undertaken in a spirit of fair mindedness and respect for the community. Thank you.

--Rgfolsom 01:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like there is no policy or it's so obscure that no one knows about it. So I guess we can close this. And to User:Rgfolsom, I recommend you stop insinuating sinister motives every opportunity you get. ~ trialsanderrors 05:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Process is not a reason to close something by itself. The arguments in the AfD seem to me to be strongly favoring deletion. I'm going to wait a few more hours and if no one else objects or closes it by then am going to close it as delete with an offer to undelete and place a copy in my userspace if anyone needs it for assistance in the RfAr. JoshuaZ 05:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the AfD was started on Jan 27, so it should run a couple more days if there's no procedural issues. ~ trialsanderrors 09:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Keeping or deleting the article is a content decision. There is no conflict with the arbitration case, which considers behavioral questions. It is possible our remedies might affect the articles, require conformity to policies while editing them, etc. Fred Bauder 16:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Per the Arbitrator; there is no conflict with the arbitration case. Navou ^banter 21:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

TfD with low chance of being closed

I'm active on TfD at the moment, which usually means that other admins ignore it. (I close ~90% of days within a few hours) However, there's a fairly technical TfD which I dont understand at all here, and I need another admin who actually knows what half of it says to deal with it. Thanks in advance and best reagrds, RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

CAT:CSD

There appear to be well about 500, including images, in this category (over 400 though without images). Could somebody please work on this? Part Deux 02:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I just created the page "William Edmondson"

and it really was supposed to be William Edmondson (no "quote" marks) and I am not quite sure what to do about it and, since I am concerned about overworking the knowledgable folks I usually go to, I thought I'd post here. If nothing has happened by tomorrow morning, I'll try . . . ....... something else. Carptrash 02:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The move button at the top of the screen allows you to rename pages. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the redirect for you as well. :) Cbrown1023 talk 02:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Chris is me's RfA

User:Chris is me has left a note on his RfA - Withdrawing, don't know how, too busy in r/l to look up. Can an admin close to save him further pile on. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 05:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

We need a b-crat. Khoikhoi 05:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought only bureaucrats can close RfAs. Khoikhoi 05:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Not in cases of withdrawal or WP:SNOW. The latter reason, however, is to be used sparingly. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Continued Problem

A user, not myself, made an attempt to add only 3 pervious logos for WUSA-TV in DC. User, A Man in Black, of course immediately deleted them, now stating they are not discussed in the article. I was OK with it being a "legal issue" even if I didn't agree with it, but now A Man in Black is now just picking a reason out of the air to delete any and all logos and images, minus the ones in the info boxes, for TV and Radio stations. I am not seeing this in his contribs in any other subject on Wiki. Help is needed, cause I personally feel that he is haivng a little too much fun with the delete key. - SVRTVDude 06:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Two of the images were part of a set of three that were minor variations on each other. The one that is the subject of discussion (and it isn't in the infobox, by the way) wasn't removed, although I tagged its unsourced commentary as OR. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I untagged it, cause it is quite impossible to reference something that came from a tape (more than likely) and is from the 1960s. With video (logos), I think we just have to trust what people put down and most people who add radio and TV information are normally right on the money, just with things of the past, there isn't much to reference. - SVRTVDude 07:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're watching the old videos and drawing conclusions, that is original research, and doesn't belong in this encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

YOU may no think it belongs here, but others might. Other people might want to see the former logos of a TV station. Let other people decide what belongs here and what doesn't. Not JUST you. - SVRTVDude 07:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't get to decide, our philisophies of fair use decide. Wikipedia is not a democracy; we do not vote on things. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Chowbok for a debate where the fair use trumped the views and thoughts of many other editors. Hbdragon88 07:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If anything, Image:EWNWUSA2004.jpg is the decorative image, while the other two are at least apporpriately inserted in a history section. Would not be opposed to removing one of the three logos in the history section. Hbdragon88 07:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, hell, I missed that ident image. Yeah, that needs to be removed, too. The other decorative images are already gone. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You missed the part about me believing that one of the two "decorative images" that you removed should be restored. Hbdragon88 07:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? It wasn't at all the subject of any commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh hell. Eyewitness News has 12 logos in its history section. Hbdragon88 07:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:EWNWUSA2004.jpg is NOT an ident. It is actually from the newscast open when WUSA switched from it's long standing "Eyewitness News" to "9 News". This is what I am talking about....you take pictures down, saying they are idents and they are really newscast opens. That one is part of the article and should be left up...unless you would like to pull another rule out of the hat. - SVRTVDude 07:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The way it was presented, it was just out there for eye candy. If it was intergrated in the history section, I might have seen the reason to keep it in, but in its current place it was not. And if it was in the history section AMIB would have probably removed it before I saw it... Hbdragon88 07:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

AIMB removes ALOT of things before people get the chance to see them. I will give the history a once-over and find the line where it says about the switch...and readd the picture inside that line so there is no confusion. - SVRTVDude 07:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"WFOO changed their green logo to orange" is not sufficient commentary to justify the use of an additional fair-use image; it's just trivia. Make sure it's actually meaningful commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

sufficient to who? you? How "meaningful" can commentary be when it is, as you put it, "WFOO changed their green logo to orange". Would you like me to put "At 16hours on the 10th of October, the tempature was 57 degrees and a bus is passing by, WFOO has just switched their logo from a disgusting lime green to a nice pumpkin orange that gives me an Autumn feeling". Would that work better for you? Sheesh....logos are logos. You look at the picture, then look at the text..."this was used from 19XX to 19XX but only on Tuesdays"....how much commentary do you need and want? - SVRTVDude 07:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Commentary published in a reliable source. If the logo change was so insignificant that no source ever felt the need to comment on it, then Wikipedia has no business being the first to comment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Meaningful commentary" is something like "As part of a corporate re-branding effort, in 1976 NBC replaced their long-time "peacock" logo with a stylized 'N'. Shortly afterwards, NBC was sued for trademark infringement, as their logo was virtually identical to that of the Nebraska ETV Network". Don't just give the "what" and "when", give some background. --Carnildo 20:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A picture is about as reliable a source as any and WUSA's change from "Eyewitness News" to "9 News" was pretty big given WUSA had been "Eyewitness News" for some 35 years. - SVRTVDude 07:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Stating when they changed it without a source is original research. Hbdragon88 07:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

what kind of source do you all want, beside the picture? I don't think the Washington Post is going to run an article on WUSA's new logo. They have better things to do. Give me an example of a source that is found quickly and easily that is acceptable. - SVRTVDude 07:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's not important enough that any publication has ever felt the need to comment, why do you want this publication, one with a policy of avoiding original research, to be the first? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

ooooook....that didn't answer my question....give me an example of a source that is found quickly and easily that is acceptable. - SVRTVDude 07:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. To be honest, I've yet to see anyone actually do any research to justify the use of a historical logo image. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just went over to Academic Search Elite, a mutliple-subject database (one of the perks of being an university student), and found nil. WUSA doesn't appear anywhere... Hbdragon88 08:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe people don't do the research cause they know you are just going to come along and delete it anyway....or more likely as HBDragon88 just said...it doesn't exsist...then you have to go with the picture as the reference until an actual article comes along that it can be referenced to. Sometimes you have to go with a little known thing called trust. More radio and TV geeks know what they are talking about and most radio and TV geeks who post on Wiki would provide references if they had them. - SVRTVDude 08:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't do the research because it violates two of Wikipedia's foundations: verifability, not truth (WP:V) and no original research (WP:NOR). Hbdragon88 08:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

In reply to SVRTVDude

It doesn't work like that. We don't keep original research and non-fair-use non-free images until better content comes along. Eventualism is fine for many things, but not really policy violations.

