Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

• If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message here instead.

From the "not evil" department

There is little doubt that Jon Awbrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is not much missed, given the hundreds of sockpuppets he's subsequently used to vandalise various articles, but on the other hand it does seem a tad harsh that of all the numerous sites which document his odd behaviour, Wikipedia is the first hit and the most extensively negative. I made an offer which he chose to rebuff, but I think we should do this anyway: I suggest we attribute the many sockpuppets (and rename the categories) as something like "Peirce vandal", and simply leave a discreet link to it in his user space somewhere. I would propose renaming the account, but I am told that some of his edits were good, and it is pretty obvious that he is most insistent on being credited by name for those edits. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - good idea, Guy, and very classy too. Is this something a bot can do? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Almost certainly, but I don't know which one would be best.Guy (Help!) 20:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We're talking 620 pages (not counting bot created archives). AWB is usually used for this sort of thing, as there is no bot specifically approved for it. But I'm sure any bot op could code it up quick. MBisanz ^talk 20:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec):Either he exercises his RTV with a rename, losing both the negative publicity of his activities and his name associated with allegedly good edits or he does not exercise his RTV, keeps his current name, with all the various google results. I think this would set a negative precedent of encouraging future actors to do it and know they can have their cake and eat it. And considering he rebuffed Guy's very generous offer, I'm not inclined to go out of my (our) way to be helpful. MBisanz ^talk 20:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that many of the criticisms of Wikipedia are surrounding its capacity to do damage to the reputation of living people, anything we can do to prevent such damage at no cost to Wikipedia is a good thing. Also, I wasn't around for Awbrey's time here, but I gather that he was primarily a good faith contributor, which means that he put his real name out there with the intend of being recognized for his contributions to the encyclopaedia, not having it dragged through the mud as a disruptive editor (even if he was a disruptive editor, which I'm not disputing). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem renaming and replacing living people named accounts of banned users. I just don't like the idea of only concealing the bad things associated with them. MBisanz ^talk 22:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What's to be gained from leaving their real names associated with the bad stuff? What's the harm in dissociating banned users from the bad stuff? He's permanently banned, so it's not needed for community scrutiny. And we hardly owe it to potential employers to make it easy to dig up skeletons in prospective employees' closets. I'm not sure how much good this will do, since we're not changing the account name and the first Google hit for his name (in quotes) is his WP user page, but, like I said, anything helps. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking more about future problems. Like if in 3 years this fellow comes back wanting to edit and have the ban lifted. And its not immediate clear because we've obfuscated only the bad things. Even in the Lir instance, a lot of people didn't know the background to why he was blocked for so long, and were probably willing to extend more good faith than was needed. Also, if he were to start socking again, it would make it difficult, especially for non-admins, to compile a proper SSP. I'm really not seeing the harm in a rename to User:RTV101 with AWB edits to eliminate signatures. MBisanz ^talk 22:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I can think of two editors who have real-name accounts and a lot of negative material on wiki, Jon Awbrey and Jason Gastrich. Of the two Jon seems the more deserving of at least a little sympathy; he is clearly a very odd fellow and more than a little obsessive (check the other places where he's been in trouble for the kind of argufying that brought him so much unwelcome attention here). Gastrich was a straight-out POV pusher and vanity merchant, but even there I'd support something similar just because of the massively higher profile Wikipedia now has. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd add User:John Gohde to the list of people with real-name accounts and negative on-wiki profiles - I assume that is his real name, and he holds the distinction of being banned thrice by ArbCom. For what it's worth, I think Guy's idea is a good one. Whether or not Guy's initial offer was rebuffed, we can still be the bigger entity and do the right thing. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Jon created a lot of good content on Wikipedia; but is currently very very angry at Wikipedia. Let's do the right thing. If you are a doctor or a nurse, do you refuse to do the right thing if a patient bleeds all over you? WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'll point out that besides the 263 confirmed sockpuppets in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jon Awbrey, there are probably as many others that we just blocked and never bothered wasting the keystrokes to put {{SockpuppetCheckuser}} on their pages. Still, I'd support this with the understanding that if a single sock showed up ever again, we'd reverse the action. Anything to get rid of this utter nuisance. (I only know him as an abusive sockpuppeteer -- I've never looked at the events leading to his original ban.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This all looks like agreement in principle to me; how about if we usurp the unused user:JA and put everything, good and bad, there? Guy (Help!) 07:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

By "put everything", do you mean rename the account? Or just your original proposal? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Aye, I'll support a renaming/usurption. MBisanz ^talk 09:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• If Awbrey isn't interested in the offer, don't do it. Perhaps he takes pride in the activities of his socks? If he doesn't want the help, it isn't really help at all. Everyking (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• It's win-win anyway. If he wants to leave his name as a pride token of what he has done, we ignore the troll even more by renaming the account. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Awbrey has explicitly stated on an external site that he does not want this to be done. —Random832 (contribs) 14:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't care. It would be a very good application of WP:DENY. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Declaring a different name to be the "master account" is one thing, but forcibly renaming his account without his permission while he still has significant edits is a violation of the renaming policy and the GFDL and I will report whatever bureaucrat performs the rename to a steward. —Random832 (contribs) 18:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no GFDL problem - the edits are still attributed to the same user ID. I'm not sure what you hope to gain from reporting this to a steward, they would do precisely nothing as it certainly isn't within their remit. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I've had a couple of emails on this subject, requesting the renaming of accounts associated with real-world identities or activities of individuals who are banned from Wikipedia. Including those and Awbrey (where I am getting conflicting signals), plus the ones above, I propose:

• Thekohser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> W_GK1
• MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> W_GK2
• Jon Awbrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> W_JA1
• John Gohde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> W_JG1
• Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> W_JG2

• I don't mind doing AWB edits to support this, if people think it's worth doing. We should also talk to Rachel Marsden. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the other cases, but if Jon Awbrey has specifically stated he does not want to be renamed (cognizent that this will continue his negative google search), I really don't see why we should rename him. If he merely didn't care it might be a nice thing to do, but if he's opposed to it, I don't see why we should. MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If Jon's main account is renamed against his will there seems to be a chance that he comes back to do something about it. I don't know if it's worth risking that. But making his user page less obvious sounds like an excellent idea to someone who had to clean up only a tiny part of what he left… I really think his intentions were good. --Hans Adler (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as my information goes, which is at second-hand through a couple of sources, Jon's principal objection was that the same courtesy was not to be extended to others. I think there is self-evident merit in extending such a courtesy to anyone who registers a Wikipedia account which can be tied to RWI, whether they remain, leave or are thrown out. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The only issue with John Gohde is that he's pledged to come back in January 2009 when his latest 1-year ban from ArbCom expires. He probably ought to be formally community-banned, but he's not at present, so I'm not sure we ought to rename his account without his consent if he intends to come back and use it. MastCell ^Talk 20:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like this JA character is still causing trouble by proxy (and Guy is just being nice, not knowingly used). We offer to be nice and rename him, and he insists we do it for all real life names. If we're going to do anyone other than him, we really should establish it as policy. I assume that if any of these users did care, and contacted the foundation, their name would be changed in an instance, so I'm not sure why we need to change all these names without a compelling reason. Also, why rename Thekohser and MyWikiBiz, the don't look like names of real life persons, maybe a corporation, but not a real person. MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I explicitly object to the inclusion of MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), given that 1) it's a business name; 2) still the source of the occasional spamming attempt. Obscuring its history doesn't strike me as help for future editors encountering new spam. --Calton | Talk 01:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not that I disagree about spamming, but it is traceable to RWI. However, I'm not going to let the idea fall for want of inclusion of one disputed account. As a matter of principle, do we agree that people who have exited Wikipedia at the end of a boot should nonetheless be entitled to this courtesy? Guy (Help!) 13:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I do like the word "entitled". Saying users who are banned retain the right to vanish under a name change, is a good thing. Saying that we can force change names or that one banned user can proxy changes for other, inactive banned users, is another story. In this case, Awbrey has made it crystal clear he does not want to be changed unless the others on that list are changed. I don't see a compelling point for two of them, as I've said already, and I'd expect that we require the other listed users to acquicse through silence (ie we email them askig if they want to be renamed). So yes, good general idea Guy, but one that probably doesn't apply to what Awbrey wants us to do. MBisanz ^talk 16:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• I support changing the category of his sockpuppets etc, but I don't think a name change is a good idea. If someone wants their edits to be attributed to their real name, we should let them, banned or no. -- Naerii 01:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Offering the others the opportunity would appear to satisfy Awbrey's requirements, whether they accept it or not. Agreeing in principle, as you (Guy) said, that any banned user has the right to RTV seems to be just what he's asking for, oddly enough. --Random832 (contribs) 20:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does Awbrey get special consideration when many other long time contributors have received the scarlet letter based on dubious evidence from seekrit councils? Has he made a major contribution to the Foundation? Is he now dating Jimbo? —The Poison Pen  ^N 15:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Socking here is a bad idea. Please stop. If you are proud of your remarks, take credit for them. Jehochman ^Talk 15:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The question remains: Guy doesn't explain why Awbrey, if he is such an atrotious person, is being afforded special consideration when so many are not and are perpetually branded as banned abusive individuals on a top rated website. —The Poison Pen  ^N 17:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Review of User:WordBomb ban.

This discussion started at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland ban discussion/Part 2#User:WordBomb but really needs a wider audience.

WordBomb has said, off-site, that he would like a second chance and is willing to refrain from engaging in the sort of "IP harvesting", etc tactics that he was originally banned for. Is the community willing to give him a second chance? —Random832 (contribs) 21:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion, and would in that case be up for allowing a second chance. Caveat's: I'm less and less involved and paying attention to en.wikipedia, I'm not an olde tyme valued contributor/admin (so my opinion carries negative weight). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What are his stated reasons for wanting to return? My inclination would be to say that if anybody's earned an unreviewable ban, it's been him, but if we really believe this "preventative, not punitive" thing, we should at least take a look at it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Another question: as he ever before promised to refrain from such tactics, been taken up on it, and then betrayed the community's trust? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

