Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive83

I ask you to create such a template (listed above in the New template at the Polish Wikipedia chapter) available in the language of English. I would love to use it myself. --Annrex 12:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, first I gotta know what it says... :) —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 12:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

:It translates into something like "This Wikipedian permanently left the wikipedia project and he/she informs that they have nothing in common with the Wikimedia Foundation projects and with the Foundation itself.", or something like that. — Moe 13:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• To Pilotguy and Moe: I've noticed you have problems with reading comprehension and with translating (to Moe, exclusively). :) Well, it may be typical for some Wikipedians (even administrators?). It is another reason I must have the template listed above at my discussion page.

As a reminder:

I have placed the following words a few lines above the "statement" of these fellow users a long time before they started to speak: :) --Annrex 13:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

: *The template reads: This Wikipedian permanently left the wikipedia project and he/she informs that they have had nothing in common with the Wikimedia Foundation projects and with the Foundation itself since the time of their leaving. --Annrex 12:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(sorry for the translation corrections - but now the translation is perfect) --Annrex 13:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

::Excuse the many (broken) languages I speak, which all of them are broken except English :) — Moe 13:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Excuse granted. :) --Annrex 13:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• OK. Discussion FOR or AGAINST the template can be placed here:
• Keep which is create, polish and keep. - --Annrex 13:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Suggestion Perhaps having a link to [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?GoodBye the meatball goodbye] would be appropriate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

:I don't think so. I want to use the English version of the template at my English Wikipedia user page and, then, leave the same style with the very information. --Annrex 13:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

::But the attention seeking nature of this template begs for the clarification this link provides. Is there a polish equivalent? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

::Why are you so keen to say goodbye on the English Wikipedia when as far as I can tell you've never actually contributed here? --kingboyk 14:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (e/c)

:::Fortunately I did not start to make greater contributions. I have changed my mind after looking closer at your discussions and ways here. Admins are like big trolls themselves. They are misleading, too. They cannot be trusted. That's all from me. I am waiting till the discussion over the template is finished and, then, I will decide what to do next. Bye (for now). --Annrex 14:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Ah, so the meatball it is, then? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There is already a template called {{tl|User EX-WP}}. If you add {{tls|User EX-WP}} to your userpage, you can customize it to say anything you want. There is no need to vote on the creation of a template with your particular text. Once you have the template substed, you can copy and paste the code to your Polish page if you would like. --BigDT 13:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

:As stated by me above. --Annrex 14:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Roo72 is the Polish Wikipedia administrator - I wonder why he is so modest here because in the Polish Wikipedia he is the "shiny", "clever" and "brave" user: [http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedysta:Roo72]. --Annrex 14:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

{{Userlinks|Annrex}} has been blocked per discussion at WP:ANI, as her only purpose here seems to be to rant about Wikipedia in general and specifically the Polish Wikipedia. --kingboyk 14:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

:What does this have to do with administrators? If you want a userbox, create one in your user space. Corvus cornix 23:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Mmm-hmm, not a bad idea. Play with your space, not ours. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 14:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat disturbed to see that a week after I requested a user to be blocked on this noticeboard, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive225#Request_blocking_of_user:71.39.78.68], not only has no action been taken, but more disturbingly, not a single admin has yet bothered to respond to that request, on this noticeboard or personally, even to tell me that they didn't think it was worth taking action or even to say I was placing the request in the wrong forum. This is troubling, because while problems have not yet recurred, it hardly instills confidence that if they had, the wikipedia administrator community would have responded like the well-oiled machine one would expect of it. I'd appreciate it if an admin could explain why no one bothered to respond to the original request, and what the right forum fo filing banning requests is, since this clearly isn't the correct one. Simon Dodd 04:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:Blcoks are preventive, not punitive. Admins will not block for infractions that are two weeks old. In order for anybody to be blocked, he or she must have been conintued to vandalize after being served up with a fourth-level warning (see WP:WARN for specific warning templates), and if that occurs, report it to WP:AIV. hbdragon88 04:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

::The request was intended to be prospective, to prevent future vandalism. I don't care about "punishing" past violations, and it's a mystery to me how Wikipedia can seriously maintain the idea of "punitive" sanctions for trolls (as compared to regular editors). In any event, the more important question is how, procedurally, I bring to an administrator's attention that a user should be sanctioned and/or blocked (third-level warning, fourth-level warning, people's front of judea, popular judean people's front, whatever). If this noticeboard isn't the place to raise that, where is? Presumably not WP:AIV if that, as you say, is only after a "fourth-level warning." What's the process for a first-level warning? A second-level warning? How do I avoid getting myself barred under 3rr for reverting this user's crap while filing for 1st, 2d, 3d, fourth and barring level violations? I mean, this seems absurd and overly complex. There has to be a more sensible way to deal with a user who is persistently determined to use wikiepdia as part of an ongoing smear attack against a Wikipedia:living persons.

::Secondly, while I appreciate your swift response to this query, hbdragon88, and please don't take this personally, the question still stands: I regard it as a serious problem that it's taken any admin over a week - and only then when prompted by a third prod by me - to respond to the request, regardless of the ultimate disposition of that request. Simon Dodd 05:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Firstly, sometimes things get lost in the many posts to these boards. Secondly, IP addresses are never blocked indefinitely unless they are open proxies. So there is a good chance that by the time admins saw the request, there was no point because too much time is past. Thirdly, 3RR does not apply to reverting vandalism, so revert away (just make sure that the edits are obviously vandalism). Fourthly, people generally aren't blocked if they have never been warned, so you should have given them at least one warning before reporting them. You do not always have to start at level one; if the vandalism is particularly gratuitous or seems to show an understanding of Wikipedia you are welcome to start at level 3. There is also a level 4 immediate warning, which says something along the lines of "this is the only warning you will receive", which covers this situation as well. And finally, WP:AIV is a better place, because reports are cleared as they are handled, so there is no piling on of new reports.

:::As far as your frustration about the lack of response, please remember that admins are human and are volunteers, like any other editor. Most likely, this particular request got lost among other requests, and by the time it was noticed, too much time had past. Natalie 05:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:::: Yup. The job is hard and the pay sucks. Guy (Help!) 07:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems that the anonymous user stopped edit warring and instead took his/her concerns to the talk page. For serious violations, WP:BLP/N is the place to report such infractions. Removing info that violates BLP is technically exempt under WP:3RR, so in that case you should be covered. hbdragon88 05:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This article was created by a known blocked user. I placed a {{tl|db-g5}} notice on the page, but the user keeps on removing it. Could someone please delete this page? I know it's up for deletion, but it was created under a troll account, and g5 purposefully exists in order to avoid feeding the trolls. Part Deux 11:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:There's an AfD under way, with a clear "keep" consensus. Why do we wish to short-circuit that?   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  12:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

::I now see that an administrator turned down the g5 request. Thanks. Though I do think it's a bit silly to keep an article that was by someone who not only was a sockpuppet, but made it incredibly obvious by his username (was User:Dog cicero instead of User:Cicero dog). Part Deux 13:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:Lol, here is how he got blocked[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIan13&diff=60717444&oldid=60466887], almost creative. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see his block log {{vandal|Alaexis}}, now he makes again edit wars. He made now Meatpoppetry by asking his friends to come there and revert on the page of Transnistria--M-renewal 14:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:I have blocked M-renewal for edit warring and attempting to game the system by forum shopping. – Steel 14:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:Oh, and his familliarity with Wikipedia after only a few edits suggests the account is someone's sockpuppet. It might be worth upping the current 24 hour block to indef. – Steel 14:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Over on Talk:Gibraltar, a Gibraltarian user is objecting to the inclusion of the template for Wikipedia:WikiProject Spain on the grounds that it's a "foreign project" and that it includes an unacceptable "nationalist symbol" (i.e. the Spanish flag). In conjunction with this, he is attempting to remove either the template or the flag from the template. Bearing in mind that Wikipedia is not censored to meet particular points of view, I'd be grateful if previously uninvolved admins could take a look and provide advice at Talk:Gibraltar#Flag. Thanks in advance. -- ChrisO 15:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

:I think there is an image of the map of Spain on the Commons, so maybe if the Spanish Wikiproject doesn't mind, they could change it from the flag to the map (which can easily be edited to have the flag pattern). As for the "foreigness" of a Wikiproject, Spain is still trying to assert its claim over Gibraltar, so it is relevant to keep the banner there. Since it would be useless to project the page, block the user when needed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

: The only real purpose of these wikiproject templates is to save typing. If the flag is a problem, subst the template and remove the flag from the result. This won't affect the usefulness of the boilerplate text significantly. Anybody who wants to know what's up on the wikiproject can find out by visiting it. --Tony Sidaway 15:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks for the feedback. Re your suggestion, Tony, the flag appears to be a problem specifically in relation to a Gibraltarian nationalist POV (in the same sort of way, I suppose, that Greek nationalists object to the term "Republic of Macedonia" or Chinese nationalists reject the existence of the Republic of Taiwan). I don't think we should be encouraging local POVs to dictate content in this way... -- ChrisO 10:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltar nonsense? Might be Gibraltarian, but I don't have enough experience with the user to say yes or no. ~Crazytales 23:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

: No, its {{user|Gibnews}}. Gibnews, however, is not entirely NPOV, though not as POV as Gibraltarian. --Iamunknown 23:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks Iamunknown. I had a small suspicion that Gibnews was the same user or had relations with Gibraltarian. Must be that he just had relations with him. ~Crazytales 23:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

::: Gibraltarian is still regularly attempting to edit (or deface) articles through anonymous IP addresses, often on a virtually daily basis. Considering he was blocked in 2005, he's certainly persistent. However, he's definitely not the same person as Gibnews. In my experience Gibnews is (or at any rate was, until his recent bout of Hispanophobia) considerably saner and more open to reason than Gibraltarian ever was. -- ChrisO 23:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think either my nominator or I has made a mistake in processing my RFA with respect to saving my old RFA. It seems the new one has been saved over the old one. Is there a way to properly archive the old one and move the new one. I have tried to correct it, but the edit history ended up with the wrong version. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

:P.S. see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TonyTheTiger2 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TonyTheTiger TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

::Lemme get this one straight. You moved your RFA from December to ...2, then wrote the new RFA over it at ...2? Is that what Imm seeing here? Metros232 19:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

: Should all be sorted now. Looks like the nom overwrote the original and you then moved that to the 2 version, restoring the original as a copy of the final state of that. You should have just reverted the nom and got them to create the new page. I've done the appropriate move/delete shuffles to split them up, so the histories should be correct. --pgk 20:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks. There seems to be a vandal participating in my RFA. It is probably a procedural violation for me to remove votes from my own RFA, but someone has voted for and against and in the against he stated neutral and that he hates me. Is this vandalism? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FTonyTheTiger2&diff=122819400&oldid=122819245 Um], are you accusing El C of being a vandal?--VectorPotential^Talk 20:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

::::It's a joke it appears. The way the formatting of the RFA is, it has "oppose neutral" rather than "oppose *BREAK* neutral". So I think he's joking that he "opposes neutral" because he hates him, him being "neutral." Metros232 20:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

::: User:El_C is a fairly well established editor not a vandal, a friendly question on his talk page asking about what he means would probably clear it up. It looks like a joke since the "oppose" and "neutral" headings appear to have been combined. His statement is that he opposes neutral (i.e. as if there were and editor "neutral") at it is "neutral" who he "hates"... --pgk 20:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

:::: There really is an editor called Neutral, although that editor has not edited since 2002. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 21:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::Gah, I didn't mean that user! Alas, at least one person found it funny, vs. the ten who found it lame. What do(n't) I win? El_C 02:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::: It's okay. : ) Given that the editor has been gone for the last 5 years, I doubt he or she will mind. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 02:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone help making User:WikiLeon respect WP policies? I received two threats of ban, latest [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tobias_Conradi&diff=121768216&oldid=121729020 here]. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

:That's not a ban threat, it's a boilerplate warning suggesting that you may be blocked. There's a difference. Natalie 03:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

::See the diff, it says: "you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia". This for me looks like threatening. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned, it's a template warning. Tobias, if you don't stop trolling and wasting people's time, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Newyorkbrad 19:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:So, threats inserted by a template are in line with WP policies? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

::I'd call that a promise, not a threat... -- ChrisO 21:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

: 'Can someone help making User:WikiLeon respect WP policies?' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Tobias_Conradi] *cough*potcallingthekettleblack*cough* HalfShadow 19:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Overt personal attack, name-calling, profanity, rudeness, incivility, blanking of WP:NPA warning notice by Harvardy - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHarvardy&diff=121140474&oldid=121139835 see this diff][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADoktor_Who&diff=122922150&oldid=122920727 this diff] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHarvardy&diff=122924629&oldid=122923803 this diff] --Gene_poole 05:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:Repeatedly accusing Harvardy of being a sockpuppet of Wik or Johnski, edit warring on said user's userpage for six months, tends to do that to people. hbdragon88 06:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

::Yes. Particularly if the accusations are well-founded. He wouldn't be issuing so many shrill denials otherwise. Aside from which WP policies apply to all editors, equally, not some editors when it suits them. Johnski / Harvardy has been actively harassing, making sockpuppet accusations about, posting personal abuse about me and other editors, and causing massive disruption to WP, for well over 6 months, and yet those affected have somehow managed to maintain their composure. Are you suggesting that I can start swearing and saying what I really think of him whenever it takes my fancy now? I didn't think so - so stop making excuses for him. --Gene_poole 07:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:::This is my view, based on just this conversation. If Harvardy really is a sockpuppet, I assume that you have already gone through the official channels (ArbCom enforcement, CheckUser) and had him checked out. If he was a sockpuppet, I know I would be seeing {{tl|indefblocked}} on his user page and a ban in the block log. I do not. Therefore, I assume that he was proven innocent or there was not conclusive evidence that he is a sockpuppet, and that your repeated edit warring over the inclusion of the suspected sockpuppet templates on his user page is causing him stress. I am not making excuses for him, but I am just wondering why you're being so aggressive over these accusations. hbdragon88 01:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:::It seems that the block has been enacted, therefore my original assumptions were incorrect. hbdragon88 01:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Thanks for your considered response. Sometimes, when it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it really is a duck. After 4+ years at WP I've developed a good nose for ducks. --Gene_poole 02:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACommunity_sanction_noticeboard&diff=122627468&oldid=122622748 this edit] checkuser Dmcdevit disclosed the fact that [http://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_T%C5%91k%C3%A9s&diff=456059&oldid=366936 this anonimous IP edit] from 8 months ago belong to the real life person "Marius Mioc" and to the wikipedian User:MariusM. In this way he showed not only a conection between a wikiname and real name, but also the real IP.--MariusM 20:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a concern with the fact that checkuser Dmcdevit disclosed not only my real-life name but also my IP – something I know is forbiden by Wikipedia policies.

I’ve made a proposal for community ban of sockpuppeteer User:William Mauco - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Proposed_community_ban_for_sockpupeteer_William_Mauco]

One of the many abuses of William Mauco I listed in that discussion was that he made an attempt to disclose my real life name, that he suspected being Marius Mioc [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASheriff_%28company%29&diff=88552817&oldid=88552254]

I told at that above discussion that „I am not going to say if the result of his investigations about my real-life name is correct or not”.

Many other editors considered that attempt to disclose real life name is a serious offence, who will merit even a permaban.

I mention that I know exactly how my Wiki-enemy User:William Mauco made research about my real-life name, as I disclosed in Wikipedia some time ago my participation at http://forum.tiraspol.net and I knew he will search at that forum and will be able to see the nickname and e-mail address I used there, from where he can suspect my real-life name: "I am not sure that I am doing a good thing, as Mauco will be able to search for my e-mail address that, for privacy reasons, I chosed not to be available at Wikipedia. However, I take the risk and give here an example of forum.tiraspol.net democracy: deletion of an article that I copied from conflict.md in both English and Russian" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATSO1D&diff=79466336&oldid=79393885]

Mauco indeed did the research and wanted a confirmation: “What say you, Marius Mioc?” [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASheriff_%28company%29&diff=88552817&oldid=88552254]

As I am concern with my privacy, I didn’t want to give to my wiki-enemy William Mauco a confirmation about my real name: “Mauco, Marius Mioc is a person from Romania who write articles about politics but why you believe is me?” [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sheriff_%28company%29&diff=next&oldid=88579774]

He never replied at that question. The situation was: my wiki-enemy has some suspicions regarding my real-life name, however he has no clear confirmation.

My disputes with Mauco at Wikipedia were about a region named Transnistria, which is the main subject of my and Mauco’s edits at Wikipedia. For real-life person Marius Mioc the main subject of interest is Romanian revolution of 1989, he wrote 8 books about this subject (the titles are listed at Wikipedia article Books about the Romanian Revolution of 1989), but never wrote a book about Transnistria.

Thanks to checkuser Dmcdevit all my wiki-enemies can now have the confirmation they were expecting not only about my real-life name, but also about my real IP address.

During discussions on the subject of Mauco’s sockpuppetry, User:Dmcdevit made an intervention considering that disclosing my real life name was not something such bad, as I anyhow disclosed it by edits where I included refferences at books written by an author named “Marius Mioc” [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACommunity_sanction_noticeboard&diff=122627468&oldid=122622748]

There were other things of smaller importance (personal attacks, untrue facts) in Dmcdevit’s message to which I already answered at above page - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Answer_to_Dmcdevit.27s_comments: see “Answer to Dmcdevit’s comments”]

I want to comment here only the diffs Dmcdevit provided as a proof about my real name: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Books_about_the_Romanian_Revolution_of_1989&diff=95508351&oldid=95321703] , [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Books_about_the_Romanian_Revolution_of_1989&oldid=79666088] , [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_T%C5%91k%C3%A9s&diff=75577002&oldid=70586119] , [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romanian_Revolution_of_1989&diff=72589923&oldid=72589047] , [http://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_T%C5%91k%C3%A9s&diff=456059&oldid=366936]

Despite Dmcdevit’s impression, above mentioned edits can not be considered a direct link to real-life person Marius Mioc. In the tiny word of researchers interested in Romanian Revolution of 1989 Marius Mioc is a well-known name. Nothing abnormal that in a Wikipedia article Books about the Romanian Revolution of 1989, where I added around 100 books, between them were included also books written by Marius Mioc; I would say that anybody who will write a list of Books about the Romanian Revolution of 1989 will mention also Mioc’s books.

