Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive88

I found a "red category" :Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons as of 26 April 2007 full of images that should have been reviewed for WP:CSD#I8. It looks like the category was never created so the images were likely never reviewed. I've created the category placed it in :Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons with its sibling cats, so someone may want to start sorting through it. (I can't do that while at work.) --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

While it's probably nothing I would rather err on the side of caution and so I have contacted the Pewaukee School District about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Dahmer&diff=prev&oldid=131844637 this]. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

::Wise move. You should also send this to the local police and/or sheriff's dept. b.c the school may not receive the info since its the weekend. Best, --Alabamaboy 22:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I had to bust an obvious GFDL violation (a cut and paste move), which depended on a documentation page for my old template, Template:GFDL-self-no-disclaimers/doc, which would not make sense with this template if moved to Template:GFDL-self/doc. I then repaired the undeleted template to remove the disclaimers and false interwikis. Jesse Viviano 23:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Due to repeated abuse of editting priveleges exhibited from an individual IP hopping from day to day on 201.29.0.0/16, I have softblocked this range for a month (anon only, account creation open)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

:You blocked 400,000 anonymous users (according to Telemar) from editing Wikipedia because of one vandal? Have you got some examples of the persistent vandalism? Seems a little heavy handed to soft-block the approx. equivalent population of Sacramento, California because of one vandal. -Halo 02:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

::It's been constant abuse that I have nto been able to stem at a handful of articles I watch (persistant abuse, semiprotection is not a possibility as it would lock out helpful edits). The abuse has been going on for some time, and I have an actual user who has since been blocked who I know is the source of this vandalism. It's been much more difficult to block singular IPs that match the M.O. of the user than it was to try and single out a smaller range to deal with this. I will seek out some other assistance later to see how much damage I actually have done (anonymous editors have been the source of the vandalous edits, but I have allowed for account creation).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=george+washington second entry down, read the summary]

:Google had better update this soon because this is sure to anger many people. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 23:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

::The offending edit seems to have been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Washington&diff=130794155&oldid=130793991 reverted] within 2 minutes too. That's a case of very bad timing by the Googlebot. Will (aka Wimt) 23:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

:::How often does Googlebot update? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Hopefully quite quickly for a page such as this (but it could still be a matter of days). However, I have contacted Google giving them the details of the situation so hopefully they should set it to update soon. Will (aka Wimt) 00:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::Does googlebot do spelling corrections? In the diff, the vandal says "sx" , on google it says "sex". --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 00:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::(edit conflict) Nah that was just because of the particular diff I linked. The user actually made two edits. The first made the spelling mistake, but then they [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Washington&diff=130794111&oldid=130793991 corrected it]. The Googlebot must have trawled after this correction but before the reversion (which happened in the same minute). Unlucky stuff. Will (aka Wimt) 00:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::If it really needs to go, a developer could register [https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/addsite?hl=en here] and get the page recached. Prodego ^talk 00:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Just a thought.. 2 minutes.. but what if that 2 minutes also happened to fall into a period in which this specific webpage was updated on the wikipedia cache server ? Because I trust the GoogleBot is just an anonymous user. That way it can have been on that page considerably longer then 2 minutes for many people. Perhaps this is something we can solve by treating googlebot in another way. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Treating Googlebot another way would probably mean a massive increase of the load on the database server. —Centrx→talk • 00:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::I don't think it would solve the problem either (I doubt there is really a solution as such). Even if the Googlebot bypassed the cache somehow, it would still find vandalism if vandalism happened to be in the article as it trawled. Will (aka Wimt) 00:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Update: It looks like its been fixed! -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 01:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:::P.S: It looks like someone edited it to remove the nonsense. The cache link is missing and there is todays date.

::::Excellent. At least Google are quick at fixing these things when they come to light. Will (aka Wimt) 01:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

; Moved here from below

[http://searchengineland.com/070516-164154.php News story].