to my limited knowledge, he's never so much as hinted that he'd be up for anything other than dancing on the graves of wikipedia's ruling cabal. Other than, or course his day one request of sv on how to properly raise his concerns about the coi of another editor. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• No chance. After what he put on antisocialmedia, plus all the socking, he wants us to let him back so he can continue to pursue his agenda? I am absolutely astounded that anybody in their right mind would even contemplate such a thing. He was banned for good cause, and his actions after he was banned proved beyond doubt that he is precisely the kind of person Wikipedia can do without. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban per Guy. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• As I said previously, I don't care for either party to the furore over Naked Short Selling to be contributing. I also am aware that WordBomb has said offsite that they hold certain information that could embarrass Wikipedia - which is not the sort of potential blackmail I feel the project needs if there were any problem with the editors contributions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC) ps. I agree with Guy as regards to socking - isn't it a shame that not all sockmasters are treated with such severity?
  • He's said a lot of things, and I think people have also said a fair number of things about him. Possibly he should be limited to article space for a long term, and as Random832 said, certainly he'd have to agree to discontinue any attempts to investigate editors' IPs, etc. For that matter, a 6 month or longer limitation to article space might be a fair chance to show his good faith if he likes. It would have to be a bit novel, but if it resolved the conflict it could be worth the effort. Mackan79 (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• While recognizing some potential problems involved, I support an unblock with editing restrictions similar as were applied in the Mantanmoreland arbitration. My first thought is to say he should be allowed to return only under a new account, but I think this raises the question of whether it's worthwhile to try to hide what is happening. On some consideration, I think the better option is probably to acknowledge that old disputes have to be resolved at some point. This wouldn't say that anything he's done has been right or wrong, but would start to treat him in a more normal fashion. One first step could be to unprotect his talk page and ask him to explain whether he's willing to contribute under editing restrictions, but if he is, then I think an unblock would be reasonable. Mackan79 (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• The way WordBomb has been demonized is beyond all reason. While it's questionable whether at this point he has any interest in participating in developing this encyclopedia, rather than simply trying to prove a point of some sort by getting unbanned, it's also unclear what purpose is served in maintaining the punitive ban. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The following is not a rhetorical question, so anyone who has an answer to it should please provide it: what harm could WordBomb do as an unblocked user that he can't do right now? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What, other than biasing content and pursuing his vendetta against SV and others you mean? Or are you suggesting that people who sockpuppet and engage in off-wiki attacks should be allowed back because they can't do much worse here? Guy (Help!) 07:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting nothing (hence my emphasis that it wasn't a rhetorical question); I'm trying to establish some context for my own benefit. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Evidence of reform would be good. A simple desire to come back should not be sufficient. How about letting him try to be productive on another Wikimedia project for a while? It is reasonable to have the length of a ban be related to total extent of disruption, and from what I have heard, that would justify a very long ban. Bans are not punitive but past disruption is our only predictor of future results, if there is no evidence of reform being entered here at all. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• The original block itself was made in bad faith. WordBomb, a new user unfamiliar with the rules, had agreed to abide by rules once they were pointed out to him [1] but, the block was given anyway [2] and then the blocking admin protected his uerspage so he couldn't ask about it [3]. He has promised to obey the rules and the original block was inappropriate. So, unblock. Cla68 (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• This ban has been upheld by the community for a period of months. I find your accusation of bad faith on the part of the admin who blocked here to be quite unwarranted, and uncivil, in fact. Dmcdevit·t 03:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's only recently been understood the extent WordBomb attempted to follow the site's processes, by requesting a mediation, agreeing not to post further, and contacting multiple admins and arbitrators all before doing anything that would have justified a ban. Unfortunately, all of the explanations since then have given an incomplete view of these events. This is largely what I think warrants another look, whether or not we think the initial block itself was justified. Mackan79 (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• (Note, I also find it funny that JzG is using the use of sockpuppets as a reason not to unblock. In case anyone doesn't know, JzG has admitted that he has several socks himself). Cla68 (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Have any of them been used disruptively as defined by WP:SOCK? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not that I know of. Cla68 (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Okay. I'm undecided on whether or not I favour giving WordBomb another chance, but it seems a little silly to suggest that Guy lacks the authority to criticize the use of ban-evading socks. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn ban, there is potential there to have a good editor and should that not be the case there is nothing to stop the ban being reimposed. Viridae^Talk 03:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• No. Even if the message WordBomb was trying to get across was largely right, the extremely disruptive way he conducted himself in doing so suggests that the chance of him becoming a productive member of the community seems pretty much nil. krimpet✽ 03:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Sometimes you've got to be a bit disruptive to accomplish a desirable end in the face of entrenched opposition. Or maybe Rosa Parks should have gone meekly to the back of the bus. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • WordBomb == Rosa Parks has got to be one of the wilder analogies I've ever seen here. o_O Seriously though, some of the tactics he's used have been rather shockingly underhanded (tricking folks into hitting his site-trackers, etc.), and his slew of sockpuppets has caused as much disruption to the project as the sockpuppeteer he was trying to expose. I don't foresee letting him back on the project ending well at all, especially once he runs into his first content dispute. Please, let's just put the chapter of the dueling short-selling warriors behind us, and get back to business. krimpet✽ 08:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
      • We may like simply to leave WordBomb blocked and forget about it, but I think the way this dispute has gone on should show why this is misguided. As long as WordBomb is banned, we're making him an enemy of the project. He can still say, correctly, that he was blocked inappropriately by involved editors, and that he's been mistreated ever since. Of course we can respond that he did things since then that justify his block, but since we're doing our own thing rather than engaging with critics, it doesn't seem to work very well. What's the other option? Give him a chance and see if he's actually able to edit. If he's not, then no harm done, and in fact we can block him this time for a legitimate reason. If he does edit productively, then all the better, and Wikipedia has one more contributor and one less critic. It's one of many reasons why a presumption in favor of letting people edit makes sense, particularly in cases where Wikipedia has itself clearly dropped the ball. Mackan79 (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Um, no, I think the original block was perfectly valid actually. Piling straight in with reports against an external opponent? Very clear evidence of an external battle brought to Wikipedia, an unambiguous "no thanks". The chances of WordBomb causing anything other then massive disruption are pretty remote; his actions while blocked reveal a character fundamentally unsuited to any collaborative environment. He'd be fine on Usenet, though. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure how you and Tony continue to talk as if the battle was one sided. You're assuming he couldn't edit productively, but it's an assumption, based on an intense and obvious dislike (not that you'd deny it). I think we all know WordBomb may edit productively, or he may not. My point is that we shouldn't presume, after a year and a half. Or if there are other conditions for returning, we should state them. I think Wikipedia would look better than it does under the current approach. Mackan79 (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• I think the block and ban should be reviewed independently by people who were not in any way involved in the controversy. Perhaps it would be a good idea for Wordbomb to email the Arbitration Committee to request a review. It is rather odd that a user was banned after a single block; however, I do not know the content of the edits that had to be oversighted. Sock puppetry is not uncommon when an inexperienced editor gets blocked. That issue is a red herring in my opinion. The question is, were the oversighted edits so egregious that this editor cannot be allowed to return? Jehochman ^Talk 04:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think the case for continued banning rests less in the content of the oversighted edits - which I believe consisted of attempts to out Wikipedia users editing the affected articles, although I could be mistaken - and more in WordBombs despicable conduct since the ban, which included pseudonymously e-mailing various editors links to dummy websites that he controlled in an effort to mine their IPs. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I see. Perhaps Wordbomb was engaged in a misguided effort to gather evidence to prove that his content opponents were engaged in rampant COI editing, as now appears to have been the case. I think the situation requires a de novo review by impartial arbitrators. Our goal here is to clear the stink, not necessarily to ban or unban somebody. Jehochman ^Talk 04:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• There are users who have been banned for the wrong reasons. This is not one of them. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Per his talk page, User:Rlevse already emailed a request to Arbcom. Leave it to them. Given the amount of socking over the long period of time, and the need to oversight his comments, I'll trust the people who have probably are the most fully informed of the situation. If Arbcom rejects his application, then he can try here again, but we shouldn't encourage forum-shopping. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• You know, quite apart from the off-wiki attacks, if you look at the contributions of the WordBomb account it was obviously registered solely to further an off-wiki agenda. It is asserted above that this could be a good user. I disagree, and I certainly don't see any evidence to support the idea. This is an agenda-driven individual who is unscrupulous in how he pursues his agenda, including trying to blackmail an administrator, and deliberately violating the privacy of editors. I just don't see how any of WordBomb's observed behaviour, in any known venue, indicates someone who would be anything other than trouble. Guy (Help!) 07:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• No way in hell. After all the crap he's pulled, he's a poster-child for indefinite banning. Raul654 (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• I think WordBomb's initial block was unjust. His subsequent behavior violated the standards of the site, but it must be considered in light of the behavior of his rival, who was much more insidiously manipulating our content and decision-making processes. Furthermore, it must be conceded that, had WB not violated our standards in his pursuit of his rival, we would not have corrected the Mantanmoreland problem, at least not until the damage had gone on for significantly longer. We're in a difficult position: WB was right and he went about it the wrong way, but he was never even given a chance to do things the right way; furthermore, had he not taken this wrong course, Wikipedia would be likely be left with the wrong outcome. Let's take the blame collectively: as a project, we massively failed to handle this whole conflict in anything remotely approaching an intelligent or productive manner (until quite recently). Let WordBomb edit if he wants to edit; the logic that Mantanmoreland will unable to cause further disruption due to all the eyes that are watching him works just as well when applied to WordBomb. Everyking (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Actually I think that is the precise opposite of the real situation. WordBomb was so self-evidently abusive, and so obviously pursuing an external agenda in the most vicious and aggressive way possible, that his bringing the dispute here actively impeded any proper investigation of the other accounts. Had WordBomb never arrived, it is more than likely we'd have diagnosed and corrected any problem with other editors, and with massively less drama into the bargain. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• You know, Mantanmoreland's first edit was to Naked short selling, to revert an edit that he mislabeled as "vandalism." Perhaps it's possible to be surprised what someone will do if they're not permanently blocked on their first day editing. Mackan79 (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You mean this revert? The material removed was indeed unsuitable for Wikipedia, if not actual vandalism. "It is difficult to argue with a straight face that there are benefits for the market to be had by defrauding investors" is not suitable for Wikipedia and as that content had been added many times I think it's reasonable to describe it as vandalism. There purpose was to damage Wikipedia by inserting the most slanted propaganda. Mantanmoreland correctly removed it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • Right, and you can read the version of the lead at that time and tell me if it was any better than what the IP added ("However, the extent to which this practice takes place has been widely exaggerated, and allegations of naked short-selling have historically been used as a scapegoat by pump-and-dump scam operators wishing to shift blame for the inevitable decline in manipulated stocks."). The point in any case is that Mantanmoreland said he was reverting vandalism, which it wasn't, and even that is shortly before he brought in two additional accounts to support his actions. If you're going to talk about early agenda pushing in this context, I think it's something you have to acknowledge. Mackan79 (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I notice that you're not really addressing my point that your characterization of Mantanmoreland's first edit was far from accurate, but simply reiterating your claim. Mantanmoreland did not write the words you quote. However it's broadly in line with the SEC's own statements on the matter [4]. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 05:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think you've forgotten what I originally said, which you agreed was correct. If you want to disagree on substance, you'll have to say that Mantanmoreland did not push an agenda in his early days of editing, as for instance when he created the Tomstoner and Lastexit accounts. The question, anyway, is if someone who pushes an agenda in early edits is capable of becoming a reasonable editor, and unless we're playing games I think we all know this is the case. Mackan79 (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Regardless of circumstances of his initial block, WordBomb's later behaviour says it all. No hope for his rebirth. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• No. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 09:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• I'm torn here. I don't think either Mantanmoreland or WorldBomb should be editing. I don't see a relevant difference between the two accounts. But we clearly were unable as a community to reach consensus to show Mantanmoreland the door. I continue to believe that either both should be allowed to edit, or neither should be allowed to edit. I'd rather see neither editing than both. But the community won't go for the neither option, so I'm believing that we should allow both to edit under the same restrictions. GRBerry 14:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  I agree with GRBerry in what he says regarding Mantanmoreland. but I don't think we are likely to get any consensus here. George The Dragon (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• The circumstances around his initial ban are questionable enough that, if we ignored his subsequent behavior, a good case could be made for reviewing his ban. But his behavior since then has positioned him as an antagonist toward Wikipedia and its editors. He has chosen to war against those whom he deems to have done him (or his employer) wrong, turning Wikipedia and related sites into a battleground. A review of WordBomb's ban must take this into account. I don't think his ban should be reversed until he does a few things: publicly commit to taking a collaborative and not adversarial approach to editing here; voluntarily accept the same editing restrictions as those that Arbcom imposed on Mantanmoreland; publicly acknowledge and apologize for his specific actions since his ban that have disrupted Wikipedia; and publicly apologize to individual editors whom he has attacked or whose personal information he has sought to discover by deceptive means. He needs to persuade the community not that the original ban was unjust, but that a ban reversal will not lead to the same bad behavior as before. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Uhhh, no. Some bans are meant to stick, and when one uses socks to cause disruption after their ban, that is a good indication it is that type. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• In principle, forgiveness is a great virtue and bans & blocks are preventative, not punitive. But no case has been made to not expect further disruption of the kind already extensively engaged in. Until such a case is made, I'm unsure how one could justify this. WilyD 16:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• How could that case be made? I find it hard to see how someone would be expected to show their ability to edit productively when they were blocked in less than a day. At the same time, his early agreement to stop posting on the topic, his attempt to pursue mediation, and his efforts to contact other administrators when he felt he was being treated unfairly would suggest that he could be a productive editor if he'd been given the chance. Mackan79 (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no consensus that the original block and ban were at all unreasonable. Far from it. People who come to Wikipedia to defame others are not welcome. He did that and he admitted that doing so was his intent. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Well, I can't imagine anywhere else a non-editor pointing out that someone was editing their own bio would be treated as cause for a permanent ban. These kinds of things concern the public, and should be taken as our responsibility to address. Of course, they also concern real life rivals in prominent disputes that have already been brought on Wikipedia. The problem here was that someone was blocked for raising this, even after agreeing not to, and with several hours passing in between. We're saying he didn't show that he could learn, but in fact he did, and then was blocked anyway. That's the problem. People still don't want to acknowledge this, but at some point I think it would smart just to do so and thereby sever ties with the whole affair. Mackan79 (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • You know the facts. This fellow had come to Wikipedia to make wild claims and defame a journalist. The ban was absolutely spot on. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 05:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• There are a couple of issues raised here which are being conflated. First, WordBomb's claims about Mantanmoreland appear likely to have been correct. Second, many believe, quite reasonably, that Mantanmoreland should have drawn a harsher penalty in the ArbCom case. However, these issues have little bearing on the question of whether WordBomb should be un-banned. The sole criterion for making that decision is whether an unban is likely to help or harm the encyclopedia. I have yet to see an editor come to Wikipedia for the express purpose of importing an external dispute or agenda and turn into a net plus to the encyclopedia, while I've seen countless examples of the damage such editors cause. Our goal here is not to fairly adjudicate an imported dispute involving WordBomb and Mantanmoreland, but to build a useful encyclopedia. I don't see an unblock contributing to that goal. MastCell ^Talk 18:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Interestingly, several in the community decided to ban Mantanmoreland. A single (though there were more) dissenting editor was enough to determine "no consensus, ban overturned, no wheel war". I'd love to see the reaction that applying a similar principle in this case would get. Several comments above have said "the community has decided. consensus. enough.", but apparently not - at least not by the same principles as applied to Mantanmoreland. We wouldn't want differing standards, would we? Achromatic (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps because Mantanmoreland didn't abuse Wikipedia to pursue an external agenda, attack Wikipedia editors in good standing, try to blackmail an administrator, violate the privacy of others and so on. Just guessing here. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, actually he did some of those things. Relata refero (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• It's simply incorrect to say that "a single dissenting editor" would have been enough to anull the proposed ban of Mantanmoreland. Crucially, moreover, he has made many good edits and worked well with other editors for a period of some years now. If he's some kind of menace to Wikipedia, he's doing a good job of concealing it. WordBomb, on the other hand... --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 07:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think Mantanmoreland should be banned, but I'm not sure WP:OTHERSTUFFISUNBANNED is a good unban rationale for WordBomb. I think at this point I'm against an unban, although I reserve the right to change my mind if WordBomb actually explains why he wants to be unbanned and what useful work he expects to accomplish. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not...never, no way. He can always create another account anyway...anyone can. This is pointy nonsense sponsored yet again by the WR gangsters.--MONGO 05:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If people want to say he can return under another account, that's fine with me. I think we should be more specific, though, and say the new account should not edit any of the articles restricted to Mantanmoreland. If this kind of thing worked out over time (or didn't), then it's also something we could reexamine in the future. Mackan79 (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think GRBerry best expressed my own opinion: either ban both WordBomb and Mantanmoreland, or none. And much as I dislike Wordbombs actions post blocking, let us take into account that A: He was possibly blocked unfairly (so much has been oversighted that it is really impossible to tell). B: he was blocked by an admin who, it has been claimed[5], had "massive COI". Also, I must say this in favour of WordBomb: he is now quite open about his sock-pupettering and other tactics. After reading the massive evidence in the Mantanmorland arb. com. case, I cannot say I feel I quite trust that Matanmorland has showed the same honesty. Regards, Huldra (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's indeed impossible to tell all of what happened, but here's what I've been able to find in terms of WordBomb's perspective of the early events: i.) He was blocked five hours after first agreeing not to post his claim further, and two hours after making the same concession again. No evidence has been presented that he went against this agreement. ii.) The two accounts who warned him before he was blocked were both operated by Mantanmoreland, as WordBomb was aware. iii.) He was blocked by an admin who'd been editing with Mantanmoreland on another article that day, and who said that his claim about Mantanmoreland was incorrect while protecting his talk page. iv.) WB next attempted to email two other admins (one arb) for assistance, telling them about another account he created to learn more about sockpuppetry protocol and presumably to pursue the mediation case he had started. v.) Only because those admins alerted SV and she blocked this new account did any communication with her continue. I agree, as I've said, that it's regrettable he then attempted to discern whether SV was reviewing the evidence that he sent her, but in context, I also don't think it is exactly surprising or supportive of the way some people have viewed his actions. Mackan79 (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

When did WB attempt to "email two other admins (one arb) for assistance"? What evidence do you have that he e-mailed an arb? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

WordBomb said on his blog, if not elsewhere, that he emailed Humus sapiens and you, before SV arrived to block his new account IPFrehley.[6] Is this contested? I can't see what IPFrehley posted or didn't since presumably it has been deleted or oversighted, but WB seemed to believe his emails were how SV became aware of the account. Mackan79 (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Another comment on the invalidity of WordBomb's original block. After researching the policies and the COI Noticeboard and other pages, it's very evident that the outing of editors is allowed in order to prove COI. This is what WordBomb was trying to do. If you'll check the COI Noticeboard, both the current page and the archives, you'll see a lot of outing going on. Again, WordBomb's original block was invalid and made in bad faith. Cla68 (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd correct this in that it's been made clear that WordBomb initially inserted something into the article itself saying that Weiss was editing his own bio, which is of course against policy. The question is how far this really goes for a new user, when he then agreed twice not to post further on the subject well before he was blocked. The bad faith in all of it was most clearly Mantanmoreland's, who first used a sockpuppet to warm WordBomb,[7] and then came an hour after WB had already agreed to Mantanmoreland[8] and his sockpuppet[9] not to post further on the matter to request on trumped up claims that WordBomb be indefinitely blocked.[10] I think the interaction with SV at that point suffered from several problems, but clearly these actions from Mantanmoreland were the major issue. That said, I hope others will offer further thoughts on how to resolve this, whether it requires another thread or some other discussion. Mackan79 (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

feh. we like our double standards, and that's really all there is to it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

People can listen to todays NotTheWikipediaWeekly ( the third bit of the sixth NotTheWikipediaWeekly), where "Wordbomb chats about the events surrounding his involvement in the wiki". Regards, Huldra (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Admins editing fully protected pages

Could someone look into the matter of admins casually making routine changes (wikifying, grammar correction, adding fact tags) to fully-protected pages? Even if these are routine, non-controversial changes (except maybe the fact tag), admins making such changes unwittingly spread a perception that there are two classes of editors: the regular editors (who are stopped by full protection) and the admins (who can't be stopped by even full protection). One such case today was the editing of the Race and Intelligence article by User:The Anome. While I have no problems with the edits per se, I am concerned by the message it may convey. Comment would be appreciated.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• If it's an unambiguously valid change and helps clarify issues to be addressed on talk, I don't see why it would be a big deal, myself. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-admins can use the {{editprotected}} template to make uncontroversial changes on protected pages. I don't see why admins should be banned from taking a more convenient method for such changes. However, in the case where this is any potential controversy behind the change, I agree that admins should exercise restraint, just as any other editor must. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I would add that the readers of the encyclopedia, who may or may not stumble onto a "fully protected" page or even know what that means, would expect to find a clean article and would perhaps find it helpful/professional if things were spelled right, etc. Non-admins can make edit requests for routine fixes that are handled by admins rather proficiently and noncontroversially. So, if an admin notices a routine change first, that's just one less step. Nothing more. A model of efficiency! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Um no. You forget that admins are editors. If editors have to go through a certian process to get edits made so do admins. Apart from anything else it reduces the temptation for admins to put barriers in the way of editors.Geni 02:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Agree. I think sometimes we forget that there are readers out there, and if we can improve their experience, we should. But only for gnomish corrections. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't do any major rewrites. But if you can fix an obvious grammatical error or make a spelling correction, do it, without a second thought. This is kind of a common sense issue, really: if you can improve the encyclopedia, do it. I expect anyone being challenged for making something simple like a spelling correction would find plenty of backup. I've done it many times and no one has ever complained. Antandrus (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just so. And I'd add to that something like a {{fact}} tag on something that requires citation, or other uncontroversial maintenance-type changes that will actively help debate on the talk page. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has been in this sitution, a few things need to be borne in mind. First off, if an admin is editing an article they protected, or were involved in the editing of it at the time it was protected, those "minor" changes might very well be what the dispute was over in the first place - particularly {{fact}} tags. There is a reason why pages are locked in the "wrong version" and should stay there until either protection expires or consensus is reached on the talk page. Admins can use the "editprotected" tag too, ensuring that a neutral third party is the one making the correction. At a minimum, any admin making even minor edits to a protected page should indicate on the talk page of the article what they have done and why. I'll point out that in some of our sister projects, including the German Wikipedia, editing a protected page for any reason other than "editprotected" requests will result in an automatic desysopping. I would like to think that is not necessary; having said that, in at least three cases where I was requesting edit protection on pages, admins edited through the protection to make substantive changes. Risker (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Risker. I would hope that more admins and editors can abide by the principle of "avoid even the appearance of impropriety." Remember that there is no deadline and it's much worse to harm trust between admins and editors than allow minor issues to remain in protected articles. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that it obviously does not apply in this case. The Anome last edited that article months ago, November 2007 I think, and has made only a handful of edits to it at all. Part of what needs to be done with that article is to clarify the areas which are in need of better sourcing, and to ruthlessly prune it of advocacy. I don't see any evidence to suggest that what The Anome did was anything other than precisely that. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyone has the "authority" to make non-controversial changes to a protected page, admins have the "ability". A user without admin tools can use {{editprotected}}, as can an admin who is too involved to use their tools. If an edit turns out to be controversial then it should be reversed on request, and if it appears that one intentionally made a controversial edit to a protected page then it should be treated as a serious issue. But I see no point in forbidding productive, non-controversial edits by those who have the ability to do so.

