Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rgoodermote (talk | contribs) at 13:34, 18 January 2008 (→‎Whois and beans - consequences of convenience: added comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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)


    Current issues

    Tor nodes

    An ongoing discussion is in progress regarding adjusting the blocking policy in reference to TOR nodes. The discussion is here. Regards, M-ercury at 13:18, January 8, 2008

    Trying to add a time-stamp to see if the archival bots will get this --Iamunknown 03:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Question from a new editor

    Since I discovered Wikipedia, I really love it and believe it's one of the most (if not THE most) important resources on the Web.

    I'm not the sort of person who usually gets involved in this sort of thing but prefer to remain a passive bystander and silently give thanks to the many people who make these wonderful resources happen.

    However, today I was reading some articles about different episodes of Open All Hours, a British comedy series starring Ronnie Barker, which is one of my favourite shows.

    As I native speaker, I noticed that the grammar, vocab & sentence structure of the articles was not so good, and I later discovered that these articles had been written by user fernandogoaz who I think is from Spain. Although I applaud him for making such a valiant effort in setting up these pages in the first place as he obviously also loves this show, it seems to me that there are no procedures in place for making sure that articles written by non-natives are edited and improved quickly after being created. Personally, I wouldn't dream of entering Spanish Wikipedia and writing an article in my faltering Spanish about something.

    I am an EFL/ESL teacher in a foreign country, and it is important to me that the articles on the English Wiki are of good quality language wise. For example, after a lesson where my students and I watch a comedy DVD and then discuss it for half an hour, I ask them to pretend they are Wikipedia editors and write a Wiki article about what they've just seen. We then go into the computer room and they compare what they wrote with the real article, and if there's time, we discuss those similarities and differences as a group.

    I intended to use Open All Hours sometime soon, and that's why I was looking up the articles, and why I was dismayed to see the poor quality of them - but in no way do I criticise user fernandogoaz for this. It just seems a bit strange that the articles have been up for about six months but nothing substantially has been done to improve them.

    In my line of work I often get asked to do proof reading and I'm finding that an increasing part of my workload is editing, correcting and improving, so I like to think I have a bit of a gift for it.

    So, against my better judgement, I registered and signed in for the first time this afternoon and spent a few hours editing 4 or 5 articles. When I came back to them a little bit later, I found that they had all been deleted for "notability" reasons by user TTN.

    This is my real gripe and reason for writing to the administrators. What gives user TTN the right to delete articles?? How does he/she know that these articles are of no use to other people in the world? Surely the whole point of Wiki is to increase and build on the amount of articles.

    I really must protest about user TTN's actions which seem to have been done with no discussion with anyone else. Also, when I investigated further, it seems that this person has been doing other similar things all over Wiki.

    How can I restore the undeleted pages?

    Thank you.

    Roses2at (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not really an admin issue, advised at talk page --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussed elsewhere at AN/I in fact. All the articles in question failed WP:FICT. Redirection was clearly in order. I have reverted Roses2at's undos. Eusebeus (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My question to you Eusebeus is why do you decide now that these articles fail WP:FICT? Those particular pages have been up for six months with many other edits in the meantime but they still do not meet basic quality of English standards (surely much more important than whether they are notable or not?). Do you feel no remorse for wasting other people's time??????? Roses2at (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • It certainly would have helped to have some references so uninvolved editors could reach an informed overview. There is too much groping around in the dark going on here, and although it may be OK when you're a teenager, there does come a time when reliable information, or any information at all, helps. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Roses2at, as you are familiar with the topic and (very funny) show, individual episodes may be recreated if 3rd party sources note them as significant. Given the standard and high esteem much of Ronnie Barker's work is held, this may not actually be too hard. I urge you if you do have 3rd party refs (books etc. which highlight individual episodes, then these can be recreated from the article history then. I myself have been trying to add reference material from what I have at home - the shame is there is a huge amount out there which unfortunately cannot be accessed readily by sitting in front of a keyboard (and its 35C and stinking humid here which is a powerful disincentive for me to try) - thus to maintain a collaborative and constructive approach, finding material is great. If you need a hand at the time for deleted material, there are a number of admins who have offered to retrieve deleted material. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You just beat me to this. Most of TTN's redirects involve episode articles which haven't a chance of ever being notable enough for their own articles, and are thus correct; but these (while they weren't at the moment) might just have. There *must* be enough Barker related material to source some of these, in print if not online. BLACKKITE 02:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps someone can let me know by private e-mail if and when this issue is resolved becasue I can't be bothered to fight for the notability issue myself. My personal opinion is that single episodes of a series warrant their own page (especially in this case concerning Ronnie Barker's work) and I don't see the necessity to "source" them.
    If it's finally decided to allow them, I will be more than happy to volunteer to proof-read, edit and bring them up to an acceptable standard of English. Frankly, it p**s*s me off that other people like User:TTN and User:Eusebeus are allowed to delete or redirect other people's hard work.
    Roses2at (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Roses2at, maybe you know this already, but if you want you can still find copies of the work you did, in the page histories. For example, to find your version of A Matress on Wheels, click on the link I just gave, or type "A Matress on Wheels" into the search box and click "go". It will redirect you to a section of the page "Open All Hours". Scroll up to the top of the page, and in tiny letters just under the title of the page you will see a blue link "Redirected from A Matress on Wheels". Click on that link, and you will see a redirect page (a page with just an arrow pointing to Open All Hours). When looking at the redirect page, click "history" at the top of the page. You will see a list of versions of the page. Choose a version you're interested in, for example the last version by yourself. Click on the date of the version and you will see the text of that version of the page. Another way to find the versions of these pages that you fixed is by using your user contribution list, which you get to by clicking on "my contributions" at the top of the page. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you Coppertwig, for your concern about my disppointing experience. But the point is I want my students (and of course many others) to find these pages quickly and easily without faffing around. Because even the title of that particular article has been spelt incorrectly (I didn't figure out how to change that) and it's important that non-native speakers looking at these pages are not misled about spelling, grammar, vocab and sentence structure. I'll wait a little while before getting involved again. Roses2at (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Update

    I thought these had been already through an AfD debate, but they haven't. Thus, the correct procedure to allow time for adequate sourcing is to individually place the articles at AfD by those concerned and each will be debated on its merit. This is most conducive to 'pedia building as it allows a larger forum rather than deletions and removals of redlinks to hide evidence of their existence. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would suggest that in cases where lots of text is being smerged, that TTN (and others) leave such links in a central place, as a courtesy to editors who may wish to work on the removed material and provide sources. There are already talk page templates that call oldid numbers for featured articles - the same sort of thing could be done here. Would this be a workable compromise? The redirects would stick, but editors are pointed to older material to work from if they find sources. A similar principle applies at Category:Redirects with possibilities. Indeed, I would suggest that some template is used (if it doesn't already exist) to group the redirects into categories of: (a) Redirects from episode articles; and (b) Episodes of ABC. See Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects for more on how that works. Carcharoth (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A change to a redirect is an editing issue, and subject to WP:BRD. Any editor is free to revert it, and then look for discussion on the talk page. Once consensus has been reached about it, whatever the status is should not be changed without discussion. Once it has gone through one BRD round, it of course should be discussed, not reverted further. But it is fair and reasonable to revert, one time only, any redirect that was not achieved by consensus, or as a compromise solution at AFD or elsewhere. I do not know how much prior discussion may have gone into these articles. Obviously, it is always best to improve the redirected article as suggested here, rather than argue over what may be an inadequate article.23:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

    Time

    Maybe I'm just slow and everyone will be sniggering about me behind my back, but I've just found, under My Preferences > Gadgets, an option to put the time in the personal toolbar, which I found useful as I'm not sitting in UTC, and can never do the 24 hour clock math when trying to work out if someone has violated 3RR! --Stephen 04:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gadgets are relatively new. I keep to UTC on Wikipedia – easier that way for talk page purposes (also when I used to do a lot of {{unsigned}} work). All I have to remember is that the day starts at 4 PM my time. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, what "24-hour clock math" does it take to determine if somebody has violated 3RR, and how is it dependent on the time zone you use to display the history? :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph

    This arbitration has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The case was renamed upon closing from "Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia" to "Zeraeph". User:Zeraeph, including any socks and future accounts, is banned from Wikipedia for one year. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's unfortunate that there is no resolution concerning the unblock which contributed to all of this drama. Corvus cornixtalk 22:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    See item two here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeraeph/Proposed_decision#Discussion_by_Arbitrators. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    CSD

    Could anyone help? There's a really bad backlog. Cheers, Rudget. 21:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    seems to have been cleared. DGG (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend

    This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Because R. fiend (talk · contribs), the subject of this case, has resigned his adminship, this case is closed. If R. fiend wishes to seek administrator status again in the future, he may do so only through a new request for adminship. The Arbitration Committee finds that R. fiend's unexplained block of Ed Poor on October 1, 2007 was unjustified. An arbitrator will make an appropriate notation in Ed Poor's block log reflecting this determination.