Relatively simple changes in the Wikimedia software could minimize the risk of a search engine caching a badly vandalized page. We can use a strategy called content delivery. When a search engine shows up, easily identified by the user-agent, we could deliver the last known "good" version of a page. For simplicity, we can say that any page edited by a user with more than X edits is "good." (Users who vandalize almost never have more than X edits.) Search engines may cache a page for weeks or even months before they return for a fresh revision. It would be a terrible thing for the subject of a minor article if slanderous or obscene material showed up at the top of the search results under their name for such a long time. Speed of reversion doesn't matter. Bots come all day long and will inevitably have bad luck now and then. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 04:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

: At least it's over 200 years too late to be a Biography of a Living Person... *Dan T.* 04:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:: Google uses a feed from us, updating on a periodic basis when we tell them that an article's been updated recently. As such, there shouldn't be the problem of bad caches lasting months. Ral315 » 21:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

::: Google is only one of many sites that cache Wikipedia. How about Baidu or Yandex? These are leaders in their own markets. How often do they refresh? How about all the Wikipedia mirror sites. This isn't a simple issue, and it will only get more complex. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 07:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

: The challenge is not that we don't know about this, but rather that there's not enough people to code this. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody brought up on IRC the fact that MediaWiki:Searchresulttext currently does not have any easily accessible external links to searching Wikipedia, while MediaWiki:Searchnoresults (which only shows if absolutely nothing comes up) does. They proposed linking to wikiwix.com, which seems to me to be a good site, but I wanted to see whether this would be a good move, or whether the link to Wikipedia:Searching is enough. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:I am the person who talk to IRC, i just want to signal that we are the first search engine external for wikipedia on real time:

:http://www.wikiwix.com/?lang=en&action=gouvernement+fillon

:Pmartin76 11:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

::Already on the french wiki ([http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=&fulltext=Search see]), this engine is really sharp on the search. In fact, this is one of the best right now. ThrillSeeker 11:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

:we make difference on this type of search

:http://www.wikiwix.com/?lang=en&action=football ==> second answer

:http://www.wikiwix.com/?lang=en&action=new+york+city ==> geolocalising result

:http://www.wikiwix.com/?img=true&lang=en&action=new%20york%20city

:real time is not yet available, it will be on on the next week

:Pmartin76 12:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

::I've added some code to Mediawiki:Common.js, taken from fr.wiki, to give us the different search links. Martinp23 13:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

::: Re WikiWix, why is it that (a) it doesn;t have a wiki page, and (b) that when one is created, it's then immediately removed and it's history excised even from the activity log of the person creating it? If Wikipedia has a special policy regarding WikiWix, it shouldn't be a secret, and if Wikipedia is suggesting that users try WikiWix on its search results page (suggesting a relationship), then I didn't think that Wikipedia was supposed to be allowed to censor information about itself. There seem to be "trust" issues here. Okay, perhaps this isn't the right place to ask, but someone with WikiPriveleges seems to be erasing all trace of the pages where we should be asking. ErkDemon 22:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The wording of :Template:ISP is in my view unfriendly, and scary to the new users most likely to see it (I'm an old user and it bothers even me). I tried toning it down [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:ISP&diff=130975185&oldid=130958236] but Netsnipe reverted based on the idea that it's not a welcome template (I'd pasted in some text from :Template:WelcomeIP). Netsnipe suggested at the talk page that I ask here for further opinions. I'm not sure I disagree with Netsnipe about anything specific: I'm not claiming the text from the welcome template is especially important, but I do think the current wording is unnecessarily hostile so I wanted to soften it. Also, the stuff about "IT staff" is pretentious and/or misleading. AFAIK Wikipedia's IT staff is Brion, Tim, and one or two others whose names I've forgotten, and none of them need to be advised of the RSS feed, so the wording seems aimed more at intimidating new editors who aren't familiar with the setup (WP:BITE). Anyway I'd like to undo the reversion or change the template wording in some other way to make it friendlier. I'd appreciate it if anyone else wants to weigh in. Regards, 75.62.6.237 04:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

:I support the changes that you made. DXRAW 07:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