I do however agree that adding or removing {{fact}} tags is far to likely to be controversial to do when a page is protected without a check on the talk page first. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, heaven forbid someone fixes the grammar in an article or links a word! What's next, fixing spelling errors? Mr.Z-man 17:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You haven't been reading WP:LAME, have you? Spelling is one of the main themes there. Risker (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for raising this concern. Didn't want to start a lame war; just wanted to know if regular editors and admins were on equal footing in editing articles. I guess I got my answer. --Ramdrake (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This is why I have long been an advocate of splitting apart the admin tools so they can be distributed more widely. --Haemo (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that would fix anything; people who can edit fully-protected pages will still do so, regardless if they aren't "full admins", for lack of a better phrase. This whole thread is dealing about very particular and isolated incidents in a very broad fashion, which is almost always a Bad Thing.
Personally, I've edited fully-protected pages in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. Just because there's a dispute about content doesn't mean I shouldn't fix a typo when i find it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. "Any modification to a fully-protected page should be discussed on its talk page or another appropriate forum". Any. You got that? Remember admin and editing functions are seperate and when you are editing you must act like an editor and that means not useing your admin powers. Want an edit made to a protected page? Use {{edit protected}}. Think that is to much of a burden? Try and get admins to protect fewer pages.Geni 02:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still see that as a horrible amount of bureaucracy. Typos need to be approved by committee? Sorry, no, not a fan of that idea. This whole argument is centered around administrators making controversial edits to fully-protected pages; that is something that we're in agreement about being a bad thing, and isn't what I'm suggesting/mentioning. I see absolutely no reason why I shouldn't edit a fully-protected page if there's something mundane to be done, such as my typo example above, or something more pressing, a link going to the wrong page (to use an example I've seen recently, a link to "batman" going to Batman instead of Batman (military)).
Protection should be used only to prevent vandalism or disruptive edits, not to prevent valid, constructive contributions; the fact that only administrators can edit the page is strictly a technical distinction, and there's no valid reason (in my mind) to eschew constructive edits because of an unrelated matter. If an admin is making protected edits inappropriately, take it up with the admin making the edits, don't hold it against everyone else. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Reality check: No admin worthy of the mop should make contentious edits to a protected page. That's one of the reasons they were trusted with the tools in the first place. To require permission to correct mis-spellings and barbarous language for trusted members of the community is disingenuous and unworthy. If it gets beyond that, fine. Otherwise... --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If you find asking for permission to be unacceptable there are about 2.3 million articles you can edit without doing so. When editing same rules must apply to admins as everyone else.Geni 02:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct. I find it absolutely astonishing that this is considered controversial, and that so very many admins believe that they have some special privilege when it comes to editing -- controversial changes or not. If 'editprotected' is so convenient, why on earth shouldn't an admin use it the same as anybody else? Frankly, we ought to take the 'mop' cliche more to heart and rename RFAdminship to RFJanitorship. Might serve as a more visceral reminder of what the sysop bit is about. If this special editing privilege is the new consensus, that should be made very clear over at RFA. I've seen plenty of people voted in with essentially zero article writing, and plenty of oppose votes for edits primarily in article-space instead of wiki-space. Unit56 (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Argh. I've just noticed this discussion: "unwitting" is exactly right, I'm afraid I didn't even notice the page was protected at the time. Although I believe my edits were harmless and uncontroversial in themselves, I agree with the posters above that admins shouldn't in general edit protected pages, on the principle of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety; I've now reverted my edits back to the previous version. -- The Anome (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If the principle holds that when it comes to editing, all editors should have fairly equal rights, would it be worthwhile to suggest to the developpers adding a message that pops up when an admin is about to edit a fully-protected page, something like this page is currently protected; are you sure you want to edit it? so that they have an occasion to consider if the edit is really needed? Just a thought here.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, something like an extra click-through step would be a good idea. Even though there is currently a red warning message above the edit box for fully-protected pages, it's too easy to miss it occasionally. -- The Anome (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The current message is MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning. Perhaps its meaning would be more obvious if it were visually similar to Template:pp-protected. Maybe:

Bovlb (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Eww. No. There's nothing wrong with the current message. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could at least add a little lock to make the meaning clear at a glance.

Bovlb (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• It won't help. Protection does not cause an edit conflict, so if it is protected while the admin has the edit window open, they will get no indication that anything happened. (Is there a bug open for this? I can't find it if there is.) --Random832 (contribs) 20:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sure that could happen, but I don't think it's the common case. The example given above was of an admin simply failing to notice. Bovlb (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Max Mosley BLP

Please help keep an eye on possible WP:BLP violations in the article Max Mosley. Mosley is the subject of a sensationalist tabloid article, making the article a vandal magnet. Aecis^Brievenbus 14:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Heck, I hope nobody includes the comment "most powerful person in F1" without it being referenced - I don't think Bernie Ecclestone would appreciate it... LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I'm engaging in a coverup. Anyone else think that tabloids are not reliable sources? This could be a serious BLP issue, and now it's evidently been linked from 4chan. Not so good. Antandrus (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it mostly from a single user (User:Logicaldisaster), but he does point out there is now a video clip on YouTube repeating the allegation. Is that now worth a mention or should it be kept off? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm reading BLP too literally, but I don't think YouTube is a reliable source either, and a "Nazi sex orgies" section on the biography of a living person really needs to be sourced to something reliable and mainstream. The way I understand it, this is exactly the kind of case for which BLP was written. Thanks for your help, Antandrus (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

They have evidence of the Loch Ness Monster on YouTube, too... LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• F1 is huge, if it's real then it will be in the Telegraph by next Saturday (motoring section) if not before. We can wait for a better source than the news of the Screws. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It was covered in The Times today. online link. I think it has moved on from being tabloid speculation now, yet I don't know how we could integrate it into the article without considering the BLP implications. Woody (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I wonder about some people. I mean, he's a smart man, he knows what the world thinks of Oswald Mosley ad his friends, so what does he do? Has a nazi-themed orgy. That could never backfire, could it? D'oh! Guy (Help!) 09:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Names we won't see here any time soon: Mosley Spitzer [Surname]. — Athaenara ✉ 15:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Need help fixing my mistake

Hi all, technical question for you (sorry if this isn't the right place, but I think I need an admin to sort it out... I tried over at AN/I a few days back, but it got archived without anyone ever responding). A while back, when I was still (even more) inexperienced and all, I found that someone had changed information in the article Adam Russell from its current form of a redirect to Story of the Year, to information on a baseball player. Not wanting to just cut-and-paste move that information (especially assuming that those editors interested in the baseball player would be looking for it again), I did a page move to Adam W. Russell (which has since been moved to Adam Russell (baseball)). Anyway, long story short - I didn't realize that ALL of the page history went with the move. Since there used to be a fair amount of information on the original Adam Russell before his page was changed to a redirect to the band he's in, and I assume that someone *might* eventually want to put it back, I was wondering if there's any way to copy the page history (either all, or up to and including November 13, 2007) (or split it) back to Adam Russell from Adam Russell (baseball). If not, okay, but I just wanted to check. (My current "remedy" was to leave a note on the Talk page for the original Adam Russell mentioning where the history was, but...) Thanks, --Umrguy42 (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. Mostly involves deleting the article, restoring the edits you want, moving the page and restoring the rest. I'd offer to help but I admittedly have no clue what to do either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I looked at that... the problem is, what we have is pretty much the exact *opposite* of a cut-and-paste move - I did a straight-up move to begin with to avoid the cut-and-paste situation, and to avoid possible edit-warring with those looking to work on the baseball player's page... and now I'm wondering if we can do a history *split* instead of a history merge. Thanks, --Umrguy42 (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Just an update, this can be marked "resolved" thanks to Ckatz! --Umrguy42 (talk) 08:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Implementing "approved versions" for Evolution

This article has been under attack from a long-term vandal for many months now. The article was indefinitely semi-protected, but due to User:Tile join this seems no longer to be a viable option. Since I don't like the idea of simply indefinitely full-protecting the page and screening edits from the talkpage, I have created Talk:Evolution/draft article and would like people to watchlist this and transfer constructive edits to the main article. I realise this is a little unconventional, but I honestly think this is the best option at this stage. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm very interested to see how this works out, and how it's received - you're probably aware that it's a kind of implementation of 'stable revisions' which is almost ready to go - presumably consensus at the draft page would determine if a change 'stuck'? - Privatemusings (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this could be a good test case. It would be useful to see how well and how often constructive changes to the draft were implemented on the main article. Everyking (talk) 03:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, if these socks are an issue, why not checkuser the lot?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's been done multiple times. Hut 8.5 06:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• This is not the page to implement a test of a major and controversial policy change. DGG (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You should do this for global warming, IPCC and related articles too. 71.174.111.245 (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DGG and I think the IP's comments show why- if we allow it for evolution, why not every other controversial article? Suddenly, BAM, we're not free for anyone to edit. J Milburn (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We have been using checkuser, Ryūlóng, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tile join and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tile join. This is pretty much the last resort, since this vandal seems now to be hopping across a broad range of IP addresses. Our options here appear to be either constantly switching from full to semi-protection and blocking a new batch of socks and the associated IP every 2-3 days (see the last 2 months of the evolution article's protection log), or experimenting with full-protection of the main article and a completely unprotected page to make requested edits. Other ideas would be very welcome. I am willing to continue with the semi/full protection cycle if there is a consensus that this is the best option, but this has become a serious waste of time for everybody involved. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a form of "full protection", since anyone can edit, even random IPs. What it could do is stop vandalism from presenting itself to readers. Voice-of-All 17:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I've clarified that above. A point to raise is that with the present full-protect/semi-protect cycle, editing is restricted to admins only for about half the time, and autoconfirmed editors for the remainder. This proposal is intended as an improvement on what we are currently doing and as a way to open editing up to a wider range of contributors. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

J Milburn, you misunderstood why I specifically mentioned global warming and IPCC. Scibaby's socks have attacked these articles assiduously since December 2007. I documented more than 50 Scibaby sockpuppets until March 16, and more have caused mayhem since then. It is beyond ridiculous that Wikipedia administrators allow this disruption to continue unabated.

I still have not forgiven a group of experienced users and administrators for supporting the indefinite block of an innocent editor.

I will not participate in a community where innocent users are banned. If you think that allowing sockpuppets to vandalize articles with impunity is the best way to manage this website, you are wrong. If you think that the current system encourages legitimate users to contribute to controversial articles, you are even more wrong.

TimVickers' idea for reform is long overdue. It's time to prevent sockpuppets from disrupting high-profile articles. The failed strategy of "Revert, block, ignore" does nothing to stop the vandal from finding a new IP and starting over as many times as he wants. Full-protecting the main article and directing edits to a draft page will ensure that sockpuppets no longer have the ability to disrupt high-profile artilces in real time.

I applaud TimVickers for trying to solve a real problem. I express my dismay that some other users refuse to acknowledge the disastrous extent of this problem.

You can add my username to the Missing Wikipedians list. I am not the first person who has departed the community because of frustration with the intolerable tolerance for vandalism and sockpuppetry. If the current policies remain in place, I will not be the last. 71.174.111.245 (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To get a very clear idea of why this is necessary, look at the revision history of the draft article. The vandal is using a new IP for each edit. At least this approach is keeping the resulting disruption away from the readers of the main article. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Concrete proposal

I've been thinking about how we might run this experiment, and what it could tell us. What do people think about using this two-page system until April, when the current test of "Stable Versions" on meta will be complete?

Running this experiment will do two things. Firstly, it will resolve a long-term vandalism problem and make it easier for non-administrators to change the evolution article. Secondly, it will provide data on how one form of "Stable versions" works in practice and provide a real-life case for the community to consider. I therefore propose that we try this novel arrangement until April, and then consider how well it has worked as part of the decision-making process on the stable versions software. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this sounds like a perfectly reasonable experiment. — Scientizzle 23:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Support. Article protection mechanisms should only be used when needed. But when an article is under very strong attack and the usual mechanisms are failing, we should be willing to consider unusual ideas. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I support this, both on its individual merits, and because I think we generally need to be more willing to experiment with new ideas, to see if they work, and see how they can be tweaked to work better. Instead, it seems we often resist changing anything because it might not work. So, I mostly support this because I'm curious if it will work or not, and I think that's a reasonable reason. -barneca (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it has certainly worked to stop the vandalism, as shown in the draft article history the vandal blanked the page a few times and then got bored attacking a sub-page that few people would be reading. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Since people seem OK with this as an experiment, I've moved the draft article into mainspace at Evolution/draft article. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's that time of year again

I'm going to try to keep a list of the various April Fool's Pranks... if you come across one, and think it's funny, report it here or on my Talk Page. This will hopefully keep nine million threads from spawning in the next 24 hours (it's already April 1st UTC, so be prepared) SirFozzie (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, ypur talk page redirects to the article on "Never Gonna Give You Up". Is this a prank on your part, or on someone else's? -- Korax1214 (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sir. Jehochman ^❤ 01:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

With Ima Hogg on the main page, someone I think the vandals might be a bir more in force than usual today as well. I'm sure she's happy she's not herself alive to see this day, though. John Carter (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the WP:TFA is really neat - both the choice of article selected and the blurb writeup itself. Cirt (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wizardman (talk · contribs) requesting a CheckUser on Bearian (talk · contribs). Aecis^Brievenbus 01:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think April fools pranks are shameful and even signature jokes should be a blockable offence. You! - Crank dat Soulja

EEK! Tiptoety ^talk 01:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this discussion has not yet received consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for process. Please seek consensus there, first, before discussing process. --slakr^\ talk / 01:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry....Actually who gave you the authority to say that? Have you asked permission to do so at Wikipedia:Requests for process? Tiptoety ^talk 01:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No, no no, you have it wrong. You decide the process to judge consensus.. of course you need concensus on the process, so you need a consensus on the process of the consensus... *head explodes* SirFozzie (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I daresay it's YOU who have flagrantly ignored our existing Requests for process-requesting processes system. I have therefore blocked you for 1 femtosecond. FCYTravis (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that block was out of process FCYTravis, there for you are blocked! Tiptoety ^talk 01:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, who put the new message bar on ANI? :) Tiptoety ^talk 01:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflictx3, guys stop editconflicting me or I'll miss my bedtime!!!; 3.1415926535897932384626) Um...^^ ~AH1^(TCU) 01:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

New message bars abounding...just reverted the one on ANI... --Smashville^BONK! 01:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oooo...but i kept falling for it over and over. Tiptoety ^talk 01:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Priapism_Acceptance_Movement Bearian (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Genius. John Reaves 02:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing like an April Fools' Day wheel war... WODUP 02:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I have blocked User:James086 indef for violation of WP:SIGNATURE. Tiptoety ^talk 02:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems people cannot resist the temptation to fool around with the almighty powers of Jimbo either either: Jimbo's User Rights Log.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

They're not 'crats; they're admins. *sticks pin in Persian Poet Gal's dignity balloon* —Kurykh 02:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well its already been popped repeatedly today...I blocked an admin sockpuppeting his own userpage and I believe EVula retired when that was also (surprise, surprise)...a prank.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

And I blocked User:Keilana indef for it as well. Feel free to review my actions.. :) Tiptoety ^talk 02:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Any non-involved admin care to decline Keilana's unblock request? :) Tiptoety ^talk 02:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I decline it! :P (Wow, 4RR and blatant admin impersonating. Shame on me.) -WarthogDemon 02:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I shall now declare my intent to type a comment on user talk page, and revert it. I shall then revert the reversion and then revert that reversion. You see, I intend to be the first editor ever to break 3RR with himself! :P -WarthogDemon 02:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

BEHOLD!. -WarthogDemon 02:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Whom ever just changed the blocked text, that was a good one. I just (not purposefully) just blocked and IP per m:IRC, when I thought I was blocking for vandalism. Oh well... Tiptoety ^talk 03:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I had my fun [11] for a good eleven minutes. Spoilsport User:David Levy got in a bit of a huff [12] though. I swear, no sense of humor! Oh well, same time next year. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted, right? Tiptoety ^talk 03:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

nah this year was a disappointment 68.237.239.228 (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your "fun" as I would to any vandalism. If anything, administrators should be held to a higher standard.

