Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Alternative proposal

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

A Man in Black

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Severe backlog at WP:CFD

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

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

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

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

Please dont let not having a bot stop you all you have to do is post them to WP:CFD/W and the bots will do the rest. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Space Cadet

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

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

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

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

• It's not prohibited, but it's generally not a Good Thing to Do^TM. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Identifying the common owner of accounts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Durova, thanks for the advice. I've posted the file to User:Will Beback/AMBC and will file a formal notice here once the editor returns from an announced wikibreak. If you'd care to make any comments about the file in the meantime I'd appreciate the feedback. I'd intended to simply ask for the editor to stop editing areas where he has a conflict of interest, but the block evasion and other disruptive activity make it appear that an outright ban would be more appropriate. -Will Beback · † · 03:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't the parent account already been banned? If so then this is like my investigation of BooyakaDell. Once we established a convincing circumstantial case that this was the same user as banned JB106, we banned the sockpuppet and then checkuser/banned all other sockpuppets. He's still knitting more socks but we've got kittens pouncing on his ball of yarn. Durova^Charge! 17:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus - proposed action for independent review

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

Naturally I hope it will not come to that.

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

I have been given Ludvikus' word in email that he will henceforth utterly forgo certain kinds of inappropriate editing on all pages, in order that I can trial unprotect the article. He may be able to keep his word, he may not. I have posted a formal explanation that if there is further problematic editing contravening our agreement on his conduct then he may be treated as community banned based upon existing consensus, and enforced by block. I have posted a further heads up on his talk page to ensure there is no doubt. I do not consider further explanation needed since I have also given him explanation and advice multiple times that should be clear to any reasonable editor. (eg: [1] [2] and email)

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

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

Developers

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

1. The block log displays a message when the auto blocker is enabled, the block list when disabled: list|log
2. The log includes empty parenthesis when no non-default settings are added to a block. [3].

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extreme long-term sockpuppetism

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

All these accounts is one person:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Checkuser confirmed

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

I blocked confirmed accounts. The couple uncorfimed ones (due to stale data) are pending. Renata 02:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Embargo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder and leader

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested change to Hezbollah userbox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion (2)

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

Userbox back on

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

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

User pages are not political soapboxes, and should not be used as such. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't everyone just mind their own business ("live and let live")? Wikipedia isn't a scene for a soap opera either (although I see one evolving here). As long as the userbox isn't libelous, I have no problem with it. Thulium 17:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

But lots of other people do, however, and keeping it around will be a source of a lot more long-term problems than it's worth. --Cyde Weys 17:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The main problem is that given the focus of Embargo's work thus far, and the fact that his userpage contains nothing but this box, the most natural reading is "I have a point-of-view and I'm here to promote it." In general, userboxes like this are often put up by new users who haven't yet been involved in a serious conflict, and aren't aware of the fact that strongly indicating a personal agenda is likely to intensify such conflicts. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the main problem is that people are using the enforcement of Wikipedia policy to support a witch hunt directed at a single user. If you want all political userboxes deleted from Wikipedia, then fine. But be systematic and impartial. And give Embargo a break. He doesn't deserve this. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 19:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already suggsted this! All the provocative userboxes should be removed, which is why I am not stoppingEmbargo's current mini project of removing all politically motivated userboxes from there userpages. I've also suggested creating a userbox guidline, as this would quell any future issues regarding this as I seams to be quite a hotly debated issue. RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said multiple times, it wasn't directed at a single user, its just that this user reacted very badly with a personal attack, bringing himself and the issue to attention. Viridae^Talk 21:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Take this elsewhere?

Now we've been filling the AN page with this discussion for some days now. I propose that you take this discussion to both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes, as these projects might have more incentive to systematically removed all inflammatory userboxes. There should be much discussion on what is considered inflammatory (personally, I do not consider "This user supports armed resistance to hostility" to be inflammatory). I don't plan on being highly involved with this issue, as it seems to affect my blood pressure. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I think we need to come to some sort of consensus on this because Embargo's userpage is currently fully protected and we can't keep it like that indefinately. However, I am sticking to my guns that his userbox fails what Jimbo says on WP:USER RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