    On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ipblock exempt proposal

    A proposal has started to allow established or trusted editors to edit via Tor, or other anon proxy. This discussion is located at

    talk page

    The proposed policy in its “needs to be worked on” form is located at

    project page

    Regards, M-ercury at 23:22, January 14, 2008

    In before "OGM SAME AS ROLLBACK" flamefest. Nakon 23:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My drama detector beeps as well. Миша13 23:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Folks. M-ercury at 00:02, January 15, 2008

    help with history merge

    Hi everyone, I'm an administrator but I really have no idea how to do anything outside the area I normally work in (image issues). Can someone help me move the article Fornication to Extramarital sex? On the talk page several people have brought up that "fornication" isn't exactly NPOV, and I agree. There's some history though at extramarital sex though and I'm not sure how to patch it up. Any help welcome. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually never mind, these articles need to be actually merged.... I thought extramarital sex was a redirect... Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hang on, I'm a bit confused here. Merging? Merging Fornication and Extramarital sex has previously been rejected, and for good reason - they're not the same thing. BLACKKITE 00:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious to read the discussion, then, since I can think of a case for merging. Do you happen to recall where that discussion took place? Natalie (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On the talkpage of Extramarital sex, though it's a little confusing as it covers other merge proposals too. I suppose you could make a case for merging, but I would have thought keeping them separate was more logical. BLACKKITE 08:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Apart from the issue of whether they should be merged, we don't history merge articles with divergent history. Just copy the content to one article, naming the other article as a source, and turn that that article into a redirect. You would leave one of the page histories at the redirect. Merging pages with separate history is bad because it senselessly shuffles the edits together, destroying all context. Please don't do that. Cool Hand Luke 08:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Potentially unfree picture on the main page

    The concern was originally raised at Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors#Potentially_unfree_picture, but I think it requires a wider audience. The In the News picture's copyright is a bit unclear:

    "Copyright JHU/APL" is not NASA and is very not public domain. --Carnildo (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What do you think, should we preemptively remove the picture from the main page? Or can someone with a better NASA-related copyright knowledge have a definite answer regarding this image's status? -- lucasbfr talk 13:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it is fine. Pictures on the NASA website that are restricted (eg. SOHO pics) tend to say so when you dig around a bit. These ones only have boilerplate stuff similar to all NASA pics. Carcharoth (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're fine too, but on the pic's page it might be worth some discussion of whether these are truly public domain vs a free license.--72.43.62.131 (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    what is abusive semi-protection?

    either myself, or the arbcom, appear to have problems understanding our policy on semi-protection. Please review Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy#Request_for_clarification_on_semi-protection. dab (𒁳) 14:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Isarig is no longer with us (RtV)

    This is to inform that Isarig (talk · contribs) have exercised their right to vanish and are no longer active as a Wikipedia contributor. It should be noted that both their mentors (User:Avraham and myself) have agreed to that according to WP:RTV. The user have been explained not to come back editing again as per WP:RTV, a thing they agreed to. The 'right to vanish' request has been accepted by OTRS members and a notice has been sent to the ArbCom mailing list. As a consequence, all edits by User:Isarig have been deleted from their main account and transfered to an account place holder known to the ArbCom, OTRS members and their mentors. This same notice has been cross posted to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Added RtV to the header because it made it sound like he was dead. Avruchtalk 15:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought someone died from the header, too. нмŵוτнτ 15:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a query here. If someone exercises the right to vanish, and then realises it was a mistake, can it be reverted so they can have their pages undeleted and so on? I'm sure some people might genuinely think they were leaving permanently, and then change their minds. Of course, coming back with another account after RtV, and not saying anything, is not allowed, but what about wanting to reverse a RtV? Carcharoth (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Coming back as a completely new identity after a m:Right to vanish has been performed, and acting/editing in such a way as to be unidentifiable with the original identity, is not only permitted, but at times the only way for editors whose identity has been so affected by on-wiki issues or real-life problems to return to editing. Of course, if the same problems arise, the sockpuppet banhammer is to be applied with extreme prejudice -- Avi (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are confusing the bit about name-changing at m:Right to vanish with coming back under a new account. Starting a new account is OK, but not if you've exercised RtV. The changing-usernames bit of RtV is not to allow people to start editing under a new identity and retain their old contributions, but to disassociate their edits from the name (possibly their real name) that they chose when they arrived here. Instead of having people always be able to say, "Look, John Q. Smith made these edits here", the point is to change the username so that the link between the edit and the real name of the departed user are weakened. On the other hand, that meta page recently had an extensive rewrite, so I'm not sure about any of this any more! :-/ Carcharoth (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, maybe an arbcom member should re register User:Isarig to make sure it remains unused? -- lucasbfr talk 15:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Avi, i don't quite understad your comment (especially the 'new identity' part of it). Care to explain further? Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    He's right that technically it is impossible to detect this sort of thing, but if discovered (through similar editing patterns and so forth) and found to be abusive, it should be stamped on (hard) because it is not allowed in policy. What is allowed is to discontinue use of your account and start a new account with no connection to the old account, as long as you don't go back to using the old account. But that is different to right-to-vanish (which is a permanent voluntary departure, usually when someone no longer wants to be involved with the project and regrets their involvement). The difference being that the old account is still there even if it not being used. Carcharoth (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we use "right to vanish" pretty loosely. In effect, it's often translated into "right to have my old account and track record expunged and start afresh with similar behavior, whilst accusing anyone who brings it up of failing to assume good faith." Generally, for the right to be applicable, one needs to actually vanish. There are obvious exceptions; we've had well-known cases of users who have faced serious harassment and invoked the right on that basis, which is completely reasonable. I'm not talking about that. I recently had the experience of receiving a hostile, and fairly personal, message from an account I'd never heard of. It took some time to figure out that this was a renamed account; in the rename, the account's block log had been wiped clean. This was chalked up to "right to vanish". I don't have a problem with User:Isarig vanishing or his account being effectively deleted if he's permanently leaving the project; it's just that given some of the history which is being wiped clean, it would be nice to be clear that one of the handful of people in the know is monitoring this. MastCell Talk 18:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    m:Right to vanish currently says "Therefore take care with your login name usage, and be very careful not to edit your old pages or pages you habitually visit, when you are logged in with a name you do not want associated with that account." - surely it should not be saying that? Carcharoth (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Maybe I'm wrong, but using a forgettable password and creating a new account is the best thing?? I mean, I've had a past account here, but that had a difficult-to-guess password. My old username, SunStar_Net (talk · contribs) (which I recreated after being tenamed to this current username) was blocked because I realized it sounded too commercial per the username policy. --Solumeiras talk 22:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    --Solumeiras talk 22:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For the sake of clarification (already been said in the notice above)... User:Isarig have been informed and explained that they won't create any new or reuse any of Wikipedia account. User:Isarig informed me and Avi that this is what they want. The ArbCom members know about this and any violation (creation of a new account or recreating old ones) would be sanctioned. Please note that Isarig's mentorship and the 6 month articles' restriction ends on February 29th but that is irrelevant here. In any case, The ArbCom has made it clear... "Right to vanish" means "delete all references to your contribs and never come back". I hope this helps. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Dodd presidential campaign, 2008

    User:Hoary, User:Southern Texas, and User:Kendrick7 keep vandalizing the article Chris Dodd presidential campaign, 2008 by adding unnecessary pictures. --Datang (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked over the pictures in question. A couple are okay, but most are clearly not necessary or helpful to readers. But either way, this is a content dispute, not vandalism. — Satori Son 15:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said, Satori Son. Datang seems not to have read my recent addition to this. -- Hoary (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit conflict]This is a content dispute plain and simple (you may want to read WP:VAN and try to WP:ASG in other users). When it comes to content disputes, admin have no extra control over these situations. Their imput is equal to non-admins. I don't see any need for admin action. In the future, if you want to report 3RR please use WP:AN3, if you want to request page protection, please use WP:RPP, or if you have a specific incident that does require admin action that doesn't fall into any other category, please use WP:ANI (this simply isn't a WP:AN issue, but I know it can get confusing with all the many places to get admin attention). For content disputes, you can always ask for a WP:3O or start a WP:RFC. Hope this helps.-Andrew c [talk] 15:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should create an administrators' noticeboard specifically for content disputes. Nobody seems to use article talk pages any more, or the WP:RFC process. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, if we created such a board, it should be a redirect to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Admins decisions regarding content have no more weight than ANY other editor. Admins can take measures to see that other editors work appropriately with others, but have no special standing to make decisions as to which version of the content is correct. Remember, we're the Janitors, not the Principals, of this school... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    *taps nose* --Haemo (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen Kendrick7's name on this page a lot lately. Looks like a real trouble maker to me. -- Kendrick7talk 20:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC) oh, wait, that's me![reply]
    Probably more like WP:RFC. The value in "administrators" as content conflict resolvers is that we're generally well behaved experienced editors, which is a valuable asset in any attempt to resolve a conflict. Of course, any other such editor is similarly valuable. WilyD 20:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SamuelM555