I don't appreciate being denigrated because I didn't give you preferential treatment, and your repeated removal of my polite warning (first via administrative rollback, and then via a manual edit that you falsely labeled "minor") leads me to believe that you either have no respect for our rules of conduct or think that you're above them. —David Levy 04:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, man, it was a harmless joke...chill out. --Smashville^BONK! 04:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Stick+mud never has good results. John Reaves 04:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, maybe we all need to take a short break from all this fun, and get back to doing some real admin work. I know my contribs has nothing by arpil fools edits right now. Tiptoety ^talk 04:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a real admin...I just think the "noticeboard" is a place to get "noticed" (hey ladies...I have hot water!)...so I'm gonna go knock on each of the neighbors' doors and tell them I am their son...it's also a good way to meet them... --Smashville^BONK! 04:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nor does sysop bit + vandalism. —David Levy 04:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding the word "poopy" to an article also could be regarded as a "harmless joke," but it typically results in the same type of polite warning that I left for Ryan. The key difference is that an administrator should know better, not that he/she is exempt from our rules. —David Levy 04:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Meh, April Fools. I made my user page befit the season, since I don't plan to vandalize Wikipedia for fun... JuJube (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

<music>It's the most wonderful tiiiiiiiiiiiime of the yearrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..."</music>

Well I believe this holiday can be educational which is why I have changed my userpage for a lesson in internet safety. Always remember that people on the internet are not always who they appear to be. I'm afraid the changes I have made reveal quite a bit about who I have really been this whole time.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 05:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Now may be a good time to point at Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal". --Iamunknown 05:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Main page unprotected :X [13] :) SQL^{Query me!} 05:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, not really, I *am* that lame... SQL^{Query me!} 06:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming you saw Kurt's RfA? 68.237.239.228 (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

and then the attempt to have it deleted. 68.237.239.228 (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hah! Okay, that's amusing. The talk page of the RFA is worth a perusal as well... Tony Fox (arf!) 15:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

number of RfA's opposed: all. :D 68.237.239.228 (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

RfB in userspace, which somehow also got listed at WP:RfA. 68.237.239.228 (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It got moved after it was pointed out that jokes should be transcluded from userspace. I've done the same with my request for oversightship. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:FUN, is now a policy. I can think of a few people to start blocking for violating it. Tiptoety ^talk 21:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You should be quick, because Wikipedia:Blocking policy is about to be deleted. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm a minority of one here, but I think all these admins abusing their powers to play pranks should be desysopped and anyone playing pranks on the main page or in articles should be blocked for a week. Every year we endure this foolishness. An absolutely hardline reaction is needed to keep it from happening again. Everyking (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

TBH I don't think the broom should be used for next year's pranks, either to perpetrate them or cover them up. It is more in the spirit of the season to use ordinary editing tools. (By the way, Calling someone a vandal for an entertaining edit of a Wikipedia: namespace page, that did not even change the meaning, is bad karma.) That's one person's opinion, fwiw. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)y

ANI is locked

Resolved

Can someone please check on User:AkhtaBot. When adding interwiki links to templates, it is adding them outside the noinclude tags and causing the interwiki links to show up in places they shouldn't be. Please help/block(?) the bot until the code is updated. kthxbai. --198.185.18.207 (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Useful link for reversions: [14] --198.185.18.207 (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

We're talking 1,500 reverts. I'm gonna need a script! MBisanz ^talk 16:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Much better than reverting would be moving the <noinclude>, by the way :) Gracenotes^T § 17:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Do tell, does this use some AWB append thing? MBisanz ^talk 19:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, but rollback is easy enough... Soxred93 | talk bot 19:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant if the edits were good content, but poorly formatted, then AWB-fixing themwould be better than reverting them out of existence. MBisanz ^talk 20:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I just checked some edits and it seems that the problem only occurs when adding interwiki links to a page without any interwiki links. So not all edits are bad. It's a known problem though. Bots shouldn't autonomously interwiki templates. --Erwin85 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry for this, i checked it, and i found it known problem, here and here , i will not run python bot on templates until fixing this bug. is there any way to update template interwiki without problems? --Bassem JARKAS (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

may i suggest you unblock and let him run without touching templates? Санта Клаус (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked; the owner has agreed not to process any templates in the future unless the bug noted above in interwiki.py is fixed. It appears that other editors have already reverted the bot's template changes. EdJohnston (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Paper Wikipedia?

Just noticed the following article in The Editor magazine:

Following the recent milestone of 10 million articles, the Wikimedia foundation, owners of Wikipedia have released a long awaited paper version of the online encyclopedia. Priced at just $29.99 per each of the 29 volumes, this long term project has finally seen reality. Starting in January 2001, this 8th wonder of the world has taken over seven years to complete and is now available for anyone. It is an encyclopedia that is like no other - it contains every bit of information that anyone could possibly want to know about, and the best bit is - just like on the online encyclopedia, readers can submit by sending alterations to the San Fransisco office. In the same way, they can submit new entries to be included.

Founder Jimmy Wales stated: "After over seven years online, we thought it would be a nice change to move to a more traditional paper encyclopedia. We've had numerous issues, what with biographies of living people and other various issues with reliability, so Wikipedia on paper is the next step forward."

Much in the same style as the online version, the new paper encyclopedia has similar style pages, minus the edit button and discussion pages - article discussions have to be done by meeting the users in question, and submitting the change to the office.

Some have foreseen possible issues with the new encyclopedia. Larry Sanger, founder of Citizendium has noted that since every single article has been included, there will obviously be problems with articles that have been tagged for additional sources, and false statements. "It would be better kept as an online encyclopedia" he said. Others have praised the idea, saying it would be useful for those without access to the internet.

We at The Editor intend to buy this encyclopedia, and so should you: every penny goes to charity, that doesn't go towards paying for expenses made for creating each copy. A review will be out in a week's time, on April 8th, so if you intend to buy it, we suggest you wait for our review.

Paige Turner, Computer & Internet Editor, April 1st 2008

What do people think of this? Majorly (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I already ordered the whole set. - Bobet 16:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Blighter needs to learn to spell. It's "San Francisco." John Carter (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You should contact Ms Turner and inform her of this major error. Majorly (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hell, that's cheaper than toilet paper! Count me in. -- Naerii 16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the Google Print Edition myself. - Bilby (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

They intend to read the entire thing in a week? How many staff members are there?--MrFish^{Go Fish} 18:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably, they will deliver you a pack of corrections every morning so that you can replace the bad edits in the previous version. --Tone 18:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm an admin on the paper version. I already used a magic marker to add several {{fact}} tags and ripped out a few pages that looked like nonsense. The problem I have is that sometimes there's useful content in the reverse side of the removed pages, so I ended up applying glue to the nonsense sides and pasting them over other undesirable content, but this has made it difficult to keep everything in alphabetical order. I've suggested they only print on one side of each page in the revised versions. - Bobet 18:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. This is how Wikipedia was edited in the Middle ages. --Tone 18:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I just ordered three. I mean, really, at just $30 a volume, that's a steal! EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What happens if you get a special variant where an entry in volume "G" includes the notable fact about George Washington that "Frank from Reno sucks dogs off lol" ? Lawrence § t/e 19:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally something useful from wikipedia. I just spoke to the guys at wikimedia foundation and if you order by midnight today you'll also get one bottle of whiteout, one pencil (with sharpener and eraser), six admins to rip out any pages you add to the book, and one hundred and ninety three unreconstructed nationalists who will work diligently into the night to remove all negative references to their nations from the book. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Editorofthewiki 20:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course not, surely somebody printed two million articles and organized them into 200,000 pages-long books. ;-) - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely they can put more than one stub on a page. Stop exaggerating CHQ! It would only be 100,000 pages per volume.  :)Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't be silly, it must be one stub per page, single-sided, or we wouldn't be able to delete things from the book. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, of course. How silly of me. I'll set up a new template for PfD. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

For those that are curious, here's what a paper version of Wikipedia would have looked like in August: Image:Size of English Wikipedia in August 2007.svg. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, what about all those 100+ mb fiction articles? surely people will not want to miss what color of underwear Optimus Prime uses in his latest appearance (wich by the way is copper), and those must be priority no matter if they take up to ten pages per article. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently there's a special leather-bound edition available exclusively from Gnome. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That chart needs updating, we've cut down on Family Guy references. OTOH, it completely ignores the large parts of Wikipedia dedicated to defaming Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Israelis, Arab Israelis, Kashmiris, East Timorese, Mongolians, Mongols, Franks, the French, the Quebecois, and Celine Dion. Relata refero (disp.) 23:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there should be a large red block for "ethnic and religious feuding". Guy (Help!) 18:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually made an updated version (but screwed up and forgot to include the nationalistic stuff - can probably be carved out of the infighting section) Note that "actually useful stuff" is slightly larger, showing that we are making some progress, if only by attrition. --Random832 (contribs) 20:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL

Someone changed the search box to say "I'm feling lucky" and "wacky search"--Phoenix-wiki 22:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Now what MediaWiki page is that this time...sheesh show an epsilon of restraint your silly admins :P.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Found the culprits and nuked 'em: MediaWiki:Gadget-searchFocus & MediaWiki:Gadget-searchFocus.js.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Those weren't the culprits...its still popping up. These jokers are causing some technical mayhem that's taking awhile to clean up.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Now someone fucked with the "edit this page" tab. Will it never end? bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 22:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is only just beginning. Tiptoety ^talk 22:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Those pages had nothing to do with the search box - the search box was done by AzaToth which earned him a 24 hour block. The edit this page change was done by Scientizzle and quickly reverted. I think they're all sorted now, but Persian - could you restore those pages please? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Try purging your cache by the way - everything looks to be sorted. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Undeleted the pages...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, maybe it is time to stop for a while. Mediawiki pages getting mistakenly deleted, users getting blocked for good faith pranks..... Tiptoety ^talk 22:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Anything which confuses the reader is not a good faith prank. Corvus cornix_talk 22:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless it is good faith. --Iamunknown 22:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How purposefully confusing the readers considered in "good faith?" WP:AGF isn't a blanket statement for every time someone does something wrong, it means if someone makes an honest mistake, you assume they meant the best. Playing with the interface like that isn't an honest mistake, it's a deliberate act. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(I know this is now "archived", but I feel like I should respond.) Indeed, it is a deliberate act. But, at least in my view, it was a deliberate act intended as humour, not as compromising the encyclopedia (even though it can be argued effectively that it did compromise the encyclopedia). Which is, I think, where we agree - that they meant the best. Where we may not agree (unless I am misunderstanding you) is whether or not an honest mistake done as a deliberate act is to be interpreted as an action done in bad faith. I do not think it should be interpreted as such. That is what I was thinking when writing my (admittedly short and unrevealing) statement above. --Iamunknown 02:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(Unarchiving, because people are still discussing) No, we don't agree that they meant best. I refuse to believe anyone editing the MW namespace as part of a joke means best. Anything as a deliberate act that isn't for the good of the encyclopedia (and making jokes in the interface, especially things as visible as the tagline), isn't "meaning the best." Going back to what I said before, that's the crux on whether it's Good faith or not. If you're not meaning the best, it's can't be good faith. The two are incompatible. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for misinterpreting your comment. I maintain that someone can mean the best even when doing something as spectacularly silly as editing the MediaWiki interface ... although I can certainly understand that others might think differently. Perhaps we should agree to disagree? --Iamunknown 04:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

April Fools' Day proposal

Please see Wikipedia:April Fools' Day. (No this is not a joke, this is very real). Majorly (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely. We should not have to tell administrators not to vandalise the tasgline. "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia administer by people with a stick up their lavender passageway" is sophomoric and entirely unacceptable. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Tagline&action=history is a disgrace - admins edit warring over nonsense in mediawiki space. Guy (Help!) 07:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Help is desperately need on AE wiki!

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.

This is the English Wikipedia. Your website isn't even on Wikia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

---

But you could try the link given at the bottom of the discussion -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

---

I am a user on the Activating Evolution site. We desperately need some help.

There appears to be NO administrator or sysops. We are being over run with spammers. So far, I myself have cleaned well over 1500 pages that were spammed. It is a daily (if not hourly) problem, with no way to either block these yahoos or ban them.

All of the main pages are changed daily, and there are several of us that are trying to keep on top of all the cleanup, but as soon as we clean up a page, it gets spammed again. We have set up a Catagory for spammers, and don't know how to stop them with no admin or sysop on board.

Here is a link to the main page: http://theories.activatingevolution.org/swiki/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

You can check out the special page for Recent Changes and see what we are going thru. Please fee free to check out my user page (Sheba98) and see how many "contributions" I've made since February. Another good one to check is Psych-Gen. And Wireless.

Is there ANY way you all can help? We have emailed NBC with absolutely no response. We are at wit's end, and hate to see the site go to trash.

Any assistance you could provide would be greatly appreciated!

