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

Tasks

The following backlogs require the attention of one or more editors.
Transwiki to Wikibooks and Wiktionary

NowCommons, Requested moves, Vandalism in progress, AfD cleanup, Copyright Problems and Requests for page protection

General

User: Ctifumdope

I just put up a page about the Chemical Solubility Chart, but I don't know how to create a table for all of the data that I have. Can somebody please help me out?

I am not an admin, but I made a table for you. You can improve on it in a few different ways (color code the soluability key, for instance; and make the compositions into chemical notation) but the table is there for you. Mikeblas 06:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mcfly85

I have informed all the users with the checkuser ability under advice given by Celestianpower to run a CheckUser on Mcfly85. As you all know, this user "claims" to have NEVER once opened an IP address to vandalize; list of IP addresses that vandalized my user page are suspects. I also suspect he created/opened accounts to vandalize too. A few days ago I was running for adminship and he got on there and edited. Mcfly85, Rock09 and Sigma995 all voted oppose when well noted administrators and others voted support. I suspect Mcfly has vandalized my user page 9 times. You can see conflicts there at my talk page, my RFA. I posted these accusations here at the Administrators' noticeboard and nothing was done because of lack of evidence and supporting vandalism. Well, today Banes noticed something interesting. He posted:

You may want to look at the history of Frank Beard. And, less interestingly, the history of Wayne Newton. I just thought this might interest you.

It was where Mcfly85 and Rock09 edited the same articles simultaneously. Rock09 vandalized the articles and Mcfly85 does clean-up. Suspicious that an article like Frank Beard, an article with 11 edits has edits by Rock09 and Mcfly85 simultaneously. I dont propose a block on Mcfly85 since he technically never vandalized anything but a ChechUser to see if he created sockpuppets for vandalizing. Can anyone please run a CheckUser on him?

SWD316 19:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is also a list of "accused sockpuppets" created by Mcfly85: Rock09, 4benson3, Capnoh, Oneandon, Sigma995, Sven66, Pwner, 63.18.246.17, 63.18.172.52, 63.18.172.52, 72.225.138.173, 63.18.252.148 and 63.18.234.145

Leave me alone, I am possibly through editing here. I am sick of the drama and I don't deserve this treatment. Don't waste your time on this issue. Life has better things than this waiting for me. Mcfly85 19:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets of Mcfly85

Now if someone could do the honors in blocking them? SWD316 19:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An additional sockpuppet Ebrockline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created today Fred Bauder 20:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked these. No such user as "Jimcrocela", I blocked Jimcroce1a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). No such user as "Tobiasafi", I blocked Tobiasfi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I didn't block Mcfly85. -- Curps 06:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fred didn't list Pwner (talk · contribs) but I blocked for username ("pwn") and blanking vandalism to User:SWD316 user page. But perhaps Fred could investigate a bit further for possible further sockpuppets of that one. -- Curps 06:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mcfly85's attempt to influence the most recent RfA

Despite his indication that he has quit, Mcfly85 continues to try to vote and add comments to influence SWD316's most recent RfA (which I brought to try to restore some procedural justice). (See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SWD316 3 -- for which I'm myself voting neutral on.) Celestianpower believes that the vote is valid, while Howcheng and I believe the vote is invalid. What's the thought from the peanut gallery?

Also, should Mcfly85 and/or the additional sock puppets be blocked in light of this? Should a WP:RfAr be brought? --Nlu (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Mcfly85 continued to insist on voting/commenting, and I've blocked him for three hours in light of this. Please, folks, put in your comments on this, as I need to know before the block expires whether to:

Allow his vote to stand;
Strike the vote;
Block him for longer period or;
Do something else.

I am not sure that I'm handling the situation correctly, but it seems just wrong to allow Mcfly85's vote to stand in light of what had happened. Still, input is requested. --Nlu (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think his vote should be counted or remain on the page even. However as it is generally known that he ruined the first RfA it doesn't do much harm. I'm tempted to just block Mcfly85 indefinitely but it is SWD316's place to make a complaint or Request for Arbitration. Fred Bauder 04:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

His/her vote should not count as per above evidence--MONGO 04:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've decided to go ahead and bring a WP:RfAr asking for an emergency ruling on this. Obviously, the ArbCom might not make a ruling quickly enough. Mcfly85 has since made an apology to me and to SWD316 on our talk pages (as well as on his own). I've indicated that I do not want to see him permanently blocked, but that I am still seeking a ruling because I am not 100% sure that my actions were correct. Additional comments, folks? --Nlu (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that he should receive a one week block.--MONGO 13:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One week? After this barefaced lying, the disgraceful attack on SWD316's RFA, and the continued disruption of his new RFA ? I disagree. I recommend a long block of this unscrupulous user. And to my mind, the apologies would have been a lot more indicative of change of heart if they'd come before Fred's checkuser evidence. Bishonen | talk 14:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, I was actually hoping for a longer block than a week, unless this user can find some way to ensure us that his/her abuse and sockpuppet useage for the wrong purposes is done forever, and unlikly event.--MONGO 08:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it ought to be longer. Mcfly85's sock puppets ought to be perma-blocked, Mcfly85 himself blocked more than a week, and Checkuser should be run periodically over the next few months to prevent more sock-puppetry. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 00:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about blocking, but allow one of His votes to stand (if using multiple accounts). Anyone can reconsile leaving and vote, right? -- Eddie 04:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Important: Special:Unwatchedpages