We need to come to a consensus, but you're sticking to your guns? What you're effectively saying is "everybody needs to agree with me". Here's a suggestion: Embargo's user page has been blocked for a week. Why don't you spend that time getting rid of all the other userboxes you find offensive. At least then you won't just be picking on one user the whole time. Perhaps you could get started on Category:Wikipedians who support Israel, Category:Wikipedians who oppose the Iraq War and Category:Wikipedians who support the US troops. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 13:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That paints with a very broad brush, Sakurambo. Durova^Charge! 17:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

CAT:PER is still backlogged

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

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

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

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

Yeah, I remove the EP if the details haven't been worked out yet. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Salted articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Protected titles doesn't work since it's not excluded from view by the robots.txt, and thus will end up getting indexed and such. We might want to make it a sub-page of AFD, per this line in robots.txt:

Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/

--Cyde Weys 17:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's give it a useful name and bug somebody to add it to robots.txt. Kusma (討論) 17:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Would that somebody be any dev? Doesn't seem like it should be a big deal. Chick Bowen 05:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Damn, that's a good idea... EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I filed a bug report: Template:Bug.

Image page not completely deleted

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla

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

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

This is a sad day: the case got dismissed because Ghirla has been inactive since the day arbitration opened. He's one of the site's most prolific editors (way up in the top 100...top 50 even if you're the editcountitis sort). I hope it's an extended Wikibreak rather than a goodbye. I'd like to turn lemons into lemonade and am working on a draft proposal that might prevent future losses of this sort. Will follow up with more details as appropriate. Interested editors may post queries to my user talk. Durova^Charge! 22:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As the person who made the motion to dismiss that the ArbCom adopted, I agree with you completely. I would be very interested in seeing your policy proposal. Apart from this particular case, the overall rate of stress and conflict and burnout in the community, including from our most active community leaders and article contributors, has become extremely concerning to me. Newyorkbrad 23:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much a policy proposal as an experimental dispute resolution option I'll call community enforced mediation. For the present I'll host this in my own userspace. Established editors could research past arbitration cases and voluntarily place similar restrictions on themselves. Piotrus and Ghirla were agreeing to mutual civility parole. I've worked out a proposal to cover the details. This site lacks an alternative to ArbCom for content disputes with a user conduct dimension. On a selective basis I'm willing to fill that gap if the community approves the experiment. Durova^Charge! 17:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Anything that can help resolve a dispute prior to escalation is good, and in this particular case we had agreed to defer the case to the informal mediation agreed upon. The best course of action, I felt, was to dismiss the case for now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is all such as shame, Ghirla was an incredibly prolific writer of thorough, quality architectural articles. Has anyone tried to coax him back? --Mcginnly | Natter 23:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move

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

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

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

Speaking of the WP:RM cycle time...

There's a heck of a backlog there, and any help clearing it would be greatly appreciated. I close all the requests I can, and I know a few other admins have been helping out, but the backlog is growing all the same. A lot of the older requests sitting there are judgement calls that involve reading lengthy debates about obscure or ill-defined naming conventions, but they still have to be dealt with. There are also a fair number of stray pages in Category:Requested moves that were never listed at WP:RM, if someone wants to take on that challenge... -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ian King

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

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

Improper page move

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

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

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing

I'm somewhat confused - none of the stuff on this page would seem to have anything to do with building the encyclopedia. Are we meant to have pages jammed full of "Can someone please tell me how to fix my computer problems"? From a rather bewildered Moreschi ^Deletion! 18:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I mean - "I hear that Vista's graphics drivers will refuse to play high-definition protected content (from HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray disks) if your monitor doesn't support HDMI handshaking or if you use unsigned drivers. I'm pretty darn mad at this stupid situation and don't want my computer's functionality restricted in any way.. is there any way to disable these content protection drivers from the get-go and just live without watching protected content?" - is relevant to the encyclopedia how? Sorry, just not seeing it. Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, all the reference desks are like that. It's the same stuff you'd get at a library reference desk too. You could argue that WP:AN is essentially an onwiki chatroom that could be dealt with elsewhere, too. Logical2u_Talk 19:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No, actually. AN is about sorting out on-wiki problems. The vast bulk of stuff at this reference desk has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Any "reference desk" should be "I read this article X, and I dont understand concept Y, can you please explain?". ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Inasmuch as "[AN] is a message board for coordinating and discussing administrative tasks" and since this issue is one not relevant exclusively or even principally to admininstrators and is one relative to which administrator intervention is not required, might we do well to move this discussion to the village pump (or, I suppose, to the general reference desks discussion page with a link to such discussion at the VP)? Joe 20:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I really just wanted quick feedback on whether or not I was being incredibly stupid by thinking that much of the stuff at this place is inappropriate. Opinions, anyone? Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Not stupid, much of it is. Questions should either be briefly 'Explain x', with a reply 'See article y', or 'I read article x, could you please clarify y?'. There is, imo, inevitable spillover into discussion of these issues on Humanities, and intricate technical questions, that we could never have articles for, on Computing. So for your original question, no we're not, but we do. --Mnemeson 22:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