More radio and TV geeks need to get themselves published elsewhere, so we can use their work as references. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am just curious as to the number of problems that Wikipedia has had with "fair-use" images....and please don't tell me the answer is none.

Am a little confused HBDragon88, are you saying that RTV Geeks doing research violates the Wiki foundations or the pictures? Cause if it is the former, than I am all kinds of confused. AMIB, I have used my website as a reference on many of these pictures, so I am the reference and there is no problem...but it is still a problem...wondering if you would like to explain that one to me. - SVRTVDude 09:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

So the reliable source for stuff you want to is yourself? Guy, that's pretty much the complete opposite of "reliable source". --Calton | Talk 12:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Calton, AMIB doesn't have an answer as to where I can find a source that is found quickly and easily that is acceptable so I can reference an article or picture, so using myself and my website (I use my website) is the next best thing until an article or such can be found and then I will reference it to that. Probably still get deleted by AMIB. - SVRTVDude 13:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless you are an academic who has written perr-reviewed articles or books on the subject, then it's original research and isn't allowed to be on Wikipedia. If you can find peer-reviewed articles, or even newspaper articles (from reliable sources), then those are acceptable. I seem to recall several articles many years ago about the NBC logo because there was a controversy over NBC having spent millions of dollars on consultants to come up with their new logo, only to find that it violated the trademark of Nebraska Public Television, which had spent a couple of hundred dollars to create it in the first place. If there's such an article history on the subject, then we can use it as sources. But your un-peer-reviewed website is not a suitable source. Corvus cornix 17:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If the threshhold of inclusion for information in Wikipedia were that it had to be published in peer-reviewed academic articles and books, you'd have to delete 90% of what's in Wikipedia. Fortunately, it's not. This is TV station history, not nuclear physics. I'm not aware of any academic institution which specializes in this subject (or many, many other subjects which are covered in-depth in Wikipedia). Newspaper articles can also be difficult to find, as newspapers are notoriously poor at covering what their competition is doing (unless it sells newspapers, ergo you can find TV listings and articles about popular shows, although even TV listings have been recently disappearing from newspapers due to on-line TV listing services and DVRs). DHowell 23:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to add my thoughts: I agree with everything AMIB is doing with regard to these articles and images. It's hard work, he knows it breaks hearts, but he does it because it's the right thing to do. I am not writing this because he and I spent a weekend in Cabo together. Because we didn't. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is where you all are losing me. You want research, but not original research. If you do the research yourself, you know that you have searched the web and what you find is what you can find. If "Bob" does it, how do you know he didn't just look at one site and call it research?

See, now we have WP:FUC #3 and #8, "Fair-Use", "a legal issue", "unsourced commentary", "not discussed in the article", "no reference", it's "decorative", "meaningful commentary", "reliable source" (though AMIB admits he knows of no place to find a source), "violation of two of Wikipedia's foundations", and "the right thing to do" as reasons given why these logos should not be up...each time, a different reason. All for a logo that no company has or probably will make an issue about. It is easy for you to just delete something, have others do the research (that you are going to deny anyway) that you all know is almost impossible to find on older images, especially some recorded from over-the-air, then actually do the research yourself or just leave the image be.

I ask again, what is the number of problems that Wikipedia has had with "fair-use" images....and again, please don't tell me the answer is none. Like I have said before, I doubt Gannett, FOX, or any other company is going to come along and sue Wiki cause a logo from the 60's, 70's, 80's or whenever is up here. If it is defamatory, then yeah, but if it is just for historic purposes, I kinda doubt they care. - SVRTVDude 22:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not about lawsuits. It's about having correct, reliable information. I don't know who you are. I don't know whether you are making up what you are saying. The only way we can be sure that what is on Wikipedia is true is to require that claims be sourced to reliable publications. So, "Bob: is out. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the reason we don't know of any sources for this information is that it is pretty trivial stuff. If you can find a source, great. But the burden is on you to prove that what you are saying is true by showing us where you got the information. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, fine...me and my site don't count...whatever. But people are using the actual station as their reference. I do, on numerous occasions. On the WWHC page, I went through Internet Archive and got an old logo from their old website...linked the Internet Archive page, so you all could see...still was deleted. It is the station's own website...that is about as reliable and accurate as you can get without a signed piece of paper stating, "yes, this is an accurate logo". - SVRTVDude 23:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:V and WP:OR is supposed to be to keep false, misleading, and unverifiable information out of Wikipedia. These policies are not an excuse to go around deleting factual information that doesn't cite sources because you think they are "trivial" or for some other reason. WP:V says "editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." But that doesn't mean you go around challenging normally uncontroversial and uncontentious material simply because you have some other reason to remove it. If I wanted to violate WP:POINT, I could blank everything in 4 (number) because that article doesn't cite its sources. Original research! Where is the reliable source that says that 4 "is the natural number following 3 and preceding 5" or that "Four is the only number in the English language for which the number of letters in its name is equal to the number itself"?! Now if I were to delete such things from every number article, you have a pretty good analogy to what AMIB is doing to the TV station articles. Except that TV station history is a more obscure subject than arithmetic, so the information is harder to verify (please note that "hard to verify" does not mean "unverifiable", and "obscure" does not mean "non-notable" or "trivial"). DHowell 22:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The solution to the IRC problem

It seems to me that the crux of the perennial IRC issue is that people complain about the lack of accountability there, and the apparent fact that it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the ArbCom. The solution, then, seems fairly straightforward: Create a new IRC channel that IS accountable to the Wikipedia community. Have a clear and concise ruleset for this new channel (e.g. being nasty gets you kicked, some process for making channel ops, and some lightweight way of asking access). And ask the admins to consider using that instead. No, it won't stop The Cabal from talking to each other through other means, but you don't seriously expect to be able to legislate that, now do you? >Radiant< 10:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A good ideam but suggested a little late in the day - meanwhile, people are being driven off, and will not return Giano 10:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Great theory, but note that IRC is a different system necessitating a different culture. (Your proposal might easily become like implementing finnish culture in saudi arabia, ;-) or vice versa, if you're not careful). I'd like to invite you over to freenode to discuss! :-)

The problem is that some of the irc channels have in fact not always been administered properly by *any* culture. Not by some major failing really, just that there has been a dearth of active chanops in certain channels.