    I have blocked this user for a month, for the last week his only edits has been persistently moving his user and talk pages into the main space and readding fair use images on his user space, even after being warned against doing so, this behavior was topic of a thread here five days ago, and I tried to resolve it in a lenient manner but that didn't appear to work. I would like to know the opinion of other admins concerning this case, as I was tempted to issue a longer block since it has become apparent that this user has decided to only disrupt the project, thanks for your attention. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A month is a little much don't you think, I would have issued it for 48 hours. The user seems to have moved his talk page into mainspace 5 times. Certaintly not a one month block that I would say is a 24 hour block. But if you add in the continued readding of imagery to his userpage. I would say a 48 hour block would have sufficed a month is mostly for those who do not get it the first time they get blocked. By the way not an admin I just wanted to put my word in. Rgoodermote  18:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have deleted Samuel Mouly as WP:CSD R2, and protected it for a year due to the persistent abuse. If the protection is too drastic, I wouldn't mind if another admin reviewed it or possible reduced/removed it. And if we protect the article, it may help prevent the user from continuing the pattern of abuse which resulted in the block (and therefore, a reduced block may work in conjunction with the article protection). But then again, that only deals with half the issue. Not sure what we could do to prevent the user from adding non-free images to the user space. I'll try to contact the user.-Andrew c [talk] 18:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The user knew that his actions violated the images copyrights, as that was one of the things that I noted in the first notice, he was then warned twice before issuing the block, copyvios are more serious than common vandalism they can carry legal trouble against the project, and if after receiving a concise final warning he ignored it and disrupted the encyclopedia just to try and prove a point I certainly think that a 24-hour block is to short, maybe not a month but certainly not a day. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also the fact that he hasn't attempted even to communicate with those that have tried to explain policy to him, even to the point of showing complete disregard for it after the last warning. If a user tries to explain their actions to me I would at least give it a last try at explaining, but this user's actions just appear to be motivated by a desire to gather undue attention. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If the user starts to dialog, and shows regret and a new understanding of our policies, I think we should allow a second chance or reduce the block. But I agree with you (mostly:), and I don't believe we should simply reduce the block without communication from the user.-Andrew c [talk] 18:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Its probably a tad long, and if the user requests an unblock and shows contrition after a few days, it may be OK to unblock him. But if he shows no sign of wishing to communicate with others, then let it stand... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A long block is always open to reduction, so I don't think it excessive. It may also alert the editor to the seriousness of their violations. Short blocks may not deter someone who is determined to disrupt the encyclopedia - they can wait out the couple of days, commit the same edits again, and then wait out the next short block. Further, when varying a long block one should always approach the original blocking admin for their input; that way a reasoned debate can occur before any unblock is performed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Non free image violations

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:L9788990768094.jpg

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:8989587182_1.jpg

    These both violate CSD I7. I tried to mark them, but the uploading author reverts. Because I have already been banned for edit warring with him, I choose not to revert him again.

    Also, if you could help me with an RfC on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_Duk-ki, I cant seem to get it to work.

    Addendum: The article has been plagarized from several sources. It is templated with the copyvio template —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogueNinja (talk • contribs) 22:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Thanks, RogueNinjatalk 21:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    is "One sentence"[3] is copyvio? he claimed that one sentence is copyvio.[4]. and i already delete this sentence.[5] but he countinually do personal attack.[6] Manacpowers (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Much more than 1 sentence is plagiarised, see the talk page for details. Also, I have made no personal attacks. RogueNinjatalk 22:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems the issue is whether these images violate WP:FUC. It's not immediately apparent to me that they do. WP:IFD may be the best place to discuss this. This noticeboard is certainly not it. Sandstein (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, instead of a RfC, you may want to try WP:3O. Sandstein (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Its much more than the images now. The entire article is a pastiche of other websites. RogueNinjatalk 22:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well in regards to the images, I believe Image:8989587182_1.jpg's it's use in the article to be to fair use to show what the individual looked like. But on the otherhand Image:L9788990768094.jpg's use in the article is purely decorative. It is the front cover of a book he wrote, but there is little to no commentary on the book itself mentioned and I have removed it from the article. — Save_Us † 22:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism bomb of Tucker Carlson

    There was a recent vandalism bomb of the Tucker Carlson article. I did what damage control I could, but could a more experienced admin check it out and see if I missed anything or overstepped anywhere. Here is the sequence of events:

    • Tucker Carlson article started receiving a HUGE amount of IP vandalism. Two users, User:Elliskev and User:Ember of Light tried to handle it, but it got WAY out of hand (10-15 vandalisms a MINUTE).
    • Elliskev asked for page protection, followed by several other editors who seconded it. I semi-protected the article for 1 day.
    • Immediately after semi-protection, several usernames started the EXACT same pattern of abuse.
    • I fully protected the article for 1 day, and also blocked the usernames that vandalised for 1 day.

    Any comments? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like you did good here - your version matches the last good one (180 revisions ago :I). Personally, I would have indefblocked the accounts. east.718 at 22:39, January 15, 2008
    I'll be watching those contribs list from them. They will get an indef block the next negative edit they make. If Corvus below is right, and they are NOT really sockpuppet accounts, then a short term block was more appropriate... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This was apparently precipitated by a Carlson interview on the Bubba the Love Sponge radio show, where Bubba suggested his listeners vandalize their articles. Fortunately, only one editor vandalized the Bubba article. Corvus cornixtalk 23:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed Policy/Guidline/Something

    Howdy, folks. I have proposed that we have ombudsmen on wikipedia, similar to universities and governments. I just started the page, located here (apologies for the rough draft it's in) and would love community feedback and development. Thanks, all. Bstone (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I posted an absolutely massive response on the Talk page that I feel warrants a mention in this string. Why do I feel this way? Because my great humility is my greatest strength. --CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 06:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone here is in desperate need to administrator intervention

    Stale

    Logical Defense (talk · contribs) is willfully and blatantly violating the fair use policy by repeatedly refusing to provide the required fair use rationale for a non-free image, and openly deleting the tags that ask for a fair use rationale. [7], [8], [9], [10]. This goes on and on. The image is also replaceable as the subject is alive and well, but he keeps deleting the replaceable fair use tag as well. Reading through the edit summaries on that page, as well as the ones on his talk page, shows a great deal of incivility with comments like "total ignorance" and "*yawn* be gone", not to mention multiple personal attacks on WebHamster (talk · contribs) in the same talk page edit summaries. This person refuses to follow policy and is incivil besides. The image in question has a "replaceable fair use disputed" box on it where he attacks people who tag the image as replaceable as "Wikipedians with Christian bias". User makes the same irrelevant claims on his talk page [11] -- Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ummm... it appears this user hasn't edited the image namespace since November. I think this complaint is a little stale. Also, in the future, when requesting admin attention regarding an incident, please consider using WP:ANI. Also consider politely contacting the user yourself, or taking image disputes to appropriate pages (such as WP:CP or WP:FUR). Hope this helps.-Andrew c [talk] 03:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I marked it as stale per andrew's comment. Wizardman 03:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He hasn't edited it because people have given up tagging the image. The image is not conforming to guidelines. Furthermore, what good would come of me posting a polite message on his talk page? He's been incivil to everyone. I'll tell you what: I'll go retag the image with the necessary templates and when he removes them (which he will) I'll be back. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If the tags are removed again, send it to images for deletion. — Edokter • Talk • 13:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Nobody of Consequence", you've done a brilliant job at blurring and spinning several facts regarding this situation, including A) you are formerly The Parsnip!, the user who originally tagged the image in the first place, which is really why you're making a claim here (to others, keep reading to understand that)
    B) that I never used personal attacks against "Webhamster", and any investigation into said "edit summaries" would show I merely said he was "bored" at a given instance (come to think of it, so are you, having carried this unimportant issue on into the new year, several months later), and
    C) the "Wikipedians with a Christian bias" statement was taken completely out of the context -- it was reserved for you, and it is not a personal attack, rather the true origin of your pursuit here; as The Parsnip!, you admitted to having Christian intentions in your edits. If you ask me, that's fine if you're one religion or another! But to let that impede on your edits is not acceptable on this website. You try to cover that up given your complaint here, but the record is there. If your issue was really the tag, and not the image and its affiliation with anti-religious muscians and activists, then surely you would provide debate to the tag being used, and not rush to delete the image with any discussion whatsoever. Instead of reporting you, however, I let it go; perhaps to set an example?
    "He hasn't edited it because people have given up tagging the image." -- another clever phrasing, "people". You mean... you? The only one who bothered? In any case, all this is irrelevent.
    You're right, I have removed the tags again, but with formal action this time. I have provided the proper tags, and the rationale is now formerly stated without any controversial remarks. Now more than ever, there fails to be a good reason to delete the image, other than (again) bias, the only possible explanation at this point. Logical Defense (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have removed the RFU tag, which specifically states "DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG". You've also only added a fair use rationale for one article, when the image is used in two. My religion or lack thereof is not material, you are violating policy and that is that. Your threats about reporting me are laughable, I invite you to report away. I've done nothing wrong, people can see my history and see who I am, and I have nothing to hide. I'm now taking this to IFD, as recommended, since you refuse to follow the rules. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, you have nothing to hide now, after what I've said.
    And don't turn this into a persecution; I already said your "religion" should have nothing to do with this.
    I also did not threaten to report you at all. Another spin on your behalf. If you would like to read again what I just wrote above, feel free.
    Rules have been followed. The rationale tag I added is valid. An investigation is welcome. Logical Defense (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Copyvio on Dufuna canoe