What I consider extremely unacceptable is that Dmcdevit provided an example of an edit made 8 months ago with an anonimous IP in Romanian Wikipedia, pointing it as one of my edits and evidence about my real life name. The edit is: [http://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_T%C5%91k%C3%A9s&diff=456059&oldid=366936 13 august 2006 02:29] (it was repeated twice in Dmcdevit’s message).

I mention that in 13 August 2006 no User:MariusM existed at Wikipedia. In Romanian Wikipedia MariusM registered in 19 August 2006 and in English Wikipedia in 21 August 2006.

How did User:Dmcdevit know that the anonimous IP who edited 8 months ago Romanian Wikipedia is my IP? I guess, using his checkuser tool. I am editing Wikipedia from my own home, probabily my IP is the same today as 8 months ago. What want Dmcdevit prove disclosing publicly my IP? That 8 months ago, when I was a newbie who didn’t even know how to register at Wikipedia, without knowledge about Wikipedia policies, I made an allegedly abusive edit? What is the relevance of this thing in the context of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Proposed_community_ban_for_sockpupeteer_William_Mauco debates about Mauco’s sockpuppetries]? Anyhow, this is a problem of Romanian Wikipedia (where nobody seems to care and nobody reverted that edit in 8 months).

In Transnistria-related articles at Wikipedia I had a lot of heated debates (see talk pages and archives) and I am one of the main hate-attractors. I am plenty aware about this (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATransnistria&diff=119048004&oldid=119047384]). One of the reasons I attracted so much hate is that I discovered some cases of sockpuppetry, like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/MarkStreet MarkStreet case], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mark_us_street Mark us street case], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Pernambuco Pernambuco case]. As I am editing from my own home, I have the concern that after Dmcdevit’s revelations all my “enemies” I aquired at Wikipedia will be able to trace not only my real-life name but also my real-life address. Long time ago I expressed my concerns that some of my Wiki-enemies are conected with inteligence services [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASheriff_%28company%29&diff=85725750&oldid=85716535] with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko bad reputation]. Considering the high levels of animosity in Transnistria talk page I am worried about this.

I am sure that my opponent User:William Mauco was not able to make any conection between my real life name and the inclusion, among many other (almost 100) books, of some books of Marius Mioc in the list of Books about the Romanian Revolution of 1989. He had only some suspicions, only with help of Dmcdevit he obtained confirmation (and I am 100% sure he was following the debates about his proposed ban).

O.K., Mr. Dmcdevit, you gave to all my wiki-enemies not only the confirmation about my real-life name they were expecting, but even more – my exact IP. What’s next – giving them my photo and my phone number? And all this for what? To “unmask” an allegedly abusive edit done 8 months ago at Romanian Wikipedia, while nobody there considered the edit as abusive (it was not reverted in 8 months), the allegedly abusive edit being done when I was a newbie not even registered at Wikipedia, without any knowledge about Wikipedia’s policies?

I believe Dmcdevit’s conduct is unacceptable, a checkuser should never disclose real IP of a wikipedian without a real good reason. I wonder if Dmcdevit should keep with his checkuser status after such a behaviour.--MariusM 12:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:Not to belittle your concern, there are two things I must mention: the possibility of a layperson or even more advanced computer user locating an address via an IP is very difficult. Also, check with your service provider, they may be able to assign you a new IP address and thus remove any further concern. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 13:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

::I'm not so sure. Although I haven't had the patience to read the whole thing properly, I picked up something about "intelligence agents" or something to that effect. If this is true, then they would be the people who probably have the expertise to pursue this thing. On a side note, I've left a note on the talk page of the admin in question. Harryboyles 13:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:Sorry, I saw Transnistria and instantly lost all interest. I notice you never considered asking Dmcdevit for an explanation before, quite frankly, rambling on here. I doubt there's a case to answer here, and it might be best if you contact Dmcdevit in future before making any accusations. -- Nick ^t 13:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. With all due respect - you may have a good complaint - it might behoove you to read the comments in bold at the top of the page: Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes. Part Deux 13:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:In a nutshell: Dmcdevit stated that a certain anon edit made on the Romanian Wikipedia was made by MariusM. So now the whole world knows that that anon = MariusM. This is a clear breach of the m:CheckUser policy because a) a check was not warranted (if it was, how?), and b) release of information was not warranted (if it was, how?).--Domitius 15:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what all this fuss is about, but that IP MariusM mentions belongs to a Romanian dynamic pool. Furthermore, neither Dmcdevit nor any other English Wikipedia checkuser has checkuser rights on the Romanian Wikipedia. If Dmcdevit surmised that said edit was made by MariusM (and I'm sorry, I'm having trouble finding it in your post above), he did so based on behavior evidence, not checkuser. Nothing to see here, move along. Mackensen (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:Doubleplusgood. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 16:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:What allegedly happened was that Dmcdevit checked MariusM's IP on the English Wikipedia (something he allegedly had no business doing) and found it was xxx.yyy.zzz. Then he checked the anon edits it made on the Romanian Wikipedia by going here :ro:Special:Contributions/xxx.yyy.zzz; checkuser rights on rowiki are unnecessary for this. This is what I understand from Marius's post on this page.--Domitius 16:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

::Quite a few allegedlys in there. You can reasonably surmise from the diffs MariusM has posted above that he's either Marius Mioc or someone posing as him. All you can tell from that IP address (on the Romanian Wikipedia) is that he's in Romania–something that MariusM claims on his own userpage. Again, all of this can be worked out from behavioral evidence. It's a reasonable connection to make. Mackensen (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

::::My guess: The big majority of edits made at Romanian Wikipedia are from Romanian IP adresses. Romania is a big country - 22 millions inhabitants.--MariusM 22:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:::I don't see how. As far as I know, Dmcdevit is not a habitual editor of the Romanian Wikipedia; how else could have have come accross that edit? Just brainstorming...--Domitius 16:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Well, you could always try asking him. Mackensen (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::That's the plan, I don't jump to conclusions. Hence the number of "allegedly"s above.--Domitius 16:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::Could we get more eyes on Transnistria; I'm at the point of exasperation. El_C 16:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:This doesn't have anything to do with CheckUser. That would have been easily resolved if you had asked me before posting a screed to ANI. Try searching Google, [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Marius%20Mioc%22%20site%3Awikipedia.org] and then checking the history of the articles. Dmcdevit·t 16:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

::Try searching google not only in Wikipedia [http://www.google.ro/search?hl=ro&q=%22Marius+Mioc%22&btnG=C%C4%83utare+Google&meta=], is giving 1270 results for "Marius Mioc". Only 7 from Wikipedia, but nice to see that in Polish, Spanish, and Nederlandish Wikipedia I am also mentioned, while I never edited there. How did you point that [http://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_T%C5%91k%C3%A9s&diff=456059&oldid=366936 this anonimous IP edit] was made by me, while at that time (13 August 2006) no User:MariusM existed in Wikipedia?--MariusM 17:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

::BTW: At Transnistria there is actually a staged edit-war to prove that even without User:William Mauco there are edit-wars on that article. I already pointed to User:Dmcdevit my suspicions about User:M-renewal. I would do checkusers for all those involved in current edit-war to check possible socks.--MariusM 17:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

: You have a habit of checkuser'ing everyone who happens to have a different opinion, Marius (Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/William_Mauco#William_Mauco_.282.29, Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Alaexis). Stating that this edit war is staged to prove that there could be edit wars without Mauco is absurd. What about an edit war of 1-3 April, 2007? Mauco was already banned then. Was it also staged? And by whom? Alaexis 20:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

::For the record: I was also blocked in 1-3 April 2007, starting with 1 April 03:03. Check my block log.--MariusM 21:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This lengthy section has too much stuff that does not belong to this page. Let's condense it to the issues that really belong here. MariusM alleges that at some point user:Dmcdevit publicized the IP address obtained by checkusering MariusM. This is a very serious allegation. If MariusM seriously claims that this indeed is the case, please provide diffs and links that support such claim without lengthy list of unrelated grievances. If the accusation is false making this unsubstantiated claim is a serious offense. --Irpen 21:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:I rephrased the summary at the begining of this thread, to keep it short and simple.--MariusM 21:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACommunity_sanction_noticeboard&diff=122627468&oldid=122622748 this edit] checkuser Dmcdevit disclosed the fact that [http://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_T%C5%91k%C3%A9s&diff=456059&oldid=366936 this anonimous IP edit] from 8 months ago belong to the real life person "Marius Mioc" and to the wikipedian User:MariusM. In this way he showed not only a conection between a wikiname and real name, but also the real IP.--MariusM 21:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:This seems to stem from the fact that Dmcdevit is a checkuser. However, at no time did Dmcdevit claim to be acting as a checkuser, and as I'm demonstrated above you don't need to be a checkuser to make the connection. Mackensen (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

MariusM, correct me if I am wrong, the info Dmcdevit provided in the diffs above can be obtained without the checkuseing you. While outing personal info obtained via the rigorous investigation of user's activity is frown upon, it is not the same as outing the information obtained via the checkuser run. The latter is the grievous violation and should result in an immediate revocation of the checkuser privileges. The former may or may not constitute a violation depending on the circumstances of the case, that is, how deeply the info was hidden, how much effort does it take to unearth it. In what I partially agree is that outing the personal info cannot be justified by how bad the user is. But if the user does not hide such info in the first place, there is no outing even to talk about. --Irpen 21:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, and my point in making the post was that it took only a minute or two to see that Marius humself had made the connection, and then proposed banning William Mauco, at least in part, for using the name. He is being disingenuous. If you look at the history, you will see that Marius makes an edit 5 minutes after that group of IP edits [http://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_T%C5%91k%C3%A9s&action=history], or I would not have had any basis for considering it was him. There is no need for CheckUser there. Dmcdevit·t 22:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we then can put safely the matter to rest. Just to be sure, could you me more explicit? You said "There is no need for CheckUser there." Could you just say "There was no CheckUser there" as well? --Irpen 22:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

::Okay then. I didn't use CheckUser to discover this. How could I have, anyway? You can see from the multiple IPs in that article's history that it is a dynamic IP range. There is no way that I know of to check the contributions for a whole range of IPs. Dmcdevit·t 23:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:I don't agree with above comments and I want to show some points:

1. The fact that the anon IP is from Romania and I stated in my userpage that I am from Romania means nothing. Is normal that the big majority of edits in Romanian Wikipedia are from IPs from Romania. Also, is normal that for subjects like Romanian Revolution of 1989 or Laszlo Tokes (a person who played an important role in the begining of Romanian Revolution) the majority of interested people are from Romania, having Romanian IPs. Romania is a big country, 22 millions inhabitants.
2. I did hide my personal information at Wikipedia, I never made a clear statement in Wikipedia that my real life name is "Marius Mioc", even less I didn't made a statement about my IP. I explained the way Mauco was able to suspicion my real name but I told even when I reported him that "I am not going to say if the result of his investigations about my real life name is correct or not". This is a clear statement that I don't like to confirm suspicions about my real name.
3. Real life person Marius Mioc is not an unknown person in Romania for specialists interested in the subject "Romanian Revolution of 1989". A google test is showing 1290 hits [http://www.google.ro/search?hl=ro&q=%22Marius+Mioc%22&meta=], only few of them from Wikipedia, you may consider that in Romania internet is not as developped as in anglo-saxon world and the majority of Mioc's work is in Romanian language. I don't think that an anonimous Romanian IP adding a refference at one of Marius Mioc's books in Wikipedia is a clear indication that this anonimous IP belong to real person Marius Mioc. BTW, "Marius Mioc" appear also in Polish, Nederlandish, Spanish and Japanese Wikipedia, and in those cases it was not me who added refferences at my books there.
4. To summarize, I am convinced that Dmcdevit did use his checkuser tool to make the link between the edit in Romanian Wikipedia and my wikiname User:MariusM (and further to real name Marius Mioc)--MariusM 23:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
5. :MariusM, please make your complaint to the Checkuser ombudsman if you feel you must. There is a log of checkuser requests showing the date and time that users were checked and the person making the check. The ombudsman will be able to determine with complete precision whether Dmcdevit used the checkuser tool on your account. Since accusations of checkuser abuse are a matter for the Foundation, and there is nothing that admins can do here, this thread is closed. Thatcher131 23:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Anacapa has disrupted feminism and gender studies related pages from November 2006 - Feb 2007. Signing-off with the moniker "(drop in editor)" using multiple IPs they have made spurious accusations of misconduct against "feminist" editors; pushed POV edits on gender studies pages that warp articles such as women's studies into critiques of women's studies; and multiposted an extract from a book by an antifeminist on at least 4 talk pages.

• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Gender_Studies&diff=105027791&oldid=103458286 Project Gender studies],
  
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Gender_Studies&diff=97048366&oldid=97038638 WP:GS again],
  
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWomen%27s_studies&diff=94639981&oldid=93848612 on women's studies]
  
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFeminism&diff=105025835&oldid=104669419 and on feminism]
  

Anacapa/(drop in editor)'s complex vandalism persisted until February 2006 when they misrepresented sources and factual information on Feminism attempting to create two criticism sections in the one article. a similar tactic was used on women's studies where the criticism section was longer the rest of the article.

A few days ago User:Cailil identified the same editing style and pattern, as well as 2 shared IP addresses between (drop in editor) and User:Anacapa. Since February 2007 User:Anacapa/(drop in editor) has been dormant.

See also: User:Cailil/Complex_vandalism_on_feminism_and_gender_studies_related_articles

After asking User:Durova for advice I reported the situation here.--Cailil 15:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:I think Calil has put a lot of good effort into this report and I ask the participants at this board to give it an evaluation. Does this merit a community sanctions discussion? Durova^Charge! 16:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

::The summary of the vandalism you (Cailil) wrote certainly shows a lot of disruptive editing by Anacapa (particularly attempting to unilaterally change the goals of a WikiProject). I'm a little confused as to what is being asked for here. Natalie 18:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:::To submitter--what exactly are you asking for? A cursory look makes me think a community ban is in order.Rlevse 18:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding so quickly. I am requesting a community sanction discussion for User:Anacapa. Apologies for not making that clear from the start--Cailil 19:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:In that case, I would suggest reposting this to the community sanction noticeboard. Natalie 00:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This AFD has been prematurely closed twice, as I noted over on the incident board, but just in case that wasn't the right place, I decided to post here. The first time was by an admin who agreed to the revert, the second time by a nonadmin in violation of Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions which I have since reverted. To avoid this happening again, I ask that a non-involved neutral admin step up to take responsibility for closing this discussion at the appropriate time. FrozenPurpleCube 16:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:Firstly, I believe you were correct in reverting the early closure of that AfD. Secondly, an appropriate administrator will close that discussion at the end of the period, there is no need for a note here :-) --Deskana (fry that thing!) 17:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

::Well, the problem is, it happened not once, but twice, so I hoped to avoid it a third time, because frankly it's a bit of effort to go through. Just once, easily resolved, twice? Brings up some warning bells. FrozenPurpleCube 22:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This was crossposted to Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Premature_closings_of_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FAlekhine.27s_defense.2C_Modern_variation.2C_4...Bg4. --kingboyk 17:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We're getting on to a month of backlog there - I'm about to start on it, but we need a good number of admins acting there to get it done. Thanks, Martinp23 21:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:May as well take this opportunity to mention NPWatcher, which can seriously help with orphaning these images. Martinp23 21:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The Behnam has been blocked by Dmcdevit for edit warring while dealing with attempts to insert material that, per The Behnam, were possible violations of WP:COI. The Behnam has requested unblocking, and this was turned down by Yamla. The Behnam has explaned the situation in detail on his talk page, the following is Copy/Paste quote from his talk page:

It is clear from the blocking reason above that I didn't actually violate any WP rules, such as 3RR. Furthermore, the reverts are completely sensible as the others were reintroducing non-RS, possibly COI sources, scriptural misquotes, and other OR into the article. Please see Talk:Iranian women for the discussions, which, by the way, the reintroducers haven't taken any constructive role in. They even introduce false references [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iranian_women&diff=122691112&oldid=122685172]. The Iranica source says nothing about Iranian women. This kind of dishonest editing needs to be reverted to preserve the integrity of the articles. My reverts are what any objective and honest Wikipedian would do, and I didn't break any rules. These people blindly revert, saying 'seek consensus' but don't actually raise any specific objection. They ignore the edit summaries and talk page discussion. There is no justice in me being blocked. The Behnam 18:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:Need some assistance, The Behnam? (talk page watchlisted) CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 21:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

::I'm not sure what you mean. If he'd actually look into this situation he'd find that the reverts were completely justified. What is the point of setting a 3RR rule anyway if I'm going to be blocked on Dmcdevit's whim without any regard to the context? I see well-established editors (some admins) who revert like this all the time; the articles are compromised by the kind of dishonest editing seen from the other party. They work together to keep tripe in the articles. In any case he obviously messed up when it came to User:ParthianShot because somebody allowed that user to change user names and thus escape his past record. If anything that editor should have been blocked longer than me under Dmcdevit's personal blocking policy. Consider [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username/Archive20#Surena_.E2.86.92_ParthianShot][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Surena][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Surena]. There are serious issues put forth on that talk page that haven't been addressed by the restoring party, including possible COI. This block is ridiculous. Besides, if you look at my last (3rd) revert, I said that if they blindly revert again I will seek higher authority on the issue [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iranian_women&diff=prev&oldid=122652132]. Isn't that enough indication that I don't plan on keeping the revert fight going?