This might have been partially caused by a number of ...people who aren't in channel very often... getting chanops making the numbers look rosier than they really were. This is something that's being remedied right now. Not quick enough for my taste (you can do this so much quicker <sigh>). But it's being remedied --Kim Bruning 11:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, though I would replace "And ask the admins to consider using that instead" with "Compel them to do so by shutting down #wikipedia-en-admins". Moreschi ^Deletion! 11:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is all well and good but nothing is going to happen because the Arbcom have made it very clear they have no intention of addressing the problem. They obviously feel there is no problem. Giano 11:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Several arbitrators have indicated a willingness to consider misconduct on wikipedia that originated on IRC. A majority seem to feel that the existence of the channel is not under their scope. Thatcher131 15:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm doing my best here, at least. :-/ --Kim Bruning 11:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are but there is no point, the Arbcom have made their feelings widely known. They have no regard for the editors being driven off, probably because some of them and their friends are heavily involved. Nothing is going to change because no one who has the power to change things wants to. Giano 11:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

How about automatically copying IRC onto the Wiki. Then it would come under Arbcom, and everyone could see what was going on. Stephen B Streater 12:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Good luck getting that past JamesF and Dannyisme. Though I do in fact wish you well with that. --Kim Bruning 12:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, the arbcom is somewhat divided, so what can they do? And when finally fixed, it's fixed, right? --Kim Bruning 12:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is a thread about creating a new IRC channel. Please put soapboxing about existing IRC channels, or about the ArbCom, in some other therad. Thank you. >Radiant< 12:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree this would be the best course. I suggested something similar in my comments on the proposed IRC ArbCom case. Specifically, I would suggest making a 'Wikimedia administration' channel, for all the English Wiki projects, which is open for everyone to READ, but not write to... easily done in IRC by making the channel moderated and giving the 'voice' setting only to those who should be able to write. In the rare cases where truly confidential business must be conducted (OTRS/legal/office/whatever) a private channel can be set up in seconds. Such a setup would allow everyone to see what was going on without filling the channel with tons of gab like the general channel. If an admin acted abusively their 'voice' could be taken away temporarily, or permanently for recurring problems... and any user could temporarily be given 'voice' to ask a question or participate in a discussion relevant to them. --CBD 12:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

combines all the worst parts of all possible systems :-/ --Kim Bruning 13:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me note that Interiot and I already set up something like this called #wikipedia-en-functionaries. Mackensen (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And someone else set up the (rather poorly named, in my opinion) #wikipedia-en-cabal, which apparently allows public logging. - Mark 13:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest people choose or create IRC channels based on their expectations, oh wait that is what we are already doing, that is how IRC works. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously what we need now is yet another IRC section so we can have yet another long meandering discussion. That said, I'm for anything that enhances accountability, except for public logging. The rule isn't specific to #wikipedia-en-admins at all, but is common to most Wikimedia IRC channels. If I have to worry about how not just the people in the channel, but how every single Wikipedian might misconstrue my words after reading a small excerpt of the logs, then I might as well have a preview button and not carry the discussion out in real time. (the same principle applies to real-time discussions at Wikimania, or to the Florida Wikimedia office... it would be intrusive to suggest everyone's informal conversations be recorded and be available for public posting) --Interiot 14:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

On IRC I assume that everything I say is public. If someone posts a partial log, I take it as permission to post the rest of the log as well. Even so, I do understand your position as well. Not everyone is the same. <scratches head> Well, worst case, you could just not visit channels that allow public logging, I suppose. --Kim Bruning 14:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. If you have a conversation at a large lunchtable, everything should be considered public because anyone is free to relay their own impressions of what was said. But if speakers at the table were aware that the conversation was being recorded verbatim and that selective snippets could be replayed to anyone else, they'd almost certainly word their conversation more carefully. That's certainly a good thing in many cases,[8] but for people who are essentially good, it's also sometimes needless overhead. For those who have lunch at work, how many would be willing to have their lunch conversations recorded? How many people would be totally comfortable with having the audio in their workspace recorded by their employer, to ensure a professional demeanor at all times? Yes, it's good to be able to have both logged and unlogged conversations. And if we can make sure that IRC has adequate ways to deal with civility problems, then it's the place for unlogged conversations. --Interiot 18:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think public longing is undesirable, especially given that a lot of the communication on IRC is personal material only tangentially related to on-wiki matters. However, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that what you say there isn't being recorded. Nor to think that what say there won't become public knowledge. In light of this, comments made on IRC that personalize disputes can be as detrimental to the collaborative process as comments made on-wiki, and to my mind ought to be regarded in more or less the same light. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Contributors to this thread may be interested in my statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Arbitrators' views regarding IRC. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Unprotecting salted pages

A quick procedural question. I recently salted a page - Flashes Before Your Eyes, the latest episode of Lost - that had been repeatedly recreated against policy. However, I knew at the time that the chances were that within 4/5 days the page would be able to be created as an article per the policy on future Lost episodes. I advised users at the time who were intending to recreate when verifable information came to light that they should go to requests for unprotection when necessary. However, when done so, the users were sent to deletion review.

Now, its important to understand that the users wern't requesting that deletion of the article be overturned; they wanted it unprotected so that a new article can be created. Would I be right in asserting that the requests for unprotection, rather than deletion review, is the correct place for that? Or have I misunderstood this one? The policy states "Re-creation of such pages can be requested at deletion review if the deletion was incorrect or circumstances have changed". However, it is not 'recreation' of the article that is wanted, it is the brand-spanking-new creation of a brand spanking new article; or have I got that wrong? --Robdurbar 15:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If it is a substantially new article then I don't think a DRV is needed. I would really depend on the reasoning of the deletion, if it was per crystal balling, then I think once the episode it out it is fine to recreate. In other words if the deletion reasons don't apply to the new article, then they don't apply. Unless I am wrong. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ahem: that's not a policy, it's a group of lost fans agreeing that every episode, past or future, is of surpassing importance and must have its own article - maybe they think we are a mirror of Lostpedia or an episode guide or something. Just to be clear. Guy (Help!) 19:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, you're right the policy that Robdurbar is referring to is not policy on Wikipedia. However, it is documented consensus resulting from a mediation with a unanimous decision. This discussion should not be focused on the justification of Lost episode articles but rather whether protected deleted pages should go to requests for unprotection or deletion review. -- Wikipedical 22:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's tagged as a policy on the talk page. Maybe that should change. --Robdurbar 11:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• I generally unprotect any salted page listed at WP:RFP without question if the original problem was simply repeated recreation, not vandalism or abuse, and if the article title is wanted for a different topic or circumstances have otherwise changed. There is no need to send these to DRV. Chick Bowen 22:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A report on the Colbert Report

I went through the protection log and compiled two lists: one of fake articles that were salted, the other of actual content needing protection. Here it is. This'll be an inside joke reoccurring theme, as the Elephant vandalism never truly went away. If other sysops could please double/triple check the contribution histories of the deleted articles to check up on blocks and make sure those all went well. I'm not even going to dream of going through how many blocks we issued last night, they were going out like candy. I was even blocked briefly in the flurry of activity (Hi, xaosflux!). There's probably some body parts laying around that we need to pick up. Teke ^(talk) 17:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I was watching Letterman last night. What'd Colbert do this time? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luigi30 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Whoops, forgot to sign and got beaten by a bot. AFDs must be giving me carpal tunnel :( Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It was a dirge on how reality is now a commodity, marketable and sellable, so go to Wikipedia and announce that reality is a commodity. Teke ^(talk) 18:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It was at the end of a piece on Microsoft and Wikipedia. See the last paragraph in this Signpost story: Microsoft's Wikipedia standards. --Quiddity 21:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've re-deleted the salted pages and disabled their re-creation via cascading protection at Wikipedia:Protected titles/The Colbert Report. —David Levy 23:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah ha! I shoulda thought of that. I'll provide entries there as well as the reference index I'm building on my subpage. If anyone sees pages please add them to User:Teke/Colbert after putting in the protected titles. BTW, I'm making just a couple of those protected Reality misspellings redirects. I'd rather someone get pointed to where they are going then to find out why "Reallity" is misspelled. Teke ^(talk) 03:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, that way we can use Prefix index to search. I am moving those I see over. Prodego ^talk 02:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Identifying the common owner of accounts

We have articles on a company and its owner/CEO that've been edited by several registered users and IPs who've identified themselves by name as the owner or officers of the company. The editors all seem to have been the same person. One account was banned for legal threats but several others have posted threatening or intimidating language. The editor has engaged in various edits which represented conflicts of interest, such as promoting the company in other articles, removing information from the articles of competitors, and trying to settle scores on behalf of his late father. In addition to violating WP:COI and WP:NLT, the editor has repeatedly violated other policies and guidelines, such as WP:POINT, WP:COPYVIO, etc.