::I belive that "IT Staff" is addressed to staff members employeed by the ISP, not by wikipedia. Perhaps this should be clearer, but such people have a legit need to monitor those feeds. DES ^(talk) 08:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Go here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:205.222.248.29

he has more then 12 warnings and he was blocked 3 times. He made sooo many vandalism, such as calling my favorite game VMK gay, stupid and retarded. See his user page! Its because his IP is from a school, so no wonder. Dacheatcode 12:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Or maybe its possible that because its a school, there are hundreds of people represented buy that one IP address, and therefore almost all the vandalism is unrelated and highly unlikely to be one person? —Dark•Shikari^[T] 12:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Indeed. There are asses at loads of schools who have nothing better to do than vandalize, but there are also valuable wiki contributors who use the same computers. David Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 13:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Posted here rather than WP:SSP due to the circumstances surrounding this ban. This edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FNorbert_de_Jonge&diff=131841443&oldid=131749727] to a pedophile related AfD is very similar to previous edits by the user, and the IP has previously edited pedophile-related articles. Could be wrong, but thought it was worth mentioning. EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

:Whois shows a different location from Jim Burton. Fred Bauder 17:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks. EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to come here and share with you what can happen when we don't protect the high-profile recently deceased fast enough: [http://wonkette.com/politics/dept%27-of-kids-these-days-show-no-respect/oh-wikipedia-you-are-so-funny-260712.php Negative Publicitay!] As soon as I heard that Falwell has kicked the bucket, I ran over to the article, and semi-protected it as fast as I could. It was being vandalized one or two times per minute around the time if memory serves.

I think people should take heed and sprotect when in doubt, because subjects in the news are invariably googled, we invariably come up at the top, and understandably receive unwelcome negative attention when people read about Pat Robertson's appendage. In other words, failing to prevent this kind of vandalism hurts us a lot and is easy to remedy without giving up all we stand for.

Either that, or we need stable versions - yesterday. -- Y not? 05:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:Please do not semi-protect to pre-empt vandalism that may happen - it's extremely bad form, particularly considering the amount of legitimate contributions anonymous members make. -Halo 08:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

::Yeah this kind of attitude is exactly what I'm talking about. We're nota fledgling website anymore: our reputation will increasingly depend on how we appear in high-profile situations. It's extremely bad form to allow what we allowed with Falwell -- Y not? 12:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:: Indeed - sometimes this can prevent valid new content being added. But I confidently predict that when Margaret Thatcher snuffs it at least one anon will add "ding, dong, the witch is dead!" to that article... Guy (Help!) 12:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Guy, it's very bad form to bet on certainties. With stable version, presumably we'd update the stable version to reflect their recent decease? Moreschi ^Talk 12:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

::This "kind of attitude" is called a well-established policy that was deliberately introduced to stop kind of abuse of semi-protection that you're suggesting. Please don't abuse admin features - we're not a fledgling website anymore, and as such admins abusing their features and going against policy isn't going to generate Wikipedia any positive press, or improve the media's already tarnished view of Wikipedia process and policy-making. People who edit with an IP address are already treated as second-class citizens despite making significant valuable contributions to the site, and rogue admins deciding to sprotect against policy certainly isn't going to stem that tide. -Halo 20:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:::And that policy is exactly what I was trying to discuss by bringing up this thread. Don't call me names, Halo. -- Y not? 00:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