I'm requesting that an uninvolved admin please review the block, and subsequent denial of unblock. Thank you. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 21:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:I can see a case for unblocking on this record, particularly in view of the edit summary for the last revert, as noted by the user. However, the blocking administrator should first be notified of this discussion and given an opportunity to comment. Newyorkbrad 22:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:: I see at a glance the opposite. COI issues aren't an exemption in WP:3RR, 3RR is quite explicit on it's intent and that 3 reverts aren't an entitlement. The final edit summary seems to be indicative of a willingness to just push the bounds of 3RR rather than actually work within the intent. --pgk 22:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:::There was at least soem attempt to discuss on the talk page. There was not an actual violation of the 3RR. There was at least soem indication in the 3rd revert of an intent to rpesume other emans, and not continue reverting, which is what The Behnam now indicates were his/her intentions. I support an unblock, perhaps with a limited time 1RR or 2RR parole. DES ^(talk) 23:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

::::To me, it seemed that The Behnam was escalating the conflict to three reverts in quick succession. He ma very well have planned on stopping then, but this is problematic. As I said in my block message, this is the third time that I know of in a short while that The Behnam has made three reverts in 24 hours in an edit war. I agree with Pgk: "My 3 reverts are up, now I will report you if you continue"-type edit summaries are usually a point against you, not in your favor. Dmcdevit·t 23:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::I would agree with you if the user had written "everyone's reverts for today are used up and we end on my version so I win," but this was more along the lines of "I will seek wider attention if needed because I believe you are violating policy," which is quite different. I do acknowledge the prior block history, however. Newyorkbrad 23:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

: This looks like a "Last defender of the wiki" problem. If there's a problem that you feel must be corrected, then communicate that problem to others. If you feel that you and you alone must insert yourself into the breach, you're almost certainly wrong and probably a couple of days' holiday from editing will be good for you and everybody else. --Tony Sidaway 23:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing everyone's comments, I have to second Pgk's remarks. Three reverts aren't an entitlement, and edit warring in itself is a blockable offense. However, I'd have given him a second chance (on the condition that he not revert the article until he has consensus), but while going through the edit history of Talk:Iranian women, I noticed The Behnam calling another editor a "hypocrite" in an edit summary ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iranian_women&diff=122649856&oldid=122649061]). IMHO, it's probably best that he sits this block out so he can cool down. Khoikhoi 00:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:I ditto Tony Sidaway, in particular, in expressing my endorsement for the block. This user was being disruptive by not discussing the reverts on the talk page of the article and/or the user talk, and this was adversely affecting the project. Daniel Bryant 00:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

::"Adversely affecting the project" is an exceptionally harsh judgment, but I defer to the consensus that the block stands. Newyorkbrad 01:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It was just brought to my attention that ParthianShot, who was given a strong warning only, because I didn't see past blocks, is actually the new username of Surena, who has two blocks, the same as The Behnam. The warning was probably a mistake then. See Wikipedia:Changing_username/Archive20#Surena_.E2.86.92_ParthianShot. Does anyone feel like blocking him as well? Dmcdevit·t 00:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:CarlKenner, who was banned several months ago (and whose user talk page is still locked), is back making edits. His most recent edits are to the article International Vietnamese Youth Conference, adding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Vietnamese_Youth_Conference&diff=122504317&oldid=122242541 biased and false information]. These edits are discussed in the talk page, but he could not produce any proof of his assertions. He's been re-adding this information to the page every time it's removed, and putting the summary "rvt vandalism". He's reverted the page 3 times in a 24-hour period now. In the talk page, he's twice [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Vietnamese_Youth_Conference&diff=prev&oldid=123059142 removed comments] from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Vietnamese_Youth_Conference&diff=prev&oldid=123071644 other users] DHN 06:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

: The user was blocked for 24 hours on 5th May. If you're requesting a further block, please do so at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Waggers 14:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Alastair Haines seems to be on a biot of a spree, moving articles by cut-and-paste. A lot of these are disambig articles that (IMHO) should take preference over his prefered article to begin with. I'd ask that someont give him a bit of a talking to, and that his changes be reverted for now. Artw 17:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

: Possibly I was hasty posting this to admn - the user has asked to see the relevant guidelines and I've given them to him. Still some help with the cleanup would be appreciated. Also it's possible that a firm indication as to whether moiving the articles in the first place was appropriate or not would probably be beneficial (my take would be No). Artw 17:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

{{userlinks|Instantnood}} was placed on general probation by this arbitration case, for continued edit warring and misconduct, allowing a ban to be set upon agreement of three administrators. Since then, only more of the same has been happening, including the use of sockpuppets to duck the arbitration remedies and blocks placed for violating them (see the checkuser case), and has been blocked several times [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Instantnood] for repeated edit warring, stalking editors to edit war with them, and block evasion. Given his conduct and apparent lack of intent to change it, I believe it's time to set a ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:Haven't been involved, but I reviewed what you have presented and I agree: the user seems more interested now in avoiding restrictions than in being a productive part of Wikipedia. We might as well make it official and set an indefinite ban. Mangojuice^talk 01:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

: In the circumstances, a ban would be a formality. Just up the block to indefinite, watch for socks, and ask the arbitrators to re-open the case if the block should ever be challenged. --Tony Sidaway 01:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at the community sanction noticeboard? Khoikhoi 01:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:Figured it should go here given the circumstances (that admins would have to agree), it could go there too I suppose. Not sure what the exact procedure is for that, but it's not exactly a community ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

::I think this belongs over at WP:AE, not the AN. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Per Instantnood's general probation, under which he may be banned from wikipedia upon the agreement of 3 admins, he has been so banned, and the ban recorded here as required. Thatcher131 23:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't fully followed the whole "should we allow/disallow categories for children" debates, but I thought I'd bring this category to attention, as I recall similar categories being deleted in the past per related concerns. This category is specifically for 8-12 year olds. VegaDark 04:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:Honeslty, what's the point of these absurd range categories? 1990-94 and 1995-99? There's only about 10 users who have identified as being born in the 1990s. Just put them all into one category and let them state what year they were born on their userpage. hbdragon88 05:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Meh, just delete the lot of those as they're not particularly useful to encyclopedia writing. Move everybody to :Category:Wikipedians born between 1795 and 2199, problem solved. >Radiant< 10:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Gah, how often do we have to kill these things. These categories serve no use, except social networking. That in itself isn't a reason to delete ...perhaps. But the mere possibility that grouping child wikipedians might have a negative effect (on PR if not in reality) then the outcome must be kill kill kill. I can't find the diff, but I know Jimbo shared that response. Speedy delete and salt the earth - DRV has always endorsed that type of action, so we have a defacto policy here.--Doc^g 10:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

::*Kill with fire and salt the earth. El_C 10:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If the editors are living people and the information (age) is not sourced by a reliable published source then apply WP:BLP ? WAS 4.250 10:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:Apply common sense. Dosen't matter if the the information (age) is sourced. El_C 10:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

::Yes. It is common sense to me and you. But not common sense to those who are creating and populating categories like that. So what objective general rule can be agreed on that solves this and hopefully other cases as well? "Objective" so we are not merely replacing one subjective judgement for another and "general" so we have as few rules as possible rather than thousands of specific rules for specific cases. I believe that WP:BLP fills the bill. WAS 4.250 11:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Apply common sense. I don't think that WP:BLP applies here. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely familiar with the US schooling system, but doesn't :Category:Wikipedian high school freshmen raise the same issues? As might other subcats of :Category:Wikipedian high school students... WjBscribe 15:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

: High school freshmen (with notable exceptions) are usually at least 13 (in most cases in my area, 14 or 15). 8th grade or lower, or any cats abut middle schoolers would probably be worth deleting. Ral315 » 01:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason that we shouldn't move these pages to Wikipedia:Protected titles? Cbrown1023 talk 21:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

: None at all that I'm aware of. Feel free to go through the masses if you like. I think they still are there because there are or seem to be so many. --Iamunknown 01:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Category:Protected deleted categories should be moved over as well. VegaDark 02:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:::So is the transcluding way the preferred way to salt pages? WP:SALT isn't clear on whether there is a preferred method, or even why there are two methods. Natalie 02:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::::The category was the previous method, before this method was even possibly with the use of cascading protection. With the category method, the pages can be arrived at by Special:Random and are indexed by search engines. We normally do not want this for maintenance pages. Currently, there aren't any drawbacks to the Cascading solution, so it is the preferred way. Cbrown1023 talk 02:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::I'll work on that all tomorrow... It'll be fun... a lot of stuff, but fun. :) Cbrown1023 talk 02:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I was in a content dispute (if you can call an external link 'content') with User:{{{User (User talk:{{{User • Special:Contributions/{{{User) over at Fertility awareness. The editor has refused to talk things out and was edit warring (and I was reverting maybe a bit too much as well). That, however, is not why I am here. The editor has added a comment directed towards another user (a personal attack, if you will) that has inflammatory and racist language. I reverted it on sight and warned the user on talk. However, the user has simply reverted the questionable content. So I am asking for admin help in analyzing the situation, and recommending a course of action (if any is needed). Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 22:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, can someone help to make admin User:Grandmasterka respecting WP policies? I think it is against WP policies to call someone who made a very normal statement a troll. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Danny&diff=prev&oldid=122531334] Or is calling other people troll, now in line with WP policies? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

:Sorry. I see no need to get involved in this dispute. The complainant (Tobias Conradi) accused User:Danny of speaking rudely to him on the phone, and other users questioned the legitimacy of this accusation, and accused Tobias of trolling. Given the suspicious nature of the originial accusation against Danny, and the tone of the general discussion thread, I think the best thing to do is just to move on. YechielMan 03:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

::User:Tony Sidaway calls the discussion rubbish [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Danny&diff=next&oldid=122531334], User:Newyorkbrad calls it trolling [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Danny&diff=122866009&oldid=122862817] .... I do not understand how such way of talking helps WP. Also they should respect WP policies. Also admins should respect policies. Thank you. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Perhaps a provision of WP:DICK comes into play here. When multiple people call you the same thing, probably you should take a look at your own conduct instead of calling everyone else blind fools, hm? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::You are absolutly right. And this belongs to section #Tobias Conradi. But here the talk is about admin conduct. Admins should respect the WP policies like others. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::Yes, and so should you, right? Following policies is a two-way street. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::::And do not tell me where to post. If you post here, your actions will also be under scrutiny here. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::::Like articles have sections for different topics, so it is usefull to seperate topics in other places. I do follow the WP written policies. The above metnioned admins should do so too. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:::: What's up with this guy? Did he not get that pony he wanted for his eighth birthday or something? HalfShadow 20:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::Its time to reign in Tobias I think - see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Tobias_Conradi. ShivaIdol 06:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

{{resolved|1=Actually a dispute resolution request... but resolved. Sancho 04:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)}}

Hi folks. Would love a bit of insight from the admins and others here regarding a dispute at Shemale. {{userlinks|User:Patrick80639}} (a new editor and self-described pornographer) is seeking to establish that the term 'Shemale' is either not derogatory (or "not derogatory in a 'porn context'", whatever that means) and has edited the article to remove the reference to the term's derogatory nature.

It's been clearly established that the term is derogatory by numerous references (Wikidictionary and reference.com list the term as 'pejorative' and 'derogatory', respectively) but despite being relatively new to WP, User:Patrick80639 insists on reverting to a version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shemale&diff=123130150&oldid=122958235 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shemale&diff=123135387&oldid=123131228 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shemale&diff=123139529&oldid=123137998 3] minimizing the derogatory nature of the term by trying to claim that the pornographic usage of the word is somehow 'not derogatory'. He avoids the Wikidictionary and reference.com links, pointing instead to 'WordWeb Online', which lists the term as 'sometimes derogatory', as justification for this artificial distinction. I don't edit war, would like to avoid edit warring on the article completely and so I would appreciate any and all insight into this area. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:I wouldn't call it 'resolved' per se (there's still an open issue or two) but I'm very grateful for Sanchom's help. Sanchom - can you chime in on the talk page regarding the issue I mentioned? Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

::Seems like there is a term of art (so to speak) involved. I.e. there is a pornographer's designation that isn't intended to offend the actors and actresses. Well, ok, but isn't, umm, pornography already pejorative? I.e. turning someone's body into a commercial venture seems to me to be already a bit, uh, disrespectful, and a tender hearted pornographer worried about his brand name being offensive to the performers is just plain weird. Imagine the maker of "Sluts in Heat" trying to argue that, well, yes, he did try to find the youngest looking women he could and did subject them to degrading on-camera acts, but "slut" isn't a bad word! If it's not a bad word, then the marketing fails. (In this case, can't the dude be satisfied with "pornographers employ the term when marketing their product" without any appeal to their desires to be nice or not?) Geogre 11:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if that's quite what it's called, but it's what's happened to nebular hypothesis. It was formerly a redirect to planetary formation, which is now a redirect to Nebular hypothesis. Planetary formation, in turn, was moved from solar nebula, which has since been reborn as a stub. That page has the history of the big, important page going back to 2003. Can an admin move the relevant history to Nebular hypothesis? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zenohockey (talk • contribs) 02:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

:Someone really made a mess of this. I reverted Nebular hypothesis back to 11th February and it's back as a redirect to Solar Nebula. Planetary formation was reverted to May 2006 and is back as a redirect to Protoplanetary disk. Solar Nebula was reverted to 18th February and is back as a full article with complete history. Sigh. – Steel 11:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I get a view or two about this:

• [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Peaches1018 Peaches1018], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mnkyfnky7 Mnkyfnky7], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20070416123947&limit=50&target=Spaz109 Spaz109]

Three related user accounts that refer to one another, all consist entirely of User Talk "contributions" that are an ongoing chat among some kids in class. As "vandalism" goes, it isn't the highest priority, as they aren't wrecking the encyclopedia, but it is a misuse, and warnings were ignored. I blocked the accounts, but was wondering if going after the underlying IP to prevent account creation is warranted, ie a checkuser, to lead to some kind of schoolblock. Thanks, Kaisershatner 14:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:I removed the chat texts. YechielMan 14:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks, but what about the main issue? Kaisershatner 14:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:::There's not much we can do to stop someone creating an account and writing stuff on their user talk page. Like any other form of vandalism, we just have to be vigilant, revert or remove such edits and warn the vandalising users, going on to block them if necessary. This isn't really anything new. Waggers 15:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Don't think we'd need a checkuser for just that, it's not a terribly hideous instance of vandalism, and there's no hint they've come back using sockpuppets. (If the school shares an IP, like a lot of them do, they'll very likely have gotten bored and moved on by the time the autoblock expires anyway.) I've run across that type of thing before-just first politely inform them that we're not a chatline, and if all they want to do is chat, they need to take it to email, IM, or some other venue. Everyone I've talked to has stopped at that point anyway (I think at least a couple of them were under the impression that their conversations were for the most part private, and left immediately upon finding out otherwise), but if they don't, I guess that'd be like any other vandal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears that this is {{user|22113itshouldsnow}}, {{user|22113letitsnow}}, {{user|Itshouldsnow22113}}, {{user|Letit22113snow}}, etc...

I remember when they were first around using talk pages for chat rooms, and I was able to figure out which school they were at by googling combinations of the names of the teachers they talked about. Looking at one of these recent pages, and googling [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=panasuk+horn&btnG=Search panasuk horn], the second result is a teacher page from the same school, [http://www.guerincatholic.org/m_panasuk.html Guerin Catholic]. --Onorem 16:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

{{user|Coltsfan8893}} seems to be their latest. Still active as of an hour ago. --Onorem 16:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say that {{user|Shortie1018}} is also due for a block. one of theirs. --Onorem 16:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::Fascinating. Googling, led to this:[http://www.experts-exchange.com/Networking/Misc/Q_21980185.html The IT Director of that school] Kaisershatner 16:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::Got it. [http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=Guerincatholic.org] Kaisershatner 16:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::One IP address would seem to be 216.117.140.169 Kaisershatner 16:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:::70.225.145.209 should be another, but that doesn't appear to fall into the range of that whois... --Onorem 16:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:Ok, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Peaches1018#Peaches1018 my req for checkuser, there are many accounts].Kaisershatner 17:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

{{user|Jeffshark}} may be one too. I saw him a couple of days ago on RC patrol when he blanked his talk page and I left him a note this morning. He deleted it a few moments ago. I spent 15 minutes of my life politely wording a "don't do that" message, and I even gave him the 'cookies' welcome template first. Sigh. I need chocolate. KrakatoaKatie 17:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is suffering from WP:OWN issues, and a complete lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy and how to write an encyclopedia article by User:Milliot. He considers non-contextual quotes to be cohesive information, and has pasted entire articles into the "external sources" section, among other things, which I removed and he has replaced twice (after its removal by others). He also claims the page is maintained by "those who knew Rocchi," which is COI I'm willing got overlook because the sources are there.