A new account claims to have no relation to the company or its owner, but it is clearly the same editor based on his editing patterns, spelling mistakes, interests, etc. Outside information, such as the contents of a MySpace account, further supports the theory that the new editor is the owner of the company. Proving the connection to the owner serves to prove that the editor has a conflict of interest and that he's the same editor as previous usernames. So, given that the person has already made the revelation under a different account, is it legitimate to reveal a user's probable real name in the interest of enforcing Wikipedia rules?

(This was originally posted at Wikipedia talk:Harassment without any replies, so it was suggested to post it here as well. A previous discussion there indicated that it was appropriate in a similar case, but I want to make doubly sure.) -Will Beback · † · 23:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's also entirely possible these are separate employees ordered by management to post certain things on Wikipedia. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There's little chance that it's an employee. The company is extremely small, and some of the edits concern the owner's father. Further, the new account (the one which claims no association whatsoever) has made edits congruent with postings by the owner outside of Wikipedia, and with the same spelling mistakes. -Will Beback · † · 23:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If the original account was banned for a legal threat then that would justify a checkuser on the suspected sockpuppets. If there were diffs in the description I'd comment in more detail. Durova^Charge! 00:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The earlier habit of the editor was to use a series of accounts and IPs, so there wasn't really an "original account". Those accounts are now all too old for checkuser. However, the current username occasionally edits without logging in (he has come back and fixed his signature to take ownership of the unregistered edits) and those IPs are in the same range, and geo-located in the same small area, as the previous users. Also, concerns about invasion of privacy would seem to be minimal because the the person in question promotes himself as much as possible and does not post his home info anywhere. So, if what I say is correct and if this action is for the purposes of policy enforcement, is there a problem with re-identifying a user who has previously identified himself, based on internal and external factors? -Will Beback · † · 01:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on your description, it sounds as if they could be blocked right off the bat for evading their original ban. While you have made a reasonable case that invasion of privacy is not a legitimate worry, how will identifying the editor help stop them from editing in the future under new usernames or ip addresses? If their real identity is connected with their earlier incarnation, this banned editor from however long ago it was, it seems like they'd try to keep the connection quiet, no? Picaroon 01:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

All of this is preparatory to filing a user-RfC, the requested outcome of which would be that the editor avoid articles where he has a conflict of interest. I agree that the user has engaged in block evasion, but since he has not renewed his legal threats I don't feel comfortable blocking him outright for that cause alone. While he could sneak back again, as he already has, his editing is pretty obvious due to the obscurity of the topics. He has been trying to escape detection with the new username by claiming, many times, to be totally unassociated with the topic and to have only a passing interest in it. Despite that claim, his strong interest and continuity of identity is apparent. I don't hear anything from Picarron, Durova, or Peter to indicate that it would be wrong to say "User X is the same as User W, who identified as Person Doe". If I read those comments correctly, we can proceed with the RfC on that basis. Thanks for the input. -Will Beback · † · 07:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

RFC may not be necessary if you present a convincing case that these are all socks of the same banned sockmaster. When I tracked down the Joan of Arc vandal I wrote up a report in user space that connected all the dots, then introduced it here to request a community siteban (he hadn't been banned until that point). Line it up with diffs and other evidence. The bit about trademark spelling mistakes interests me: since this will be circumstantial make sure your ducks are in a row. BTW the Joan of Arc editor disclosed his identity on his original account, which made it fair game for the investigation. I don't particularly advertise who he is but my summary discussed it in context. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 19:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Jersyko

Jersyko has recently improperly blocked two useres, Puppop and Elkwjdvc. Both had vandalized, but neither had since their last warning. Puppop was undergoing a WP:SSP trial and E only had one edit! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zbl (talk • contribs) 23:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Both were vandal only accounts, one the obvious sock of the other (they both moved Al Gore to Total idiot). I welcome scrutiny of the blocks here. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ever heard of don't stuff beans up your nose. I asssumed one gave the other the idea. Also, Puppop had not vandalized since his last warning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zbl (talk • contribs).

Since you posted this here, I see the Gore article's been moved to "total idiot" yet again by a user named Merlin'sfalcon. May I ask if you have any connection to these users? · j e r s y k o talk · 23:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but I think I know who Elkwjdvc is, that's all. Zbl 23:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If you know who they are, I recommend telling them to not vandalize Wikipedia and to request to be unblocked on their talk page. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've fully move protected Al Gore. It's very very very very very unlikely it would ever need to be moved, ever. Proto::► 12:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

George Reeves Person

I'm putting together a RFCU on a user who is suspected of being George Reeves Person. However, the page has been deleted and salted. Could an administrator help me dredge up an IP or username that I can use to assist in the checkusering, or is that forbidden? PTO 00:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes it is Jimbo's request that we keep that information hidden, as far as I know, but any checkuser could view it if necessary. Just make your case. Chick Bowen 04:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There are no user names that would be useful, and the checkusers can view the suspected IPs on the page if they want to. Leave a link to the deleted LTA page when you file the CU request. Thatcher131 12:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus - proposed action for independent review

I am posting here disclosure of the action proposed in respect of Ludvikus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), so that in the event that action is needed, the proposed action has had a chance to be examined by others in advance to confirm it is appropriate or otherwise, so that there is no dispute afterwards (if it does come to that) whether any such action was contentious or unsupported.

Naturally I hope it will not come to that.

Ludvikus has been discussed on WP:AN twice this month in relation to a possible community ban. See above for details or User:FT2/Evidence pages/Philosophy for background. He has been blocked three times now (two bans, one extended). The article has been protected twice now within a month. Article editors are near unanimously in agreement, and there is significant consensus amongst the majority of other editors and admins who have expressed views.

I have been given Ludvikus' word in email that he will henceforth utterly forgo certain kinds of inappropriate editing on all pages, in order that I can trial unprotect the article. He may be able to keep his word, he may not. I have posted a formal explanation that if there is further problematic editing contravening our agreement on his conduct then he may be treated as community banned based upon existing consensus, and enforced by block. I have posted a further heads up on his talk page to ensure there is no doubt. I do not consider further explanation needed since I have also given him explanation and advice multiple times that should be clear to any reasonable editor. (eg: [9] [10] and email)

If the agreement is kept henceforth, then I will be glad. If the agreement is broken I would propose to post a WP:AN note to the effect that he is considered community-banned, and an indefinite block to enforce this, being consensus as best I can judge it. If anyone feels that this would be a breach of proper conduct or inappropriate use of access, or would be insufficiently justified on the basis of 1/ his block log, 2/ recent talk page, 3/ seriousness of actions, 4/ numerous warnings to date, and 5/ evidence page linked above, please speak now. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks fair to me. In fact you're even more scrupulous than I was with Midnight Syndicate. After problems brewed long enough there and other attempts to resolve the conflict failed I unprotected the page unilaterally and announced I'd open an ArbCom request if the disputants couldn't handle unprotection. Maybe that was rouge, but they promptly demonstrated they weren't up to the responsibility and ArbCom accepted the case. Durova^Charge! 19:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Developers

Anyone know where I could find a developer to quickly (i.e. not wait 6 months for bugzilla) fix svn revision 18992? There are a few problems, basically:

1. The block log displays a message when the auto blocker is enabled, the block list when disabled: list|log
2. The log includes empty parenthesis when no non-default settings are added to a block. [11].