:::: Exactly, and I'm expressing my point of view that the actions you're proposing are wrong, against policy and abuse of admin features. I don't appreciate being told I have an attitude when my entire attitude stems from well-established policy which you're suggesting people ignore. If the purpose of this is to start legitimate discussion about changing the current policy, rather than quite wrongly encouraging people to go against it, this is totally the wrong place - you should do it in the WP:PUMP. -Halo 13:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::How doctrinaire of you. Btw, attitude != bad attitude. Attitude is a neutral term. -- Y not? 23:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::How is it doctrinarian to suggest that admins follow both the spirit and explicit word of policy when using an admin feature, particularly when it comes to a policy that was intrinsic in its arrival? How is it doctrinarian to disagree with misuse of an already misused feature that prevents a significant amount of contributors to contribute? How is it doctrinarian to believe that suggestions to create unofficial moderation rules made without discussion that make Wikipedia less wiki-like are a bad thing? How is it doctrinarian to speak for that silent majority who edit using an IP address and don't follow policy discussion? Please justify your comments when throwing around big words with major implications. I'm not bound to policy, I just strongly believe in the sentiment behind it and admins not deciding to use their additional features on a whim against policy, particularly when it's increasingly apparent that they don't have to justify their actions unless they delete the main page. -Halo 00:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Remember folks, Wikipedia is something that cannot possibly work in theory, it only works in practice. Yes, someone might make bad edits to an article after a high profile someone dies, but the wonderful thing about the project is that someone else will fix it. Pre-emptive protection is from the 'works in theory' camp, it assumes that the project cannot function properly and that every day the site stays up is a miracle of god and that at any point we're just one determined vandal away from total collapse. I'm throwing my hat in with the "works in practice" group, who has confidence in the community to deal with this stuff. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:Heh. The person who wrote that article about the vandalism of the Falwell page is probably the one who vandalised the Falwell page. Anchoress 15:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't pre-emptively protect high profile bios. They are not the problem. Hight profile bios get vandalised - but they get quickly reverted. And if crap is added - people know enough about the subject to spot and remove. Further, the subject or her relatives are unlikely to be upset by a few min of vandalism before the revert. All that really happens is we look silly. Protection also discourages people who go there for the first time and wonder about this editing bit. However, low-profile bios should be semi-protected a lot quicker. Here vandalism goes unnoticed - POV and lies are not easily identified - and the subject can get very upset as this may be all the info people can find on them.--Doc^g 15:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:See above thread about George Washington being vandalized yesterday. The vandalism was reverted two minutes later, but unfortunately Googlebot visited during the intervening time, and an obscene sentence was shown all day long whenever people Googled George Washington. When we have 1,000,000+ articles, odds are this will happen again and again. I suggested that we only show stable versions to Google. Stable versions can be created automatically based on user profiling. Wikipedia has become big. With great power comes great responsibility. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 15:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:I disagree; it's past time to be more protective of good content. It's not always '2 minutes' - I've seen just in the last few days vandalism that remained for 7 minutes, 90 minutes, 36 hours. The "most vandalism is reverted in five minutes or less" myth is actively becoming harmful to the project if it makes us suffer Google caches of that ilk on high-profile subjects. -- nae'blis 15:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

::I think public perceptions of unreliable content are hurting Wikipedia more that than the benefits of allowing anonymous edits across the board. I see this in the media regularly, and it is now common parlance in the general public. I think empirical facts are required on this issue (e.g. a survey) rather than the largely ideological debate about "free editng" vs "reliable editing". Editor's opinions don't really count for much. One negative incident is equivalent to the effect of ten positive ones. I think some pro-active precautionary measures to protect quality of content such as the suggest to semiprotect the bios of deceased is prudent. Peter Campbell 14:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

:::We realy need to encurage google to use our live-feed features. I'm fairly sure they subscribe to it already, but it dosn't seem like they use it all the time. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

::Agree. Same goes for TFAs. A year ago, the argument that "we get good anon edits" was valid. Now? A valid edit will probably cause conflict with a vandal one. Not so long ago, I restored an ENTIRE SECTION that had been missing for weeks after a MP appearance.Circeus 19:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I am currently translating the Spanish version of the China Poblana article at User:Nardman1/China poblana (sandbox). Would it be possible for someone to perform a history merger at the mainspace article for GFDL reasons (and possibly so I can recruit other editors to help me finish it)? Thanks. When you're done you can delete the sandbox version.

: Since you are the only editor of your version, why not simply copy your latest revision into a new revision of the mainspace version? The only GFDL need is for attribution, and from that perspective it makes no difference if all your work appears in one edit. --pgk 22:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

::Roger that. Thanks. Nardman1 00:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[http://www.google.ca/search?q=jim+carrey&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Jim Carrey] Sancho 00:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• One resolution strategy is to use an allowable form of cloaking, called "content delivery." It should be trivially easy to apply the semi-protection criteria (not semi-protection itself) to article history to determine that last version that was saved by "good" user. This version can be accessed with an additional URL parameter, such as ?version=stable. When a search engine bot, such as Googlebot shows up and identifies itself (through the user-agent field in the http request header), you program a conditional redirect via .htaccess to append "?version=stable" to the URL. This isn't a big deal, won't slow down the servers, and would avoid further embarrassment to Wikipedia, and unnecessary harm to subjects of articles. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 04:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• The people that you need to take changes to MediaWiki up with are developers, not administrators. Uncle G 11:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• If you have a specific idea on how to implement this, make a feature request at mediazilla:, the MediaWiki bug tracker. --ais523 11:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