However, it has been explained to Milliot at least twice what the problems are with the article, and it hasn't really helped. For example, a user working on the article tagged it lehgitimately with a citation needed tag. said user changed his name, and Milliot apparently thinks that since the old user "is no longer valid", the tag isn't either. Could an admin take a look at this and take action if necessary? Apparently regular old users aren't having an effect. MSJapan 15:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Cho Seung-hui temp move → Cho Seung-hui. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 18:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:'sdone.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  18:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::Ok, it is all mixed up now... there is Talk:Cho Seung-hui Cho which has to go to Talk:Cho Seung-hui. And there's a page history missing. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 18:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seung-hui_Cho&action=history This] is the article's proper history. :-/ {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 18:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Thanks for eveyone's mop assistance there. :-) {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 19:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oops spoke too soon, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cho_Seung-hui_Cho&action=history talk history] has to be merged back together with Talk:Cho Seung-hui. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 19:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:CSN. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 19:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:User:Tobias Conradi, once ranked 87 in en:WP, is indefinatly blocked. One admin reached a consensus for himself ;-)

::And since when did edit count rankings matter? If he has indeed exhausted the community's patience, we have the right to toss him out the door irregardless of contributions. Note I am merely affirming the right to do so, not whether said sanctions be applied. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

::: c.f. Special:Contributions/84.190.67.186 --Iamunknown 01:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

::he exhausted the patience of _some_ admins. To say "of the community" is false. Why it was exhausted is not clear. Maybe lack of patience? The murderers get annoyed by the police hunting them. But who committed the crime? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.190.67.186 (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

:The block is discussed here. Continue there. --Ezeu 01:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As you may know, {{User|Cicero Dog}} was blocked indefinitely for disruption (and at the same time a check user showed him to be a puppet-master). Since then there have been rather a lot of sock puppets (1, 2). I recently blocked {{User|Dog cicero}}, and 3 unblock requests have been refused by different admin. I write to notify that I have indefinitely blocked {{User|CDMS}} as a sockpuppet (who has contested Dog cicero's ban, and has stated on his userpage he wishes to start a "Cicero Dog Memorial Society", which relates to the name CDMS). Ian¹³/t 21:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

{{resolved|Closed by an admin --Iamunknown 00:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)}}

Would someone like to close this as a Speedy Keep/WP:SNOW per the strong consensus at AFD? I would, but I already voted in the AFD. Thanks, NawlinWiki 22:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

The thumbnail at Stereo Realist is only half-loading. The image itself is fine. Can this be re-generated or something? Thanks... —Chowbok ☠ 02:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:Fixed; it needed a purge. Probably best to put such things at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) in the future. —Cryptic 02:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

::Ah, okay, I'll do that from now on. Thanks! —Chowbok ☠ 03:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If we can have "Photo credit: Fir0002" on our front page why not "Photo credit: IBM" in exchange for a "donation"? WAS 4.250 04:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• The credit is on the featured picture, which is almost invariably a one-man act; it credits the person who made the picture. If IBM donated a picture to Wikipedia that was then featured, then a photo credit might be warranted. —Centrx→talk • 04:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• (ec) If IBM is willing to donate copyrighted content under a free license for everyone to use for unrestricted commercial reuse and derivative works, hey I'd totally be willing to have a byline say, "Photo: John Doe/IBM". Are they? --Iamunknown 04:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:It is really simply, we allow attribution on images. If the image is from IBM, and IBM has donated it to a license compatible with Wikipedia that requires attribution, then we attribute. Donations do not enter into it, we attribute when it is a requirement of the license. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't be discussing broad policy matters like this on the administrators' noticeboard. Hesperian 04:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I hereby resolve to transfer the GFDL/CC-BY 2.5 copyright of the next featured picture I take (OK, make that the first featured picture I take) to IBM or any other major corporation, in exchange for a $10,000 donation to Wikimedia :)--Pharos 04:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have applied the Dmcdevit solution to edit warring at {{la|1929 Hebron massacre}}. Several editors have reverted at least 12 times over the last 4 days over the insertion of the term "ethnic cleansing." The first step of the Dmcdevit solution is protection for 3 days (the article has not been previously protected). If the edit warring resumes I will enforce a 1 revert limit, and if that doesn't stop it, a zero revert limit. I would appreciate extra eyes on this when the protection expires. Thatcher131 16:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:Does it actually work? I've been the victim of this, but the other users involved weren't properly affected due to an oversight caused by a block log obscured after a user name change, so now the other guy is just going around to a bunch of articles and RV, usually calling legitimate edits "vandalism." He is restoring copyvios, OR, non-RS (and possibly COI) sources. His 'discussion' on the talk page is usually just insults against other users and Parsis. Also, on ANI I have asked whether or not I can transfer his sockpuppets from old user name to his new user name to prevent confusion. I'd like an answer on that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_for_update]. Applying the method doesn't make sense unless it is applied fairly.

:Also, how is 0RR a good alternative to full protection? There has long been an editprotected mechanism for requesting simple improvements. I don't see what Dmcdevit's 'thoughts' are adding aside from yet another arbitrary dimension to the system and something of a trap (in my first experience I thought it was 1RR for some reason and got hurt). The Behnam 19:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

::While I probably couldn't win any debate over the topic since I am not expert here, I think that these 'thoughts' deserve community discussion before being applied as policy to the articles. Editors aren't guinea pigs (I hope); an actionable rule needs community consensus. The Behnam 20:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:::The general idea that, if one person edit wars, block him; if several people edit war, protect the article, has a significant downside. Protecting the article harms all editors as it prevents anyone from editing the article. There are too many articles that undergo a constant cycle of edt war--protect--edit war--protect--edit war--protect. This helps no one. It rewards the edit warriors (or at least lets them off scot-free to edit, and possibly edit war, on other articles), while driving away reasonable editors who aren't interested in edit warring. Protecting the article is supposed to give the editors a chance to work out their differences on the talk page. If the editors go right back to edit warring, then they didn't use the time well, and need stronger measures to convince them to work within the system. 1929 Hebron massacre has been a problem for a while, and even after banning User:Zeq from the topic, at least 5 or 6 other editors are edit warring without using the talk page to discuss their dispute. Now they have a chance to do that. If they can't come to a reasonable compromise and continue edit warring (protection having failed its purpose), I see no reason to protect again. I have taken this approach before (applied 1RR to an article) with no complaint, and it actually seemed to work. Dmcdevit's essay is a formalization of an approach that many admins have used from time to time and it is not at all a new policy, simply a different approach to enforcing the same policies. Thatcher131 20:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Oh, I don't have any problem with 1RR, but basically this is 0RR, and I think it encourages sockpuppetry. Back at Azerbaijan (Iran) when I mistakenly interpreted "Repeat edit warriors will be blocked from now on" (from edit summary) as 1RR and forgot about the more 0RR-like wording on the talk page, I reverted an IP that was a possible sock and ended up getting a day's block. I think it is more of a trap that will encourage sockpuppetry. Also, it seems apt to allow people to add tripe but not remove tripe. The Behnam 20:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::Well, I'm starting off with 1RR. Dmcdevit's essay is an essay, not an instruction manual, and every admin has to use his or her own discretion. I don't think it will lead to adding tripe unless there's a tripe pile-on; if one user adds crap twice, it can be reverted by two different editors once each and the crap adder gets blocked. Also, editors should use the talk page, if there is good discussion and consensus about an edit but actually making the edit would be a technical violation for someone, then of course I'll overlook it. Thatcher131 20:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::OK, well I think 1RR is much more reasonable of you. But really this should go to community discussion if its going to start getting applied to articles, though I do agree that testing is necessary to see if there are loopholes or other possible problems. The Behnam 20:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Benham points out above that the editprotected tag is available to request edits to protected articles. From my perspective, articles that have been recently blocked for edit warring should not be significantly edited by anyone, admin or not, until the protection is lifted. I tend to disable the editprotected tags on such articles and decline to make the edit. The only thing that needs to be edited during a three-day protection is libel, copyright violations, etc. -- everything else can wait until the article is unprotected. In my mind, one benefit of stopping edit wars more quickly is that it may reduce the amount of time that these pages need to be protected. CMummert · talk 12:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

: That's not a completely unreasonable approach, but Wikipedia policy is that editing of protected pages for minor errors and whatnot can continue while the article is protected because of a dispute. The protection is solely to stop edit warring, it isn't to prevent editing (which would be a very bad thing indeed). --Tony Sidaway 12:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

School of the Art Institute of Chicago and Art Institute of Chicago talk pages are merged (via redirect). I would remove the redirect myself, but there must be some historical talk page for the Art Institute. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:Please refer to WP:RM. El_C 17:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeing how this entire topic came up as my mis-interpretation of a statement by Jimmy, I'm taking the step of archiving it, if people don't mind (to try and prevent confusion) -- Tawker 19:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Tragedy knows [http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/041807dnintiraqvareact.348b07d.html no borders]. El_C 17:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

{{archive top}}

It has come to light on en-admins that we go to read only mode for 24 hours in memorial to the victims of the tragic events of yesterday. Obviously its not something we have not done in the past and hence, a discussion needs to occur before such events happen. As IRC isn't the most transparent communications medium, I am proposing the discussion here. -- Tawker 19:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:Hmmm, Wikipedia is worldwide... while reporting on this event is worldwide in nature I don't think its impact is as great outside of the U.S. ... don't get me wrong, I am all for respecting the victims but this measure seems a bit excessive. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 19:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:Please tell me you are joking. Life goes on. We have an enyclopedia to build and no time to waste. (That said, I don't read the admin list anyway, we have wiki to discuss wiki issues so I don't really care).

:Nothing in this post is intended to be dismissive of the victims of the awful tragedy in Virginia. --kingboyk 19:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::Wait a minute. You actually mean taking the wiki readonly?! I've been informed that Jimbo proposed this on irc, what I don't know if he was serious. I presume not. You should go back and check. Sounds ludicrous to me, but it's not my site. --kingboyk 19:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:Surely we could issue some statement of condolences without reducing our level of service. Sounds like the kind of thing that's up to the Foundation, tho. Friday (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::I have no problem with it, but wouldn't this create a whole issue if, G-d forbid, something else bad happens in another region of the world, and we don't do a similar gesture? There is much worse violence happening in Iraq and Darfur, unfortunately. Will this open a whole new issue if some event happens over there, and we do not make a similar gesture? What about events in Israel or the West Bank.

::So as laudable as this gesture is, i can see some drawbacks, especially since we here at Wikipeda continually seek not to be overly US-centric in our approach to variosu things. But thanks. And bless you for remembering the fallen and the innocent, at sad times like this. Thanks. --Sm8900 19:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:Comment - I intend no disrespect in this, but what makes the VT Massacre different to the World Trade Centre attacks, or Columbine? I do not think the memories of those people, young and old alike, who tragically perished yesterday would be best served by us shutting up shop and doing nothing for a whole day. Do you think they would want everyone to down tools and stop work? Instead of remembering them as perished, let us celebrate the lives that they had, and the joy they bought in their however long or short lives to other people. My suggestion would be a public banner, linking to a moderated book of rememberence on behalf of Wikipedia and the Foundation, which could be printed out and bound, then forwarded to Virginia Tech after a month or so. Memory is a harsh thing, but as the British Legion use in part of their code of conduct, Remember the dead, but don't forget the living... - 19:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Talk with the 'flow

- :::I was on IRC when Jimbo said it. He also said that he decreed that there would be no shooting of anyone during those 24 hours. I don't think he was serious. Making WP read-only for 24 hours is really not an option. DS 19:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In short, the main reason for this posting was a comment by Jimmy indicating a suggestion for "one full day of universal world wide voluntary reflection without editing" - in the interests of transparency, I decided to post as such here. I cannot speak for the worldwide impact, I only thought it was fair to being the discussion out into the open and not behind closed doors on IRC. -- Tawker 19:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:Jimmy doesn't do any editing anyway, so it wouldn't make a lot of difference ;) --kingboyk 19:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I yield to no one in terms of sympathy towards the Virginia Tech victims and the campus community, but I too think this proposal, while well-intentioned, is misguided.

• It is US-centric and legitimate questions will be raised why similar actions were not taken during the Asian Tsunami or the Beslan tragedy, to pick only two. Also a bad precedent wil be set for the future.
• Shutting off editing on wikipedia does not seem a fit tribute to me since the message being sent seems to be "we will stop improving wikipedia for a day, to express our sympathies". IMO a better proposal would be, say, a drive to improve Virginia related articles as a memorial. That will express solidarity and defiance in face of the tragedy.

Regards. Abecedare 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::I think I prefer this idea. It turns out I mis-interpreted Jimmy's original comment as being directly related to the events of yesterday when in fact they were directed at the whole of OTRS issues "and a general need for noise reduction so we can get our work done around here." As such, I consider the topic closed and would prefer that we simply improve WP so people can learn what happened, and hopefully education can prevent such an event from happening again. -- Tawker 19:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

: Oppose Why prevent people from editing? Why not have a day where we all call in sick and ONLY edit Wikipedia to honor these students. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 19:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

With full respect to the victims, I have to say that worse tragedies occur every day at various parts of the world. Even if we disregard Iraq, where hundreds of people are killed everyday, there are hundreds and hundreds of people dying in similar tragic manner in other countries of the world. Wikipedia, even en wiki isn't just US centric. There is a whole lot of the world out there outside the USA. I totally Oppose any such "shut down" of wikipedia. --74.139.220.180 19:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a nice thought, but um... we'd have to shut down and stay shut down every day :-( --Kim Bruning 19:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't even make any sense. --Cyde Weys 19:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No. My heart goes out to the families of the victims. I hope the victims rest in peace. But I agree with Netscott. This isn't a worldwide issue, and if we did this alot I don't think it'd be a good idea. Maybe a tribute somewhere else then? Something small on the main page perhaps. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 19:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

I'm not sure if this is the best place for this, the village pump would probably also be a good place for this, but I'd like to gauge other editors opinion on the state of WP:COI, especially the admins. For those of you unfamiliar with this, COI was basically drafted up in a knee jerk reaction to User:MyWikiBiz posting articles that he'd been paid to write by their respective subjects. An interesting background piece on this is the Arch Coal [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_October_5&oldid=80379872#Arch_Coal DRV] which was one of the triggers for the creation of COI.

Originally, COI started out as a conversation between Jimbo and MyWikiBiz, and somehow came up with the worst possible solution. That of MyWikiBiz posting paid for GFDL articles off site and allowing others to copy them over to Wikipedia in an impossible to trace mess. Since then, it's evolved, but it no longer includes any procedure or rules, it lacks teeth. Originally intended to stop what Jimbo labeled as immoral editing, it now seems to say "It's OK but we/you might not like the results". So if I am paid to write an article by its notable subject, is that OK if the article is sourced and neutral? Do I even have to tell anyone? I am in favour of disclosure, I'm also in favour of allowing paid-for editing, but judging by the Arch Coal scenario, I'm not sure if the higher ups like Jimbo Wales likes it, at all.

I'm mentioning this again, because I've just recently learned that online data broker Intelius owns more than half of the people search market from the front page of one of the world's most visited websites. It's quite possible that the Intelius article was written in good faith without pay, personally, I don't care, as I mentioned, I am in favour of allowing Paid-for edits. What I care about is what Wikipedia's position on this thing is. What bought this case to my attention was that it's a very press release sounding WP:DYK snippet, and a user with not too many edits has somehow managed to incorporate and find the inappropriately tagged :Image:New Logo.JPG, which was uploaded by a user who has only uploaded Intelius images[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Audiokortex].

I think there should be a framework for paid-for edits, I believe it is an inevitability that this will take place, and I want to know when and where it happens. After scrapping the frankly detrimental off-site posting, Wikipedia still hasn't come up with anything to replace it. - hahnchen 21:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• And I hope that Wikipedia actually tries to address this, and that an admin doesn't just come up with a ill conceived cop-out reason for removing the Intelius link, citing something like "Crap DYK". Personally, I don't actually think it's a paid for article judging by the author's editing patterns. But this can and will happen in the future. Jimbo Wales flat out deleted Arch Coal as a fluffy PR piece (he was wrong), and yet similar in style Intelius is front page. - hahnchen 21:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• The great thing about allowing paid for editing is that it encourages the belief that writing articles in whose content you have a vested interest is fine and dandy. Oh, wait, no, that's a bad thing isn't it? So the advantage is that companies get to have their articles started in a guaranteed favourable tone. Oh, wait, that's not so hot either is it? Er.... Thing is, we're all volunteers. Pitch in paid editors, paid to edit on company time, and the dynamic changes, and in a direction which is away from neutrality. They will have more time, more determination and more resources. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Frankly i think that paid for editing, if proved or strongly suspected, should be a bannable offence, adn I would summariuly speedy as spam any articel i suspected of being so written. DES ^(talk) 21:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI There's another aspect that's missing. WP:COI is also a redrafting of WP:VANITY, which was deemed to have an impolite name. -Will Beback · † · 22:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Theoretically, a company could decide they wanted to give back to the world and hire a few people to improve Wikipedia. This has happened with other open source projects, like Linux. Many other times, a company will ask one of their employees to make sure the company is shown in a positive light on Wikipedia. One is a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopaedia. The other is corporate interests. A number of cases will fall in between. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 22:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• The majority of cases which are identified as COI are so identified precisely because they are biased. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• (Remarking on Armed Blowfish's comment) I don't think there's an inherent problem with being paid to edit Wikipedia. However, there certainly is a problem when the people who are being paid are writing about the people who are paying them. For example, if IBM paid editors to write about mathematics that'd be OK, but when they start getting into something like mainframes or other products/technologies associated with IBM, it becomes problematic. So, basically, paid-for-edits are OK imo, as long as the company thats paying for it is not even vaguely related to the article subject matter. Even with good intentions though, I think companies paying for edits to their own and related articles is still a bad idea and leads to a natural (possibly unintentional) bias and COI. If companies want to give back to Wikipedia by paying people to edit, they should make sure the subject matter is not in their field. Wickethewok 22:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Maybe it's just my paucity of imagination but I have trouble imagining almost any company paying anyone to write articles just for knowledge's sake. If it can happen, I think it will be the exception. If any official line is taken for this hypothetical do-gooder, that it is okay "so long as...", I foresee a very slippery slope, with companies claiming that a paid for article is unrelated, where it may not be so easy to see a connection, which nevertheless exists.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::What if somebody is paid to research a topic, uses Wikipedia as a source and notices a spelling mistake, or decides to add some info that he found in another source? What if somebody is paid to create page for a technical support website and wants to link to a useful article in Wikipedia, such as network address translation, notices some minor problems with the article and decides to fix them. I think we are risking instruction creep here. Judge the edit at face value. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 22:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Comment - Do you guys see a marked difference between the instantly deleted Arch Coal and the current Intelius DYK? The Intelius logo at :Image:New Logo.JPG seems to have been uploaded to an unconventional filename by a user who has only uploaded Intelius images and then disappeared. There should be a framework for COI editors to upload their paid-for articles on Wikipedia. There should be some kind of vetting process as in WP:AFC. Much rather have this, then having them uploaded on the sly. I don't care about the biased majority of COI articles, they can be deleted or stubbed just as the vast majority of crap articles. What I do care about are the ones that are satisfactory for an encyclopedia, uploading these are OK now? COI doesn't seem to have any sort of bite to it any more. Banning paid-for editors is just going to drive them underground, and you can't stop the train of inevitability. - hahnchen 00:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I prepared a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConflict_of_interest&diff=120994077&oldid=120913843 rewrite] the conflict of interest guideline recently, and there's been some discussion on the talk page following this. I tried to say that editing with a conflict is broadly discouraged, but that anyone willing to contribute content is encouraged to involve other editors in some way, by using talk pages, for example.