Prodego ^talk 00:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Werdna is generally on top of things like this--try his talk page. Chick Bowen 03:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

On IRC, see WP:IRC. —Centrx→talk • 03:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking. — Werdna talk 08:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

One issue fixed, the other one looks more complicated. — Werdna talk 08:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Prodego ^talk 20:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate

This arbitration case has been closed. GuardianZ and Skinny McGee are banned indefinitely from the article Midnight Syndicate. Dionyseus is banned for three months from Midnight Syndicate. No present or past employee or associate of the band Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana, or Monolith Graphics, under any username or anonymous IP, may edit Midnight Syndicate or associated articles (it is acceptable for such persons to make suggestions on the talk page; it is especially helpful if they identify themselves and the roles they play or played in the group). The complete text of the decision can be found at the link above. For the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad, Assistant Clerk, 00:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Extreme long-term sockpuppetism

It all started with a mini-revert war on Erdvilas, and article that I re-wrote from sratch using reliable sources. Then a user came adding the infobox and other information based on myths about Palemonids from Bychowiec Chronicle... But the edits it seemd strangely familiar, so I investigated further and what I uncovered is an extremely long-term sockpuppetism that I need an advice from from fellow admins how to deal with.

All these accounts is one person:

• Bloomfield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - main account?
• Christofor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mister X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Munn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Happydrink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hazy-Daze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kresy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Flying Saucer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AHAPXICT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• £ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Black Cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ZZZZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked ("Account compromised")
• Królewiec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Liechtenstein 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lyffland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - a bit in doubt
• Maliuta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RobotF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked per username and distruptive page moves
• RobotQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked per username and distruptive page moves
• Tuulispask (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Estland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Casesoccur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ugandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Disel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sigalind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• QQQQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Erdywil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - newest one
• a bunch of IP that I did not bother tracking
• and probably more

How to recognize? First edits are to userpage and usertalk page. Userpage is created by adding username, an image, or some random text (i.e. userpages are useless and do not give any personal info). No edit summaries. A number of unilateral unexplained page moves. Almost no activity this past November-December (active again). Fields of interest: dukes of Lithuania, Trubetskoy family, anarchism in Estonia, politics of Estonia, nacism... Loves obscure spellings.

S/he was not noticed for such a long time (contributing at least since early 2005) because contributions go to obscure very low-trafic pages. Those pages are not watchlisted and such edits escape unnoticed for a long long time. They are severly POV, usually unsourced, disputable. While going through contribs noticed just a couple edits to talk space. Haven't noticed Wikipedia namespace edits.

So it is not a classic sockpuppet brought to vote, but creating multiple accounts so that edits could not be traced. This is clearly disprutive. How would you advise to proceed? Renata 01:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand this may not be helpful if numerous, nonsequential IPs are being used, but have you tried a checkuser request on the socks? Perhaps it could knock out some of the underlying IPs, and hopefully there's a specific range involved. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not. But say I do request for checkuser and it confirms those are socks, what then? Renata 09:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the results. Write up the checkuser -- I'll run it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've given Piotrus and Alex Bakharev a heads up. The content is in their neighborhood. Durova^Charge! 19:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have never encountered any of those users, but sockpuppets are evil. WP:RFCU and then block all but the primary one if confirmed. Alex has more experience with such matters, though.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've set up the checkuser case myself. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

RFCU is cumbersome and is not full-proof of anything. Committed puppeteers can get around easily by posting from remote IP's, be those open proxies or simply accounts at remote computers. We have several known pupeteers whose socks are blocked based purely on their contributions alone either because they are known to post from IP's that always change or because RFCU takes a large effort to compile (a case needs to be brief and convincing for a checkuser who has no idea of the dispute) and are backlogged. So, if there is clearly a disruptive account that looks like sock and acts like sock, it should be blocked, especially if there is a known sockmaster with the past pattern. To not accidentally block legitimate users under vague suspicion is important though and the to avoid this, each case needs to be investigated very thoroughly. It seems like Renata did the homework and it would be best if Renata who is best aware of the situation makes the decision on her own because it is unlikely that anyone here will bother to investigate this matter as thoroughly as she already did. --Irpen 20:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, a checkuser doesn't take all that huge an effort to compile; it's tedious, but not difficult (click click click with an occasional cut and paste); work is underway to streamline the process. And there is no significant backlog; there's one case in which I've asked for additional information; and another in which the additional information just came in while I was doing the last one; and there is one outstanding IP check case. RFCU is quite helpful for less sophisticated puppeteers, of whom there are plenty; that it's less helpfu for the harder cases doesn't change that at all. RFCU alone shouldn't be sufficient to block anyone, because non-abusive sockpuppets are neither disallowed nor a problem to Wikipedia. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, has this user done anything "bad", other than use socks without declaring them and inserting POV material? Has anyone had problems with 3RR, etc? Appleseed (Talk) 20:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

A bunch of pages moves. Because the articles s/he edits are very low-profile nobody got into revert wars (as far as I know), not counting few reverts on Erdvilas. Renata 20:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I also encounter some of these accounts and suspected to be a sockpuppet, but did not imagine that it would be in such scale! I also experienced massive page moves, without any discussion at all, distortion of established names, inability to separate encyclopedic facts from legends etc.; really disturbing behavior, and to solve these issue takes time and effort. Case indeed should attract proper attention. M.K. 16:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so checkuser confirmed that those are bunch of socks. What's next? Ban all the sock and leave Bloomfield account open? (is so I suggest 1 week punitive block for him/her). Ideas? Renata 01:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

ISOC (Islamic Society)

Just popped up again on my watchlist as a new page (and created by the same author that started the page the first time). I cannot see the deleted version, so could an admin please take a look to see if it's maybe a deleteagain candidate? Zunaid©® 09:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not a G4 so I sent it to AfD. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Embargo

The above user has a povocative user box on his user page which reads 'This user supports armed resistance against Israeli hostilities.' It also has a Hezbollah logo on. Above the userbox is arabic writing. This is the only thing that appears on hi user page. User:viridae remoed the from his page, to which he got a nasty message from Embargo. I have now asked him to remove the userbox, but he seams intent in keeping it. I don't want to get into a revert war with someones userpage, so I would appreciate an admin looks into it, regards RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It does not say that this user supports hostilities against Israelis though. I think most people would support resisting hostility, aye? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, however (I'm no expert in the subject by any means!), the israel and hezbollah situation is close to a war between the 2, is it really right that a userpage should be used to support a particular side of a war? I'm sure israel would reject the claim of hostilities RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It does not say anything about existing hostilities. Remember to assume good faith. If I put on my userpage "This user supports armed resistance against Jamaican hostilities", I don't think there would be a problem (although Jamaican hostility is something of an oxymoron). It might also be good to inform User:Embargo of this conversation. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: there has been previous discussion of this and other related userpages on WP:ANI. Viridae^Talk 11:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

here. Viridae^Talk 11:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally, and others have felt that "supporting armed resistance agaisnt israel is inflamatory, and does not belong in the userpsace per WP:USER. Viridae^Talk 11:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have told embargo that it is being discussed here, I jut think his userboxes fail WP:USER and WP:NOT, I mean the group he is supporting are seen as a terrorist group by many governments (UK, US), and he supporting them using weapons. RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Only six countries officially list Hezbollah as a terrorist group. On the other hand, the US government is seen as a terrorist group by many groups. State which articles from WP:USER are being violated to back up your case. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's statement RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

“ libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea ”

- Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder and leader

The guy's entitled to an opinion. He isn't libelling anyone. So what if you disagree with it? What about all the other userboxes supporting the US-led invasion of Iraq? If anyone's the victim of a personal attack, it's Embargo. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 11:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It also fails Wikipedia is not a soap box and thats straight out of the horses (Jimbo's) mouth. To be honest with you, I really don't care if someone wants to support hezbollah, or the Iraq invasion, Wikipedia is just not the place to do it - hence WP:NOT RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Embargo is being libeled. However, if there can be groups like Category:Wikipedians who support Israel, Category:Wikipedians who oppose the Iraq War, Category:Creationist Wikipedians, Category:Anti-communist Wikipedians which some users may not agree with, then why not Embargo's? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because they are there doesn't mean they should be, there are no precedants. If you think they have no right to be there, you are perfectly entitled to take it to WP:CFD. Viridae^Talk 11:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

He is perfectly entitled to his oinion, but wikipedia is not the place to express it - as demonstrated in the above quote. Inflamatory material like that has no place in the wikipedia userpsace. Incidentally only 6 countries officially reocognise Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. The US is officially recognised as a terrorist organisation by noone. And userboxes supporting the invasion of iraq also have no place on wikipedia, but that is not the issue under discussion. Viridae^Talk 11:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

So why are you just attacking this one user? What about Category:Wikipedians who support the US troops, Category:Intelligent Design Wikipedians and all the rest? You seem to have singled this one user out because you disagree with his views. It whiffs of discrimination to me. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 11:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Because, as you will have noticed if you read the reast of the thread properly, his userbox and other peoples userpages were brought to my attention with a thread on WP:ANI. There is no discrimination at all, I am not on a crusade to rid wikipedia of POV userboxes, this and others were brought to my attention. I would ask you to not bandy words like discrimination around without some support for your views. Viridae^Talk 11:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note, that this user has previously been blocked for the same userbox being used (see the earlier thread to AN/I), I'm not trying to discriminate him, his views just fail wikipedia policies and have been discussed previously with the consenus that this should not be allowed RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Embargo was not blocked for the same userbox. The userbox he was actually banned for said something about denying Israel's right to exist. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It is absolutely acceptable for someone to support resistance to aggression, and this stance is certainly not inflammatory. If one says, "I support armed resistance to the US invading Canada", it is merely a statement of one's patriotism—even if it is not likely to happen. Remember to assume good faith. You people are forgetting that he does not say he supports hostility against Israel. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have never claimed that it wasn't acceptable to hold that viewpoint. Wikipedia IS NOT the place for potentially imflamatory comments/userboxes like that, especially considering the political situation surrounding israel and hezbollah. Viridae^Talk 12:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Some userboxes considered harmful. The fact that it started this debate probably means it isn't quite neutral, na? Still kinda sucks for Embargo to be caught in the middle of it, of course. :-/ --Kim Bruning 12:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

True, being argued over cannot be nice, and I could have cited the relevant policies or discussion in my edit summary, however this most recent discussion was kicked off by a strong personal attack, not the userbox itself. That was supposed to have been resolved on WP:ANI. Viridae^Talk 12:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Also I started off this debate, and as was previously unaware of the AN/I debate until Viridae pointed it out earlier on, so this thread is neutral in my opinion. RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

(Thanks for stuffing up the link to my userpage, I just found a redirect we needed - Viridae (virus family) -> Virus.) Viridae^Talk 12:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have gone to bed, don't wait around for answers. Viridae^Talk 12:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Every one can have their opinion, and may express them up to a point on Wikipedia. Supporting a resistence movement would be fine, but what I would NOT condone is supporting an armed conflict. Hence, the word armed is the keyword here and should be removed. --Edokter (Talk) 15:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that 'armed' is the major problem here, but I still think the whole idea of supporting Hezbollah on wikipedia fails wikipedia is not a soapbox. To support any political party anywhere within wikipedia which is supposed to be neutral surely is a bad thing. It will also be highly offensive to Israeli's, they will not see themselves as causing hostilities. All in all, I think that this userbox is highly provocative and therefore should be removed. I've checked through all the pages the Hezbollah picture links to and can't find any other user with the same userbox RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Wa3ad7 has it, as well as a userbox stating "This user strives to maintain a policy of neutrality on controversial issues." I checked out his contributions, and they are all Lebanon-related issues. He has kept away from Israeli-related articles. Also check out WP:COI:Declaring an interest. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If you seriously believe people can't even show support (or dissent) for a political party in their userspace, then you should also be going after the following:

• User:Expatkiwi
• User:Jewbask
• User:TheKaplan
• User:Dhimwit
• User:DKong
• Those listed here
• Those listed here
• Etc.

− Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There is declaring an interest, and putting up a provocative userbox, I've already stated about israeli offence to it along with the issue of supporting armed responses that are bound to cause deaths. Wikipedia should not be the place to support these actions, another area that this userbox fails is Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site, if these users have these views - they should put them on their own personal website RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hebollah = murder incorporated user boxes should definately be removed as well! It will cause just as much offence to Hezbollah supporters RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned before, this one was brought to my attention, that is why it was removed, there is no crusade as you seem to want to make it out. Citing somones political stance as democrat or republican is far less inflamatory than stating someone supports a terrorist group involved in an armed conflict. If you don't see the difference, try and get a bit of perspective. Incidentally, User:Expatkiwi DID have something removed from his userpage at the same time as User:Embargo, as you will see if you look back at the history. You also seem to be forgetting, that in an environment where anyone can edit, saying "A is there so B must be allowed to remain" is not a solid argument, because B may also violate policy. It comes down to this:

1. Jimbo himself says inflamatory statements on someones views or ideals do not have a place in the userspace.
2. He is perfectly entitled to his opinion, but as it could be found to be highly offensive by some mebers of the wikipedia community he is NOT entitled to express it here. This is backed up by two policys: Wikipedia is not a free webhost and You do not own your userpage and it should not contain inflamatory content.