True, it shouldn't turn into a forum for discussion on various computing topics. It does seem that of all the Reference Desks, the computing one might spark the most discussion/debate/general talk. I doubt anyone will get into a long discussion about Volcanic Ash at the Science Desk. It seems generally fine for people to ask technical questions, but is there a point where things get too in depth? Is that necessarily bad? Does it then turn into something like people asking specific medical questions? Of course it's not the same as medical questions, but the detail of some technical questions kind of reminded me of that. This of course doesn't really answer any questions, but just some thoughts. -- Natalya 02:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of article Alofa Time

I found the article Alofa Time while searching through orphaned articles. I often nominate such articles for deletion, but it seems the major problem is its lack of neutrality. Check the talk page also. Could you folks urgently examine its neutrality (urgency per WP:BLP)? YechielMan 20:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Marked for speedy deletion ({{db-attack}}) per WP:BLP. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted as attack page. If it can be recreated with the care needed for WP:BLP and with proper tone and sources, that will be a different story. -- Avi 21:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

RFCs for deletion

I've just delisted two user conduct RFCs that have failed to be certified within the 48-hour period: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rajsingam and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RobertG. Could someone delete them, please? (And for future reference, would it be amenable to tag them for speedy with an explanation of having failed certification?) Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that someone has already deleted them; {{db|reason}} would do the trick nicely in the future. Thatcher131 01:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Tony Fox (arf!) 02:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

User:SockingIt

Two in a row from me. Someone might want to look at the contribs of the above user, who is an admitted sock puppet, and who has thus far set up a user page generally taking a poke at the WP:SOCK rules, voting 'no comment per WP:SOCK' on several AfD and other discussions, adding a link to its page on the WP:SOCK and Sockpuppet (Internet) pages... looks a bit WP:POINTish to me. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see any harm in a harmless sock. However, WP:POINT edits might be blockable. I would say since s/he has recieved the warning on the talk page, the next point edit may be reported to WP:AIV with diffs. Regards, Navou ^banter

Userpage admits WP:POINT, sent to AIV. Regards, Navou ^banter 00:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

User:BWCNY

I do not know if this is where it belongs, however BWCNY has been causing minor problems lately, and any attempts to correct him usually result with a blanking of his own talk page. He was given two UWs the other day [4] one of which was for not properly citing his additions to various topics. He proceeded to blank the talk page and than instead of adding the citations or reverting the work, he tagged his work with the fact tag. Is this a violation of WP:NOR? He has added information without citing his work to numerous pages and before I revert the pages, I wanted to know if it was wrong. He than proceeded to include masked vulgarity on his User page. I do not know the proper method to proceed since Ive never seen anyone for lack of a better way of putting it, vandalize their own page as seen here User:BWCNY. Any assistance that can be provided would be greatly appreciated. Rob110178 21:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It would help if you posted page diffs for the specific edits, rather than a single link to an older version of the user's page history. Yes, the editor may blank warnings to his talk page. He's still been warned and that's viewable through the history file. It's bad wikiquette to blank all posts from one's talk page, but still permissible. You might try an article content WP:RFC on the article in question to establish consensus on the WP:NOR issue. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 22:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the WP:RFC is that there are so many of those types of articles, I do not know where to start. I'm going to try to give it a shot. The minor nature of these issues amongst other problems makes this situation challenging... Rob110178 23:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your initial post made this seem like a single article. Please provide the full story with page diffs. Durova^Charge! 18:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Template to be removed when closing AfDs

I've noticed that there are several AfD discussions that are closed, but that still have the template {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} left in there. Since that template puts AfD nominations into a category, anyone browsing the deletion categories will see old, closed debates in there.