I think this is the right approach (inviting people to contribute but asking that they mediate their content through the community) but unfortunately it currently suffers from a lack of mechanisms for carrying it out. Suggestions for mechanisms, or comments on the rewrite in general, would be very welcome. --bainer (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion -- I have images tagged for speedy deletion since March on my watchlist. Can some admins please pull out their flamethrowers? Much appreciated, Iamunknown 00:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I can help with the articles, but I know nothing about images, so hopefully someone with image deletion experience will join the party. Natalie 01:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• We need help with the articles, too -- almost 500 up for deletion right now. NawlinWiki 01:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Let me help by patrolling Newpages again. ;) hbdragon88 02:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks folks. There are still quite a few out there! Sorry I can't help. --Iamunknown 05:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• I just hit a bunch of image backlog from Commons, as well as some speedy articles. Will hit some more tomorrow (tired now) - Alison^☺ 06:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• I hope that you've been careful. I had to throw some images out of the speedy deletion queue recently because they hadn't been properly transferred to Commons. (The most common failure was a failure to adhere to the requirement that all versions of the image be transferred.) Uncle G 08:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• So far so good, anyways. Checking histories, commentaries, licensing, name, sizes. It's boring and tedious but I got a bunch done already - Alison^☺ 08:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• (EC) Also note that only images that are bit-for-bit copies (practically, images that are the same filename) may be deleted. So PNG files obsoleted by SVG files do not get to be deleted. --Iamunknown 08:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Please read the comments by Redvers at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive83#Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. Despite the fact that over the years we have had strong statements from Jimbo Wales and from the Wikimedia Foundation about our mandate for free content (one of the fundamental pillars of all Wikimedia Foundation projects, note), the reactions from people, when administrators delete non-free content images that don't fall within the narrow confines of our exemption doctrine, discourage administrators from tackling what is a significant problem. (The editor reaction problem is even worse at Wikinews.) Uncle G 08:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Owch! Well, yeah ... all crap, no glory. Still has to be done. For a (relative) newb like me, working on WP:CSD#I8 should be an easy start .... errm, right? - Alison^☺ 08:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• (EC) I know. Thank you to all who do them. I wish I could help out and (inevitably) take some of the heat. Uncle G, the problem I see so much is that there are images seem to me to be very clearly decorative (i.e. fail WP:NONFREE#8) or very clearly lower the market value of the copyrighted media (i.e. fail WP:NONFREE#2) and people just don't get it. If we host AP photos on Wikipedia that were released, oh, say, a few hours before they were uploaded, that will cause significant market loss because people will be able to find the newest AP image on Wikipedia. Similarly, a lot of promotional photographs are simply not promotional photographs. If you wanna have some fun, try reading http://www.fox.com/corporate/terms.htm or http://www.nbc.com/Footer/Privacy/privacy_policy_2.shtml and see how very clearly they spell out that the exact type of use we often use their content is exactly how they don't want anyone using it. *sigh* --Iamunknown 08:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how to handle instnaces where {{Db-copyvio}} tags are used but the source text is clearly licensed under the GFDL, like at Mono Migration Analyzer, so I improvised. Did I handle the situation correctly? Jesse Viviano 06:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:Seems to me to be in order. I've formatted the notice to be more like {{tl|1911}}. Harryboyles 14:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:You might consider putting the notice on the talk page, as OTRS do when they receive permission, for example at Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know why and can fix why this talk page shows up cat CAT:NSD eventhough it doesn't have a speedy tag?Rlevse 10:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:Hmm, that's a good one. Spent the last few minutes looking for a reason, notice it's gone now. Maybe a template which was transcluded on the page was up for speedy deletion and has been deleted in the meantime (or maybe a while ago and was a while before the cache caught up)? – B.hotep ^u/_t• 10:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:Dunno, I checked every template, purged the cache too... db-nonsense was transcluded but I couln't find from where... That remains a mystery :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that an anon user with the IP 213.42.21.83 is vandalizing repeatedly. (S)He is mainly doing section blanks and "childish" vandalism, and nearly all edits are vandalism/playing with edits (though checking a few of his/her edits also revealed one benign edit). His/her talk page lists a few "Your test worked, and has been reverted" messages, but nothing more (except for one blatant vandalism message). His block log is clean. --NetRolller 3D 13:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:Checking more of his edits, there are more benign edits than what I found, and on one occasion, he/she reverted "his/her own" vandalism, so it looks like a shared IP. (Maybe we can set an anon-only block with account creation allowed, so the benign editor(s) on this IP can register an account, and if the vandal also registers, we can block only him/her, not the other user(s) of the IP.) --NetRolller 3D 13:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Abdurahman49 recently removed the "All Movie Guide (AMG) ID" from the Infobox Film templates on about 20 articles. See Special:Contributions/Abdurahman49. Currently AGF'ing per Fru1tbat's comments at User talk:Abdurahman49, but if no response, we will eventually need to revert the changes. I am adding a note here so it doesn't get forgotten. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:I've reverted all his edits. I don't know what his deal is, probably just trying to be disruptive. If we actually wanted to stop linking to AMG, we would start by removing the parameter from the template itself, which would make the links disappear from thousands of articles at once, but I can't see why we'd ever want to do that. — CharlotteWebb 15:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User Elsanaturk diverted a whole section into bombarding me with personal attacks and making POV and OR statements:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHistory_of_the_name_Azerbaijan&diff=122805623&oldid=122738224][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHistory_of_the_name_Azerbaijan&diff=123035632&oldid=122821762] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHistory_of_the_name_Azerbaijan&diff=123061439&oldid=123041558] He implies that I am uncivlized and uneducated, amongst other things, and also tries to dictate what pages people should and should not edit on Wikipedia.

Some lines of interest:

Les Absents ont toujours tort, they say in the civilized world, those absents are always wrong

He implies that I am uncivilized.

your imperial dreams which are and were only the dreams

can you ever make a good thing and contribute something positive to wikipedia that it would not create dispute?

and as i see you liked my previous comments, so i think you can also like my this one and i strongly appreciate to report me on civility, or something various, but remember that sometimes you must also know that that there is something called morality, for which wikipedia forgot to make an appropriate page.

Here he implies I am immoral and he is just asking for a ban or a block. This user clearly knew what he was doing, as he even knew that his comments would get reported to the admins noticeboard. This user clearly should get blocked for these comments and have some time to cool down, in fact, he is basically asking for it by asking me to report him for comments that he acknowledges are uncivil.Azerbaijani 18:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:You should ask him to apologize, and forgive him. The Behnam 19:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

::More attacks but User:Elsanaturk, view here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHistory_of_the_name_Azerbaijan&diff=123654526&oldid=123303252] This user is simply asking for a ban now.Azerbaijani 03:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I blocked User:Verne Andru for edit warring and a technical violation of 3RR when he reverted 2(one of them being me) users 5 times in 24 hours, and more before that(at 420 (cannabis culture)). All the same revert, which was to put a reference to his comic book into it.

This seems clear cut to me, but since I am involved with discussions about the topic of inclusion, I am posting here as a sanity check. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have also made a post at WP:COIN regarding this user, it seems to be a conflict of interest only account, the only contribution were the creation of his comic book article(Captain Cannabis) and mentioning it in the 420 article. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, a 3RR block was warranted for Verne Andru. User:SqueakBox is sitting at 3 reverts right now, so a comment to avoid edit warring would be appopriate for that user as well. CMummert · talk 17:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:Since Verne was the only person insisting on that version I think the edit war is over for at least a little while. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The Kitty Carlisle article should be protected since she has recently died.--Joebengo 19:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:Wahkeenah has violated the 3RR rule and says its "vandalism" even though citation have been proven.--Joebengo 19:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

::Where? I still don't see a citation. It's your responsibility to provide one. JuJube 19:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

::: The citation is on the page, it was in the sentence about her death. Am I the only one who sees it?--Joebengo 19:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Anon user 71.172.179.35 is repeatedly vandalizing the article Cory Lee, mainly by adding sexuality-related content. Action needed. --NetRolller 3D 21:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:JommyIshPockyLuvv is now doing the same edits as what 71.172.179.35 did. I assume that he has registered an account, checkuser might be needed.

::Nevermind, I can see he is now blocked. --NetRolller 3D 21:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Could some kind admin please take care of it, in particular {{vandal|Kizenbergers Rules}}? Thank you. Corvus cornix 23:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

: List is empty. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 00:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Can an administrator please assist me. There is a lot of vandalism to the Puma going by unnoticed, and I have a difficult time believing such an important topic could have such a short writeup. The current version is one sentence long and I cannot find a better version in the history. Burntsauce 23:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:No, I believe that they are good-faith efforts, but it appears that people are confusing Couger and Puma. Some expert needs to write this from the ground up. hbdragon88 23:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:: What are you saying "no" to? I do not understand. Burntsauce 23:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:::You assessed the recent edits as vandalism, and I was disagreeing with that assessment. hbdragon88 23:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:::: I have a hard time believing you've reviewed the recent edits then, to be frank. Burntsauce 23:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::Have to agree with Burntsauce, the edits being reverted are not good faith efforts, but pure vandalism. Corvus cornix 23:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::I checked out the 50th edit (28 March 2007) and found a one-line stub similar to the current one. Your description of sneaky vandalism made it appear that it was just that, sneaky, like misinformation. The current level of obvious vandalism is not problematic and editors have been keeping up. hbdragon88 00:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, the recent edits do appear to be vandalism, but as regards the question about a better version, I found a history entry where the page was merged to Cougar, leaving only the description of the genus at the page Puma. So, it is actually just a short article. Check the page on Cougar to make sure any additions aren't redundant. Sancho 23:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:I saw some awful things in Nam, but you really have to wonder at the mentality that would desecrate a helpless puma. --bainer (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

{{User|Jahedul}} needs to be blocked to get that copyrighted text and images aren't accepted here, as clearly written instructions and talk page messages won't do the job.

I've mentioned this user at noticeboard already, but the user is now repeatedly inserting copyvio text in Tracy McGrady#NBA Live 07: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tracy_McGrady&diff=123969833&oldid=123632147], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tracy_McGrady&diff=123629329&oldid=123576839].

The user has been previously blocked for repeated copyright violations, and, as I mentioned in the aforementioned ANI post, has more recently been repeatedly removing {{tl|Replaceable fair use}} tags from images. Ytny (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:I have blocked for 48 hours for the meantime, as the user's talk page makes it quite clear that he/she has been more than suitably warned. I am not opposed to a longer block and if anyone wants to lengthen the block I assure you I will not object. Natalie 02:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

::I think an extra 24 hours escalation from the first block is acceptable; if the user does it again, I think it'll be time to shuffle them off the wiki coil. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

{{user|Nitraven}} recently created a string of articles on types of Howitzers that were obvious copyright violations:

• Type 59 field gun, from [http://www.sinodefence.com/army/artillery/type59towed_130mm.asp]
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Type_66_gun-howitzer&oldid=124008333], taken from [http://www.sinodefence.com/army/artillery/type66_152mm.asp]

I checked into the contribution history and also found the lead section of History of the Sri Lanka Navy ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Sri_Lanka_Navy&oldid=123765362 article creation]) was taken from [http://www.navy.lk/history/1937-1950.htm]

Could some editors help track down and correct any other copy-and-paste's from this user? Sancho 05:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• I found another: Sri_Lanka_Navy_Reserve was completely lifted from [http://www.navy.lk/volunteer_naval_force/about_vnf.htm]. I've asked Nitraven at his/her talk page to help us by listing all copy-and-paste contributions at Nitraven's talk page. Sancho 05:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

::A real pity User:Wherebot is down, he would have caught all these copyvios. I am retiring for the night, but will check tomorrow if nobody does by then. -- ReyBrujo 05:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

::Disregard. The user didn't have such a long contribution history; about 500 edits with about 15 page creations. I have checked all the pages this user has created. A couple seemed okay. The others were lifted in part or in whole from usually a subpage of the Sri Lankan Navy or Army pages... ones that could be corrected by removing the copyvio section were corrected. The others have been marked for speedy deletion. There are many image uploads though. I'm not familiar enough with the image copyright checking process. Maybe somebody wants to look at those. Sancho 05:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I see a number of people talking about blocking at one revert, of people deciding that "edit warring" is the crime, not 3RR violation, etc. Well, I sympathize, and I know no one will speak in favor of edit warring. However, the idea of reducing a complex issue beyond its already reductive state (the 3RR) is completely wrong headed.

1. We have operated for a while with the 3RR, on the assumption that there is no "right version" at a wiki, that no one may "own" an article, etc. This is a rule that all users with any experience are aware of. Trying to change away from this practice to "block on sight" with any "edit warring" is to change the rules while the game is underway.
2. Our goal is to stop edit warring. The 3RR itself is a simplistic way of saying, "If we can't tell you exactly what edit warring is, we can at least agree that anyone who reverts more than 3 times in 24 hours is engaging in it." In other words, it is an exasperated way of trying to give a least/most line. It is there only because it is impossible to coherently describe what "edit warring" is.
3. No one can stop edit warring at one revert, because one revert isn't edit warring. No one can stop it at two reverts, because two reverts may be vandalism prevention. No one can stop it at three reverts, because three reverts might well be preventing an edit war between two radically divergent editors who will fight with each other to avoid the compromise version established by an RFC. You cannot stop it at four, because that might be an effort at clearing out quickly created accounts who are gaming the 3RR. In other words, "edit warring" does not occur at one revert, at two, at three, at four, at five, or at any other number. It occurs when people who cannot or will not compromise and discuss matters simply use the bytes of Wikipedia to score against each other. It is when they fight ("war") with the edits rather than their words and arguments.
4. If a person is debating on the talk page, and if the persons are seeking additional input, they're not warring. They may be struggling with each other. They may be disagreeing, or arguing, but they're not warring.
5. Any attempt to stifle the necessary role of investigation and consideration in the assessment of what is and is not an edit war is wholly wrong.
6. Blocks are evil. Let's repeat this, all together in one voice: blocks are bad. Blocks are not the default state of editors. Blocks are not power. Blocks are not tools. Blocks are a last ditch measure. Anything, and I mean anything, that people do to try to make blocks more automatic, more binary, more unconsidered is a thing that is wrong in every possible way.

So no, I do not think "block immediately" is an answer to "edit warring." I am not likely to endorse or support anyone who moves that way, and I will be very likely to listen charitably to someone so blocked. Geogre 01:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:::I agree with this sentiment. I like hard rules and bright line tests. But I also like gentle enforcement, particularly at first. I do not believe in blocks for 3rr, unless it is egregious. Instead of 24 hour blocks I would advocate 2 day to 1 week bans from editing the article. --Blue Tie 01:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Thank you very much for putting this out. The excessive arbitrary nature of the 0RR rule was quite troubling in an environment already prone to arbitrary measures. The Behnam 02:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR is an electric fence. It is certainly not permissible to pass 3 reverts in 24 hours. However, note that our previous edit warring guidelines were never revoked. --Kim Bruning 02:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:I think, if I could simplify, there is a middle way between the Geogre edit warring philosophy (blocks are evils) and the Dmcdevit one (protection is evil). While the latter articulates some interesting ideas and insights that are well worth our time examining, at the same time, we should be very careful about the implementation stage and ensure that sufficient input and discussion has taken place before anything seemingly new develops as a modus operandi. Certainly, the spirit of the law demands a certain flexibility, that isn't new and no one ever disagrees that being undogmatic is desirable. Note my recent reversion of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernard_Lewis&action=history protected page] on account that the party whose version I protected failed to engage the talk page. That probably breaks the letter of a host of rules (except for the trusted deus ex machina that is IAR), but it nonetheless makes perfect sense — although, I suppose I could have unprotected early and warned that, regardless of 3RR, if any user continues reverting without employing the talk page, they would be facing a block. That, arguably, also makes sense. El_C 03:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::I have before said that there were interesting things in the Dmcdevit position. 3RR has become an electric fence, as Kim says, when it emerged as a rough guide. In other words, people have been using it as though any reverts up to 3RR were ok and the 4th was an automatic 24 hr block. I agree that everyone knows that the 4th is a block. However, we don't correct the reductionism of 3RR is automatic by making an even less flexible and more reductive position. I have seen, above, more and more people lauding instant blocks -- missing the point again and heading away from deliberation and discussion again. This bugs me. Yes, all should remember that we're trying to stop edit wars, not living by the letter of a 3RR law. No, the answer is not to block more quickly. (I have, for the second time in 4 years, gone to 3R just today, so that's one of life's (or Wikipedia's) little ironies that this discussion would occur just at this time.) Geogre 11:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::: Hmm, well, you are supposed to only block when people are *actually* edit warring, yes ;-) If people do two reverts a day for a week, well... maybe you should block them for a change? On the other hand, if they are constructively working on building a consensus on the actual article page, they should be left alone. --Kim Bruning 16:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC) (yes, we do have consensus building directly on articles, it's this strange wiki concept we started with, so many years ago, imagine that!)