Declaring coflict of interest should really not be a problem on wikipedia if everyones follows NPOV. Your arguments lack any grounding in common sense or policy. Viridae^Talk 21:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Section break

I just had a look at the userpages you mentioned, and although they all contain some sort of politics (seems you are the one singling out people who support israel) none of them declare that they support a terrorist group in an ongoing and very bloody conflict with another country. Or for that matter (that I noticed) any side in ongoing violence wether that side be the US or iraq in that conflict, or one of the groups involved in the sudanese civil war. You really don't know wether those that support the state of israel support a peaceful resolution to hostilities or an all out total war. It is because that these views are NOT expressed that the userboxes are not inflamatory. And yes, they, for xpressing political ideaologies still go agaisnt Jimbo's wishes as quoted in [[WP:USER], but in a far less controversial manner than that under discussion. Viridae^Talk 21:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is just nuts. You're saying that it's OK for users to describe Hezbollah as "Murder Incorporated" or to voice their support for the invasion of Iraq, but you think it's beyond the pale for someone to say they support armed resistance to foreign aggression. You said earlier that "there is no discrimination at all, I am not on a crusade to rid wikipedia of POV userboxes". So what exactly are you trying to do? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 21:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly did I say I supported that? This userbox (and a few very controversial userpages) were brought to my attention, I determined that they were unacceptable under current policy and removed them. I said I wasn't on a crusade to avoid the accusation that would have inevitably come that I was. I am simply enforcing policy for some of the mroe controversial statements on usrboxes and userpages that were brought to my attention via WP:ANI. If you have a disagreement with the policy, I suggest taking it to village pump and seeing if you can get consensus to change. If not, I don't see what your argument is. Viridae^Talk 22:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, you didn't actually say you supported the "Murder Incorporated" userboxes. But they have been brought to your attention, as have some of the other potentially controversial userboxes in use in Wikipedia. And yet you're only taking action against user:Embargo. Why is that? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 22:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It was me that started this thread, and I did so because it was the only one brought to my attention at the time, since then, I have said that all the user boxes which seam to hurt both Israel and Hezbollah should be removed RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said, i'm not on a crusade and I would liek this issue resolved first. I support their removal, but as I am at work, I don't have the time to do anything more than respond here. Go ahead and remove controversial ones and I will be quite willing to back you up if the issue comes here. Viridae^Talk 23:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I was not singling out Israeli supporters. User:Ryanpostlethwaite said the pages which stated "Hezbollah = Murder Incorporated" should have these userboxes removed as well. I simply found the pages with this userbox and listed them. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I had also previously mentioned User:Wa3ad7 who has a userbox identical to the one in questionon User:Embargo's page. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should make it clear that I'm not arguing against Wikipedia policy here. What I'm angry about is the way this policy is being put into practice by you and others around here. There are hundreds, probably thousands of userboxes out there expressing similarly contentious opinions. And yet you went ahead and deleted this userbox without bothering to engage in any dialogue first. Since then, Embargo's user page has been deleted altogether, and the flag image he was using has been listed for deletion at wp:commons (on completely bogus grounds, by the look of things). Like I said, this all stinks. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 23:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies then, most of those pages had a vast amount of userboxes and I picked one or two that I could see common. I would remove them too if I wasn't at work. Viridae^Talk 22:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message on this editor's user page encouraging this user to convert the user box into something less controversial. Am I alone in considering the policy side of this discussion premature? Let's communicate first. Durova^Charge! 22:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggested change to Hezbollah userbox

I think many people support armed resistance to hostility. However, at the moment this specific case is a very sensitive subject, and I accept that this is inflammatory given the current political environment. If one were to put on their page "This user supports armed resistance against Hezbollah hostilities" (or "Hezbollah = Murder Incorporated") it would be just as inflammatory.

So we are going ahead with the assumption that Embargo is implying that Israel initiated hostilities against Hezbollah. Would any of these be acceptable:

• "This user supports resistance against Israeli hostilities"
• "This user supports resistance against hostility"
• "This user supports armed resistance against hostility"

There is no mention of armed resistance in the first, which is apparently a big deal. There is no mention of Israel in the second and third, but they still show support for Hezbollah. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I would personally support the latter 2, where israel is not mentioned at all. The problem with the 1st one, is that it still claims Israel hostilities. I think we also need to address the 'Hezbollah = murder.....' userbox, this is just as bad if not worse than the original being discussed RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

All of those are a bad idea, according to Jimbo. I don't we should be preciptating political userboxes in any form considering the furor they have created in the past. And to be honest, this is an encyclopedia and your ability to have userboxes is not important to its construction. Having inflamatory ones however can be very detrimental. Viridae^Talk 22:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, I've been bold and deleted his userpage under T1. I think the spirit of it applies here. This is not the kind of thing Wikipedia should be getting involved with. --Cyde Weys 22:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this and have posted many reasons why it should not be accepted previously RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

On a vaguely related note, the Hezbollah logo in that userbox is probably a copyvio, and I've accordingly nominated it for deletion on Wikimedia Commons. Sandstein 22:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Cyde. I was considering that myself, but decided that would just start more problems. Viridae^Talk 23:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well that settles it for now. Essentially it didn't really matter since Embargo had already been scared off. The Hezbollah=Murder Inc userboxes have been removed as well, which I think is fair. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The term "resistance" might be a preferred term, but it implies "something is wrong which must be resisted". As opposed to (say) This user supports action against hostile activity. Reminds me a bit of the pedo-userbox issue: - a userbox that is inflammatory in that way by labelling Israeli activities as "hostility" and then supporting "resistance" (emo-plea for the underdog's "resistance") ..... I'm not sure that userboxes that pejoratively label others (especially others that are disapproved of) rather than describe the user, are helpful. That's probably a global thing -- "This user supports capitalism" is different from "this user supports destroying evil communism", so to speak. My $0.02 on userboxes generally. They comment on the user, and should not be a platform to express pejorative views. A pejorative of others can always be expressed in terms of a non-pejorative of oneself. Comment for future. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion (2)

How about we create a guidline on the use of user boxes or include one within the scope of WP:USER RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Userbox back on

Despite having his userpage removed, User:Embargo has put the userbox back on (The original one, not one of Twas Now's suggested ones). I think we need to come to some form on consensus here but the original userbox (a we've previously disgussed) is way out of line and should be removed or at least substituted for a less provocative one RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not do something useful (such as encyclopedia writing)? I'm certain that would be much more productive. As far as I can see, there's nothing wrong with that userbox, what should it say? "This user supports the deaths of Arabs on Israel's say-so"? Thulium 17:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

CAT:PER is still backlogged

CAT:PER (Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests) has been backlogged for ages now, and has now reached over 20 entries. --ais523 11:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of those talk pages still have active discussion about the details of the change proposed, what is the best way to implement something in template code and so forth. I suppose the question is should the {{editprotected}} tags be removed when there is ongoing discussion about the proposed change, or should they stay and serve as an "advertisement" that a change is planned for a protected page? --bainer (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could do with a different template for the advertising purpose? MER-C 12:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove the editprotected. If there is no consensus yet for an edit, then there is no point in requesting an edit. If an edit is still discussed or waiting for feedback after announcing, editprotected can be added again later. Also, some edit requests for templates I have seen in the past are way too unspecific to be implementable. Requests for template edits should provide the new "code" for the template and a reference to the consensus or absence of opposition after due announcement. --Ligulem 12:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Salted articles

Has everyone seen User:David Levy/Protected page titles? A protected page with cascading protection enabled, prevents non-admins from editing or creating the linked (transcluded) articles. Now that's clever. Guy (Help!) 13:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sweet! Agathoclea 13:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thats a clever use of cascading protection. :) Syrthiss 13:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

To prevent discussion forking, I'd like to point out that this is currently under discussion at WP:VPR#Salted articles. --ais523 13:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:VPR#Salted pages − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Now runnning at Wikipedia:Protected titles/January 2007 (until midnight...). Friends, this is a truly brilliant idea! It will solve all kinds of problems for disgruntled deleted-article subjects, allow us to be kind and firm simultaneously and remove those ugly pages from special:random and from mirrors. So many things fixed all at once! Guy (Help!) 22:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• So is thwere a set procedure for adding pages to this? Proto::► 13:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Second pair of eyes required

Not being a natural mediator, I have tried to do so, as it's something I feel I should try to do from time to time. I have tried to solve the ructions going on at Talk:Florian Gate. A number of users have been disputing whether this article should be at Florian Gate or St. Florian's Gate. The article has been moved back and forth, and a few shotgun moves have been carried out without consensus. An attempt to engage the Mediation Committee fell through as not all parties agreed to mediation (the user who had carried out the most recent move refused). As the only step they could think of was now to go to Arbcom over a full stop and a possesive 's, I have tried to step in.