    The article Dufuna canoe is a fairly blatant copyvio of http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003581 which itself appears to be a copy of content from an offline source; there is neither attribution nor any indication of permission to reproduce. The article had been up for speedy deletion, but was not deleted. KurtRaschke (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    More specifically, this post: http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003581;p=1#000006. ViridaeTalk 04:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and I deleted the copyvio and replaced it with a short stub. Will expand it when I am not busy. ViridaeTalk 04:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP and off-wiki BLP violations

    OK, without going into the really long version ... person X has an article on wikipedia yet an editor knows plenty more on person X and builds an off-wiki look-alike giving every detail way beyond what would pass verifiability and reliable sources on wikipedia. They now want to share the link to the off-wiki site and have been told that since the off-wiki site blatantly violates biographies of living people policies that the link should not be posted anywhere including talk pages. Do we have a policy that implicitly states that anywhere or are we all just wrongly assuming such a policy exists. Any help appreciated. Benjiboi 04:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kind of like WP:BADSITES? BLP doesn't apply to off-wiki sites, but it does apply to whether something is appropriate for inclusion, i.e. it must be a reliable secondary source. If its an attack page, then it isn't a reliable source and it can comfortably be removed from article content. Not sure on what basis we would exclude it from a talk page, though. Avruchtalk 04:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP is just as much in effect on talk pages as on articles -- granted that the applications and concerns differ slightly, but the core elements are much the same. Users are of course welcome to fork content, but that does not translate to any obligation on our part to link to or endorse that content. Presumably the content isn't on Wikipedia for a reason, so why would linking to it suddenly become acceptable? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the site pass WP:RS? Does it pass WP:EL? I strongly doubt that a content forked from Wiki passes WP:RS, thus we should not include it here Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To be more clear - it seems the site was directly set up to present every bit of evidence and piece of information about Person X with full knowledge that it couldn't all be presented on wikipedia as it didn't pass OR, BLP, RS and V standards. The question is not if the BLP-violating information is allowed on talk pages, the question is if a link directing people there is not allowed. Is there any policy that states that knowingly linking to sites that violate BLP is prohibited? Benjiboi 05:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:LINKLOVE. east.718 at 10:38, January 16, 2008

    I should somewhat rephrase what I wrote above - BLP is a content policy, i.e. it governs whether something that could be potentially libelous can be included in an article. Links aren't specifically content, and there are other policies that govern whether a link can be added as an external link or see also. While BLP applies to the talk page (as Luna points out) it doesn't apply to this situation specifically. This is an area of some controversy, related to the BADSITES arbitration, and the WP:LINKLOVE section about Debates (in addition with this)seems to offer some good guidance. When in doubt, remove it. If an editor edit-wars to have it remain, thats a conduct issue that can be addressed here separately. Avruchtalk 17:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thankyou all, great advice. Benjiboi 18:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyright

    Is it a violation of copyright to copy exactly what is in a section of a wikipedia page, and add it to a new page, with just a copy and paste? Or is what we add, released under fair use? If it is a violation, can CSD G12 be used? Ctjf83talk 05:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reference what page it was taken from in the edit summary. Please don't "move" pages by copy pasting them to a new name. (dunno if you have done that or not) ViridaeTalk 05:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, let me be more specific, I did a lot of work to the history section of Davenport, Iowa and another user just basically copied that section and pasted it to History of Davenport, Iowa, which made it look like he did all the work, with out showing that I, or other editors actually did the work. Did s/he violate copyright or is s/he allowed to do that, such as if our edits are released into the public domain Ctjf83talk 05:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All edits to Wikipedia are under the GFDL license. This license explicitly allows redistribution under the same license, with attribution. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NO attribution in copy pasting a section to another page though, perhaps make a null edit noting where the section came from. ViridaeTalk 06:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    what do you mean a null edit? and if it is all released under GFDL, why can't you just copy and paste moves? Ctjf83talk 06:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (inserting for relevance). :) A null edit is an edit that doesn't amount to much; it's purpose is the edit summary. You can't just copy & paste material because GFDL requires crediting contributors. A note must be made attributing authorship of the material. This is usually done with an edit summary wikilinking the title of the old article "Material merged from Old article". A note should then be made at the talk page of the old article that material was merged so that if the old article ever qualifies for deletion, it will instead be retained as a redirect with the template {{R from merge}} to note that it is required for authorship history. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just do a history merge. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Won't work, as the history is still needed at the original page. Kusma (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles are constantly spun off as master articles get too big. In this case the new article creator has given a source in the 4th edit. Are you sure this isn't a mild case of ownerships? --Stephen 08:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ud)I think the This article was created out of content from the History section of the Davenport, Iowa article and the List of mayors of Davenport, Iowa article put on the history page (by the creator) is more than enough attribution. I added the same notice to the talk page. -- lucasbfr talk 10:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ownership?! not hardly. Currently this article is exactly the same as the other one, with very minor things added. Unless more is added, it could prob be nom for deletion Ctjf83talk 18:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Free image copyright infringement

    Image:Pirrodhima.jpg was uploaded by User:Taulant23 on September 20, 2007 with license tag {{self|GFDL-no-disclaimers|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} (requiring attribution to himself) [12]. But this image is el:Image:Pirros1.jpg uploaded by el:User:Lemur12 on June 15, 2007 with an equivalent to {{attribution}} tag. As it seems User:Taulant23 passed the image as his creation when it is not. If Taulant23 was a newbie we could assume good faith but he states that he is a veteran user, so we can assume that he knew exactly what he was doing. A good look on user's upload log indicates that he does not care at all about correct copyright tags and attribution to creators (Image:EnverImageC.jpg, Image:Kingzog1.jpg are probably not his creations, although tagged as such). I think an investigation and a warning to this user is needed. — Geraki TL 13:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mmm, having a closer look, it does look like a professional photo. Are we sure that el:User:Lemur12 is the copyright holder? Note that it is a non free picture of a living person and should probably be replaced by a free one. -- lucasbfr talk 13:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The uploader on Greek wiki seems to be a competent and prolific photographer, and he states on the image description page that the photo was taken on the occasion of the Olympic Flame being carried through the place where he lives, so I guess yes, that sounds like a plausible case to me. Sad, really, that image abuse has become so rampant we end up suspecting even our best image uploaders of fraud. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Whereas Taulant's performance with image uploads is evidently problematic. All his images are tagged as self-made. Image:Tony Dovolani.jpg is another evidently fake one, it's a screenshot bearing a TV station's copyright logo. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah :( But the current licensing (on el:wiki and therefore here) unfortunately looks unfree. As a side note, I left a message on Taulant23's talk page. I'm guessing 90% of his uploads are copyvio. I have an account on el:wp, I'll contact the original photographer. -- lucasbfr talk 13:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Geraki was right above; the tag on elwiki is pretty much equivalent to {{Attribution}}. BTW, Lemur12 also has accounts here and on commons, I guess he knows what he's doing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    crap I misread and read "commercial use is prohibited" instead of "permitted". Nevermind (he did not activate his email address here)-- lucasbfr talk 14:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    el:User:Lemur12 is a great contributor of articles and photos on the Greek Wikipedia, and this photo was taken in his home town :). Geraki TL 17:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    AIV

    is backlogged. Rudget. 17:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No problem! :) Rudget. 17:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin coaching

    I have left a proposal here; this process seems to me to be a bit of a backwater, and I would welcome feedback as to whether I'm out of line. Bottom line is that a lot of the requests seem stale, and it could do with a cull such that keen and experienced enough proto-admins are being lost in the noise. I declare an interest here, as you will see from the main page, but I'm trying not to canvass, and will take my chances should the opportunity arise. Question: Is there a category for admins willing to undertake coaching? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • As a result of a comment on the Talk:AC:RFC page, can I ask that admins who aren't currently interested in coaching remove themselves from here? That would save enthusiastic editors from approaching admins who are no longer available or willing to do this. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Phenylketonuria vandalism