It should be possible to use AWB to search for any article that transcludes {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} and contains "Template:Afd top" (indicating that it's closed). Then, AWB can just delete the template text. I'm experimenting with it right now in AWB, and it looks straightforward, but I don't want to mow through the whole list. I get a little nervous about editing pages that say "No further edits should be made to this page." --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not impossible that I myself have left one or two of those in there--it's very easy to do, particularly when you're doing a unanimous AfD quickly. It would be a valuable service if you would do this. Chick Bowen 05:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am guilty. I have been known to leave the template. An automated service would be helpful. Navou ^banter 17:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

One already exists. Look at Special:Contributions/Bot523 (sorry I can't run it more often, my Internet connection can be a bit dodgy, and I only run it about once a week). --ais523 17:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, note that {{at}} (the usual abbreviation for {{afd top}}) is normally used with subst (and in fact has to be for the bot to work). The bot works by requesting the categorylinks for Category:AfD debates from the database, looking for ones which have been categorized for over a week, then scanning them all looking for the substed version of {{at}}, and decategorising them if it's there. I'm not sure if AWB could generate a list of pages to edit going by substed versions. --ais523 17:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If I remember rightly, I believe that Ais523 has a manually-run bot that removes them. Yomangani^talk 17:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Dream100

This user has made a high number of very offensive and racist comments [5], [6], [7] and personal attacks on user pages [8], [9]. I've warned him and encouraged him to change his behaviour, but it seems to have had no effect. [10]. Apart from the above, he is also reverting way beyond the 3RR rules, but I think these comments are a graver offence. JdeJ 14:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've not actually seen how many (any?) useful edits this user has made so started off with a 48 hour block, which should be extended if comments like this continue and/or if no useful edits have been made. Petros471 15:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• That's light, in my view, I don't think we need bigots in the project at all, so please, JdeJ, let us know if this resumes after the block expires. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I will. In the meantime, I'm 99% sure that this user [11] is the same as Dream100. His only edit this far is to once again revert a page to the same version Dream100 has reverted to over and over again, a version without a picture of an ancient Iranian king, apparently in line with the user's negative feelings towards Iranians. Of course, that is not enough to prove anything. JdeJ 16:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Undid revision 105114740 by ..."

What happened to "Undo revision 105114740 by..", seriously, the more the developers tinker with the undo button, the harder it is to use--172.164.122.67 16:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't a developer who made that change, but an administrator (J Di, to be precise). If you don't like the wording, you could place an {{editprotected}} request on MediaWiki talk:Undo-summary, and the matter can be discussed there. --ais523 17:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, didn't realize that was there--172.165.169.16 19:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiple copyvios

Could someone please look at the contributions from Owain.wilson please. This user has written dozens of dicdef articles, all copied from the same source (http://www.apm.org.uk/download.asp?fileID=362). I've tagged about half of them as {{copyvio}}, but I really can't be bothered to do any more. Thanks. – Tivedshambo (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I've got them all. Thanks, Tivedshambo. Sarah 19:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Impartial uninvolved admin needed to close consensus debate

There is a hotly contested template at Template:911ct. There is a discussion here over aspects of naming the template. That discussion has pretty much run its course, and we need an experienced editor, probably an admin, who has not edited any 9/11 articles, and who will look at the arguments over naming with a wholly impartial eye, and bring formal closure to the debate, ideally with a rationale.

The template is currently locked to prevent edit warring. I believe that the result of the debate will allow it to be unlocked and we all hope that people on either side will acknowledge and work within consensus.

Any volunteers? Fiddle Faddle 16:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but do you know what scares me? I don't think there is any consensus there. But 99% of sane, educated people would choose "Conspiracy". To call these nonsense theories "Alternative" is (frankly) nuts. Dave 21:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

ETA: And that, of course, is the problem with consensus... Dave 21:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons...