I have a) per WP:NAME, moved the article to the original title until consensus is achieved, b) move-protected the article, c) suggested a consensus, and d) suggested WP:3O or the Mediation Cabal. Two questions - have I done everything I could/should have done thus far, and is there anything else I can do? Proto::► 13:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, except technically you should have protected it on the 'wrong' version, but this one does match current policy, so it works out fine. --Golbez 13:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Image page not completely deleted

I nominated Image:NorwichOld71.jpg for speedy deletion as a copyright violation of this site and while the image itself seems to be gone, the page still seems to be there and valid. --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 17:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Happens sometimes when deleting images. Purging them fixes it. —Cryptic 17:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting that and also for letting me know how to fix it myself in the future.--Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 18:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

A question about speedy deletion tags

If I encounter an article about some non-notable teenager whose bio only says "he's awesome", or some website or company which doesn't have any claims of notability, and I put a "db" tag on it, then the original creator removes that tag, what is my option? I don't want to edit war over it. Should I just go ahead and nominate it for deletion? Corvus cornix 00:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's a straight forward, non controversial A7, probably best to contact an admin. Look at the deletion logs and see who's active at that time. The JPS^{talk to me} 00:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. Corvus cornix 00:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Restore it. The tag itself says that the creator of the page should not remove it. If someone else disagrees, prod it or AFD it. Hbdragon88 04:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That's technically true, but it would be easier to contact an active admin, rather than wasting effort on an edit skirmish. --bainer (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla

This case has been closed. Because Ghirlandajo, a main party to this case, has not edited since December 27, 2006, and because of an ongoing informal mediation attempt that occured prior to Ghirlandajo's absence, this case is temporarily dismissed. If and when Ghirlandajo returns, it would be best for him to resume productive mainspace editing, which it is hoped can take place without a recurrence of the disputes that led to this case. As appropriate, the mediation between Ghirlandajo and Piotrus can be resumed to seek resolution of any live disputes that might remain between them. Under the circumstances, the arbitration case is dismissed, without prejudice to a request by any party to reopen it in the future if necessary.

For the Arbitration Committee, – Chacor 01:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Privacy issue

Aaron Pril contains a contact email - some admin may want to remove and remove from history. Natalie 01:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Been deleted. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 02:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move

I know that I should properly ask for this at WP:RM, but this really can't wait for the cycle time over there. Can someone please move Portal:Current events/Sports (with its talk page) to January 2007 in sports which is currently obstructed. If this is not done soon, someone will likely do a copy paste move soon which will then need to be cleaned up later. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a non-controversial move. Requested via {{db-move}}. Hbdragon88 04:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Teke ^(talk) 05:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Jobanjohn

Posting here to try and get an uber-speedy delete. The guy's posted his resumé online. Carson 07:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Underway. Carson 07:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Done (again). -- Derek Ross | Talk 08:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User pages prod

I suppose this is as good a place as any (since this is where the impetus to look these over, came from : )

I've come across several edits by User talk:Calton - Template:Prod on userpages with only a few edits, claiming that they are not editors. Is this appropriate? Unless a user requests the m:Right to vanish, I presume that we don't delete their userpages/talk pages? - jc37 11:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved from WT:RFA MER-C 11:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason why these pages are being prodded are because Wikipedia is not myspace. The "editors" involved have zero encyclopedic contributions, have not edited for a long period of time and are merely using their user page for social networking purposes. MER-C 11:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for furture reference: "encyclopedic contributions" means any edit outside userspace? And "long period of time" = ? - jc37 11:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, any edits outside userspace. And they are not being speedied, they are being prod tagged. A user is free to remove the prod tag before deletion takes place if they do still use the account. Proto::► 13:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it's appropriate. It's a recent change to PROD as a result of an influx of obviously-deletable user pages on MFD. The criterion is that a user has little or no actual contributions (e.g. only edits in his own userspace, or simple self-glorifying vandals, etc). >Radiant< 15:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam only account

User:Maximo_Decimo continue to spam jihadmonitor website on all the pages. See his contribution yourself Special:Contributions/Maximo_Decimo. He do not talk or edit anything useful but only adding this spam. It is waste of our time to keep reverting him. We have also given him warnings few times now (see his talk page). I think it is time to block him. Please? --- ALM 11:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Kusma (討論) 12:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Danke schoen. --- ALM

Warning removal wars - again

Following a fairly conclusive DRV discussion the old 'Wr' series of templates for telling people they could not remove warnings from their user talk pages were deleted. Subsequently a {{Removewarn}} template was created with the stated purpose (and text) of telling people who habitually remove warnings that no offense is intended by them and giving links for possible discussion of the issues. That was iffy given the history, but seemed ok in principle. However, despite warnings not to do so, in practice people are often using this template whenever a single warning is removed... and they revert the warning back onto the page. Further, this has been cloned as {{Removewarnusertalk}}, {{TYWLAM}} (which claimed removing warnings was a blockable offense before being changed to a redirect), and back to the old name {{Wr}}. There is also now a {{Dontremovewarn}} which is used when a warning is first placed to tell the user they may not remove it. There may well be others.

My impulse at this point is to speedy delete the lot of them as G4 (recreations) / T1 (inflammatory templates) / just plain wrong... but I'm bringing it here for consideration. Is it worth trying to retain some sort of 'people place warning templates to help you' template or will it just inevitably be used as a back door to insist that users have to retain and display any 'scarlet letter' any random user decides to inflict upon them? --CBD 12:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I would support speedying them. They serve the same purpose as the deleted ones (to try and stop people removing warnings), but in a more patronising way ("I'm trying to help you"). -- Steel 12:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have speedied them - they are clear recreations of deleted content. It was agreed by a strong community consensus that such templates are not suitable for Wikipedia, and rewriting them in a pseudo-patronising tone does not change the content or the intent of the templates. Proto::► 13:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well done. Kusma (討論) 13:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Beat me to it. Well done. >Radiant< 15:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ian King

I fear I've made a mess of this. This article was vandalised, replacing the bio with nonsense. It was deleted as such when it should simply have been reverted. I restored the article to the pre vandalised status, however the edit summaries for the restored version have not been restored. Could someone tell me how to fix this (if possible). Sorry for my mistake! Mark83 14:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you're fine. Edit summaries are tied to the edits, so if they're not there now that you've undeleted the edits, then they weren't there to begin with. —bbatsell ¿? 15:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Improper page move

George Petrie (American Football) was just moved via copy/paste to George Petrie (American football) by User:ChicJanowicz. It needs the admin touch to undo the copy/paste and merge the history into the correct title (I assume the new one). Thanks, auburnpilot talk 15:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

fixed —bbatsell ¿? 15:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)