{{resolved|1=Well, it's all resolved unless you want to snicker at Ryan. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)}}

It's me, RyanGerbil10. After reading about the fiasco with admin accounts being hijacked, and changed my password to strngthen it. Unfortunately I changed it on a German keyboard (I was in Germany), and I don't remember/can't figure out what it was changed to because the keyboards don't map out the same here in the United States. (I changed it by using the same keys as in the original password but by holding the shift key down for certain characters. For example, if my password had been "thisisnotmypassword111" it was changed to something like THisNOtmYPasSWorD!11." I requested another password be e-mailed to me, but it doesn't work! What can I do? If this is better discussed by e-mail, I have e-mail enabled on my account. 208.104.117.109 01:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

:Never mind. I guess I'm just an idiot sometimes (like that time I blocked myself.) RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 01:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

::How exactly did you manage to block yourself? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viridae (talk • contribs){{#if:01:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)| 01:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)|}}.

:::I don't know, but here's the evidence: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=RyanGerbil10&page=User%3ARyanGerbil10]. howcheng {chat} 02:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

::::I've seen four users accidentally block themselves. It isn't a hard mistake to make if you are in haste. Don't act in haste :) I have one block for one second during a Colbert vandalism spree when I was mistaken for a vandal during a revert. No harm, no foul in that case because we were all tossing out blocks like candy. Moving along... Teke^talk 03:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::I've done it too ... it was early in the morning, and I was swatting vandals just a tad too fast ... [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Antandrus&page=User%3AAntandrus] Antandrus (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::I have done it to myself multiple times on purpose. Still trying to work out how you click the wrong name etc. Viridae^Talk 12:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Brent Corrigan, which appears to be the discussion page of a minor male pornographer, has been summarily locked. If I were to need to mention suggestions to the page, this appears to be currently impossible, Thank you. Also, octopuses 07:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• The page has been semi-protected, because of the repeated attempts by {{user-full|John celona}} to post an unsubstantiated accusation against the article's subject there, placing it in edit summaries and in xyr signature at one point. Xe has been directed to our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. I note in passing that John celona's latest edit was at 2007-05-19T20:07:29 UTC and the creation of your 10-edit account was at 2007-05-20T03:07:55 UTC. Uncle G 12:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need all those fair use images? Are they all legal? Does the inclusion of so many really comply with policy? Could someone with better knowledge of copyright than me sort this out? The number's ridiculous, something like 10 fair use images there. Moreschi ^Talk 12:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

:Not one of those images has a fair use rationale. Since they were uploaded after the bright line date, I have tagged them all. MER-C 13:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks, MER-C. In addition, plenty of them are book covers, which are, apparently, meant to discuss just books, rather than anything else. Moreschi ^Talk 13:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I was recently looking at the logs, described as "a combined display of upload, deletion, protection, user block, page move, user creation, user renaming, and user rights logs." at Special:Log. That description doesn't tell the whole story, as logs of user block are currently filed by the user name of the blocker, rather than the user name of the blockee. Please enhance the logs (or the logging of user blocks) to allow display of logs of user block by the user name of the blockee, without reducing the functionality of being able to display by the user name of the blocker. For reference and an example of what I'm writing about, please see User talk:Gwernol#User:GOD HATE FAGS AND SO DO I. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

:Bugs and feature requests should be made at the BugZilla since there is no guarantee developers will read this page. --Deskana (AFK 47) 15:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks! I've now made one.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