    Resolved
     – Reverted, semi-protected by Anetode.
    • Can someone take a look at Phenylketonuria? Someone messed it all up and I can't figure out who did what. Thks Pcbene (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image issue

    Image:St Barnabas' Church, Bromborough.jpg is scheduled to be used for DYK in around 4 hours. The image title has a character that cannot be uploaded to the English Wikipedia. Would a Commons admin protect it on Commons? Royalbroil 01:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have uploaded it now. Don't know what the problem was. Woody (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Thank you! Royalbroil 02:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone take a peak at this talk page

    Could another admin take a look at this talk page: Talk:Accelerate (R.E.M. album)#Protection and perhaps give an additional perspective on the situation from an "adminsitrator's" point of view? I am not looking for anyone to comment on the content discussion, per se, but there seems to be some civility issues going on that need looking into. Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:MFD

    Could an uninvolved administrator please take a look at the following discussion and consider closing it? It's at: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 05:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I closed it as a no consensus. You can read my comments if you'd like, but for a more coherent version see Doc's comments further down the page. I stole liberally from them anyway. There's also an RFC started [13] on the general issue of userbox content. Maybe a consensus will emerge there, stranger things have happened. (well, not many but there's always hope). RxS (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone check out this unblock request

    Can someone check this unblock request out: User_talk:Zhinz. I can't find any blocks on him, and I don't have checkuser to see if there are any IP blocks dinging him unneccessarily. Can a checkuser perhaps look into this? Or atleast an admin that knows what they are doing? Gracias. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As there are no blocks on the user or the IP address, and no autoblocks from the past 48 hours from that admin, there seems to be nothing we can do here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, just checked it all blocks and autblocks and nothings ever affected him - I'd advise the user to try and edit now. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold on, hold on, it's part of the range block of 75.47.0.0/16. I'll sort the range block out to make it anon only. Ryan Postlethwaite 06:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    and sorted, it was blocking sock accounts, but if there's constructive users using it, let's just block the IP's. I've switched it to anon only. Ryan Postlethwaite 06:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PuCk1337

    Can an admin please attend to what is written on this user's page. It's profoundly disturbing. Bstone (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorted; deleted by User:East718. (User's blocked, too.) Tony Fox (arf!) 06:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitration proposal concerning new restrictions on exercise of admin powers

    Administrators may be interested to read this discussion in a currently ongoing arbitration. It concerns a proposal from the arbitrators to bar admins active in editing articles relating broadly to Israeli-Palestinian issues from using discretionary powers in the entire topic area - not just an individual article - if they have previously been involved in a content dispute in that topic area. This would seem be a major modification of the existing prohibition on blocking users with whom one is involved in a content dispute (see WP:BLOCK#When blocking may not be used), in effect setting a different and stricter rule for the topic area under arbitration. A number of admins, including myself, are concerned that this is unworkable, undesirable and would set a bad precedent that could be applied to other disputes. Input from other admins would be welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Proposed decision#"Uninvolved" administrators. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins may also wish to consider if the above mesage mees the standard at Wikipedia:CANVASS#Types_of_canvassing. DuncanHill (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it does meet the standard. Please don't troll. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifically is the message neutral? ie. Does it simply inform of the debate (good thing) or does it present one side of the argument as well (bad thing)? DuncanHill (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's canvassing because this isn't mass posted, and it's not targeting users with a particular point of view. Nevertheless, I think the concerns are unfounded. The restrictions is limited to those administrators who seek to enforce the case's sanctions. Given the editing climate of those articles, the Committee seems wise to implement this measure. Jehochman Talk 09:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ordinary users are not part of arbcom's decision-making process, so it is even less like a vote than the kinds of pages that we normally attack people for "canvassing" for. —Random832 12:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks to me like Campaigning, which is one of the explicitly mentioned types of canvassing. Leaving a neytralmessage here would be a friendly notice. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, come on. It's posted on WP:AN! This is the proper forum to bring up anything that admins, or the community more generally, might be interested in. Posting this message to a particular involved WikiProject, or to a select few users' talk pages, or sending it as an email to selected recipients, would all potentially constitute canvassing, but I just don't see a problem here. Presumably this board is not populated with people predisposed to do ChrisO's bidding, or even receive his comment favorably. MastCell Talk 18:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion debate needing a sysop touch

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosnian Mujahideen could use a little attention. Some users are becoming a bit uncivil. The page could also probably use a gnomely reformatting. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I tried to restore order, but HanzoHattori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been undoing my work. He's been making personal attacks too, which I have removed.[14][15] I'd like an uninvolved administrator to review the situation and take whatever actions are needed to finish cleaning up this mess. For instance, this edit needs to be undone, and that content put in chronological order, or moved to the talk page. Regrettably, I feel that HanzoHattori will need to be blocked in order for that to be achieved. I've given him several warnings, but he has ignored them. He is obviously trying to own the discussion, acting disruptively, and violating decorum. I will not block him myself, and I will not engage in an edit war with him. Jehochman Talk 10:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has been blocked by User:East718, with a duration of 17000 minutes, or just shy of 12 days (!). On a procedural note, should someone indicate in the debate that HanzoHattori was blocked for disruption of that debate? If, as one editor noted, the concern was that his conduct would keep others from participating, a note that the editor will not be further involved might mitigate that concern. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Demote admin User:Y

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    Desysopping is not warranted, nor is administrative action. Dispute resolution is the way to go, and step one (or two?) is to disengage. MastCell Talk 18:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    During an AFD discussion, the sockpuppet of this admin, User:Arbeit Sockenpuppe, accused another user of racism because that user criticized his language mistake. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meredith Emerson. Any user who has this kind of attitude, is not fit to be a Wikipedia administrator. If we do not demote this admin, other people could start using the same argument, accusing everyone else who doesn't agree with them of sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism, and so on. The result will be the decline in Wikipedia quality. We cannot afford to have this user as admin. --Koreanjason (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Without commenting on the situation, I believe the exchange in question was:
    With User:Arbeit Sockenpuppe being a alternate account of administratorUser:Y. Regards, — Save_Us † 10:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RFC is over there. Is this a one-shot incident, or a common thing? – Luna Santin (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's quite obvious it was tongue-in-cheek, especially as Y's previous comment had a smiley. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Using a smiley and being tongue-in-cheek does not excuse for a bad attitude. If another user vandalizes an article and then add a smiley in it, that doesn't make it okay. Here's the complete exchange:

    --Koreanjason (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you really believe that his last comment was serious? пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's beside the point. Whether or not he was serious, the only person who knows that for sure is himself. We are not here to second guess someone's intention. What we have is the written word and the Wikipedia rules, and we should proceed from there. --Koreanjason (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia rules tell us to assume good faith. We don't desysop people for making offtopic remarks about whether or not correcting people's language is racism. And we usually try to talk to people instead of about them in non-urgent cases. Try User talk:Y. Kusma (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did talk to him and he gave me the above answer that someone called "tongue-in-cheek". I don't see any chance of serious discussion with him there. --Koreanjason (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait, a debate over word usage, and the race-card was played? Can you explain how the debate over the use of disinterest versus uninterst is one that is racist? I am not seeing it here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That's exactly my point. His calling User:Be best and User:W guice racist is uncalled for. That's a very serious accusation, and not a laughing matter or tongue-in-cheek. Nobody wants to be called a racist without any good reason. --Koreanjason (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't find the sock puppet's twisting of the basis of the validity of dialects amusing, but I certainly found the exchange about his purported insecurity and his cryptic admission so. I laughed out loud. deeceevoice (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Correct. The problem is not the last two lines. It's about the lines preceding those where he throws baseless accusations. --Koreanjason (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually what he says is that the normative approach in language is viewed by linguists as a practice bordering racism, which is a fact. In other words he was pissed that someone had to correct him for his use of "disinterested", having nothing else to say about his real comment, and replied in almost the same way. He was directly accused of low language skills, and in a very uncivil way too, but he only indirectly argued that corrections in language are counterproductive. I laughed too, way to go User:Y! NikoSilver 15:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no issue here. Generally, you shouldn't throw around terms like "racist", but the third-party reference and tongue-in-cheek manner in which it was used here does not really concern me. I've certainly seen editors react much worse when their choice of wording is needlessly criticized. — Satori Son 15:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, how would you like it if I call you anti-Korean because you disagree with me? Not so tongue-in-cheek anymore, are we? I'm not calling you anti-Korean, but it just illustrates the point of how Wikipedia users, and especially admins are taking this issue lightly. --Koreanjason (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what you meant to say was "Wikipedia users, especially all of the ones other than me, are taking this issue lightly." I don't see any admins commenting differently from everyone else (besides you, of course). I'm sorry you felt slighted, but that is obviously not what was intended, so let's please move on. — Satori Son 16:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because you call me anti-Korean doesn't make it true. In fact, if you tried to call me anti-Korean, and for proof pointed to the fact that I used "disinteresting" instead of "uninteresting", I'd have to reply with "Wha...?" and assume that you're either joking or have gone out of your mind. And then I'd drop it and move on, because I know I'm not anti-Korean. --Kbdank71 16:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for supporting me. Just because User:Y call User:Be best and User:W guice racist doesn't make it true. In fact, if he called them racist, and for proof pointed to the fact that they corrected his language, I'd have to reply with "Wha...?" and assume that he's either joking or has gone out of his mind. And then it should not be dropped and we have to deal with this, because all Wikipedia users who attack other users should be banned or desysoped. --Koreanjason (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wha...? Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't supporting you, if anything I was gently suggesting that you drop this and move on. I don't think Y should be banned or desysoped. --Kbdank71 18:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you weren't supporting me, but I chose to use your words for my argument anyway. And yes, you suggested I drop this and move on. Why? Because your personal opinion says that this isn't important? Because you think User:Y did not attack other users personally? Because most people here actually defends him and think he's funny? (See below. I have to repeat these questions because nobody seems to give me any straight answers around here). --Koreanjason (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly it. I do think it's funny, I don't think it's an attack, and honestly, I think you're blowing this out of proportion. And from the responses here, I'm not the only one. --Kbdank71 18:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's correct, you're not the only one. But right or wrong is not determined by majority. Right or wrong, in this matter, is about the Wikipedia rule that we all have agreed on. And no, I'm not blowing this out of proportion. If you call someone a racist, you have to expect yourself to be criticized harshly. Michael Richards used the N-word. Don Imus called the Rutgers University basketball team "nappy-headed hos". Is that funny? Is that not an attack? Did people blow that out of proportion? Maybe they are not actually racists. Maybe they were just trying too hard to be funny, and it backfired at them. But people's attack on them is not out of proportion. Because we don't want people to use the N-word as if it's nothing. It's hurtful to African Americans. User:Y called User:Be best and User:W guice racist. Maybe he didn't really think that. Maybe he was just trying too hard to be funny, and it backfired at him. Do you want people to call other people racist and be casual about it? --Koreanjason (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And mocking an other user's language skills is not very civil (see WP:SKILL) in the first place. -- lucasbfr talk 15:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any mocking at all. Who mocked User:Y's language skill and where did you get that from? Which sentence/word are you referring to? --Koreanjason (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No administrator action is warranted here. He commented on the behavior, not the editor. If you want to continue this charade, take it to WP:RFC. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, which sentence/word is seen as mocking? Can someone tell me that? If you can't, then User:Be best dan User:W guice did not mock User:Y, and he attacked them personally. This is not a charade. This is about an admin who broke an important rule, which is that no user or admin may attack other users personally. --Koreanjason (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    GUYS! You are kidding right!? This is completely facetious from start to finish! How dense does one have to be to take this seriously!? Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a little over 1.0 g/cm3 --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I tried reading said exchange, starting with the biggest frown I could muster, but I kept on laughing at the last "yes". Darnit.

    Koreanjason, are you absolutely sure this person wasn't just pulling your leg? --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and just for the record, I accepted the substantive point of the correction of my usage, and I hereby do so again: I was wrong - distinteresting was not proper usage. And I was never pissed about being corrected. (This is so much fun!) Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not interested in correcting your language usage. This is about User:Y calling User:Be best and User:W guice racist. It may be fun for you to call other people racist, he may be pulling my leg, it may be facetious, but it's still a personal attack. See WP:ATTACK --Koreanjason (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Arbeit Sockenpuppe needs to be blocked indef

    Admin:Y is one of the worst admins in WP. She's not the worst but close. Having a sock is no excuse for an admin but should be allowed for non-admin. Some bad admin are so mean to regular editors that socks are necessary for survival. Don't agree with an admin on AN or ANI and you will be blocked forever. OTOH, even bad admin are untouchable. Therefore, there is no reason for an admin to have a sock. Y is rude, crude, and makes no contribution to Wikipedia (except trouble). I've seen it happen and if I see an article edited by Y, I stay away from it like it were AIDS. The wimpy solution is to ban the Y sock and let Y go (which is not what admin would do with regular user that have a sock). All of what I say is true yet there is a 91.35% chance that I will be blocked, 38.29% chance that it will happen in the next 5 minutes. Block the Arbeit Sockenpuppe NOW. 16:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Henry Give me lib or (talk • contribs)

    I am open for recall, so long as the matter concerns abuse of my administrative powers. You can start a recall discussion, or you can go away. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs please. ('cause, y'know, that's kind of a blunt statement to make without proof.) Tony Fox (arf!) 16:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He won't be providing diffs because he's a troll that created an account just to come here and drop baseless accusations, and has been blocked as such. Carry on smartly, please, there is no issue to discuss here. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone please close this discussion, so we can move on with life? Bearian (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you're an admin. Certainly you have the powers to close this discussion. But for what reason? Because your personal opinion says that this isn't important? Because you think User:Y did not attack other users personally? Because most people here actually defends him and think he's funny? --Koreanjason (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because he's not actually abused any of his adminsitrative powers. He hasn't blocked anyone, hasn't protected any articles, and hasn't deleted any pages in a way that is against the rules. He hasn't even represented himself as an admin as a way to gain th eupper hand in a debate or threaten to get his way. Even if (and I don't mean they are, take it as a hypothetical) his comments are rather WP:DICKish, I don't see why such comments mean his admin powers need to be revoked. Take it to WP:WQA if you like, since at best he's being a bit rude, but there is nothing here that shows he has misused his admin powers. This isn't the appropriate venue to discuss his comments. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If a normal user is rude, they risk being banned. But if it's an admin, he's going scot-free? Without even a warning? Without even having to apologize to User:Be best and User:W guice? --Koreanjason (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no basis for desysopping, nor sanctioning, anyone. User:Y has gotten feedback, as has User:Koreanjason. I'm going to suggest the radical step of just disengaging and finding something else we can all fight about. MastCell Talk 18:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Image:Sam22Stripped.jpg (NWS)

    • Apparently, this image was deleted, and yet it still loads up. ??? JuJube (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is on the WikiMedia Commons [16] The revision there would need to be deleted. — Save_Us † 10:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pfft, there can never be enough willies. :) — Save_Us † 11:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I should like to Speak My Mind here...

    There appears to be a disconnect, as far as this album is concerned. On one hand, there is Speak My Mind, a protected redirect linking to the article of Beyoncé Knowles, which is a result of, as I have found out, a February 2007 deletion of the article for Speak My Mind as unsourced and unreliable. On the other hand, there is the article Speak My Mind (album), created less than a month ago, with the title apparently adopted in order to circumvent the AfD decision; the aforementioned article features one (1) source. I suppose that either the article must be merged back to oblivion (a.k.a. deleted) or the deletion decision has to be reviewed and the article moved to its proper location, as there is no reason for disambiguation in the title.

    By the way, bid me "welcome" because it is my first message in the noticeboard (another Wikipedian editing more in the project namespace than in the mainspace, yay!). Waltham, The Duke of 15:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Old" AfDs aren't really binding, and there's no reason to prohibit recreation of an article deleted as unsourced when sources are uncovered. I don't see any reason to be bureaucratic about restoring it - at best, just run it by the closing admin. WilyD 15:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am being bureaucratic because this is what I do when I do not know the un-bureaucratic procedure. Thanks to you, I do now, and so I am off to the closing administrator (which actually makes a lot of sense). Cheers! Waltham, The Duke of 15:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tried that. Failed. Closing admin hasn't edited since last April. Curse him and his whole family. (All right, only joking, I should never curse his family, just him.) What is the next step of the process, please? Waltham, The Duke of 15:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe Wikipedia:Deletion review? I'd maybe do it myself, but I promised to lay off the deletion related matters for awhile. I've already tied up the servers for too long, I don't need to go and tie them up any longer doing things I don't understand yet. John Carter (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)To be honest I'd lend towards a speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4 (and a friendly notice to the users that they should go to WP:DR), the new article does not bring anything that wasn't addressed in the AfD. -- lucasbfr talk 16:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You can also try request for page moves. — Edokter • Talk • 16:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ECx3) Deletion review is definitely an option. Since this is a new title, and may actually be different (though similar) content compared to what was deleted, you may wish to re-nominate this article for deletion. Obviously, the fact that it was deleted earlier would form part of your rationale. I agree that it may qualify for a speedy deletion, though. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Times three? Oh, dear.
    In any case, the history of the deleted article exists, and the two versions are somewhat different from each other, in the sense that the intro (the only paragraph of text) has changed considerably. In addition, there is a source in the new version, and it looks quite legitimate (I am rather clueless when it comes to sources, but "Billboard" appears to be a large and well-known site). I think I will try to have the page moved first, and if my petition is rejected, I shall have to initiate a discussion in deletion review.
    I certainly did not imagine I should be discussing a Beyoncé album when I got up this morning... Waltham, The Duke of 16:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wanted to note that Billboard mirrors AMG (see the bottom of the page). AMG accepts reader submissions, which may bring the reliability and notability of that in question. AMG will in some instances include bootlegs, for instance, but generally Wikipedia does not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Contributions by a new user