::As long as we're talking about the "Dmcdevit approach" (and can we not call it that?) I would note that "instant blocks" have no place in my approach. The idea is to stop enabling persistent edit warriors with chronic protection and repeated and punitive short blocks. It's not "block immediately" it is "block when protection would be fruitless due to a party's uncommunicativeness; block when an editor shows no propensity for understanding how collaborative editing works here, by edit warring in eh face of warnings and prior blocks". Er, that's not much of a slogan. The point about 3RR is that while I would not throw it out the window entirely (I make blocks based on 3RR occasionally) 3RR is a measure of edit warring, not the Form of edit warring itself. Admins are free to use their judgment when someone is edit warring within the 3RR boundary. Dmcdevit·t 18:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Protection is evil as well. Can you imagine how frustrating it must be for Newbie X who really wants to edit Article Y only to find it's been protected due to the edit-warring of a bunch of jerks? Besides this, blocking the jerks for their disruption if they've done it before/should know better, seems positively enlightened, even if they haven't violated 3RR. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 18:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::::"Reversion wars between competing individuals are contrary to Wikipedia's core principles, reflect badly on both participants, and often result in blocks being implemented due to violations of the three revert rule." This is what the official edit-warring guidelines say. Dmcdevit's thoughts are interesting, respectable and his interest in fighting edit-warring is laudable. But no user's thoughts can replace official Wikipedia guidelines without prior consensus of the Wikipedia community. Do we have until now such a consensus? My answer is no, because this discussion hasn't yet opened (why not?).

::::My friends, the meaning of the above two lines I quote looks to me clear: Blocks of edit-warring are implemented due to violations of the three revert rule. Where is it mentioned that with 1 or 2 reverts we can implement blocks? Nowhere! Do we want to change the current rules? Let's do it, but we do not have the right to implement rules we like but which are not yet officially approved by the Wikipedia community.

::::I will be straightforward here: I agree with George, and, though I laud Dmcevit's efforts, I regard his proposals concerning blockings for edit-warring as potentially dangerous, and not in accord with the current Wikipedia's policies concerning edit-warning and 3R rules. Maybe that is because I am a jurist, but I strongly believe that personal thoughts and unofficial IRC or user talk discussions cannot replace official Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

::::As a conclusion, I would say that, under the current Wikipedia policies, the only case I would accept a block for edit-warring without implementation of the 3R rule is when:

::::1)Edit-warring is extended in an article,

::::2)The edit-warring users have been warned,

::::3)The issue has been brought by the blockng adm to ANI, and broad consensus between the sysops has been reached. Unofficial discussion between some sysops in a sysop's userpage is not enough.

::::In any other case, I regard blocks without violation of the 3R rule as potentially arbitrary and unilateral actions. George, I believe that blocks are not necessarily evil, but when implemented, they should be in harmony with Wikipedia's guidelines.--Yannismarou 19:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::Good summary. I agree with Yannis' sentiment. Incidentally, I've been known to have experimented with such measures in some notorious hotspot articles myself ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonian_language&diff=prev&oldid=94373696], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus&diff=prev&oldid=94236712]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, when commenting, I had also that in mind.--Yannismarou 19:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::::I would like to add an important consideration: The fact that the administration of WP is in danger of losing its credibility with such methods. A user may be blocked out of the blue for following the rules. It is inconsistent, it allows for administrative abuse, it may result in POV-pushing if not excercised by God himself, and most of all, it makes users not trust the system. We may agree on 2RR, on 1RR or whatever, but there has to be a non-subjective limit. We could also have different RR levels per article, depending on the controversy, but still, a user must know in advance where their rights start and where they end. So must an admin. NikoSilver 20:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::All admin actions, if considered abusive, may be taken to Wikipedia:Request for arbitration, SqueakBox 01:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

People arguing that you're not allowed to block after 2 reverts, missed the part where it says that our previous edit warring guideline was never repealed, and still applies. The three revert rule is a special case, where after 3 reverts, you (almost) always get blocked for edit warring. But 3RR does not define what an edit war is. If you are edit warring in some other way, you can still be blocked. --Kim Bruning 01:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:Wikipedia:Blocking policy specifically lists "excessive reverting (edit warring)" as a seperate class of disruption from 3RR. It also states that the classes of disruption which it lists are not exhaustive. To quote: "Blocks for disruption should only be placed when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Wikipedia." That definition covers a much wider range of behaviour than 3RR, which is virtually useless against a troll who knows the system. Physchim62 (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR says explicitly that it is not an entitlement, and that edit warring is blockable no matter what. This is not a dispute about interpretation of the policy like people seem to think, it's a dispute about what the policy says. This discussion should be taking place on WT:3RR. -Amarkov moo! 05:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:For me:-

• :Wikipedia:Three revert rule applies if you are discussing it on the talk page, that you can't revert four times in 24 hours (with the obvious exceptions)
• :Wikipedia:Edit warring applies if you are just blind reverting with no discussion on the talk page (again, exceptions allowing), and in turn are being disruptive.

:Talking and reverting is slightly less disruptive, because it gives everyone a chance to give their input in finding a solution. As quoted above, "Blocks for disruption should only be placed when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Wikipedia" - I think that this forms the distinction between the two guidelines/policies, and the two situations.

:Just the thoughts from a raving lunatic. Daniel Bryant 03:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Blocking is evil. Before anyone reaches for the block button, reach for the "edit this page" button on the user's talk page. Blocking is not going to make things better. It can stop a disruption temporarily (unless you're doing indefinite blocks). It cannot make peace. Words, on the other hand, can help. If there is an edit war, talk and tell each side that it is better to have a blank than to have a hole in the paper from constant erasure. Blocking is not a quick action, and how anyone is convinced that fast use is going to help baffles me. (Obvious exceptions, etc. I quickly block "doodoo" vandals, etc. We're talking about something else altogether.) Geogre 11:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Who is talking about fast blocks? I (and you mentioned my name) am talking about blocks for persistent edit warriors, who continue despite gentle instruction, warnings, protections, and prior blocks. Your characterization of short blocks is much the same as mine; they don't really, and aren't intended to, solve the problem. I've also said communication is key (it's the first solution listed). So I'm not sure who you're actually arguing against, if it's not a strawman. "Blocks are evil" is simplitic and unhelpful. Dmcdevit·t 15:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Geogre. Dmcdevits idea specifically applies to pages and people who are persistently edit-warring, and where all else has failed. It does not apply to every single corner of the wiki, nor should it. When you read it in that context, it makes rather more sense. :-) --Kim Bruning 16:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to turn for help. It is partly about dispute of content. It is partly about 3RR. It is partly about reverts without regard to discussion requests. It is partly about another contributor knowing many more rules and being able to use them to her advantage.

I was told by one of the senior editors? administrators? to post here and someone would contact me to assist.

Unfortunately, it may also fall into the referee category.

I believe that another contributor is abusing wiki to inject wiki-legal references, and inserting subtle additional wording. It is on a much broader scale than one single article.

The other editor has been involved in numerous edit disputes as well as mediation with other users.

I do not understand wiki well enough to be able to cite the correct rules which are being abused, nor do I know where to turn when I see the abuse.

Based on the Opening requirements (above) I'm sure this is not the place to post, but it is where I was sent.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Lsi john 00:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hi John. Isn't this being handled by MEDCAB right now? - Alison^☺ 00:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Hello Alison. There is an open MEDCAB case. The other party has declared that she expects nothing to be gained and the case appears to have been seriously limited in scope. I suspect that I provided so much documentation and verbiage that the mediator is overwhelmed.

::My request for assistance here is for assistance with the technical rules of wiki. She uses those rules to hinder attempts to remove bias from her articles and without knowing the all the rules and decisions, I am unable to successfully remove the bias that I (and others) see in the articles.

:: Per above, this isn't the place to discuss it all. I just know from reading the wording across the entire series of articles, that wiki is being abused and used to target companies unjustly. I'm trying to find out how wiki works. I'm trying to find out what rules she is violating and how to stop it. And, ultimately, I'm trying to find out if wiki is worth the effort that it is taking to stop what I see is insanity. Lsi john 01:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:I took the initiative of posting this on the WP:ASSIST request page. Anchoress 01:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Here is the MedCab page for this: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-10 Large Group Awareness Training. Initially requested by User:Alison and User:Seraphimblade. The mediator is User:RogueNinja, who has been very fair and doing a great job of staying neutral and analyzing the information and citations. Smee 07:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

88.198.107.250 is an IP address that was recently banned; while it's a public IP (actually a metropipe anonymizer proxy), it is pretty much entirely used for vandalism, whether by one person or by many (about 2 edits out of every 50 are not reverted). As such, after an escalation of warnings and repeated bans, it was blocked for 2 months during a vandalism spree the other day (about 20 pages in 15 minutes, that they happened to start with a page I Watch, so I saw it and was cleaning up after them while they were about 5 pages ahead of me).

Anyway, there is a person there now who claims to have been about to do a perfectly normal edit. I'm not sure what the likelihood of the person who 'really' uses Wikipedia properly from that IP happening to just show up a few hours after the block, 6 weeks after the last time they showed, but they're being reasonable, so I've spoken with them. However, they have started asking questions akin to, 'couldn't the admins just...' and I'm not knowledgeable enough in wiki administrivia to know what the options are. If an admin could pick up this conversation with them, I would be glad. Thanks.-Thespian 06:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:If I were an admin, and I saw this, I would probably do the following:

:#Inform the user that you will give him one chance to create an account. Give him about 2 minutes from when you leave the message, at a time when this user is, in fact, likely to be there to deal with it.

:#Replace the block with an anon-only, account creation not blocked, block for 3 minutes.

:#At the end of the 3 minutes, set a new anon-only, account creation blocked, block on the IP address until the end of the duration of the original block.

:#Leave appropriate reasons for the block/unblock actions described above, so that any other user will see your reason for this action.

:#Inform the blocking admin of this action on their talk page.

:Od Mishehu 07:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

::Why is this IP address allowed, since it's apparently masking people's real IP address? Natalie 13:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Blocked indefinitely. Editing from open proxies is prohibited. Thatcher131 13:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What's going on? --Dweller 10:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Seems to be alternating between being deleted and being vandalized. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

::When I look at the history, it just has about ten edits, all vandalism. Karrmann 10:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• I am guessing that there is something wrong with the cascading protection? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Among all the welter of vandalism, please will an admin single out for attention the registered user who posted "Niggermayor" on the main page. --Dweller 10:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:10:09, 19 April 2007 Nphase (Talk | contribs) (←Created page with 'Niggermayor.') --Dweller 10:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like User:{{{User (User talk:{{{User • Special:Contributions/{{{User • [{{fullurl:Special:Log/block|user={{urlencode:{{{User|Robdurbar}}}}}}} blocks] • [{{fullurl:Special:Log/protect|user={{urlencode:{{{User|Robdurbar}}}}}}} protects] • [{{fullurl:Special:Log/delete|user={{urlencode:{{{User|Robdurbar}}}}}}} deletions] • [{{fullurl:Special:Log/move|user={{urlencode:{{{User|Robdurbar}}}}}}} moves]) has unprotected it, but he seems to have been desysopped now. Conscious 10:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:He unprotected Cheese too just before that. That's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Robdurbar the only move] that was not reverted. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

::Now protected by Freakofnurture. Conscious 10:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Longer thread at WP:ANI#Robdurbar. Carcharoth 10:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:Image:Jpiccolominismall.JPG is on the main page and unprotected. --Selket ^Talk 16:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:no it's not, never mind. --Selket ^Talk 16:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please unprotect South America? It was protected as a result of edit-warring over undue notation regarding it being more than a continent -- more editors apparently prefer one version over another (which is not the version currently in place) and the dissenting editor has not addressed key issues ... and whose continual reversion led to its protection and his block. Discussions have otherwise been moribund. Thanks. Corticopia 17:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:Done. Femto 18:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

How are the deletions at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Danny justified?

• User:Newyorkbrad 2007-04-17 01:53 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Danny&diff=123417281&oldid=123417043]
• User:Sean William 2007-04-16 22:33 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Danny&diff=123374090&oldid=123373605]
• User:Tony Sidaway 2007-04-16 12:40 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Danny&diff=123231969&oldid=123225590]
• User:Newyorkbrad 2007-04-14 23:45 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Danny&diff=122866009&oldid=122862817]
• User:Tony Sidaway 2007-04-13 18:43 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Danny&diff=122552906&oldid=122531334]

02:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

something wrong with my signature. re-sign Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:In the edit summaries, if you so wish to read them. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::Tobias, you're beating a patch of ground which was previously occupied by a dead horse. The RFA is over. Can we let it go? // Sean William (PTO) 02:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In the thread in question, you described having called someone at his workplace without suggesting any purpose of legitimate communication. As such, the call presumptively constituted harassment, and it was inappropriate to publicize it further. I suggest, for the fourth time, that you drop this matter. Newyorkbrad 02:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:I called the office, which publicises a phone number on the net. I did not call Danny directly. I talked with a woman and Danny rushed in taking over the phone. Then he shouted, and hang up. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::He rushed to grab the phone so he could tell you he couldn't speak English?? Newyorkbrad 17:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:::No. That was in another call. He took up the phone and said somethig in hebrew. I asked whether he could speak in English, he replied "Lo". Well, as far as my hebrew goes this means "no". When he said "No ingles" I replied in spanish, because spanish is fine with me. He connected me with someone else but no real talk happend. I do not remember the order, but in one call he took up the phone and whistled. The rushing was before. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:Its time to reign in Tobias - see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Tobias_Conradi. ShivaIdol 06:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but perhaps a community sanction discussion is in order at the appropriate page. This just gets worse and worse and shows no sign of improving. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:I think we only need that admins respect the written policies. My page is deleted and this deletion does not even show in the deletion logs. Censorship. Why are you all afraid of true and verifiable facts about yourself? Some people have a very different culture to that of truthfullness and harmony. They run around beat people. If the beaten record this, they delete it. And beat again. They invade Iraq. They kill the Indians. The aboriginans. The Africans. The Arabs. The Jews. They spread lies about weapons of massdestruction. They lie half the day. But the world goes on. There are allways people lieing and hiding truth. And deleting. And throwing bombs. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::I actually wasn't sure about the speedy deletion, but with your last comments you have lost me extremely completely. Newyorkbrad 18:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:::With that last comment, I think it's now come time for a community sanction. Harassing admins over the phone. Constantly ignoring community consensus. Making clear attacks against Americans in order to imply that any American admins cannot be objective. Part Deux 18:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:: What does your comment, "Some people have a very different culture to that of truthfullness and harmony. They run around beat people. (....) But the world goes on. There are allways people lieing and hiding truth. And deleting. And throwing bombs.", refer to, Tobias Conradi? --Iamunknown 18:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Please see WP:CSN, where potential community sanctions for Tobias are being discussed. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 19:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In amongst the Godwin's Law-esque comparisons to genocides and wars, there is 1 valid point that is exceedingly well hidden, there. Today's deletion of User:Tobias Conradi is not recorded in Special:Log/delete. I've noticed this occurring from time to time myself, and assumed an occasional database problem of some sort causing records not to be appended to the log. However, this incident prompts me to ask: Have other administrators also noticed their deletions not showing up in the deletion log? If this is a problem that is more frequent overall than we as individuals might realize, it is probably worth drawing a developer's attention to it. Uncle G 18:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

: As far as I've noted and understood, this is usually related to database replication and the missing entries usually turn up in a few days at most. Same thing that happens with articles in laggy times, though at lesser extent. If the entries are permanently lost, that's definitely a bug that needs to be fixed though. As far as developer attention goes, well, um, it might help if Wikipedia ran on something else than MySQL. (Okay, wishful thinking =) Distributed operations usually introduce weirdnesses like this and there's not that much people can do to get around this. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

::Someone placed a block yesterday, and it didn't show up, yet the AIVHelperBot removed it from the page and when I went to block the user (seeing no entry in the block log), I got the "already blocked" error message. This may be totally unrelated, but just putting it out there. The block log in question is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Billmcgn189 here], and AIV removal [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=123815553&oldid=123815114 here]. Daniel Bryant 03:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

::: Yup, and it's pretty incongruent that right now, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=User%3ATobias_Conradi the log for the page] says deletion and two restorations in that order, yet the page itself doesn't exist at all - it's an easily identifiable case of an obviously incomplete log. If this escalates into an ArbCom case, as it seems right now, this is obviously going to be a key point of discussions. =) And as a side note: if this is a shadowy conspiracy thing, the conspirators obviously did profoundly sloppy job since the revisions still show up in Special:Undelete. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as subpages of Tobias Conradi have been deleted because of soapboxing issues before, I've decided to speedy delete this page. If anyone wants to help him restore non-controversial material feel free to do so. - Mgm|(talk) 12:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Tobias_Conradi]

--- no policy for this action is cited. The deletion was proposed 2007-04-17 06:39 by User:ShivaIdol.