I have asked on commons but as usual,i get no answer. Its slow there. The candidates for speedy deletion of all types (especially bad named) is building up. Any help appreciated:) Fethroesforia 20:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean csd on commons? en. admins aren't necessarily admins on commons. :/ Syrthiss 20:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but i just figured maybe a few are?its so quiet on commons..i get no reply half the time.Its building up on all speedy deletes! Fethroesforia 20:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleting things at Commons takes a really long time, at least as compared to en:, which is also typically backlogged in spite of having more than ten times the number of admins. One has to orphan the image from every project it is used by and check each project that the toolserver isn't accurately reporting on. Images with bad names are one of the lowest priority deletion tasks, so it really isn't surprising that it's badly backlogged. That said, Commons could use more admins willing to do this, so if there's someone here with some experience at Commons that was thinking about applying for adminship, please do step up. Jkelly 22:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ohhh yeah! This is an ideal task for prospective commons admins. commons:Category:Incorrectly named and commons:Category:Duplicate have massive backlogs, as the deletion cannot happen until its orphaned the deletions don't happen much; it takes just too much effort! Fethroesforia, if you want faster attention on a specific image, the best thing you can do is replace the duplicate yourself - if it is orphaned its more likely to be deleted.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Some are unlinked(the three i put up are). im hoping to attempt to try and become an admin on here (eventually)..id happily do boring jobs (like cleaning out deleted image folders and things like that):) Fethroesforia 22:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Saying that..idhappily do any job:P(im using nextdoors internet right now..mywireless is down) so excuse any late replies:) Fethroesforia 22:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit needed for The Cheetah Girls 3

I have cleaned up a mass of related double redirects. However, this one needs an admin since the page is fully protected. Would an admin please fix the double redirect of The Cheetah Girls 3 by pointing the page to The Cheetah Girls (group), please? BlueValour 22:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Done.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, great service, many thanks! BlueValour 22:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura

This arbitration case has closed and the decision is available at the link above. Richardmalter and all other accounts and anonymous IPs with the same disruptive editing pattern are indefinitely banned from editing Yoshiaki Omura or its talk page. They may be blocked for up to one year if they do so. Blocks, and any alternative accounts or IPs used, should be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura#Log of blocks and bans. Care should be taken with anonymous IPs to avoid blocking addresses used by other users. The remedies in this matter apply to any article concerning the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (BDORT or PMRT) under any title. For the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 23:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

YouTube and Viacom

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6326523.stm

Just a quick heads up, Viacom have asked YouTube to remove around 100,000 "unauthorized" clips from the site, this would presumably cover video clips of MTV, Vh1, Vh2 and the other MTV network channels along with Comedy Central and Nickelodeon and possibly Paramount and Dreamworks trailers too. I've dropped a note on WT:EL but thought I better mention it somewhere with more traffic. -- Heligoland 23:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• How can this be? Surely we must assume that the copyright status of all YouTube links is as pure as the driven snow unless and until we see a copy of the DMCA takedown order uploaded in triplicate to Commons? Guy (Help!) 23:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Heh. I just read a broadcast analyst's interpretation that this is just a shot across the bow in the beginning of negotiatons between YouTube and Viacom to work out a deal like YouTube has with CBS and other content providers. Corvus cornix 00:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• "It's all about the benjamins, yeah" - Oscar Wilde. Teke ^(talk) 02:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC) (with a nod to uncyclopedia for that one)

• Wilde said that? Who knew? Corvus cornix 02:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • Which brings up another question: If the content is placed on YouTube by the content provider (CBS, let's say), would it be, conceptually, ok to link to it if there were an article that the video might be useful for? Or should we ban all YouTube links since some of them are copyright violations? Corvus cornix 00:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
      • If I watched an episode on CBS and they said the world is made of 100+ KM of iron, well then, I'm going to use that information in the most reliable fashion I can. Not only am I going to WP:CITE it properly as I've done here with the article on Chemosynthesis, but if I ever find an online version or even a fully downloadable version, (even if it may be illegal) I'm dam well going to put my link towards that easy access internet version. Similar to the coordinates you can find at the top of certain city articles, I see no reason we can not use external services. --CyclePat 01:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Corvus, if the video is officially sanctioned then it's OK.

CyclePat, Our policies specify disallow any linking to content on websites that is violating copyrights. Check out WP:C. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock

The case has closed and the results are posted at the link above.