Sheba98 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.216.187 (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That website has no association with Wikipedia aside from using the same software. We can't help you. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

An answer which some wikis have found useful is to implement the extension to be found at http://recaptcha.net/plugins/mediawiki/ which has little effect on ordinary users but makes spam edits much more difficult. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Anonymity and outing

I'm trying to locate the policy that explicitely states that contributors are promised as much anonymity as possible but I'm having trouble locating it. In which policy does it state that Wikipedia editors are promised anonymity? Where does it state that outing is wrong? WP:Anonymity and WP:Outing are essays, not policies or guidelines. WP:BLOCK states that blocks can be given for disclosing personal information, but doesn't state what is considered personal information as opposed to raising allegations of COI. So, which policy is used by admins when warning or blocking someone for outing another editor? Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Privacy Policy? x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not marked as policy, but Wikipedia:Harassment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the MetaPolicy is a policy, as it states : "This version of the Privacy policy was approved in June 2006 by the Board of Trustees." Tiptoety ^talk 00:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at Meta's Privacy Policy, and don't see where it promises anonymity and prohibits outing. Could someone point it out for me? Cla68 (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Harassment does appear to cover it somewhat, but states that you can't reveal the legal name of someone to harass them, which appears to indicate that it's ok if you're revealing it to show COI? Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Off hand, the MetaPolicy doen't seem to apply to the question Cla68 (talk · contribs) raises which is the outing of a COI editor. It seems to me that I have seen this happen in checkuser-type disputes but I can't point to any diff. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The answer to the question is that there is no such policy, either with the Wikimedia Foundation or en-Wikipedia. I researched this question thoroughly during the first round of BADSITES and, despite some beefing up of the harassment guideline, there is not and cannot be such a policy. The Foundation cannot guarantee anonymity or pseudonymity, and thus neither can Wikipedia. Risker (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Then, why have people been blocked or threatened with blocks for outing someone either on or off wiki, not for the purpose of harassment, but for trying to point out COI? Cla68 (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do we block for WP:NLT, even when such threats are often wildly spurious? Why do we follow up on suicide notes and threats of violence, even when 99% of them, anywhere on the Web, are likely hoaxes? Because certain actions carry an unacceptable potential for collateral damage and off-wiki consequences. Outing someone can lead to very real, real-life hassle. Type I and type II errors is a nice read when such questions come to mind :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think that if someone stands to suffer very real, real-life hassles by being outed, then they probably should consider that before participating in the 8th most-read website on the planet? Anynomity on the Internet cannot be guaranteed and it's ridiculous for us to try and guarantee it. Cla68 (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Anonymity can't be guaranteed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do our utmost to respect it or even enforce it when requested. The possibility of suffering off-wiki harassment or simply getting in trouble shouldn't discourage someone from participating in the 8th most-read website on the planet if they wish to do so, and there should be mechanisms in place, whether written or unwritten, to allow them to do so as safely as possible if they wish. Besides, some folks may consider the possibility and decide to go ahead anyway! If Alice shoots herself in the foot after playing with loaded shotgun, should she be denied medical treatment just because said shotgun was in bright red box marked Dangerous? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

People rarely give a huge amount of thought to editing Wikipedia before they start; they certainly do not think "I'd better be extremely careful in anything I do, because one day I might revert someone with a grudge, who will then contact my employer/local police and attempt to get me fired/arrested, or create a website about me filled with insane conspiracy theories linked to my real name." Wikipedia doesn't come with that kind of warning. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Who decides which it is? Why would they be mutually exclusive? Why would one need to "out" someone to expose a COI? In any event, WP:BLOCK is clear: "A block for protection may be necessary in response to... disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate)". It's also the primary reason given for Oversighting. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

When you ask why somebody would need to out someone to expose a COI, are you asking why exposing a COI is reliant on "outing" someone, or why it's necessary to expose COIs? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

COI is very serious, because it threatens the credibility of this project into which so many volunteers have put so many hours of their free time. Thus, if we need to out someone to establish COI, then we do it. There is no policy that prohibits outing someone to establish COI. The blocking policy only applies to giving personal information that violates another policy, and that is WP:Harassment. But, if someone outs someone to establish COI, then HARASS wasn't violated and no block should be considered. Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's your unique interpretation of WP:HARASS, WP:BLOCK, and WP:OVERSIGHT. However, the policies make no such exception for COI, despite your recent attempts to modify them to accommodate your view. Invading the privacy of individuals and exposing them to harassment is equally important as COI, if not moreso, because it undermines the very working environment for our most important resource, our editors. And, quite frankly, for someone who claims that SlimVirgin's edits to the blocking policy were "Bad faith editing, owning of pages, and POV-pushing", it's a pretty bad idea to try to change multiple policies so that you can retroactively claim WordBomb's blocking was inappropriate. I strongly recommend you not make edits, and particularly attempt to change policies, for the purpose of furthering your agendas against other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes people use "Threats or actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others." from Wikipedia:No personal attacks to justify blocking/banning. People claim real life harrassment is bound to occur, then cite a few cases where someone called a boss or wife. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this a rather obvious thing? If an editor wishes to remain an anon, then we should respect that. If an editor previously posted their real life identity but now wish it to be not public info, then we should respect that. If an outside source identifys one of our editors against their wishes then we should not aide and abet that outside source by posting that info here. I know of one case where an editor was driven off the site after his employer was contacted by trolls...how many do you need? I'd rather not go into details about it, but there are numerous examples of this happening.--MONGO 01:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, we cannot guarantee someone's anonymity anywhere on the Internet, including here. Brandt's HM page, among other pages, proves that. We can, however, guarantee that our project is as credible as possible by enforcing our own COI policy, which appears to allow outing in order to show COI. Cla68 (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a slippery slope to me. If we went around tagging everyone with their real name we would probably find that a great number of our best contributors are semi-famous in their fields...I am inclined to believe that it is best to not reveal personal info if that person wishes to remain anonymous.--MONGO 01:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not our COI policy that makes our project credible, it's the quality of the articles and the sources used, and those are ensured by strict adherence to the content policies, and a welcoming environment for editors. We cannot guarantee someone's anonymity any more than we can guarantee that articles will be WP:NPOV, but that doesn't mean we abandon either ideal as useless. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, it's being done already, look here [15]. Although SlimVirgin says that she blocked Sparkzilla for BLP concerns[16], she actually supported the COI outing of his real name as the chief editor of a news source in Japan that was reporting on the same story. Thus, if someone outs someone for COI reasons, we need to look at the evidence, make a decision on the evidence in an open forum, like here or at the COI noticeboard, and then we can admin or oversight delete the material if necessary. SlimVirgin and others have already set the precedent, we just need to update the policies to follow the precedents that she and others have set. Cla68 (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where she posted his real life identity. Maybe I missed something.--MONGO 02:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've started a thread on this at the COI noticeboard [17] (which has several current threads that discuss editor's real names, apparently without any censure) also, so please feel free to discuss. I appreciate everyone's input. From what I can see, the COI policy currently allows outing for COI reasons. Cla68 (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

<-- I've commented at the CoI noticeboard, which I hope is probably the best place - but I've also suggested this as a topic for a 'real world' conversation at Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly - which is a project aiming to help communication through having a chat! - I hope it might be an interesting subject for folk of all views to engage with - take a look if you'd like! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The basic problem as far as I can see is ensuring that discussion of COI doesn't become a cover for getting at editors. This is particularly a problem since nobody seems to be totally clear how personal the involvement has to be for WP:COI to apply. In this sense, I think the current statement in WP:COI that "Revealing the names of pseudonymous editors is in all cases against basic policy" is incorrect (as well as inconsistent with the same paragraph suggesting "direct" discussion), but I wouldn't go as far as to say that outing for COI is generally ok. Probably it's a question that can't directly be answered, other than to say that people should be particularly careful. This allows discussion in extreme cases, but also makes sure that gaming or abuses will stand out enough that they can still be addressed. Mackan79 (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I outed an editor in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Principle of Conjugated Subsystems, since they were using Wikipedia to promote their father's work. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

People claim real life harrassment is bound to occur, then cite a few cases where someone called a boss or wife.

It's come up frequently on this page and ArbCom over the last few years, if you'd been paying attention. But if you need one, there's me: I've had a whackjob send a nastygram to my employer, just after I got his ass bounced from here for leaving me vile and racist messages; I've had a perma-banned serial plagiarist telephone me and try to set off a noisemaker in my ear (Caller ID works internationally, something he forgot and identified him immediately), and I've gotten e-mail naming people as my parents and siblings with the veiled threat "this should be fun :)". There have multiple attempts by banned spammers, scientific cranks, and just-plain losers to out me and harass me, so attempts to assist whackjobs with their harassment attempts definitely get my attention and set off my BS detector. This is a spectacularly bad slippery slope to head down, is all I can say. --Calton | Talk 03:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if tighter control over outing of COI editors would have avoided the unfortunate events that you experienced, but it shows that we need to be careful how we do it. I just don't see how we wouldn't sometimes have to out editors in order to prove COI. We either throw the COI guideline and noticeboard in the wastebasket and no longer pursue COI allegations, or else we add language to our policies to provide clear instructions on how we go about proving COI, so that the COI policy can't be used to harass or for any other bad faith monkey business. I suggest the latter course of action, because if we allow open season on our articles by COI editors, we run great risk to the credibility of our project, as recent press reporting on the Jimbo/Marsden incident illustrates. Cla68 (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Given your role in the shenanigans wrought by that whackjob from The Register pursuing his nutty conspiracy theories, let's just say I have some severe...doubts...about your sincerity, motives, purpose, and/or hoped-for outcomes in pursuing this solution-in-search-of-a-problem you're flogging here. That's leaving aside your reasoning, which I find weasel-worded in the extreme. --Calton | Talk 14:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Whackjob from the Register". That's a personal attack, Calton, and a violation of policy. Anyway, I think I've been fairly clear about what I'm doing here. I have found a discrepancy/dichotomy in our policies. We have and continue to allow outing to identify COI. But, our Harassment and Blocking policies appear to prohibit outing. Contradictions in the policies need to be fixed or else we'll have inconsistencies with how the rules are applied to editors. Cla68 (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Contradictions in policies should be fixed, but non-contradictions between policies and guidelines do not require fixing. And I think you have been fairly clear in what you're doing here. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Jayjg, I appreciate you bringing that up. That wasn't my original intent in bringing this subject up here, but it is a timely example isn't it? On the COI noticeboard there are threads in which editors are outed to show COI, without the "outers" apparently being sanctioned. But, the editor (WordBomb) in the thread you link to was blocked for doing the same thing. See the dichotomy? This needs to be fixed. Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. Jayjg has been doing some outing himself at User:Jayjg/Alberuni. The last edits to that page are someone telling Jayjg checkuser is not for fishing (why doesn't Jayjg ever respond on "requests for checkuser" for years but only checkusers when he or his friends get an an edit dispute with someone?) and Jayjg just reverts their comments, not even letting them speak. Jayjg's outing via checkuser fishing has caused a number of people (who I won't name as it would be worse for them if I did) to get to get unwanted Encyclopedia Dramatica articles about them, thus his actions have caused off-wiki harassment. 66.90.226.209 (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a tension between COI and privacy issues. This is a real tension that we need to deal with on a case by case basis. In general, if someone on has a username which is blatantly connected to an organization or an IP address they use is traced back to the organization that's ok. People should use common sense judgement and not be assses. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Continual copyrighted uploads by User:Tasos90

Folks,

I'm not sure if this is the correct place but Tasos90 (talk · contribs) is not listening to talk page messages regarding this issue. As far as I can tell, not seeing the deleted edits, all of his uploads are copyvios and all but the last few have been deleted. He's had a final warning, is still repeating upload of the same image and has not responded to any messages. I think a copyright violation block is warranted here - Peripitus (Talk) 02:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've given the user a final warning. Editor appears to have done nothing in the past 18 hours, so a block isn't warranted at this time but any further uploads of copyrighted images should result in a block.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2008

This really isn't a normal undeletion request, so I don't think DRV would be the place for this request:

I was very saddened to see that people were insisting that April 1st only exists in UTC, and by the time I got home from work (having gotten there at 6am) just about all of the XfDs on related to the day's fun had already been deleted. I was wondering if anyone would be so kind as to do one of the following: either temporarily undelete the pages for a day or two, then send them back down the hole, or undelete them just long enough for me to do a page export so that people might look at them off-wiki. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've userfied a load into my userspace - User:Hut 8.5/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, User:Hut 8.5/Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Jimmy Wales, User:Hut 8.5/Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/George W. Bush, User:Hut 8.5/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human, User:Hut 8.5/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States (2nd nomination). Hut 8.5 06:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There's also Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 1#Template:Fact. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages for indef users

I was under the impression we didn't delete the talk pages of indef blocked users, at least when their block is unrelated to vandalism or trolling. Blanking seems to be preferred, for some reason, but the page history often contains comments from other users, and more importantly, the reason why the user was blocked (such information should be available to all users, not just admins, nor is it ever guaranteed that deleted pages will be available for undeletion). Yet admins are constantly deleting these talk pages. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am under the impression that both the user and talk pages should remain intact for indef blocked registered users, especially if it is likely they will be able to return at some point from the block. Bstone (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I never delete indef pages/Talk pages. They may request an unblock and be granted. Also, it is important for other editors to see the reason for the block, as said above. -- Alexf⁴² 09:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

These should be undeleted, they are an important record. Some editors improperly tag talk pages with {{temporary userpage}}, which lists them for deletion (and not even just the talk pages of indefinitely blocked users). Not sure if that is where some of the deletions are occurring or not though.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 10:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The user and user talk pages of indef-blocked and/or inactive users are deleted all of the time, both as a general housekeeping measure and -- in the case of those with spammy/Google-bombing names -- to remove them from search-engine results; since they have no real value whatsoever, keeping them around is pointless in the extreme. So no, no one is "improperly" tagging dead user-talk pages, they're engaging in general housekeeping. --Calton | Talk 14:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A few weeks ago, I deleted quite a few which were in the Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, as per what was apparently a consensus for dealing with them that way, but I stopped after a few days because I was growing increasingly uneasy about it for the very reasons stated above by Ned Scott, Bstone, Alexf, and Doug. I support not deleting them. — Athaenara ✉ 14:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Postscript: There are certainly exceptions; many can be seen here (March 1) from User talk: Giantscrotum through User talk: ASharkAteYourMom. — Athaenara ✉ 15:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Unless the name is someone in itself a clear serious violation of policy itself (User:GeorgeBushIsAFlamingFaggot might be one such example) I think it would make sense to keep the user pages and user talk pages, so that in the event of a request for unblocking in the future all interested parties can easily find out the reasons for the block. In examples like the one above, I think just seeing the name on the page that has been deleted would probably be enough for an admin or anyone else to know why the page was deleted. John Carter (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

They are deleted after at least one month of no activity to save space, along with to remove them from search-engine results and are not (at least they should not be) deleted if they have a sock tag on them, or have been to topic of an arbcom investigation and so on... the ones that get deleted are just your run of the mill vandalism-only accounts that serve no purpose remaining in userspace. Tiptoety ^talk 18:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How does deleting these pages "save space"? —David Levy 18:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It may not be a lot of space, but the pages probably eventually get removed from the system memory. Also, in the event it is a name which is potentially reusable, it would save a new editor the effort of creating a generally longer name for the same purpose. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