The deletion log does not show when this deletion was carried out. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=User:Tobias_Conradi]

As of now it only shows:

• 05:22, 13 October 2006 Robth (Talk | contribs) restored "User:Tobias Conradi" (229 revisions restored: finish undeleting accidentally deleted page)
• 05:17, 13 October 2006 Robth (Talk | contribs) restored "User:Tobias Conradi" (1 revisions restored: oops--wrong page)
• 05:16, 13 October 2006 Robth (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Tobias Conradi" (To undelete non-copyvio revisions)

A clique of admins tries to delete any evidence of their admin right abuses. Collections of such evidences are deleted. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:admins cant delete the proof of admin actions, check the logs they cant be deleted. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:: sorry this is false. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::: What direct evidence, such as code in the MediaWiki software or a relevant page at http://www.mediawiki.org/, suggests that this is false? --Iamunknown 18:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::::There is no log entry for this deletion. I would recommend contacting a developer on WP:VPT. Naconkantari 18:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::::: It may have been the oversight function. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=123612081#Censorship] You can also google for it. wikitruth has articles related to it. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::Or if you want a more balanced view, Wikipedia:Oversight has information. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::: (ec) Before arbitrarily suggesting that an entire class of users are willfully removing log details, please try asking them first. You can find them here. --Iamunknown 20:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

: Tobias Conradi, please will you approach {{user|MacGyverMagic}} before you come here? Or at least notify MacGyverMagic that you have raised an issue here? It is generally courteous to do so. --Iamunknown 18:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

: Allow me to chime in here a little bit: If this is a shadowy evil admin cabal conspiracy, what good does the deletion of a log entry do? For non-admin users, it's apparent that something is obviously amiss: The page has deletion log entries that say the page was restored'. And if any admin - not just the shadowy evil admin cabal members, but also the high-strung goody-shoedy-boy types - hit Special:Undelete, they see the entire article history, and can restore the whole mess with simple, easy wrist action. (At least in theory. I'm not trying it - it could be that I could restore and re-delete the user page just to test the veracity of this theory, but it's possible that the Cabal has rigged the MediaWiki code with deadly explosives. Unlikely, yes, but possible.) This conspiracy has more holes in it than the Apollo hoax, and not just because the Moon is not made of cheese. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

{{resolved|1=—Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-19 02:35Z}}

Regardless of notability, what's the usual course of action here? Presumably articles on en-Wiki have to have titles composed of Latin alphabet characters? I'd move it, but I'm not sure what to move it to (Emmaus plague outbreak?) EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:Moved to Plague of Emmaus by Raul654. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-19 02:35Z

• The answer to the question is "Yes." Wikipedia does not host non-Latin articles, and "untranslated foreign language" is a reason for deletion, both. If the article is in English but merely has a non-Latin title, do as Raul did. If the article itself is in a foreign language, tag it. If it's tagged for a good long time and remains in non-English, it can be tagged for speedy deletion. Geogre 11:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

::Someone should also add the non-Latin name into the article. I would, but I don't know what the language is! Is that an Arabic script? Carcharoth 02:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:::I've added a reference, categories, a redirect from Plague of Amwas, and a little bit more information. Looks quite interesting. I know this is the admins noticeboard, but anyone want to take this article and run with it? It still needs something saying what language that name is. Carcharoth 02:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know Arabic? I think [http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/عمواس this] is the Arab Wikipedia page for Emmaus. [http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/عمواس This] is definitely their plague article (nice pic of Yersinia pestis). Oh, someone's put a resolved tag on this section. I'll toddle off to WP:RD instead. (That Arabic font actually seems to be telling my keyboard it is a right-to-left script, as my delete and backspace key functions have swapped round! Try it yourself.) Carcharoth 05:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please attend. --Dweller 16:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

* Um, thirteen reports, folks. Please help out. --Iamunknown 19:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

: All clear now, thanks. {{mono|:-)}} --Iamunknown 20:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:List of best-selling albums (UK) regarding the need to undelete the page per permission granted in OTRS to display the top 5 albums and singles. MECU≈talk 16:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Someone with OTRS viewing privs will need to check this [https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=778588] - Alison^☺ 18:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I just closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Uw-warn, which really should have been a TFD. In fact, it was substed on the appropriate TFD date subpage. I decided to close it using the {{tl|Tfd top}} and {{tl|Tfd bottom}}, since it is a debate for a template, but which debate archive template should I use? If I use the TFD one, it will take the user to a transcluded version of the page, while the MFD one will take them directly to the page. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretty long- thanks in advance. GDonato (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• yay~ all clear. --Iamunknown 20:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Could an Administrator remove my RfA? Thanks! --Trumpetband 22:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:Change your acceptance statement to a withdrawal, then I can get it for you.--Wizardman 22:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

::Done. I linked to a diff of this request so it can be easily confirmed. WjBscribe 22:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Great, thanks for the help! --Trumpetband 22:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving this to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Unblocking_of_Daniel_Brandt#Notice the Brandt thread]. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:But still worth noticing, in either place. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 00:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Are there any admins watching over this? I'd be happy to take it on, but I can't close the current discussion because I started it. -- Samuel Wantman 00:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:Done. (You only have to be an established user to do this). MER-C 03:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Help, please. NawlinWiki 01:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:I'm on it, this is disturbing. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 01:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

::I see progress is being made. Please note that one of the entries is a Category that I tagged G4 over 13 hours ago. (not complaining, I just didn't know if admins paid notice to the categories in there) --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Pssh- I found an image two weeks ago that had been in there since early January. {{mono|1=:-P}} --Iamunknown 03:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, there are numerous articles linked from Virginia Tech massacre, primarily of the victims, that are up for AfD. I realise this anarchic process is the way Wikipedia works, and that at some point in the future things will have settled down and articles will be deleted and/or merged, but with an incident like this that has massive worldwide publicity, is there not a more dignified way to proceed? At the moment, readers will be following links to articles and getting the large banner "THIS ARTICLE IS BEING CONSIDERED FOR DELETION" at the top of the articles. I count 6 AfD nominations related to the massacre, several of which have been speedily closed, but still, is there not a more dignified way to handle this. It is predicatable that an event like this would lead to the same old arguments over the same old things. A centralised discussion for each event would be best, and speedy closing of nominations until consensus is reached at the main disucssion. Carcharoth 13:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:Specifically: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan C. Clark, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. V. Loganathan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liviu Librescu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily J. Hilscher. Carcharoth 13:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

::And a seventh one, tangentially related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centerville, virginia. I may have missed one or two. Carcharoth 13:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:::If this is a significant concern, then frankly I would speedy them all under IAR and redirect to the main article. The notability rule is "multiple nontrivial sources"; other than , "he was a witness"/"she was a victim" we are not likely to have independent sources for the rest of their lives, and an article that says "he was a witness"/"she was a victim" has undue weight problems. (There may be some specific exceptions, like Liviu Librescu.) Wikipedia is not Wikinews, and whether these people deserve separate articles will not really be known for some time. Alternatively, speedy close all the AfDs as keep to get rid of the notices, and revisit them in a couple of weeks. Thatcher131 14:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

::::: FWIW (& writing a few days after this comment), to turn an article into a redirect does not need the backing of IAR; we make numerous articles into redirect every day, in order to merge information or delete duplicate articles. I think that rationale is better than quoting the sometimes controversial & (IMHO) overused IAR. -- llywrch 17:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

::::It is not the ultimate outcome I'm concerned about, more the need to prevent articles and groups of articles taking up time with the same arguments that are repeated ad nauseum each time some big news current event takes place. On the other hand, maybe it is a good way for less experienced editors to be drawn into, and to gain experience of, the way Wikipedia works. Hmm. I think the real problem is the obtrusiveness of the AfD banners at the top of an article. I wonder if there would be any stomach for a "toned down" version, to put on high-traffic articles? Carcharoth 16:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::Be bold on these before the nomination and merge into a single article. Administrators seeing these on speedy could consider the situation and be proactive and merge rather then speedy. The problem here is with those that wind up on a full AfD. Don't know if there is an easy way to shortcut that into a merge. Actually, I guess users could merge the contents into the maion articles for each individual even if it is in speedy. I'd like someone to confirm that though. Vegaswikian 17:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::Unless the victims are in some way notable in their own right (Weren't a couple professors killed? They might be.) then they are notable only in the context of the main event and belong solely on that page. Wasn't there going to be a wikimemorial site for Sept. 11th victims? maybe expand that to include all memorials. -M^ask? 22:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

: Some of the articles are controversial, and needs a admin to take a closer look at it. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 17:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• We may have to wait until things have settled down. Already Virginia Tech massacre page has had around 5000 or more edits, and it is still being edited more than once a minute. Also, I know that Wikipedia is not a memorial book, but in these emotive circumstances it might be best to wait a few days before proceeding on such deletes. Anthony Appleyard 22:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

: For future reference, a quieter and more dignified way of dealing with articles that sprout out like this is to merge any non-trivial material and link back. It's nearly always a mistake to delete an article that sprouts out of another like this (the exception being forks to evade Neutral point of view). --Tony Sidaway 22:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

::The sub-article process began with the creation of Cho Seung-hui, and that was possibly a mistake, but once it was created the others came inevitably from that, IMIO, SqueakBox 22:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Nothing could be further from the truth, Cho's article was actually the last of the subarticles to be created. For a time, every victim with more information than "was killed at VT" was getting their own article, chronicling their otherwise unencyclopedic lives. (No offense, but were it not for the "they were killed in the VT massacre", it would have looked like nothing more than a yearbook bio) The Cho article was the second (after Liviu Librescu) subarticle that actually made sense. --Golbez 01:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This matter would be better delt with at the village pump.Geni 00:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:Has the wiki-memorial gone away? I recall our having one. If it hasn't gone away, then the polite and dignified way is probably for an administrator to put a template on indicating that the article is going to be moved to the wiki-memorial and deleted from main space. That lets the grieving know that we don't hate them, but we are protecting the encyclopedia. To say that this has come up before is an understatement. When I began at Wikipedia, we were dealing with continual 9/11 memorial pages being written. As emotional as the VT shootings are, 9/11 was at least as bad in terms of mass emotional effect on the world. Geogre 11:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

::It used to be at http://sep11.wikipedia.org/, now is at http://sep11memories.org/wiki/In_Memoriam Tizio 12:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Admins will want to keep an eye on Richard McBeef and Mr. Brownstone (screenplay), which are current redirects, the former of which is semi-protected. See also User talk:NawlinWiki#Richard McBeef. – Chacor (RIP 32@VT) 12:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And it continues:

• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Virginia Tech massacre
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sneed (article now at Inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sneed's rumor (related to the above)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Tech massacre timeline
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamal Albarghouti
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Chiang
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Sterne
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Tech massacre (inevitable, I suppose)

And if that was not enough, the "list of victims" group of articles for different massacres (Whitman and Columbine at last count) have been thrown under the spotlight by this, and are each undergoing seperate AfDs. Haven't people heard of umbrella nominations? Actually, haven't people heard of being bold and merging and redirecting instead of nearly 20 different AfD discussions. Don't people ever discuss things on talk pages before dragging things to AfD? Carcharoth 22:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• {{user|Brokendownsubaruoutback}} was the account that was blocked. Uncle G 14:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems likely that after a major news event there will be a tremendous amount of activity at Wikipedia. This is a good thing, and we should keep WP:BITE in mind. Rather than try to clean things up at the start, why not let things take their course, and then clean it all up after the interest has died down. Looking over the AFDs there are hundreds of comments both pro and con. There's no need to start arguments after a few days. We can wait a few weeks. There's no real harm in waiting before nominating an article for merging or deleting. The harm in not waiting is that newcomers will be put off, and many are likely to react emotionally. After all, having some articles about some non-notable people who were just murdered will not harm the project. Trying to clean this up now is like trying to clean up a rowdy party before it is over. If you do that, you are just sending a message that you want your guests to leave. -- Samuel Wantman 01:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:Though the corollary to that is that this is an important part of the learning process for new, and even moderately experienced Wikipedians... It's been a long time now (well, it seems a long time), but I do vaguely remember something similar (though not on the same scale) for July 2005 London bombings. I first really got involved with Wikipedia on the back of the activity around that article, well, that and the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, but I can't remember whether AfD was involved to the same extent. Some of the AfDs I have pointed out are quite correct and appropriate, and some, as Sam says, could have waited. I suppose the larger Wikipedia gets, the more likely it is that high-traffic, new articles, sprouting numerous subarticles and related articles, will generate a lot of AfD activity. There are clearly pros and cons, and I suspect that getting the balance right requires experienced editors to be bold and carry out obvious merges before someone less experienced jumps in with an AfD, and for admins to speedy close obvious AfDs, and for a few AfDs to go ahead anyway to demonstrate the process in a high profile way for lots of new editors (and readers). Carcharoth 02:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been through this process several times before. During the July 2005 London bombings I spent a lot of time over several days keeping the Wikinews coverage in shape, for example. During the {{On AFD|Jamie Kane}} controversy I boldly rewrote an article in an exceedingly high profile AFD discussion and even got some mentions elsewhere for doing so. (I've just done the same sort of bold rewrite at {{On AFD|Michael Sneed}}, as a matter of fact, as well as speedily closing {{On AFD|Michael Sneed's rumor}}, and I've been sitting on Michael Sneed and Chicago Sun-Times to help ensure that the soapboxing, attacks, and original research are removed.) As I said at Talk:Virginia Tech massacre in response to a comment about putting our best foot forward: I think that the fact that people can see our merger and deletion discussions underway, and see that experienced Wikipedians treat them calmly and civilly and in accordance with our policies and guidelines, aim for neutrality, verifiability, and elimination of original research, are careful about biographies of living people, and act to eliminate mis-uses of Wikipedia for attacks and soapboxing, is putting our best foot forward. Uncle G 14:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:Well said. Experienced Wikipedians just need to be as bold as you are being, while still managing to explain things to those that haven't quite got the hang of the policies yet. What I hate seeing is the same arguments dragging on over nearly 20 different AfD discussions, and no-one stepping in to boldly close the discussions. And jumping in with merges, rewrites and redirects before someone starts an AfD, is still the best option of the lot. I just wish there was more latitude sometimes to redirect and merge while an AfD was in progress. Sometimes it is so obvious what the best course of action is, that just demonstrating it says more than a thousand AfD votes. Carcharoth 16:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A relatively new user with good intentions recently attempted to move COSI to COSI Columbus via cut ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COSI&diff=124023480&oldid=123530571] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COSI&diff=next&oldid=123855013] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COSI&diff=next&oldid=124222747]) and paste rather than the normal page move function. Can an administrator un-do these changes and put things back to the way they were before? I went ahead and left a note [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hmwith&diff=next&oldid=124240191] on the user's page regarding this issue, including a link to the WP:MOVE help page. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• COSI Columbus had not been edited since the cut-and-paste, so I deleted it, and reverted COSI to as before the move, and started again with making the new disambig stuff needed caused by COSI Toledo appearing. I found that Talk:COSI had been cut-and-pasted also, and tidied after that. Then I moved COSI to COSI Columbus the usual way. Plain COSI is now a disambig page between various meanings of "COSI" and "Cosi". Anthony Appleyard 08:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks for your speedy help! --Kralizec! (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

For those who are not willing to clear out the three day backlog of proposed deletions, the 450 or so speedies or the various image backlogs I have about 400 broken redirects for you to delete. MER-C 06:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Many of those broken redirect pages are user pages and user talk pages. Many of those user pages and user talk pages (according to their page histories) are broken redirects created by page moves and someone later deleted the moved file. Some of them have a history before they were made into redirects, and some not; sometimes that history includes messages. Some of them are of the type User:xxxxx/yyyy/zzzz, being "scratch paper" left over from user xxxx working on a page zzzz, and it was later made into a redirect which is now broken. Please recommend what should be done with them. Anthony Appleyard 13:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Pro Game Master87 lists the full names and dates of births of a whole bunch of kids in his family - I'm guessing that this is not OK, and needs an admin to delete and then to delete the userpage history? 86.152.203.212 08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:I've deleted the page and restored it without personal details of minors. I don't have time to leave a message on his talk page, sorry. alphachimp 09:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

::I left a message on his talk page to explain what you'd done. Will (aka Wimt) 09:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the autoblock locating tool is not finding autoblocks after about 2007-04-18. Could someone please check and kick it if necessary? Thanks. --Yamla 16:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

: Should be sorted now, looks like the autostart when the toolserver gets rebooted didn't work properly. --pgk 17:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it inherently a conflict of interest to relist an AFD and comment in it? Please discuss at WT:AFD#Relisting and conflict of interest. —Quarl ^(talk) 01:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We do not permit open proxies to edit Wikipedia articles, as per WP:PROXY. What about an open wireless connection? That is, someone has set up a wireless access point and has specifically left it open for anyone to use. Additionally, this access point has specifically been used by a blocked vandal who has been known to create sockpuppets. Can this be blocked under the no-open-proxies or does this not count as an open proxy? If it doesn't count, am I correct in saying it should be blocked anyway as a source of vandalism, though in this case the block would be anon-only? --Yamla 01:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:The thing would be proving that it's an open access point. How would that work? Users have tried to intentionally get dynamic IPs blocked in the past; we can't just toss blocks out willy nilly. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

::A person who contacted me when I refused the initial unblock states that it is an open access point. It's already blocked because it was used as a sockfarm, I'm just wondering if I can deny an unblock under no-open-proxies. --Yamla 02:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Is that the Starbucks WiFi hotspot thing? One IP that serves 8000 hotspots? Thatcher131 02:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

::::No, though the principle would be the same I would imagine. This particular one seems to serve one sockpuppeteer and a small number (somewhere between 0 and, say, 8, but much much closer to 0) people who aren't sockpuppeteers. --Yamla 02:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::The spirit of Wikipedia:No open proxies is not some abstract moral opposition to misconfigured internet connections, but rather an effort to reduce a significant source of abuse. So your interpretation makes sense to me; this is essentially an open proxy, with the same potential for anonymous abuse. If the connection can't be fixed, advise the efitor to edit through the secure gateway: [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/]. Dmcdevit·t 06:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:It sounds like it should be treated more similarly to TOR. WP:TOR says it should be softblocked (allow users to edit, don't allow username creation or anon editing). SchmuckyTheCat 03:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

::Actually, I think the tor policy needs to be changed to a hard block. Anyone smart enough to install and run tor is smart enough to find an unblocked IP to create a handful of sleeper socks, for later use through tor. This has happened several times recently. Thatcher131 13:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

::: I agree the idea of soft blocking is poor, the blocks aren't so soft. Since the blocking mechanism has a hierachy of blocks to apply, with auto blocks at the bottom, a "soft-blocked" IP address is essentially immune to autoblocks... --pgk 15:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If it has been confirmed through CheckUser that the open access point is being used for abusive purposes, it should be hard blocked outright until the connection has been verifiably secured. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Special:Protectedpages has been updated, and now include many options for sorting and filtering the list, we may be able to use this to help resolve improper or forgotten protections now. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• I like. But when can we have namespace filtering back on linksearch, I wonder? Guy (Help!) 15:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• :When mom and dad aren't mad at us anymore. Teke 04:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything I can do to help the administrators expand the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_User's_Guide:_WikiHiero_Syntax hieroglyph syntax]? I'm getting sick of putting (hieroglyph not found) or saying to myself "I think this is the matching hieroglyph". I'm willing to help out, scan the images or something. Please contact me on my user page if you know how this is possible. The Egyptian articles depend on this :/

KV(Talk) 01:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

{{Admin|Netsnipe}} just reverted several of my 31 hour blocks of schools and switched them to 6 month blocks. Ordinarily this type of change wouldn't be a problem, but I just took the time to check Netsnipe's block log. Over the past few weeks, he has blocked many school IPs, many with only 3 or 4 edits, for 6 months. These are IPs with little or no prior block history. Check out the following examples:

• {{IPVandal|204.129.152.136}}, 3 edits total, blocked 6 months
• {{IPVandal|206.110.32.5}}, >50 edits including [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dolores_Huerta&diff=prev&oldid=113430144 vandalism reversion], 2 31 hour blocks, blocked 6 months

* {{IPvandal|66.194.72.243}}, >50 edits including [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aqua_Teen_Hunger_Force_Colon_Movie_Film_for_Theaters&diff=prev&oldid=118458472 fixing grammar errors], no prior blocks, blocked 6 months _{My mistake, linked the wrong IP alphachimp 17:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)}

You can find many, many more such examples in Netsnipe's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Netsnipe&page= blocking log]. This matter was discussed in some brevity on my talk page, where I decided to bring it here.