• Husnock is desysopped without prejudice to his re-applying for adminship via a Request for adminship.
• Husnock is cautioned regarding improper use of alternative accounts or inappropriate postings by alter egos.
• Husnock is cautioned to conscientiously follow Wikipedia's Wikipedia:No original research and image copyright policies when he returns to regular editing.
• Husnock, who has been desysopped due to unblocking himself and apparently sharing the password to an administrative account with another user, is cautioned to strictly conform to Wikipedia policies should he again be entrusted with administrative responsibility.
• Several of the users who contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive66#Death Threat Accusation added comments which served to inflame the situation (such as this sockpuppet [12]) rather than resolve it on mutually acceptable terms. They are encouraged to be more insightful and helpful in the future.

For the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109^Talk 00:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

User abusing article talk page for the umpteenth time

Referring to this [13] and subsequent warnings and blocks about the misuse of talk pages, it is happening again. At the very least, please can this talk thread be moved somewhere appropriate and the article's talk page left alone? Thanks, Mallanox 01:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Improper blocking of user as punishment

Blocking users is supposed to be used as a means to prevent edit warring or other disruptive behaviour, not as punishment. In fact , the very second line of Wikipedia:Blocking policy states explictly and clearly that "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. They should not be used as a punitive measure." Today, User:Durova blocked User:Armon for allegedly violating WP:VANDALISM on Middle East Media Research Institute. Given that the MEMRI page has been protected for several days, I can't see how this block of Armon, for actions he took several days ago is anything but a punitive measure, in clear violation of official Wikipedia policy. As a side note, the allegation that Armon's edits for which he was improperly blocked were a vioaltion of WP:VANDALISM are tenous, to say the least. This is a content dispute, and Armon clearly explained his reasons for the deletion, arguing, among other things WP:RS, WP:NOTE and WP:UNDUE[14]. As such, I don't see how this could possibly be vandalism. The block was imposed more than 4 days after the edit, after the admin was solicited to do so by another editor. Isarig 01:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the background to this, or whether there are issues I'm missing, but I couldn't see any reason for Armon's block, so I unblocked. The edit in question was a few days ago, and it wasn't vandalism but a regular content dispute. I've left a note for Durova. If I've missed something important about the situation, I apologize. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Advocacy - Checkuser?

The checkuser was used to block a someone I am advocating for. He believe there is important time sensitive information that needs to be gathered. I need access to this information for full disclosure so I can properly assist my advocee. If you are able to help out can you please contact me by first leaving a message here and then sending me an email. My advocee claims he has publicly attempted to contact his blocking administrator without success. Thank you! --CyclePat 01:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Try the blocking admin's talk page, or the talkpage of WT:RFCU. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Your advocee can edit his own talk page, too. Thatcher131 02:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Pat, is this for Bob Fink? If so, as an advocate, you really should take the time to get him to understand our views on conflict of interest. He has a serious problem with this. For example, if you searcht he web for references to his book ISBN 0-912424-06-0, which he cites and represents as a major view in some articles, the only references appear to be Wikipedia and mirrors. I can't see a lot of evidence that his view here is mainstream, for example the theories he puts forward do not seem to coincide with my music texts. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience reviewed a similar situation where a proponent of certain ideas was restricted from editing in respect of those ideas. Tread carefully, eh? Guy (Help!) 16:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Unwarrented blocking by administrator (revisited)

See the archive page for the incident in full detail. It is not been addressed that the user Lar broke the "content dispute" regulation either. Lar, again, did not cite a SPECIFIC offense for the block as well, which is also against the rules. At this point, there is a bigger issue as to whether or not I broke the rules, an issue of protocol on Lar's part. This is why this incident must be further addressed.-- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 02:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for informal discussion of administrative action, at best (as it states in the header). If no one addressed your comments, then that probably means that no one felt Lar's actions to be sufficiently egregious to warrant much discussion. If you have a dispute with him and feel that this is a significant, recurring issue, I recommend you follow the procedures for dispute resolution outlined at WP:DR. If this, in the grand scheme of things, is not significant, than perhaps a polite message on his talk page explaining why you feel he acted inappropriately is in order and then letting bygones be bygones. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

A number of editors have reviewed Lar's conduct, and have concluded that his behaviour was appropriate. Your original block was discussed by a number of administrators at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive189#EnglishEfternamn_and_WP:POINT; in general the consensus was that you were let off very lightly in the hope that you would learn something.