1. To what "system memory" are you referring?

2. I don't understand your second point. Are you referring to usernames? Deleting a user's talk page doesn't enable the re-registration of the associated account name. —David Levy 18:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I recently had a case where the username itself was quite serious defamation of a living 15-year-old. I think in such cases it's a judgement call - if it's clearly a throwaway sockpuppet (one of many) of a user I think WP:DENY applies to some extent. In common or garden user blocked (ESPECIALLY if the user is long term or has some other significant history here) in a fashion which happens to be indefinite, they may mend their ways, come back in a year and decide they can be helpful - we have to allow for that possibility. Orderinchaos 19:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we're really talking about indef blocked accounts that are indef blocked because of the name. We're talking about users tagging indef blocked users and some non-indef blocked users with {{temporary userpage}} and whether the talk pages should be deleted. Related, but I don't think anyone is really questioning the deletion of pages in the kind of cases Orderinchaos is talking about, those seem like clear cases.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I have to agree with David, there is no benefit to deleting the talk page. The deletion after a month is for Userpages not User talkpages. No memory is recovered unless the developers actually decide to purge deleted pages, although theoretically possible, it just doesn't happen. Besides, Don't worry about performance! That's User:Tim Starling's problem, not ours.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no benefit to KEEPING the pages -- I've heard none other than vague handwringing -- deleting them is at least performing housekeeping. So what's the beef here? It's the established practice: if they get deleted, nothing wrong whatsoever with tagging them. Don't like it? Take it up with those actually doing the deleting. --Calton | Talk 22:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There are various benefits in keeping the user and talk pages of indefinitely blocked users. For one, there have been a number of instances in which indefinitely blocked users have returned, sometimes due to false positives and bad blocks. Moreover, keeping the page's edit history intact provides a public reference of the blocked user's contribs as well as of anyone else who commented on that page. It is frustrating for those of us who are not admins when we cannot see all the contribs of say a candidate running for adminship. Who's to say deleted contribs not being seen might sway voters one way or the other. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If they return, it is very easy to restore the page. I don't believe most people come back, after being indefinitely blocked for 30+ days when their user/utalk pages are deleted. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It happens more often than you think. I've helped such users in the past. Also, having them deleted prevents the community from reviewing the past comments, often from being able to read their own comments, as well as learning why the user was even blocked in the first place. Blocking is a last resort, especially indef blocking. That means being extra careful when doing so, even if only a small minority come back. I've found multiple editors who've been indef blocked incorrectly, and were unblocked and apologized too. -- Ned Scott 02:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I see value in being able to see as much of all of our contribs as possible. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I can say what seems to be common practice. Pages of indef blocked users are placed in CAT:TEMP. These pages are deleted after 30 days of inactivity on the page. Pages are entered into CAT:TEMP with various templates, including {{indefblocked}}. Pages relating to, or even mentioning sockpuppeteering are not, and should not be deleted, for obvious reasons. Again, there is no established process for this that I know of, but it seems to be the common practice. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So maybe the talk pages should go, I guess I'm not so sure now, though I can't say I understand why. But some pages are definitely being placed in that cat that are not indef blocked.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We had a problem before with a welcome template (I believe) that was placing pages in the category, but that has been resolved. Do you have a couple examples of which pages are in, but shouldn't be, that way we can get it fixed? - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, no offense Calton, but I know you commonly tag userpages as spam and then add {{temporary userpage}} to their talk pages. Several admins have addressed this issue with you before, including me, but we apparently have a clear difference of opinion over the proper usage of {{temporary userpage}}. (See User_talk:Calton#Temporary_userpage.3F, User_talk:Calton#Template:temporary_userpage, User_talk:Calton#Tagging_user_pages_of_unblocked_users, User_talk:Calton#Template:temporary_userpage_2). If I notice these I review them. Some of these are in fact indef blocked and don't have an indef block tag, so the {{temporary userpage}} tag is valid. Others have never been blocked, let alone indef blocked. If you look at CAT:TEMP you'll probably find that many, if not most, usertalkpages are due to {{temporary userpage}} on the talk page - though I'm not saying they're all there due to Calton - I have no idea. Alternatively, [18] will give a good starting place if you go through the ones tagged as spam in particular (Calton puts the template in the edit summary so this is pretty easy). --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I liked to think people didn't inappropriately tag userpages into CAT:TEMP. I'd ask Calton to explain why he's placing the users into the category. If he said why in one of the above links, and I missed it, I apologize. This however seems to be a separate issue, that should be addressed to ensure that pages of not indef-blocked users are not added to the category. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it isn't the same issue that was raised above regarding deletion of blocked user's talk pages, though I initially thought they were the same as I understood that we deleted blocked user's user pages. Now that I see we do delete the talk pages as well this is clearly a separate matter. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see why not to delete them. If they have a sockpuppet tag, they should be kept for categorization, but otherwise they just clutter up search results while providing no benefit. "Perhaps the user might want to request unblock." - The pages are not deleted immediately, the usual wait time is a month, after that, the pages aren't protected, they can still recreate them and request unblocking, or request on the mailing list. "How will the community discuss the unblocking?" - It takes an admin to unblock and I can't imagine that there would be that many non-admins who monitor CAT:RFU. Presumably the person who asks for community review could undelete it, or ask in the review request. "How will we learn why they were blocked in the first place?" - The block log entry and the user's contributions should explain it. Mr.Z-man 03:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The cluttering concern is really a non-issue. The reasons have been stated several times for why we shouldn't delete them. Talk pages of other users don't just contain their comments, but the comments from other users. This is why we say people don't WP:OWN their talk pages (while they are still free to manage them how they wish, so long as the edit history is in tact). Deleting them also prevents non-admins from being able to review these situations, which is a big red flag to why this is a bad idea. The situation that caught my attention had no reasonable explanation in the block log, and that is something that is very common. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you only read the first 2 sentences I wrote? "Deleting them also prevents non-admins from being able to review these situations, which is a big red flag to why this is a bad idea" - Only if you don't trust admins at all, in which case your problem can't be solved by keeping a bunch of pages around forever. Also, "'The cluttering concern is really a non-issue" - maybe according to you, to me it is an issue. "The situation that caught my attention had no reasonable explanation in the block log" - So instead of asking someone, you want to create a new policy? Mr.Z-man 17:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Z-man, I think the problem Ned is alluding to, at least in part, is that we do have a policy, or at least a guideline, that says that we don't delete talk pages - it gives only one exception, right to vanish, it doesn't say anything about indef blocks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering that talk pages of indef blocked users is not a CSD, and that people are only doing it based on an assumption that doesn't have consensus, I would like to formalize our policy to specifically prevent these kinds of deletions (with the exception to "trophy" pages, etc). However, I'm not sure which policy would be the best to make this proposal. Any suggestions? -- Ned Scott 06:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete them all, they flood users contribs, page lists, What links here (including images) and have no value, and don't do the Wikipedia servers and bandwidth any favours. WP:DENY also applies. The only talk pages which need keeping are pages with significant history. Really, what is the chance of a 2 year old account that was just used for a spree of childish vandalism from returning? 0. But a guideline would be helpful.--Otterathome (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone start Wikipedia:Temporary Wikipedian userpages or a similar page please.--Otterathome (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Flood users contribs? Only for the users who've participated on those talk pages, and it normally makes things harder when those contribs are gone. They are of value, and load on the servers is painfully small. WP:DENY is an essay, and the logic there should only apply to trolls and vandals, not every indef blocked user. There's a very large number of indef blocked users who are not using their talk pages as trophy pages or to make a scene, but for one unfortunate reason or another, are not able to get along with the community. Those are the talk pages that we are most concerned about, and should not be deleted. -- Ned Scott 00:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I recently started deleting user talk pages (about 2 days ago, see my deletions) that were in the Temporary Userpages category. Some are easily distinguishable to delete (for example unnecessarily created user pages with just {{indef}} on them) and I delete them accordingly. Otherwise, I usually wait three weeks or more, before I delete a talk page. I don't see why they would want to return, if they haven't done so after 21 days or more, after all most of these indef blocked users might have created new accounts anyway. I don't see why they can't be deleted, they are easy to recreate and if the user asks for an unblock, the reviewing administrator can always view the older page to see why that user in particular was blocked. I never delete userpages tagged with sockpuppet notices or that are necessary to linking etc.) Rudget (review) 12:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Admins are not the only ones who should be able to review blocks and the related discussions. They are the only ones who can unblock, but normal editors are free to do leg work and then present their findings to a place like ANI for discussion. The discussions themselves are often of value (at least to those who participated in them), and while there could be some disagreement to their value, it's not the role of a single admin to make that judgement call (it's one of the reasons we have MFD). -- Ned Scott 00:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Another frequently used template that categorises users in the temporary Wikipedian userpages category is Template:Uw-block3. The pages I have tagged with that template have had no significant history, but the template could be misused to delete user talk pages with significant history. Perhaps the temporary Wikipedian userpages category should be removed from that template? Graham87 12:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should it be removed? That tag is used for indef blocked users. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and what stops indef-blocked users who wish to come back from creating their usertalk page again? Tiptoety ^talk 21:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing, but incase you weren't paying attention, that's not the concern. -- Ned Scott 00:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Heads up at WP:CIVILITY

A couple of editors have made broad changes at WP:CIVILITY in the past few days. Given that this is perhaps our most often-cited policy, it's best if such changes are made only with broad community consensus. Please monitor and participate in the discussion as you see fit. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the changes to the policy wording were discussed either beforehand or concurrently on the talk page [19], so it appears to be under control, although I'm sure more participation in the discussion would, of course, be appreciated. Cla68 (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad for the heads-up. Civility is an important policy, and I don't want to see it diluted by having a vague essay as its first section. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

user that is clearly a sock doing strange things with user pages

This guy User:Bf2 created on 20 March an user page very similar to one from a banned sock. Compare [20] to [21]. He got later accused by me of sock puppetry on this case Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Pinoybandwagon which is obviously related to the Map inc case Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Map_inc, but I found about him not because of this page, but because he was making edits on the same topic covered by the Map inc socks and other suspected sock on the Poneybandwagon (actually, I also found User:Fb2 who added to the Metro Manila template the links to the hoax article that caused the second sock network to be blocked among other reasons).

Now Bf2 has decided to create a "Picture pumper" section on his page with an image of a football team of little philippine girls that he found somewhere on the web [22], changed name to "Picture Craze" [23], then adds another picture of a littel philippine girl [24]. Seriously, wtf? If you look at the Poneybandwagon case, you'll see that this user has made some stupid edits, but what the hell is this? A photo announcement for pedo tourism to Philippine?

The sockpuppet case is stuck because of backlog there and because I must have been doing something wrong. However, this user is clearly Map inc trying to avoid his block (is the block on all those accounts caducated by the way, it does not appear on their block log), that alone should warrant indef block. And he is also doing stuff that I don't know how to qualify. And that's on top of modifying naming conventions with no consensus [25] followed by another accused sock making himself the top authority on a part of naming conventions 2 minutes after being created [26]. All this of course after being warned for not abiding for those policies [27] "oh, look, we got warned for not following that policy. Let's change it and put a sock as supremne authority of the topic we are editing". The level of policy violation is ridiculous. The begging for not getting blocked and claims made at the socket case and several editor pages is silly[28].

Please indef block at least Bf2 for avoiding block and managing to make worse stuff than what got him blocked on the first case.

Also, some admin take a look at the sockpuppet case, please, it's getting stale, and accussed users show no remorse and make silly stuff. Only account that could be saved is Radiosmasher, who has shown a bit of moderation after this message of mine[29], and only under vigilance and temp blocking at first falling back to same behaviour. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: this is related to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive135#Phillipines_radio_stations_-_bad_names.2C_cut-and-paste.2C_possible_COI. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Checkuser  Confirmed, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pinoybandwagon. Thatcher 20:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

cool, thanks. I updated the sock suspect tags on them. Now, who do I have to bribe to get an admin to take a look at it and block the bad guys incumbent users? Oh, and I have *another* open case with a checkuser request Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Aimar120‎, but this one can probably wait for an admin to eat through backlog and check it out. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Request protection of indef blocked User:Firstwind's talkpage, or suggestions of other options

I indef blocked the above editor on 28th March 2008, following a report at WP:AIV on the 27th March which prompted me to initially issue a warning. The discussion between the AIV reporter and me at my talkpage provides further background. When the warned editor blanked their page and resumed the behaviour which had prompted the AIV report and warning I then enacted the block. Following a response by Firstwind, to which I replied by suggesting that they use the unblock request option provided within the block template, the editor has entered into a cycle of blanking their talkpage. As the page includes the indef block template the blanking has been reverted in each case, although not by me. Following a blanking which had a summary suggesting that Firstwind wished to cease editing Wikipedia from this account, I amended the subsequent revert to leave only the block template and my comments regarding requesting WP:RTV to allow the pages to be blanked, per this edit. Regretfully, Firstwind again blanked the page (and was reverted back to the page prior to my amendment - as I had requested in such a circumstance). To avoid an edit war, and in the manner that an editor who abuses the unblock request option can have their talkpage protected to minimise disruption, I request that User talk:Firstwind be protected from further editing by non-Admins - and that my actions in this matter be reviewed as to whether they were appropriate. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

TBH, I'd let him blank the page. It does no harm, he claims to be seeking to vanish and this achieves that as good as anything, and the indef template doesn't have to be the Mark of Cain, it's just a template after all. I have no opinion on the block or its circumstances. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I would reiterate that the blanking is being reverted by other editors, on the basis that the template should remain (there is unresolved questions regarding socking). Protection may still be required, whether the page is blank or not, to stop an edit war. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think everything you did is fine (except for using "they" as a singular ;-)). The page was full-protected for two days by User:Ground Zero earlier today. Whether the user is going to vanish or the page will be protected for a longer period can be determined then. Just as long as we leave some way for the user to request unprotection/unblock (i.e. we don't block e-mail).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Cabals, part 2

I've created request for comment about this entire issue. Previous discussion is here. Posting so that everyone knows and may participate. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 21:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

O_o NonvocalScream (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Block

Resolved

 – Blocked for 31 hours--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 01:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please could somebody who is not me block User:65.31.223.232 for continuous spamming despite several warnings and lying in edit summaries. For details see User_talk:65.31.223.232. The only edits made from this IP (Special:Contributions/65.31.223.232) were made by the same user, and his IP has not changed since since mid-March, so it might be a static IP. Сасусlе 00:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblock-range template needed?

Problem: As much as they should be avoided, rangeblocks are applied regularly in an effort to stop IP-hopping vandals. Due to their nature, rangeblocks tend to affect a large number of users, often ones that have no idea why they are blocked. When they find they are blocked, they naturally want to be unblocked, but get a tad confused. The software does state that their IP range is blocked, but there's no specific template for them to use. {{unblock}} is for directly blocked users (which isn't the case, and a check of their block log will confirm this), and {{unblock-auto}} only applies when an account using that IP has been blocked. From what I've seen, most will choose to use the unblock-auto template. This leads to further confusion with administrators, who see the template and automatically assume that the blocked editor can't read directions because there's a honking great error message shouting at them. Unless the admin thinks to check the rangeblocks (which admittedly most do, but just try to tell me you haven't slipped up at least once or twice or more), the confusion continues to build with the blocked editor and admin both getting continually more frustrated until somebody figures out what's actually going on. Even when the rangeblock is identified, it often takes some time to get in contact with the blocking admin to figure out specifically which IPs were being used, how, and if the block should be lifted or not.

Solution: Get a new template. I've drafted up an example {{unblock-range}} template here: User:Hersfold/Unblock-range. The parameters for this template would ideally be automatically filled out by MediaWiki:Blockedtext (see requisite code in the example's doc), however even if they weren't, the admin is immediately alerted to the fact that this isn't a normal block and needs a bit more attention and investigation. What I'm looking for here is some sort of consensus on whether this template is in fact needed, and if so, comments on how to improve the current example to get it up to the desired standard and on what changes would need to be made to the MediaWiki page. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure a new unblock template would do any good, having 2 templates is confusing enough for many blocked users. Both {{unblock-auto}} and {{unblock}} have a way to check whether or not the block is a range block. It is more a problem of admins actually thinking of checking if the block is a range block, if you ask me. -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps instructions should be added to the existing templates to guide admins in finding rangeblocks? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps something along the lines of "Admins: If no direct or autoblocks are apparent, be sure to check active rangeblocks"? We'd probably need to flush that out a little, but it's a start. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A helpful link to instructions on how to find active rangeblocks would be useful indeed. I've been an admin for years – heck, I've even placed a few rangeblocks – but I'm not confident that I know how to search for them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a link in both unblock templates to search for range blocks. In the template it says " * Unblock (block log • contribs • deleted contribs • creation log • rangeblocks • unblock)" -Rjd0060 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the rangeblock finder and autoblock finder and other links to the tools at tools.wikimedia.de used to be broken. That has been my experience with them, unless they were recently fixed I got fed up with using them and stopped some time ago... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(indent reset) The rangeblock tools appear to be working for me, however the different templates use different tools, which is mildly confusing at times and somewhat unhelpful. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A userbox

...brought to my attention by a new user - not sure if this is the right forum, feel free to relocate it if not. The userbox is User:UBX/Twinkleadmin, which reads, "This user performs administrator tasks in the blink of an eye with Twinkle!" Many of the users using it are not admins, though (although several definitely are admins). There is two possible situations:

• It's meant for admin use but non-admin users are using it
• It's meant for all users but incorrectly links to WP:ADMIN

I actually think it's the latter situation, but am not sure, and it is transcluded on quite a lot of user pages. What should be done regarding it? Orderinchaos 06:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say link administrator tasks to WP:ROLLBACK. MBisanz ^talk 06:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not an "administrator task", though. What this userbox refers to is the use of Twinkle to delete, block and protect. Hence, I am going through and removing it from all the non-administrators' userpages. Daniel (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Should only be on admin pages, or re-worded w/link removed.IMHO--Hu12 (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

All done. What this userbox refers to is the admin-only features for quicker deletions, blocks and protections. Naturally, the non-admins who had this userbox on their userpage didn't have access to these features. Daniel (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice

The last archive of this page was sent to /dev/null because vandal 87.89.168.221 changed the archive header. Since I saw it immediately, I was able to restore all the lost messages easily.