I realize that no consensus exists involving blocking schools. Some administrators believe in only blocking for 15 minutes until the vandalism abates, while others (myself included) increment blocks in a similar fashion as non-shared IPs. This length of block though, seems like a completely unreasonable assumption of bad faith.

That said, I'm willing to start blocking schools for 6 months if the community wants it. Do you? alphachimp 17:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:If there has been little or no vandalism at an IP, then 6 months blocks on them are absolutely not appropriate. —Centrx→talk • 17:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:Personally, before I start blocking schools for a month or longer, I like to see a history of vandalism from the IP. Chances are these are just kids in the library or classroom who had some spare time and decided to vandalize Wikipedia. Its the ones that come back time and again and continue to vandalize that are a problem. I think blocking a school IP (or any IP) for 6 months after only 3 contribs (2 obvious vandalism and 1 could be interpreted as a "test" edit) is a bit much.↔NMajdan•talk 17:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:I agree with Centrx and Nmajdan, and with Alphachimp, who is hardly a soft touch with respect to vandals. Newyorkbrad 17:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:I agree that duration should be made on a case by case basis and that 6 months for a school IP would be rarely appropriate. I also agree that Netsnipe needs to stop issuing 6 month blocks until we can resolve this. Rklawton 17:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Netsnipe&diff=122267197&oldid=121680553 requested that Netsnipe stop] until this can be discussed in detail. alphachimp 17:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:The fact that Netsnipe would revert your blocks is pretty disturbing. John Reaves (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

::If Netsnipe "reverted" the blocks in the sense that he replaced the initial block with a longer block, there is nothing per se wrong with that, and it would be the right thing to do if in fact the longer blocks were appropriate for these IPs, which I believe is the sole issue here. It is not uncommon that someone will do a quick vandalism block and then someone else might later find that a longer one is warranted. —Centrx→talk • 17:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:::I don't really have a major issue with other admins undoing my blocks and placing their own, particularly when they leave a message on my talk page (like Netsnipe did). I freely admit that I block a lot of users every day. There definitely are times when I miss some redeeming or damning characteristic of an IP. In this case, like Centrx said, I'm frustrated by the underlying assumption of bad faith. Rather than wheel warring, I'm bringing the issue here. alphachimp 17:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:66.194.72.243 (resnetplp1.seattleu.edu) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:66.194.72.243 isn't blocked] at all. Are you sure you have the right example there? Anyway, before I issue any schoolblocks, the IP address has to be clearly marked as belonging to a K-12 education institution or district in their WHOIS record or Reverse DNS lookups. Now that we can clearly identify school IPs, apply anon-only blocks and provide a useful blocking reason (i.e. Template:schoolblock) which they see at MediaWiki:Blockedtext, why should we continue accomodate immature kids who continue to conduct drive-by vandalism only because their anonymity and lack of accountability emboldens them to? The vast, vast majority of our vandalism comes from primary and secondary school students. We assume good faith and allow anonymous edit from ISP proxies and DHCP pools because we know that there will always be a mature person somewhere amongst the vandals wishing to contribute to the encyclopedia. However, when it comes to schools, sometimes the vandalism is pooled together into single proxy address which will have a long and extensive edit/block logs and other times spread across a pool of IPs allocated to a school. -- but the aim is the same, to stop kids from workstation-hopping by sending the message that we have zero tolerance for vandalism on Wikipedia. The 24 hour autoblocker just isn't enough when they will return week after week because they know that they can get away with it. With regards to the "wheel warring", what do short blocks stating "Repeated vandalism" and "vandalism" do for WP:AGF if an innocent student happens to come across MediaWiki:Blockedtext? They will not assume good faith at our end and I've seen many an occasion where they post a confused and often angry unblock request on their talk page or email unblock-en-l -- even worse is that in these cases, admins will automatically decline their request to unblock their IP address and tell them to create an account which only wastes their time and/or cause confusion. We can be more helpful in the long run if we politely inform them from the outset that they should get an account in order to differentiate them from the more immature of their classmate. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

::My mistake on that IP. I've striken it from my original post. alphachimp 18:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

::These are educational institutions and do have useful, mature contributors. While your reasoning applies to an IP that is a long-term source of problems, there is no reason to block an IP for six months when it has one day of vandalism. What you are advocating is a blanket policy of ending anonymous editing from all schools; we have no such policy and we ought not have such a policy. —Centrx→talk • 18:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Well it's not like we're actively seeking out school IPs to premptively block. They need to be reported to WP:AIV in the first place. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

::::You do claim above that you make sure it is a school IP before you do such a block. While not true hunting, it is hunting within the set of WP:AIV. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Netsnipe has criticised long-term blocks of mine on IP addresses. Anyway, my opinion is that six-month blocks on school IP addresses, provided they are anon-only, are appropriate in cases of repeat vandalism. I believe, for example, that if this is the fifth time that IP address has been blocked, it is appropriate to give it a six month block. Do I believe it appropriate for the very first block on that address? No, probably not. In the end, a great deal of our vandalism comes from school IP addresses and I believe it is reasonable that these people need to create an account in order to edit. Or to do so from outside of their schools. The unblock-en-l mailing list regularly creates accounts for people who don't have access to other IP addresses. --Yamla 18:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:Since I have not heard from one person agreeing with the 6 month block on the first IP with only 3 contribs, I was bold and went ahead and lessened the block to 12 hours, which is more inline with the blocking policy regarding new IP vandals. If anybody disagrees, feel free to change the block again as it will not offend me.↔NMajdan•talk 18:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

::(edit conflict)Students can create an account elsewhere and use it at school. The fact is that these are static IPs that are accessible to a wide range of people. If very little good, and a lot of harm comes from such an IP, I see only benefit from a long anon only block. That being said I think this should only be done after several shorter blocks have failed. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:(double ec) Some school IPs bring nothing but pain, over a long period of time, and sooner or later a 6-month block saves a lot more resources for us than repeatedly noticing, reverting, reporting, and blocking it for 31 hours, a week, or what have you. In those cases, for static IPs that have long histories of egregious abuse, extensive block logs, and very few or no helpful contributions to compensate, I do support long blocks (provided the blocks are anon-only, and we're willing to help those who do need accounts to get them, which AFAIK has generally been the case). In less clear cases, however, I'm not so sure about it -- when I block, I base the duration off the IP's history. Some school IPs have a significant number, or even a majority of helpful edits. Other school IPs are dynamic (universities tend to have ranges, I guess for their labs and dorms). Open to discussion, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

::I completely agree, and if you look at my blocking log you'll see that I'm not hesitant about blocking school IPs with a long term history of vandalism and blocks. Here, however, we're talking about issuing a single 6 month block to IPs with no prior history of blocks (or a tiny history), some of which have legitimate contributions. I'm not trying to downplay the significance of school vandalism, I just think that we should be careful that we aren't pushing out any legitimate contributors (such as the next Nishkid64). That's what assuming good faith is all about. alphachimp 18:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Exactly. I agree with this 100%. Long blocks on repeat IP vandals is completely appropriate for repeat offenders or especially destructive offenders (such as a high risk template). But the IP in question has not established itself as a repeat vandal. Two vandal edits and one test edit in a 30 minute span is not deserving of a 6 month block.↔NMajdan•talk 18:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think that long, anon only, blocks that stop school vandalism, once shorter blocks have failed, and if there is a history of at least, oh, 2 dozen or so vandal edits, tend to make sense. I support these long blocks if account creation is possible. That said I think a nuanced approach is appropriate, going with a long block as the first thing to do (on this wiki... elsewhere is elsewhere) may not be the best first step. ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:The question I need to ask is: do we want to keep on playing whack-a-mole for months on end while we wait for vandals to slowly get each workstation in their labs blocked one by one because there will be cases where workstations at certain schools have individually allocated IP addresses for each computer. It's rather unfortunate that currently we have no tool to view how many IPs in an netblock have warnings or current blocks in order to see the bigger picture. I guess I might have to whip something up once I graduate from uni and have some spare time. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

::If a school has a different IP for each computer, then a school block would not make sense. However, I have never heard of a school that does not share 1 or 2 ips. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Here's one example where I recognised a pattern in the IPs after getting fed up playing whack a mole with individual IPs, I emailed the school and they consented to a blanket range block: [http://www.bvsd.org/schools/southernhills/ Southern Hills Middle School]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:161.97.219.0/24 161.97.219.0/24] --  Netsnipe  ►  19:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I tried a different approach last fall and got positive responses: when I encountered a school IP that had 11 blocks over 12 months I e-mailed the district's IT department. They got back to me promptly and a polite phone conversation followed. They hadn't been aware that a problem existed, took the situation seriously, and liked my suggestion to assign student vandals to improve a Wikipedia article under teacher supervision. I could understand a 6 month block if a school is hostile or unresponsive, but why not be proactive about turning these long term problems into assets? After all, the computers are usually only a few yards away from the bookshelves. Durova^Charge! 19:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:The converse is also true. unblock-en-l has been contacted on numberous occasions by school IT administrators after a schoolblock has notified them of the situation. But when you're blocking 2 vandals every minute on WP:AIV, you just don't have time to fire off an email for every case. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Do schools still have bookshelves? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:Just a comment on something netsnipe wrote: "Anyway, before I issue any schoolblocks, the IP address has to be clearly marked as belonging to a K-12 education institution or district in their WHOIS record or Reverse DNS lookups. Now that we can clearly identify school IPs, apply anon-only blocks and provide a useful blocking reason (i.e. Template:schoolblock) which they see at MediaWiki:Blockedtext, why should we continue accomodate immature kids who continue to conduct drive-by vandalism only because their anonymity and lack of accountability emboldens them to?"

::This action seems to cater just for USA educational institutions, since there is no indication that other countries' educational institutions would crop up in the checks being made here. of course, speaking for the UK, I have seen many instances of vandalism from UK schools, but the policy as indicated by the quoted material seems quite USA-centric.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've placed plenty of long-term blocks on school systems from all over the place during my time, offering an administrator at the school to contact me to have the block removed. None have done so. I've seen, few, if any cases of school's in this country contributing constructively. Long term blocks = not necessarily as bad as an idea as you're all making it out to be. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 13:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In reading over the above, I wonder: Perhaps the solution is to set a guideline such as Netsnipe describes, but let's shorten the starter block length from 6 months to 2 months. I can see the POV of how block lengths of hours or even several days can be pretty much a waste of time in these cases. Would everyone find that to be amenable? - jc37 10:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:Yes. We desperately need a uniform set of procedures and policies when it comes to identifying and blocking Shared IPs, especially schools. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

ok, What could be a start would be if you would flesh out the following reasons supporting the idea into something guideline worthy. (I'm collating your comments above - and yes, whack-a-mole made me laugh : )

• Anyway, before I issue any schoolblocks, the IP address has to be clearly marked as belonging to a K-12 education institution or district in their WHOIS record or Reverse DNS lookups. Now that we can clearly identify school IPs, apply anon-only blocks and provide a useful blocking reason (i.e. Template:schoolblock) which they see at MediaWiki:Blockedtext, why should we continue accomodate immature kids who continue to conduct drive-by vandalism only because their anonymity and lack of accountability emboldens them to? The vast, vast majority of our vandalism comes from primary and secondary school students. We assume good faith and allow anonymous edit from ISP proxies and DHCP pools because we know that there will always be a mature person somewhere amongst the vandals wishing to contribute to the encyclopedia. However, when it comes to schools, sometimes the vandalism is pooled together into single proxy address which will have a long and extensive edit/block logs and other times spread across a pool of IPs allocated to a school. -- but the aim is the same, to stop kids from workstation-hopping by sending the message that we have zero tolerance for vandalism on Wikipedia. The 24 hour autoblocker just isn't enough when they will return week after week because they know that they can get away with it. With regards to the "wheel warring", what do short blocks stating "Repeated vandalism" and "vandalism" do for WP:AGF if an innocent student happens to come across MediaWiki:Blockedtext? They will not assume good faith at our end and I've seen many an occasion where they post a confused and often angry unblock request on their talk page or email unblock-en-l -- even worse is that in these cases, admins will automatically decline their request to unblock their IP address and tell them to create an account which only wastes their time and/or cause confusion. We can be more helpful in the long run if we politely inform them from the outset that they should get an account in order to differentiate them from the more immature of their classmate. - User:Netsnipe
• Well it's not like we're actively seeking out school IPs to premptively block. They need to be reported to WP:AIV in the first place. - User:Netsnipe
• Students can create an account elsewhere and use it at school. The fact is that these are static IPs that are accessible to a wide range of people. If very little good, and a lot of harm comes from such an IP, I see only benefit from a long anon only block. That being said I think this should only be done after several shorter blocks have failed. - User:HighInBC
• Some school IPs bring nothing but pain, over a long period of time, and sooner or later a 6-month block saves a lot more resources for us than repeatedly noticing, reverting, reporting, and blocking it for 31 hours, a week, or what have you. In those cases, for static IPs that have long histories of egregious abuse, extensive block logs, and very few or no helpful contributions to compensate, I do support long blocks (provided the blocks are anon-only, and we're willing to help those who do need accounts to get them, which AFAIK has generally been the case). In less clear cases, however, I'm not so sure about it -- when I block, I base the duration off the IP's history. Some school IPs have a significant number, or even a majority of helpful edits. Other school IPs are dynamic (universities tend to have ranges, I guess for their labs and dorms). Open to discussion, though. - User:Luna Santin
• The question I need to ask is: do we want to keep on playing whack-a-mole for months on end while we wait for vandals to slowly get each workstation in their labs blocked one by one because there will be cases where workstations at certain schools have individually allocated IP addresses for each computer. It's rather unfortunate that currently we have no tool to view how many IPs in an netblock have warnings or current blocks in order to see the bigger picture. I guess I might have to whip something up once I graduate from uni and have some spare time. - User:Netsnipe
• Here's one example where I recognised a pattern in the IPs after getting fed up playing whack a mole with individual IPs, I emailed the school and they consented to a blanket range block - User:Netsnipe
• This action seems to cater just for USA educational institutions, since there is no indication that other countries' educational institutions would crop up in the checks being made here. of course, speaking for the UK, I have seen many instances of vandalism from UK schools, but the policy as indicated by the quoted material seems quite USA-centric. - User:ddstretch
• I've placed plenty of long-term blocks on school systems from all over the place during my time, offering an administrator at the school to contact me to have the block removed. None have done so. I've seen, few, if any cases of school's in this country contributing constructively. Long term blocks = not necessarily as bad as an idea as you're all making it out to be. — User:Pilotguy

The main opposition in the discussion above was that 6 months right away seemed to be too long of a block for so few cases of vandalism. Hence my suggestion of 2 months. Though the actual length of block, and the amount of edits "necessary" is obviously discussable. However, from the posts I just pasted above, it would seem that there may be a guideline to be found regarding lengthy blocking in certain situations.

Looking forward to your thoughts/comments. - jc37 10:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks for taking this on. We do need a guideline in this area. I think a 2-month block would be sufficient in even most bad cases. -Will Beback · † · 10:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Still looking forward to thoughts and comments : ) - As I have not been involved in "valdal fighting" besides reverting the occaisional article, and such, I wouldn't know where to begin. I was/am hoping that at least one of those above would offer some thoughts and ideas : ) - jc37 18:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:Eh, I'm hesitant even on the 2 month idea. Jumping immediately to 2 months really does seem like an assumption of bad faith. To be honest, my guess is that this entire thing will boil down into "the individual admin gets to decide". It's nice to know that leeway exists, but, at the same time, it worries me that we're blocking some good users. alphachimp 15:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)