:Jeff, the "user" field is for the user who performed the action and the "title" field is for whatever the action was done to. For blocks, "user" is the admin who placed the block and "title" is the user account which was blocked. So to find all blocks placed on User:Example, you would type "User:Example" into the "title" field on the log. Don't forget the "User:" in front of the name. --bainer (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks! It's still counter-intuitive, though. :(   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There is an ongoing community ban discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Extending_the_ban_of_Artaxiad_to_indef here]. Further input is required to determine consensus. Navou 17:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

:A request, there might be a ban conversation in progress there at any time, if you're posting a notification, it would be helpful if you mentioned who it was regarding. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a "heads up" to admins about this user. Although also a sockpuppet issue (compare contribs of {{User|A67}} and {{User|A87}}), the more pressing problem is their uploading of images with incorrect source information. Either no source is given, or the GFDL licence is used, but for images which appear to be professional portraits or magazine shots. Please see their contributions to understand what I mean. The pattern is so obvious and consistent, only a look at a number of image uploads and one should see what I'm getting at.

:Another editor has already posted about this at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Copyvio_uploads_by_User:777a

Hello;

I am being harassed, or "WikiStalked" (if there is such a term) by the user Tfoxworth. Many months ago, he was involved in creating several POV forks for articles regarding members of the previously-sovereign Russian Imperial Family and had his various articles deleted on those grounds.

His last edit at that point was on December 1st, 2006. Recently, Mr. Foxworth has returned to editing (under this name on May 18th, 2007) and all of his edits so far have been reverts of my edits (for no reason) or unfounded and unwarranted chastisement and insults on the talk pages for some of the articles. Mr. Foxworth's first recent edit was outside of his usually "territory" and was directed at me on the talk page for Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case. Just before that edit under his username, there was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADannielynn_Birkhead_paternity_case&diff=131922163&oldid=128328715 an edit] by the anonymous IP address 68.3.40.59. At this point, the user's only edits have been at the two pages that Mr. Foxworth has edited at. If this user is not Tim Foxworth, it is a peculiar incidence that the user's only three edits have been at the two pages where Mr. Foxworth has been attacking me.

He also edits from the IP address 12.146.101.146, as evidenced by him [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALine_of_succession_to_the_Russian_throne&diff=91436355&oldid=91436085 signing the IP address' posts]. From this IP address he edited the Maria Vladimirovna talk page, even creating what is problem an unauthorized subpage. Additionally, there is a new user called I_vonH whose [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMaria_Vladimirovna%2C_Grand_Duchess_of_Russia&diff=131692314&oldid=131601691 first edit] was one in agreement with Tim Foxworth's 12.146.101.146 IP address. I have a suspicion that this user is probably also Tim Foxworth.

For what it is worth, I feel that Mr. Foxworth, who has a somewhat extensive warning history, should be dealt with in a manner in which he will no longer be able to harass me. He has not made any constructive edits and for the most part, all of the history differenced between his edits and mine are him reverting my edits ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Line_of_succession_to_the_Austro-Hungarian_throne&diff=prev&oldid=132142450], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Order_of_Succession_%28Former_Monarchies%29&diff=prev&oldid=132142633], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Edward%2C_Duke_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha&diff=prev&oldid=132142830], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_German_monarchs&diff=prev&oldid=132145362], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emperor_of_Austria&diff=prev&oldid=132145485], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Otto_von_Habsburg&diff=prev&oldid=132145651], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederick_III%2C_German_Emperor&diff=prev&oldid=132145787]), inserting his specific point of view about certain people ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Line_of_succession_to_the_British_Throne&diff=prev&oldid=132153616]) or him running his mouth about me on talk pages ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dannielynn_Birkhead_paternity_case&diff=prev&oldid=131922457], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dannielynn_Birkhead_paternity_case&diff=prev&oldid=132137564], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maria_Vladimirovna%2C_Grand_Duchess_of_Russia&diff=prev&oldid=132152767]). Many of these pages are ones where he has no previous edit history and has been stalking my edits. Charles 03:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have just run a bot that detects fair use images in templates, (along with removing fair use images in userspace). I have a listing of them at User:Eagle_101/fairUseInTemplates. None of these should exist per criteria number 9 of our non free media policy. Anyone who wants to get to work on removing all of these images from template space feel free. The list is structured ;-;;-;