You have already asked for a further review of Lar's block at least once (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive190#Unwarrented_blocking_by_administrator) where additional comment took place. Again, the conclusion was rapidly reached that the block was warranted (Disclaimer: I was one of the admins who reviewed at that stage.) If you persist in beating this dead horse, I will block you for making a nuisance of yourself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That is un-called for, I am within my rights by discussing this.-- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 17:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

And we're within our rights to tell you to drop the stick and walk slowly away from the horse carcass. If you don't you'll find yourself blocked to protect Wikipedia from disruption. Thanks. 〈REDVEЯS〉 17:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You have the right to copy a Wikipedia database dump and create your own, you have the right to not use Wikipedia, that is it for Wikipedia rights, the rest is up to the foundation and the community to decide. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe what I am hearing. These are administrators here and they are basically telling me I don't have a right to try and resolve a dispute.-- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 18:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You've been pointed to the dispute resolution process (WP:DR). You're able to edit now, I assume you're still in possession of your health and property, um... if the block has already been reviewed and found to be appropriate, then I don't see the point in asking the question again and again, hoping for a different answer. I think your best course of action is to let it go, and get on with your editing and your life. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

But you're not trying to resolve a dispute. You're trying to keep open one that would go away if you put down the stick and walked away from the horse carcass. I've asked nicely that you do this, now I'm going to warn you on your talk page what will happen if you don't. 〈REDVEЯS〉 18:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of 164.76.189.85

I checked upon a user that admin User:Can't Sleep, clown will Eat Me blocked for 168 hours, and the IP was from Eastern Michigan University. When I told him that the IP was shared, he removed my warning. People from EMU could be wanting to contribute to Wikipedia. Even though I am not an administrator, please check to see if the IP address could be from a shared educational institution, school, or business before blocking a user for vandalism. Thanks. Real96 04:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There is zero evidence that this is a shared IP and I stand behind this block given the nature of vandalism originating from this address. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It's shared. 1.) Go to the check IP page. 2.) Go to http://www.emich.edu I am not trying to be rude, I am just trying to inform. Real96 05:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Some supporting evidence that this IP is used by more than one person at a time has been requested. The link you provide shows who owns the IP address, but not that it is shared as you claim. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) The IP might be shared, and be from a computer lab. What happens if another person, who hasn't vandalized in the past and who has an account in Wikipedia can't edit because the IP address is blocked from campus. It has happened often in the past. Also, check User_talk:66.165.21.153. Shared IP. I do agree that the IP itself should be blocked, but account creation shouldn't be. Real96 05:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree then. I appreciate that you're trying to help, but the block placed on this IP was very deliberate. Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we make it anons only and add {{schoolblock}} to their talk page? Viridae^Talk 05:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll defer to another administrator, as I've already stated that this block was deliberately placed. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the specific situation, but the fact that an IP resolves to a University should not be assumed to mean it's a shared IP. A computer in a dorm could easily be assigned its own IP--this is actually a very common way to do it for schools that have ethernet (as I believe EMU does). Chick Bowen 06:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hypothetical Situation: Users A and B live in the same dorm at X State University which has 1000 inhabitants. User A is a good contributor, has 1000+ mainspace edits, etc. However, User B is set to vandalize Wikipedia for whichever reason possible. I agree with the block, but how can a user edit from the banned IP if 1.) account creation is off 2.) can't log in, etc. Real96 06:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

They can use the {{unblock}} template like their block message instructs them to do, say "this is a shared IP" and the block will be shortened. A 7 day block on an IP from which only vandalism has come from in the past 2 months isn't the end of the world and certainly didn't warrant a thread on AN... —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well I didn't know about {{unblock}}. However, I have heard of experiences where users who attend colleges and universities across the country (and who are regular editors by the way) couldn't have edited on Wikipedia due to their IP being blocked because of another college student vandalizing Wikipedia. That's why I consider shared and school IP addresses a big issue. Real96 06:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Roger the red

Roger the red (talk · contribs) (RTR) is a combative user who has violated several policies and guidelines. He was previously banned due to legal threats but has returned and is almost as combative as before.