    Hello administrators, just a quick post here that we probably should have some more eyes on the contributions of new user User:Jbarg48. His contributions are (so far) only in regard to a public figure, former Wash. DC mayor Anthony A. Williams. My redflags are flying high - I believe this new editor (especially by this diff), lead me to believe that the honorable Mr. Williams, or someone that knows/works/lives with him, has joined our ranks. The only other contributions are spammy "What he's doing today" type links, check his Deleted contribs. IMO, the info added to the Williams article is way to specific for general knowledge and is rife with peacock language. Reads like a resumé, in other words. Any others' opinions? Keeper | 76 17:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tag the article for COI and note on the talk page why. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Bearian, that's exactly what I just did. Let me know if you (or anyone else looking) sees anything wrong with what I did. Keeper | 76 20:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Signsolid

    A few days ago, many major news agencies reported that the French economy had overtaken the British one. Following discussions on the talk pages of UK and France, I edited the articles to reflect it and sourced it with the an article on the issue by Financial Times. The user User:Signsolid seems to hate the fact that France’s economy has overtaken the UK’s. That such is the fact can be confirmed by looking at the many sources found on the UK talkpage. The source in the article is from Financial Times, but it could also be sourced by msnbc [17], Financial News [18], Le Figaro [19].

    When I edited the UK-article to reflect this and duly sourced it, the user started out by attacking me over my nationality. [20] . He has been warned about such behaviour, but keeps repeating it today. [21]. As he did not like the news of France overtaking the UK, he searched the Internet for sources contradicting it. His first suggestion was the personal home page of an unknown Greek guy [22] who himself writes on his home page that it’s outdated, I duly informed him that it was hardly a source comparable to the Financial Times and other major business news agencies. He then found an old IMF-estimate, and immediately starting inserting it into the UK article and edit warring over it instead of using the talk page to reach a consnesus. [23], [24], [25], [26]

    I informed him many times that he was using an old estimate, and that an estimate of what might have happened hardly could replace multiple reports on what had happened. It did not stop the edit war. I admit that I made edits I shouldn’t have made. At one point I accused him of trolling, but at that point I honestly believed it to be the case. I couldn’t imagine that somebody wanted to replace the Financial Times and other respected sourced by the home pages of anonymous Internet users.

    When he was warned over edit warring, he stopped the revert war on the UK article and took it to the article France. His first edit at the page was to simply remove the information about France’s economy being the fifth in the world and replacing it with France being seventh. [27]. As this included removing sourced information just to achieve his own aim, I consider it obvious vandalism. Another user reverted his edit. He then came up with the idea to leave the information in and still claim that France is only seventh in the world by another calculation. He never showed any interest in this way to calculate before the edit war started. Another user reverted the edit once more but he inserted it again [28]. He then went on to once again delete the information about France having the fifth largest economy, including deleting the source (still Financial Times). [29]. Two other users reverted his vandalism, and he then returned to inserting his claim abou France only being seventh if using another calculation, despite other users (including myself) being against it. That’s of course not vandalism, but clearly a continued edit war. He inserted the same claim two times more [30], [31] despite three users explicitly being against it and he the only one in favour.

    Of course the user has violated WP:3RR (He’s been warned over it a few times but has removed all his warnings). Still I’m reporting him mainly because of his behaviour .I don’t know why he doesn’t like the news about the UK economy, and that’s hardly relevant. What is relevant is that he is so determined not to accept that it that he has taken to harmless but strange means such as suggesting using anonymous individuals’ home pages as sources instead of major news corporations and to insert a whole new means of calculations into introductions, and more harmful actions such as deleting sourced content and repeatedly replacing a sourced reported on what has happened with an old estimate of what might have happened and of coming. While doing this, he has attacked me over my nationality [32] and he has attacked me over my supposed political views [33]. He has thrown accusations at me of WP:STALK [34] when the truth is that the article France is one that he followed me to after our exchange of word. (His first edit to it was yesterday, to revert my previous edit). He has repeatedly lied about my actions. [35] , [36].

    I’ve been on Wikipedia for two years and have never been involved in anything similar. I must admit that I prefer quitting rather than being harassed in this way. I hope actions are taken against users of this kind. JdeJ (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And it continues [37]. Not a serious attack, but still keeps dragging up my nationality and lying about me. I've got around 2000 edits on Wikipedia and not even 100 concerns topics related to France.JdeJ (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    tl;dr. John Reaves 21:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand. And the user continues to stalk me to pages and attack me [38]. I'm interested in knowing if this sort of behaviour is acceptable or not. JdeJ (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And a new one [39]. The user has violated WP:3RR, WP:NPA and WP:STALK. JdeJ (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to add that user:JdeJ has done nothing but try to blot out my opinions and dominate the talk:France page and the talk:United Kingdom page talk page and stalks me as he has just proven himself and is an experiened user using his experience to remove competing opinions, that's why I believe he is here now trying to get me banned rather than using talk pages and also when anyone else on these talk pages expresses an opinion he instantly moves in to dismiss it without any consideration or compromise so that there's no threat to his opinion dominating all others. Signsolid (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC) As for WP:3RR, WP:NPA and WP:STALK I believe he is guilty of these himself if you look at article edit histories, accusations of me trolling and vandalising, and obviously has proven himself he monitors all my edits. Signsolid (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think I ever followed you to a single page, I know at least ten pages where you followed me. And as stated above, you attacked me over my nationality, my political views (what views?) and lied about me only editing with a French bias when less than 5% of my articles deals with France-related topics. However, this is not the place to continue our dispute, any user interested in our exchanges can find them from our respective edit histories. They will find that I've always used the talk pages. What is more, I've been in agreement with every other user except you. JdeJ (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As an inexperienced user I can say I have been totally put off using Wikipedia if experinced users dominate like this. Signsolid (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Apology

    I wanna apologize my bad behaviour. This is my second contribution where I wanted another admin to let my account closed. The problem is, I have to fight against my addict this time. I'll let you know when I decide to close my account. And I'll think three times about that. Promise. D@rk talk 18:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is one of the many, many reasons that we don't close or block accounts that are no longer wanted. We rely on editors who choose to work here to choose not to work here any more. If you do chose that latter course [and remember that people get tired of others constantly declaring that they're going who then don't :o)] you might consider the Wikibreak Enforcer, which will do the job you're requesting nicely. Hope this helps! ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 20:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a new rule, that you don't block accounts when they don't want to edit Wikipedia? D@rk talk 20:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's an old consensus. Jehochman Talk 20:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Aging AfD

    Resolved

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molten Group Has been going on for about a week now, and I was wondering if it would be possible to get an admin to either close the debate with a decision or advise on relisting the article in order to garner more thorough discussion on the matter. Thanks.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 19:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done I have closed it. Spartaz Humbug! 20:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. Appreciate the quick response.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yidisheryid

    Yidisheryid (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

    Out of curiosity, how far do we, as sysops, have to go taking uncalled for abuse by editor's before we can request action? The lastest nonsense from this user is here, but if you check this person's history, he has a total disregard for about all of our policies, be they relating to civil editing, notability, images, hoaxes, articles for deletion, sockpuppetry, and personal attacks. As the long-term recipient of his wiki-love, it is not my place to take action, but I'd like one of y'all to see if I have a point here, and maybe somebody else can "convince" this person to edit within guidelines or not edit at all. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not to be nosey but isn't there an issue with that user's signature also per WP:SIG#NL? I've been trying to follow that debate and its honestly starting to hurt my eyes trying to figure it out.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The SSP case has already been closed, and I see no sense in further extending the drama. The sig. matter is worth follow-up.DGG (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Corey Delaney

    I'm trying to work out what the hell happened here. The page was deleted after a few minutes (didn't even know it was deleted up until now when I looked for it, I just assumed that obviously such a page would exist).

    The AFD has been, to quote: "but is hidden from view for privacy reasons." Whaaatt?! Privacy concerns?! For goodness sake, his name has been blasted all over the news, all around the world (and in australia, just about constantly).

    I'm totally amazed such a page ended up in a deletion consensus, such events as this makes me believe wikipedia is going badly down the totally wrong path. Wikipedia has changed a lot since I first joined, largely for the better I suppose. But in a lot of areas I'm afraid it feels like it is for the worst.