This is likely a bug in the archive bot, as it is not supposed to be possible for an unprivileged user to send archives anywhere other than the standard place. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have done the archiving myself, and informed the bot's operator. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The link to the messup: [30]. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a bug - expected behavior. People should be allowed to discard their messages without a hassle of a magic key. Миша13 09:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Then limit that ability to user talk pages (where at least if someone else edits the archive tag the user will get "You have new messages!" for the edit) --Random832 (contribs) 16:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Pity, if it was WP:ANI it would be a public service. Guy (Help!) 00:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Why not have a bot just check the heading like at WP:SANDBOX and adjust just that if it's messed with? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • And how exactly do you propose it knows whether the template's been "messed with" or simply adjusted to different settings? Миша13 07:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Can it be placed on a fully protected page (with cascade off) and transcluded here? MBisanz ^talk 07:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • No. That would require the bot to scan all pages transcluded onto here (quite a lot of them) merely to find its configuration data. Миша13 11:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Lupin recent changes filter

Hi. Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, but I was wondering if there are any users other than User:Lupin who make changes to Lupin's RC filter. I use it for reverting vandalism and I've noticed a few problems with it. For example, when using the rollback function, if the non-admin rollback isn't enabled, the rollback sometimes doesn't work even if a user has been granted the "admin" rollback (such as I). Also, when using the non admin rollback, the "save changes" button used to automatically be clicked, but currently I have to click it manually in order to save changes to the page. I've added these notices to Lupin's talk page, but he seems to be inactive, so I'd like to know if there's anyone else who can take care of these problems. Thanks.--Urban Rose 20:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Lupin, although returning to edit on rare occasions, does take long breaks from Wikipedia it seems now. I also don't see many people who now use Lupin's tool, having instead turned to things like Huggle and the admin rollback, which can now be granted to anyone, albeit only on request. If you find that Lupin's tool is corrupting, and Lupin is more inactive than active, why not try a new tool? There is now plenty to choose from. Lradrama 08:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Requesting semi-protection of Test templates instead of full protection or vice versa

I noticed that the older set of warning templates (the "test" templates: Template:Test, Template:Test2, Template:Test3, and Template:Test4) are fully protected, while the newer templates (the "uw-" templates) are just semi-protected. Unless there is some reason for this that I'm not aware of, I think it would make more sense if both sets of the warning templates were either fully-protected or semi-protected.

Also, the block template Template:Uw-uhblock (the username hard block template) is the only one of the block templates that is fully protected (the others are all semi-protected) unless there is some special reason for this, I think it would make more sense to either fully protect all or semi protect all.--Urban Rose 21:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea at the time of WP:UW was to semi protect the new templates to allow non-admin maintenance tasks, I don't think they attracted a lot of vandalism meanwhile so I guess it is safe to simply semi protect everything. I guess the {{uw-uhblock}} full protect is an inheritance of the old {{UsernameHardBlocked}}. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I semi protected the 5 templates you linked. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User is removing a picture from Celine Dion

Resolved

A user has removed a picture from Celine Dion three times in a row, the first two times not giving a clear explanation, the third time citing Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria as the reason (see the diff). I'm not sure what to make of this. P.S. Just for the record, this is my third WP:AN post in a row :)--Urban Rose 21:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't see a rationale for keeping it in there. It seems to be used only to illustrate the subject, who is a living person. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Having read the FUR for this image, I respectfully disagree, and direct you to consider also Mickey Rooney, whom I think is still alive. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Article protected. Please refer to fair-use review to discuss inclusion of the image. — Edokter • Talk • 21:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just blocked the anon for 24h for breaking 3RR. --Tone 21:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just letting you know, the article isn't protected, though I don't think it matters now since the editor is blocked.--Urban Rose 22:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Do'h... it was only move-protected. Doesn't matter. As you said, the warring editor is blocked. — Edokter • Talk • 22:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Does this userbox violate WP:SOAPBOX?

Unresolved

This user opposes George W. Bush and supports his impeachment and prosecution.

While I'm not a big fan of Bush, I'm not sure that this is appropriate content for userspace. I've seen at least two users who have a box similar to this in their userspace, but the code was substituted both times so I'm not sure of where this box comes from. P.S. How do you like that, four WP:AN posts in a row? :)--Urban Rose 23:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it qualifies as free expression, and we have lots of similar userboxes as well regarding Europe, the UN, and various other political entities. If it said, "This user supports his assassination" or anything stronger than it does, I'd at least consider blocking the user whose page it's on, probably indefinitely. But this is a comparatively harmless expression of a rather common political belief, and really not that big a deal. John Carter (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say it looked blockable, but then I realized I was misreading "prosecution" as "execution". As is, you could politely request the people who have it to take it down because of the risk of offending people, but unless we have evidence of it being actually disruptive, we probably shouldn't mess with their user pages. --erachima talk 23:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think it qualifies as divisive and inflammatory, and that despite the fact that I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed in said box. Guy (Help!) 01:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I disagree with the sentiments expressed but think it permissable, for whatever that might tell you. There was a previous debate regarding a similar potentially divisive userbox at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prester John/Userbox/Free Matt which was withdrawn, and there are several other similar userboxes which have been MfD and kept as I remember, but I haven't checked so I might be wrong. There are several other userboxes at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics which could be questioned "This user is a fascist," "This user wants the UN to be dissolved", "This user thinks President Bush should be impeached", which isn't that different, really, and a few others which might fall in the same group. I think some have been proposed for deletion before, and that might work here too, but the two additional words aren't I think that big an issue. John Carter (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's permissible - it's a political statement with no particular import. "This user believes he should be hung, drawn and quartered" or "This user believes all supporters of George W Bush are quacks" (provided for hyperbole and most definitely not my opinion on either count) would be examples of what would not be permissible. Just my opinion for what it's worth. Orderinchaos 03:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's only divisive if George Bush is editing Wikipedia? If it talked about opposing Bush's supporters then it would be a definite no-no, but as it is it's an opinion about a generalized worldwide political issue, and I think that's okay. --Masamage ♫ 03:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not that I do not agree with the content of that userbox ... but is indeed a violation of WP:NOT#SOAP. The user can keep these expressions for his blog. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with jossi here.... SQL^{Query me!} 05:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely goes against WP:SOAP. Jmlk17 07:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If that's soapboxing, so, it seems, are many other userboxes. Though WP:USERBOX has broadly interpreted content restrictions, what some people view as divisive and inflammatory may be uniting and refreshing to others -- and remember, this is user space, which seems to be held to a lower standard than article or talk space. Also, WP:SOAPBOX specifically links to "Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics, for political statements." Editors ready to suppress the above userbox as too inflammatory may want to read carefully through the user boxes on that latter page first. My reading of WP:USERBOX suggests that by suppressing the userbox, we would be suppressing the editor from expressing that same opinion elsewhere on their user page. I don't support moves in that direction except in extreme cases, such as where the view might be illegal to express in the US (where Wikipedia is hosted), or otherwise very extreme. Blackworm (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think userboxes need to be taken that seriously, they are only a bit of fun to make the userpage look nice. Only a minority are relevant to Wikipedia, while the rest can be the most random userboxes ever. If this userbox inparticular warrants looking at, then there must be literally over a hundred others of similar nature that also need investigation. Is it worth bothering with? Most established users decrease the nummber of userboxes on their userpages to only the ones that're relevant anyway, so its not a big issue. Lradrama 08:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see the "This user is a fascist" box is back. Wikipedia political userboxes are supremely silly exercises in vacuous posturing. They're useful in identifying potential POV-pushers and editors under the age of 21. They should really be amalgamated into a single box saying "This user thinks in T-shirt slogans". --Folantin (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• If anyone really has a problem with it send it to MfD, but I can just about guaranty it will be kept. We had a very long and never really resolved RFC on this a few months back because of userboxes that stated support for those in Iraq who are fighting against the American's and those affiliated with the Americans, whom I will not even attempt to characterize beyond that. ;-) --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

My thought is that I don't agree with that userbox, and I don't like the sentiment, but don't see any need to delete it (basically John Carter's position). I don't want to scream "Systemic bias!" here, but I suspect that a part of the issue is that we have a preponderance of Americans here (I am one), and perceptions of political userboxes tend to be shaped by whether it is personally relevant to that American plurality – it's easy for one not to be offended by something, if one will never confront it in any case. It's more difficult to dismiss such things when they are precieved as personally relevant. However, the wiki benefits somewhat from having editors disclose their biases – the userbox in question definitely discloses a bias – and very little from the drama that accompanies attempts to delete userboxes, so it's best to keep a narrow standard for deleting such things. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Spurious blacklisting of URL

An editor removing an AfD notice at Common Purpose UK had to remove a number of perfectly appropriate wikilinks due to them having, for some reason, been blacklisted. Admin intervention requested. __meco (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not wikilinks, external links. And they're blacklisted across all Wikimedia sites (see m:Spam blacklist). If you think the site was mistakenly blacklisted, you can take it up at m:Talk:Spam blacklist. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 09:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Its selling an unencyclopedic leadership course, and was BL'd Due to extensive and excessive Cross wiki spamming^[31], placed with no regards for the language of the wiki concerned;

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/88.106.207.152
• http://bg.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://bs.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://ca.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://cs.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://da.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://id.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://sl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://uk.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250

The listing request is here, but removal was decline once already. --Hu12 (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

AWB Approvals

Can one of the administrators look at the AWB acess requests and take necessary action? -Natrajdr (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Walking over to investigate. MBisanz ^talk 05:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

ElisaEXPLOSiON

• ElisaEXPLOSiON (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Total edits: 1395
• Mainspace: 163 (~10%)
• Talk: 43
• User: 617 (~45%)
• User talk: 548 (~40%)
• Wikipedia: 13

This user seems to have a massive problem with contributing constructive content to the encyclopedia. The last 50 edits to the mainspace for this user date back over a month, yet the user made a total of 600 edits in this period. Most of this users' edits is designing userpages for similar-minded individuals, creating guest books and secret page mazes, and other like behaviour. Such behaviour also includes these kind of comments to administrators.

From the precedent sent with Blow of Light and Gp75motorsports, I propose the following restriction:

ElisaEXPLOSiON is banned from editing the user space of any user, for a period of six months. Furthermore, ElisaEXPLOSiON is cautioned to keep the majority of correspondance on user talk pages directly related to improving encyclopedic content. Users are prohibited from posting material on behalf of this user, where it would breach the aforementioned conditions. These restrictions are enforcable by blocks, starting at 24 hours and proceeding upwards at administrators' discretion. This restriction applies to the person, not the account.

I feel that otherwise this will never be resolved. In my opinion, such a restriction is better for improving the encyclopedia by channeling this users' enthusiasm towards the right places, than the alternatives of letting userspace-only editing continue or blocking this user completely.

Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we have much more important things to worry about. Bstone (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would endorse that restriction. Where this could develop to, we don't know, what else could happen, we don't know, but the outcome of this restriction, we do know. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a personal connection network and with that, in addition to the other precedents, I don't see a reason why not to. Rudget (review) 10:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

To ban from editing userspace is a bit strong but I support at least a partial restriction. --Tone 11:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: One of the reasons my talk page edit is so high (as I have explained on several different occasions) is because several other editors were engaged in an edit war for a lengthy period of time, and I was trying to somewhat mediate. In addition, the example used against me about the comment to User:Orderinchaos was completely justified, as seen by the evidence on his talk page and contribs. I understand that I need to make more edits to the mainspace; I'm sorry, and will try to hold up the Wikipedia standards. But seeing as I have not even had a warning, I believe I should be given a second chance. I also have reason to believe that User:Daniel is issuing a personal attack, based on evidence here. Why would he have even taken notice of me had I not reverted his edit? I may be wrong, it's just that I have never come in contact with this editor before, and all of a sudden he proposes to block me for six months. I understand the situation, as aformentioned, and I will to my best to work on the articles. Cheers, elisa^talk. 12:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

She was one of the main participants in the edit war itself, if that is mediating then OK. She is referring to the genre argument on Flyleaf Talk take a look and you will see she has done everything but mediate. I don't have an opinion about this matter, but she is lying about mediating. I do know she spends the vast majority of her time on Wikipedia using it as a social network. I would post the diffs but it is much easier to just look at her contributions, almost all of her edits are related to socializing. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon. I was involved in that argument, yes, but I do seem to remember User:GlassCobra warning you about the same thing. I was also commended by him for being able to switch my stance and be the bigger man, shown here. And I have been mediating, go to Talk:Flyleaf for evidence. elisa^talk. 16:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that what she is doing is not "mediation", as she is hardly an independant third party. Daniel (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. 6 months is too long. I'm not going to get involved with this unless I have to, but I think the restriction should be more like 1 month, and if the problem still persists then it should escalate. The lack of warnings also justifies a shorter ban at the very least if not a second chance. Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I could support one month as well, just because this user seems to fail to recognise what we're here to do and a correction of some form is required. It's also alarming to see this user is continuing the bad faithed accusations. Daniel (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Bad faith is demonstrated here, sir. I don't know if you have something against me or not, but including people who aren't even a part of this argument is unnecessary, to say the least. That user is a newcomer, constituting WP:BITE. That in itself is unacceptable. You accuse me of bad faith? Also, I was indeed part of the edit war, but was also recently commended by an admin, User:GlassCobra for my ability to overcome and try to settle differences, seen here. In addition, Dwrayosrfour, I believe I spent a great deal of time helping you understand Wikipedia, if I'm not mistaken. elisa^talk. 16:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In a general respect, I support this proposal, per the evidence submitted: the privilege of editors to edit their own userspace (and, by extension, that of others) is rather obviously not being used by Elisa appropriately here, and restrictions to prevent further non-constructive contributions are very much in order here. I'm somewhat in the middle ground with regards to the time span of the userspace ban proposed here—whilst I don't think 6 months is overly strict, I would not have any serious qualms with it being cut short. I do, however, think 1 month is rather short: ~30 days goes by quite quickly, and is probably not sufficient for any sort of rehabilitation to take place—rehabilitation which is necessary if disruption is to stop. To that end, I am leaning towards some figure more-or-less in between the two current proposals of 6 and 1 month(s), and thus I'd be happier with 4 months. Consensus on specifics is, however, less important than consensus on the issue (in this case, the proposal) itself. To reiterate that, I support this proposal. Anthøny 16:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly support a 1-month topic ban from userspace. This user contributes little content to either the mainspace or Wikispace. Perhaps if forced to look at these pieces of the project by a topic ban, she'll realize there are more constructive ways to spend her time than playing userspace games with her buddies. This isn't Facebook or Myspace. And if she keeps up with the bad-faith assumptions, I'd support a short block to stop those as well. Bellwether ^B_C 16:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I would like just to make one observation related to Elisa's post on Orderinchaos' talk page. It was made following an incident when a user was canvassing multiple talk pages, and Orderinchaos removed the canvassed notes. If that section of his talk page is viewed, other comments similar to Elisa's can be seen. FusionMix 17:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose and topic bans or such. We have much more important things to be focusing our time on. Bstone (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• If kids are playing around in user space, please do not tell them to go running amok in article space instead. They may not be very competent. Delete the userspace crap if you feel it's excessive, and deal with any behavioral issues that come up, by all means. But trying to force them into article space will only lead to incompetent edits to pages that we actually care about. Please, think of the articles. Friday (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• We're not supposed to say this, but Friday is very likely correct. Moreschi (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• From what I've seen at Talk:Flyleaf, Elisa is a reasonable editor, who uses talk pages before making edits. I'm not enthused about this ban, I think it would be preferable to use suggest-a-bot to give some ideas about articles she could improve. PhilKnight (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Call for help

If you are good at image-related "stuff" and especially if you are active on Commons, OTRS could probably do with your help in the Permissions queue, which is perennially backlogged. I am told it's really simple, but I am not good on that stuff myself. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User making legal threat, please ban for at least a while.