RTR is the head of a very small film production company, the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company (AMBC), which is the main focus of his editing. In addition to writing about the AMBC and promoting it (some if it arguably legitimate), he's also questioned and removed the competings claims of another film company.(#) Many of RTR's edits have served to promote the legacy of his father and in several cases appeared intended to settle perceived mistreatment of him by others.(#) He's created or made edits to articles about himself(#), his family and friends, and his company, and has added links to them from many articles. In the course of his editing RTR has attacked the purported agendas of other editors and claimed harassment(#), made demands, and issued legal threats to other editors (#) (one of which resulted in the ban of an earlier account (#)). RTR has disrupted the articles of other studios in order to make points about the editing of his company's article.(#) He's added copyrighted text from other websites(#) and complained when they were identified.([15]) He's made extensive use of dispute resolution processes including requesting peer review, seeking mediation, emailing OTRS, getting an advocate, adding editing tags, and making contact with uninvolved editors(#)(#) In spite of all of his complaints and requests for help no other editors have supported his positions significantly (that I've noticed). That makes his efforts appear to violate WP:Wikilawyering. He's identified himself by name previously(#) but now claims to be a new, totally disinterested editor (#) despite an obvious continuity of behavior (#). By doing so he appears to be evading a block and abusing the alternate accounts privilege.

Because of the block evasion, the incivility and ongoing threats, the violations of WP:POINT and WP:COI, and other problems this editor has shown himself to be unable to edit in a neutral fashion or to respect our policies. I think that a community ban is called for. -Will Beback · † · 05:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support community ban based on the material at User:Will Beback/AMBC. This user is obviously not inclined to contribute to Wikipedia in any way, except for promotional purposes. As he's not commented here yet, I'm open to changing my mind in case of a persuasive rebuttal. Sandstein 07:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support community ban. Wherever he goes, whoever he deals with, the results have been the same. — Walloon 08:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I was completely unfamiliar with this user, so I read Will's page. It's pretty obvious that this user is a POV pusher with an agenda who is combative and stops at nothing to get his way. I agree with the ban, mostly on the grounds of POINT and WP:AUTO as well as major problems with conflict of interest. It might be ok if he had shown any ability to separate his responsibility to his company from his responsibility with being a neutral editor on Wikipedia but I see no evidence of it. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I haven't been following recent events, but have been involved in the Mutoscope and American Mutoscope and Biograph Company and regard this user as a self-promoter and POV-warrior of pitbull tenacity. I agree with Will Beback that he seems to be "unable to edit in a neutral fashion." Dpbsmith (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Father Judge High School + Verifiability

Hcrane (talk · contribs) (among others--but he is who I have talked with) has been adding original research, high school fanboy, and generally non-notable material to the Father Judge High School article. It started with the listing of "notable" members of the high school's Model United Nations team, which he confirmed were kids on the team when he went there. I have tried to point out that we have notability standards and it doesn't matter if what he says it true--that it must be verifiable. He has continued to re-add the material to the article and has removed my unreferenced tag. This isn't exactly a content dispute this is someone who thinks Wikipedia is meant to store interesting information even when it's not sourced and likely not notable. I don't want to block him (since I am involved) but I think it's clear that he should be blocked or at least have another admin attempt to explain the basic rules since he doesn't seem to understand from me. gren グレン 17:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Need two admins...

There is a protracted issue at Obligations in Freemasonry, and I need one or two admins to assist in dispute resolution. SeraphimXI has been an ongoing problem on a few articles (most notably Jahbulon and the aforementioned article). We assumed GF a long time ago, and that didn't last long, as she refuses to acknowledge the simple fact of what anyone says, because it's obviously "covering up Masonic secrets" (no matter how many times we say otherwise and show proof). When she cannot answer a question, she spins the whole argument back on itself by restating the history of the issue, or old arguments. This has become a persistent problem at this point, because we have a number of POV editors on this one article, and while I do not think that this can be resolved without an RFC or an ArbCom case, I am requesting admin intervention to try to avoid a protracted process, and I am posting here because, while I could ask a few of the "regulars", as it were, I would like an admin totally uninvolved with the Masonic articles to minimize any other nonsense. MSJapan 17:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This person might be a sock of Lightbringer (see WP:LB for more information). PTO 18:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)