    Anyway, getting back on track to my question. Could anybody please direct me to where some of this discussion regarding this has happened (i.e. why the blanking, and why the deletion), or explain here to me. To help me try and make sense of what happened. Thanks. 21:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

    See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney ALLSTARecho 22:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Full story: Corey Delaney was created and later sent to AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney) where it was discussed for (roughly) 14 hours (mind you, it was very clear what the result was), where Daniel closed the debate as delete, deleted the article and applied protection. It was later taken to DRV (see log) because of complaints that the AfD was not kept open for the correct amount of time.
    Later, a news article is posted about the AfD debate and the story makes the front page of the website of The Courier-Mail. Due to BLP concerns regarding Corey and attacks made on him in the history of the AfD, and the AfD being linked from various news articles relating to Wikipedia entry, some requested that the whole AfD be deleted and restored hiding the bad revisions. The page was courtesy blanked, and subsequently the AfD page was taken to MfD (see debate). The DRV is still open, and the MfD was closed as keep. Spebi 22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the links, updates me with what has gone by. I'd found the DRV and just got back from putting my view there, can get a tad tricky to keep up to speed with the minor details (such as I'd kinda forgotten about MfD) once you have been away from actively editing wikipedia for a while. I agree with you that the AfD was quite clear in the direction it was taking (more or less), however ever to me personally that just makes it all the sadder that it shows how widespread this kind of action has became in wikipedia. Ah well, can only keep on trying to do my little bit to make the world a better place. Mathmo Talk 22:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection for Loup City, Nebraska‎

    This article has endured severe IP vandalism over the last few days that has not been speedily reverted. Also, I'm not sure if this is where I should report problems like this, but WP:Semi-protection didn't tell where to. Thingg⊕⊗ 22:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism has only been today. And you probably want WP:RFPP in future. But I've semi-protected for 48 hours to allow time for the dynamic IP editor to get bored. I've also reverted back to 20 December (last edit before today) as other reverts have missed quite a bit of vandalism. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 22:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:Consensus

    I'd like a little feedback around accusations of disruptive editing at the WP:Consensus. This has been escalating through the day and I think that accuastions of disruptive editing by user Kim Bruning are red herring bordering on incivil. I'm not seeking any form of punishment, just a bit more intervention than a 3O, or let me know if I'm out of line. I've reverted his changes because he keeps fussing with the policy page with no support and clear opposition from several editors at the talk page. It seems ironic at the consensus page. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected with looking into if anyone had broken 3rr. ViridaeTalk 04:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any 3RR violations; at most, Kim has 2 and Kevin 3, just looking at the history and ignoring whether they were really reverting. I'll point out that there is no basis in policy or practice for the idea that WP:BOLD doesn't apply to policy pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am quite sure it does, but the Discuss part of BRD seems to have once again been skipped, unless you can count the edit summaries. In my experience, a short protection should settle things down and foster some talk page use. It works extremely well actually. ViridaeTalk 04:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. My point was that Kevin's rationale for reverting, namely that there wasn't enough discussion before the page was edited, is not particularly strong. Despite several requests for actual objections to the material, I don't believe he has provided any. I don't think that "disruptive" was the right way to describe his editing, and it was certainly done in good faith, but it isn't in agreement with the wiki process for writing policies. On the other hand, Kim's second revert was also unnecessary. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think having it reverted once, means someone disagrees with it, and on a policy page especially you shoudl then go on and discuss it. The onus is on the person who wants to add the material to start the discussion if it is objected to (logically) ViridaeTalk 04:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and the discussion was started. I don't believe Kevin presented actual objections to the language. It appeared to me that he might have the misconception that changes must be discussed on the talk page before they can be made. So the first revert by Kim, in the 2100h time frame, seems to be a reasonable attempt to continue editing after Kevin was reminded that editing policy pages is a normal part of business. The remaining reverts, by both Kevin and Kim, were unneeded. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, I did not investigate the edits very closely, I am happy to unprotect if people think the situation will be resolved. It IS always better to discuss something for a policy page first, given the potentially wide ranging effects. ViridaeTalk 04:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that it's protected, might as well wait a little while before unprotecting. But I have to disagree about always discussing first; that contradicts WP:BOLD and the wiki process, which is a foundation principle. One shouldn't make changes that will obviously be reverted if they are not discussed first, but one also shouldn't revert changes only because they were not discussed first. Moreover, there is rarely any reason that changes need to be reverted immediately; it's easy enough to leave a note on the talk page that says "can you explain those changes". — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you on most points. ViridaeTalk 04:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    We have been stuck on the talk page all day! I have been trying to stimulate normal healthy editing on the page, but currently a number of editors are actually opposed to that very process, it seems. I've handed things off to others, as I've been getting rather frustrated and am not at my most diplomatic. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for looking at this. Clearly this is a thorny issue. --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    After reading through the discussion above, I thought that I should look at WP:BOLD to verify Carl's advice that I'm in contradiction. However, I found the following quote interesting: "Although it is generally fine to be bold in updating articles, it is easier to cause problems in other namespaces by editing without due care. The admonition "but do not be reckless" is especially important in other namespaces." I don't say that this is compelling support for my position, but I do think that it expresses concern in that direction. --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It sure does. Now discussing this on the Wikipedia:Consensus talk page. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Salt

    I've never salted a page, so I'd like to get some feedback: the page Credu has been repeatedly created and deleted over the past couple months (advert/non-notable company), and it seems to me it ought to be salted. So I ask those of you with more experience in this area, is this a good case for salting? Cheers, faithless (speak) 06:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep. James086Talk | Email 08:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    inappropriate external link

    Question regarding an external link. On Woo Bum-kon, I came across and—after taking a quick look—removed a link to a website called www.spreekillers.org. A linksearch revealed that this link was only on this one article. Nevertheless, due to its totally inappropriate nature and since it has already been inserted at least once, I would like to get some admin opinion on this. Can/should this link be blacklisted, or would that require prior massive spamming? Or am I overreacting and the link isn't half as bad as I'm making it out to be? And is this at all the correct forum for this question? User:Dorftrottel 09:35, January 18, 2008

    I don't see a good reason for blacklisting right now, especially not using the meta blacklist (which affects all Wikimedia projects). I could imagine legitimate use of a link to this page on other Foundation wikis, for example in a discussion about how not to treat spree killers or in a news article. To request blacklisting here, the most appropriate place is probably MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Kusma (talk) 09:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks, going there now. User:Dorftrottel 09:56, January 18, 2008

    Whois and beans - consequences of convenience

    I have run across a couple of cases were an IP address is publicly resolved to a specific personal name in the WHOIS data resources (for instance). Though we are not responsible for breaching privacy by providing a link to the WHOIS resource (templated on IP talk pages), I think it is in our best interests to in some way inform or assist the persons so affected. My thinking is to craft a template that has a couple of effects: a) it informs the IP user that they are STRONGLY encouraged to create a username/password rather than editing through IP; b) it suppresses the WHOIS link-containing banner footer. My feeling is that most people won't even realize that their name is being exposed publicly until it is pointed out to them. Thoughts? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If someone's knowledgeable enough to buy their own netblock they're pretty much guaranteed to be knowledgeable enough to know what a WHOIS will show. --bainer (talk) 12:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not if the netblock is assigned by an ISP as part of an internet access package purchase. In that case, the user might have no idea about whois. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, some ISPs do give static IPs and then register the customer details on the whois. Customers often do not get told the details of this. One thing to be aware of is that performing a whois is not hard. Hence a public notice of "Your IP gives you away!" may encourage more people to perform a whois, even if the standard link is surpressed. LinaMishima (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did actually consider whether my saying anything here was a case of my spilling the beans, but I thought that the benefit outweighed the risk. Whois is not a widely known resource, I think; usually it is wrapped behind "find your highschool chum" like websites or telephony white pages. Even less well known are the rwhois server queries, but that's another story and requires client software. What I am getting at here is a logical extension of the notion that we discourage people putting their personal information on Wikipedia. The whois functionality is an assist to admins and editors alike, but I think that we should consider the consequences of that convenience. In other words, I don't like the idea of Wikipedia inadvertently spilling WP:BEANS; I hasten to point out that there are very few sites like this that a) allow signature by IP and b) allow users to look up details of that IP in one package. If the consensus is "surfer beware" and no action needed, I am ok with that, certainly. I am considering sending a note to the ISP information email and asking whether users have opt-out capability for revealing identity via whois, to see if that is an option, in which case I might ask them to pass a message on to the user saying "umm, did you know ..." That route could be taken by anyone as a personal action choice without any changes or disruption to wikipedia. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I encourage archiving of this thread prior to it being picked up by bot, maybe after active contribution subsides. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to point out that it is stated that when you edit using your IP then you have no privacy and that it is suggested you make an account see hereRgoodermote  13:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=185198557"