Resolved

 – this is not a legal threat -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User Tvoz is a POV pusher that is trying to ba anyone that doesn't also POV push at Barack Obama article. Tvoz issued a legal threat below threatening to ban me just because I am NPOV, not POV pro Obama. Acording to Wikipedia laws, Tvoz must be banned without any further discussion. I am sorry, but this is the rules.

Here's what I wrote and what Tvoz wrote.

From Barack Obama talk page.

1. 2 is in the archives. POV pushers refused to listen than banned the person with the sock excuse. This is proof of POV pushing at this article. 122.164.124.108 (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know, the user who insisted on the police union edit was banned because he was abusing Wikipedia with multiple sock puppets. As he has continued to do - but don't worry, he will be stopped again. Tvoz |talk 13:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

See, Tvoz is falsely accusing me of being a sock and is issuing a legal threat to ban me. I am KVS. I am a citizen of India. Tvoz accused some American, Dirk Benedict, of being a sock. I am not American. I am NPOV and not for or against Obama. Here's proof of my citizenship. 122.164.134.73 (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No legal threat at all. None. If you have a dispute with the user in question, please talk to them about it rather than coming here and telling tails. This page is not dispute resolution. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 11:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

122.164.134.73, how is he legally threatening you? He's not threatening to sue you, so I can't see any threat. It is not a legal threat to ban an IP. BTW, if the IP was banned, it would not be indefinite as that is against Wikipedia policy. D.M.N. (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have edited under my user name. Tvoz is saying that he will ban me because I support a neutrally worded text on Barack Obama, which I discussed on the talk page yesterday, and which didn't receive opposition. See the threat that Tvoz says he will stop me and ban me. This is a legal threat. I agree that Tvoz is not telling tails, Tvoz is threatening me. Why don't administrators try to uphold the highest Wikipedia standard and work things out rather than taking sides? 122.164.134.73 (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a legal threat. I'm really not sure how many times and how loudly I can type it until it sinks in. This is not a legal threat. This is not a legal threat. This is not a legal threat. Drop the subject, or I will block you, never mind anyone else. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 12:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

People have been banned for saying they are going to report "it" to the authorities. So legal threats don't have to be lawsuits. Threatening to harm someone using legalistic methods, like banning, is a legal threat. Besides, a good administrator would try to speak with the person like Tvoz and ask them not to threaten rather than attack the victim like me. Note: nobody is in dispute that I am being threatened. 122.164.134.73 (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You are being threatened with sanctions on-Wikipedia- the removal of your editing privileges. There is nothing legal about that. I have no opinion on the matter you have been threatened over, I just can see that this is not a legal threat, so does not require administrator intervention on that front. Please stop pushing the idea that it is. J Milburn (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

122.164.134.73, this is a quote from WP:LEGAL of what a legal threat is not.

A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat".

If you are the owner of copyrighted material which has been inappropriately added to Wikipedia, a clear statement about whether it is licensed for such use is welcome and appropriate. You may contact the information team, contact the Wikimedia Foundation's designated agent, or use the procedures at Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified. If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia, please contact the information team.

D.M.N. (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No you are simply wrong about this. Please read WP:NLT. A legal threat is when someone threatens to sue you in court. Nothing else is a legal threat. Threatening to block someone on Wikipedia is absolutely not a legal threat - blocking is not a "legalistic method". Please stop making these wild and baseless accusations. Gwernol 12:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP - a suggestion

WP:SSP is almost permanently backlogged, and some of the older cases down the bottom of the list have been languishing there for weeks. Although it's a relatively ignored backwater, there's a limit to what non-admins can do, as deleted contributions and blocks are frequently involved.

I suggest that we change the running order. At present new cases are added to the top of the list - I suspect that this means that as admins look down the list, they tend to find ones they can knock on the head quite quickly, rather than going for the more difficult cases. The net result is that the more difficult cases get ignored, then pushed further and further down the page where they're even more likely to be even more ignored.

It's but the work of a few moments to change the order, and the instructions, but I thought I'd see if anyone had any views? The backlog is so large most of the time that's it can be pretty daunting to see how many outstanding cases there are. If we can clear off the backlog once and for all, with a bit of luck we should be able to keep it down to a manageable length in future. _GB^T/C 12:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems logical. It also can't harm if it doesn't work. I say go for it. ➨ REDVEЯS knows it's gonna happen someday 12:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

As somebody who works there frequently, I feel this proposal is not resolving the problem. I know to look at the old cases at the bottom. The solution to have more admins actually work on cases. Jehochman ^Talk 13:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And a simple re-ordering would mean less eyes on it? Or the same number or more? If the latter, it's worth doing. Saying (in effect) "don't change this ignored page, but more people should work on it" will achieve nothing. ➨ REDVEЯS knows it's gonna happen someday 13:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I posted on the SSP talk page, I agree with the proposal and I think more admins are needed at SSP. I posted a few times recently regarding the backlog, to no avail. Enigma ^msg 16:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I go there often, I once had it down to zero. This change will not solve the problem. The problem is too few admins interested in that topic. I wonder what many admins do--I rarely see them involved anywhere, we have well over 1000 of them. Only half a dozen or so patrol SSP. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The amount of truly active admins is lower than you might think (there are hundreds of admins that are either inactive or hardly active), and the active ones tend to focus on other areas, like AIV. Maybe they're more interesting than SSP. Some SSP cases involve a lot of work too, and maybe people don't feel like sitting down and spending a half hour on a case. Understandable. Enigma ^msg 16:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It would also help if people didn't take screamingly obvious sockpuppetry cases to SSP. Those should go to ANI for quick blocks. SSP should be for more complex cases - for instance when checkuser, for one reason or another, doesn't help, or decide whether a RFCU is justifed. Moreschi (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's a big deal. I went through the obvious ones myself. Those aren't time-consuming and it's not like their presence is going to prevent an admin from handling SSP cases. Enigma ^msg 17:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Banned users on NTTW

my attempt at beginning some useful discourse....

hopefully the page is fairly self-explanatory, but I thought I'd just make a note here if there are administrators interested in having a listen to some points and perspectives from editors who have been shown the door for various reasons from this project - then they can so at 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' - thoughts and feedback most welcome..... Privatemusings (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This would be kindof like... allowing banned users to post, via ogg, no? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they are banned on Commons. I for one think this is a good idea. EconomicsGuy (talk) 05:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be interesting to hear the view that is usually rushed and cut off mid-sentence (so to speak) on wikipedia. And since the content will be reviewed (I assume) before posting, I don't see the issue. MBisanz ^talk 05:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

..beginning some useful discourse - strange new meaning of "useful" I was previously unaware of. --Calton | Talk 15:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just what we need - Bagley and Kohs. No thanks. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• They are banned, leave them be. As Guy said... "No thanks". This is getting a little distracting. NonvocalScream (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Being banned means they're not welcome here, period/full stop, and giving the banned -- who are almost always banned after exhausting every loophole and many peoples' patience -- yet another way to carry on their obsessions is a remarkably bad idea on numerous levels. --Calton | Talk 14:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a great idea PM. They aren't posting, just taking part in an unofficial skypecast. It's not the same thing at all. Very interesting to hear what they had to say. Majorly (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "distinction without a difference" comes to mind. --Calton | Talk 15:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I will revert or remove any link on the English Wikipedia that links to a skypecast featuring banned accounts. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Heh, but I will only do so once. So here is the MFD Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode_6. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that we are scared of our rightful actions now? If those two specifically are well banned, what hurts to hear them whine to pm for a few minutes. The tone of their comments on every single online news article regarding wikipedia leads to me a certain judgement of thier viewpoints. The fear and mfd are shortsighted in my view. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not fearful, just focused on the project I hope. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I must not fear.

Fear is the mind-killer.

Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.

I will face my fear.

I will permit it to pass over me and through me.

And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.

Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.

Only I will remain. (taken from Frank Herbert's Dune.)

Asexuality

Resolved

Why does it say "Rajan takes it up the batty" in the first line of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality? I seem unable to remove that. --Law Lord (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

{{sexual orientation}} was vandalised, but has been fixed. — Edokter • Talk • 14:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --Law Lord (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Another set of eyes please

Resolved

Pedro's had his sanity check, and it's best to move along.

I think I need a sanity check, as I'm not sure what I've done but I seem to have upset a couple of users.

• Colonel Warden (talk · contribs)
• Firefly322 (talk · contribs)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ealing Broadway Platform 9

The potted history. Ealing Broadway Platform 9, whilst at WP:AFD was tagged with {{db-author}}. On checking the history, only the author had made edits, with the exception of one reversion and some categorisation. Accordingly I deleted it under WP:CSD#G7 and closed the AFD. [32]. User:Colonel Warden approached me to advise a G7 was inappropriate [33] and I advised him why it had been G7'd [34]. To help out I userfied it, and advised the original author, so they could work on it [35]. Note the AFD consensus at that time was pretty much delete and this seemed a good move. The original author then recreated the article back in the main space [36] and so User:Wangi reopened the AFD [37]. I made a couple of comments as the AFD had been re-opened 1) Apologising to the new editor who created it, and questioning Colonel Wardens Keep logic [38] and 2) Questioning User:Firefly322s notability criteria [39].

Alas, it now goes down hill. User:Firefly322 promptly replied with an edit summary of "administrator abuse" [40]. I asked him to reconsider his suggestions on his talk page and at the AFD. This resulted in more inappropriate edit summaries [41] [42] for which I warned him (non-templated) [43]. Alas this then generated the following thread : User_talk:Colonel_Warden#Question_about_Administrator_Abuse which has now lead, after my statement in that thread that they should proove what "abuse" has taken place to User_talk:Pedro#Carrot_vs_Onion - the external link is basically an allegation of bullying. Now WP:RBI is not appropriate here, certainly not the B part. I need to know where exactly this moved from debate to attacks. I seem to have got two reasonably established editors wound up, over an AFD I have no interest in. Seriously, someone give me some pointers on where I went wrong here as it's a bit deflating, to say the least. Pedro :  Chat  14:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have done nothing 'wrong'. No suggestions other than to say, it's just Wikipedia. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c with Wassup) I'm sure I don't really qualify as neutral in the eyes of your two detractors, but Pedro, for your own info, I've looked through the dustup, and can't find one single thing you did wrong. As (I think) you told me once, not doing anything wrong is no guarantee that people aren't going to get mad at you. Some of the "delete" comments at the AfD were somewhat unkind (as seems to be the nature of Afd, and one reason I seldom go there), but none of them were made by you. --barneca (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A valuable reminder Barneca! thankyou! It's water of the proverbial ducks back, I'd happily just rollback the last edit to my talk, but if I've actually made a mistake I'd sooner know about it for next time. Pedro :  Chat  15:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm more amused than upset by the drama, as I said already. The moral of the little story that I sent you, was supposed to be that "everything's got a place in The Stew!". So, whether we see ourselves as carrots, onions or whatever, we should be relaxed about our differences. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The issues, my friend, is where you see yourself. Not me. Will you apologise for linking to an external site where the first lines are about bullying, with it's non-to-subtle implication?Pedro :  Chat  15:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read the AfD, I've read the talk comments at Pedro, Colonel's talkpages, and Firefly's talk history (things were removed by him, perfectly acceptable). I see no wrongdoing or admin abuse of any kind. I also read the external link of Colonel Warden's differently than you Pedro. I don't believe it was meant as an "allegation of bullying", but more towards what Colonel has said here, a simple allegory. It's akin to the story about the 4 blind men describing an elephant. I'll find a link if you don't know that story. Basic point really is that sometimes we don't see eye to eye. When one of the editors is perceived to be abusive, it doesn't mean he/she is. Colonel told Firefly that. You have not been abusive. You have followed Wiki-guidelines perfectly. Abusive behavior would be more akin to blocking Firefly, which of course you've done nothing of that sort. You are entitled to comment at any AfD. Firefly knows this now. Firefly also knows that you cannot close any AfD that you've commented in. (And I'll recuse myself also for commenting here, as well because of a previous "run-in" with Firefly over an AfD that I did close that he disagreed with). I'm recommending a "let's all move along here" attitude. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Even better than an external link! We actually have an article about the blind men and the elephant...who knew? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I don’t seen any evidence of wrongdoing on Pedro’s part, either. —Travis^talk 15:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

okay, sanity check done. Thanks all, particularly Keeper's perspective. Marking resolved. Pedro :  Chat  15:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Let me share some further thoughts on the issue after reading this thread. Pedro may well be within the letter of wikipedia "law". Nevertheless, I believe the majority of reasonable editors would agree that using administator tools on an article and then subsequently joining in that article's AfD can easily create the appearance of something untoward. I can now see that all along I have really been taking issue with the appearance of power of which Pedro and his friends (see Pedro's talk page where a friend states that he should be a beauraucrat) seeminly imbue his role. For the Administator role is supposed to be, according to guidelines, Wikipedia:Administrators#No big deal. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  I would say that "most reasonable editors" would actually disagree with that assertion that Pedro did something inappropriate, either as an editor or as an admin. I, and many admins, regularly contribute to AfDs that have been previously deleted, protected, or otherwise administratively affected. The only guideline for admins in this sense is to not close the debate, Firefly, which Pedro clearly and precisely stated, in more than one place, that he would not do. Time to let it go. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  Certainly Pedro and/or his fans have in fact been cultivating an appearance of power as administator. There's evidence for that. And that seems to go against the guideline: Wikipedia:Administrators#No big deal. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  You're absolutely right, Firefly. Being an admin is no big deal. Misusing admin tools is a big deal though, and accusing an admin wrongfully of misusing them is, traditionally a big deal too. You've mislabelled Pedro. He did nothing wrong, either as an admin or as an editor. Any editor can tag something for speedy deletion. Any admin can delete once tagged if merited. Pedro did. Then he undeleted. Then he contributed to the AfD. No big deal. He has not abused any admin tool, and the fact that you are trying to make a mountain out of this, against good advice from Pedro, myself, and Colonel Warden (on his talkpage), is quite telling. Please let it go. You are the only one trying to make a big deal out of this, and it's quite tiring. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  Outside press coverage says that the rise of the deletionists is threatening the hitherto peaceful growth of the world's most popular information source.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ealing Broadway Platform 9 is an excellent example of deletionist activity. Given the existence of outside press coverage, a deletionist debate like Ealing Broadway Platform 9 is quite objectively a big deal. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Firefly, now you're just deflecting. If you'd like to have a meta-conversation about deletionism/inclusionism, there are much better forums. Try village pump. I'm done with this here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Modernista!/Notice

I'm hesitant to cross-post this, but in hindsight this one needs a wide audience to be properly gauged: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Modernista!/Notice. A template has been added to an actual article, Modernista! which brings up major NPOV questions and questions of the actions/authority of a Foundation representative. As the Foundation may not have any authority in regards to actual article content, this is something that needs a wide review rather than just MFD regulars or involved parties. Thanks. Lawrence § t/e 18:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The nerve. How dare you actually attempt to get community consensus! The nerve. </sarcasm>  :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ban a biased user

I demand that User:Ricky81682 be banned immediately. He refuses to listen when people have legitimate complaints at User_talk:Ricky81682#Something_to_think_about and User_talk:Ricky81682#Following_on_your_comments and on and on. Instead, he blocks users like User:Svetovid who have done nothing wrong (other than asking legitimate questions at User_talk:Svetovid#Blocked) and lets User:Nmate continue editing and insulting people freely.

Wikipedia should not continue to allow editors to respond for legitimate help by ignoring and threatening to block them, which he repeats again and again. Besides, all he seems to do all day is try to get images deleted. People are putting serious time and effort into helping this site and people like that should not be allowed to destroy it. We should be allowing editors like him to focus on the destroying the encyclopedia while people like Svetovid are being driven off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.43.31 (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)