Currently, 71% of mainspace articles are unwatched. Special:Unwatchedpages has now been enabled, but for admins only. Each admin has to add at least 1500 articles to their watchlist in order to watch them all. Get to work! — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-21 13:03

um, it lists !! (chess) which is a redirect. Why does it list redirects? Broken S 13:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Because they're in the mainspace. It would be nice to have redirects listed separately, but it's not like adding a bunch of them to your watchlist is going to flood your watchlist with edits, so they should be fine with watching in addition to normal articles. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-21 13:08
- And also - you never when someone is going to turn a valid redirect to something/somewhere stupid.... novacatz 13:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it make more sense to enable this for all users? Would certainly reduce the workload. Jacoplane 13:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, because then vandals could use it to target unwatched pages. Radiant_>|< 13:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe then it might be a good idea to add this functionality to the WP:CTP proposal. Jacoplane 13:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Alternatively, it might be a good idea to let User:Cool Cat/IRC Bot monitor these pages. Jacoplane 13:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is excellent news! Better start adding some pages to my watchlist. Carbonite | Talk 13:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hold on a second! Avar just did a count of the number of unwatched pages that are not redirects, and it turns out there are only 547~~! I think he's working on making that list only show non-redirects. In the meantime, start adding a bunch to your watchlist. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-21 13:31

I think it would also be used to have the ability to filter by namespace or whether a page is a redirect or not. Carbonite | Talk 13:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This list currently only includes pages in the article namespace. I think he has fixed it to only list non-redirects. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-21 13:38
  - I believe it lists pages watched by any user, even if that user hasn't actually logged in for a year. Is that correct? Could we improve on that maybe? R adiant _>|< 13:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I assume other namespaces will be added in the future. It's important that all pages in the Wikipedia and template namespaces are watched.Carbonite | Talk 13:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It now lists pages that aren't redirects... it looks like there are more than 547, so get to work! — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-21 13:50

This is a surprisingly good way for finding dubious articles... thanks! Shimgray | talk | 14:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that pages are still be added. Right now it lists exactly 1000 pages. Is there any count on the total number of unwatched non-redirect pages? Carbonite | Talk 14:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to Avar, there's a limit of 1000 on the list, and it lists them alphabetically. I don't know how often it updates, but the only way we're going to see more is to add all of these to our lists. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-21 16:53

Hmm...that's rather disappointing. There must be some way to get around the 1000 page limit, although it's possible that could be a major code change that might take a while to implement and test. Carbonite | Talk 17:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a bug that has been filed for a while now, apparently. I think someone is going to refresh the special page so that it lists unwatched pages. We may want to coordinate on the special talk page so that we don't all watch the same content and miss other stuff. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-22 00:35
What would really be useful is a related changes button, so that all admins could collectively check for vandalism to these articles. - SimonP 00:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that Special:Unwatchedpages ignores accounts that haven't logged in for over three months, with respect to watching. If a page is only on the watchlist of one or more dormant accounts, it is for all practical purposes unwatched. R adiant _>|< 17:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So is there a reason this new feature isn't listed on Special:Specialpages in the Restricted special pages section? Slambo (Speak) 14:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo editing Wikipedia article about himself?

I hesitate to bring this us but it's all in the news this morning:

"THE FOUNDER of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales has been tinkering with his own biography to remove things he doesn’t like, and make himself the hero, it's claimed. Technology writer Rogers Cadenhead looking for a Yuletide exclusive, has been digging around the public edit logs of Wikipedia and discovered that Wales has edited his biography 18 times. Though some Wikipedia editors believe that it's always wrong to edit subjects in which you are involved, Wales does not seem to think so, claims Cadenhead. One of the things Wales didn’t like were some phrases describing former Wikipedia employee Larry Sanger as a co-founder of the site. He also tinkered with a description of a search site he founded called Bomis, which included a section with adult photos called "Bomis Babes," it's claimed. In an interview with Wired News, Wales acknowledged he's made changes to his bio, but said the edits were made to correct factual errors and provide a more rounded version of events. He said that people shouldn’t do it, including him and he wished he hadn’t as it was in poor taste." [1]

I figure this merely shows that Jimbo, like all of us, gets carried away with Wikipedia at times. Unfortunately, though, Wikipedia haters are going to use this against us. All in all, Wikipedia is going through some tough media times right now.--Alabamaboy 15:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course what is generally overlooked in the media is that I edit under my own account, widely known, and all edits were made on an equal footing with other editors, and all edits were publicly known and discussed. I regret making the edits now, because I have always thought it in poor taste to edit one's own bio, but I stand by the quality of the edits and by my conduct in the discussion of the edits. I am very sympathetic to those who find factual errors about themselves in Wikipedia, because it happens to me. It's a tough thing to sit on one's hands and do nothing but complain on the talk page, but that's what I plan to do from now on.--Jimbo Wales 15:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that the media didn't mention the fact that you edited the article under your own name. The articles make is sound like this reporter did some amazing investigating. The truth is he merely noticed that you had nothing to hide. Ah well. Such is the media. Still, as I said Wikipedia is going through a tough media times right now.--Alabamaboy 15:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to Special:Mostrevisions, Jimmy Wales has been edited 1602 times (#283 on the list). So 98.876% of the edits are not by Jimbo. Seems any POV pushed would be quickly swamped! --bainer (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm particularly worried that some POV is being pushed, but we should probably take that 98.876% with a grain of salt. I suspect that a very hefty fraction of those 1602 edits are just vandalism and reversion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly acceptable for subjects to edit their own biographies if factual errors are there. It isn't infringing the rules on autobiography (I have done it myself a few times). This is a duff story. David | Talk 17:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jimbo editing his own userpage is totally different to Adam Curry editing the podcast article using an anonymous IP. Perhaps there should be a guideline that specifies the conditions of editing your own bio. Personally, I think there is not problem with editing your own bio as long as the community is aware who made the changes. The problem of course with this kind of media coverage is that the distinction is too nuanced for sites like the inquirer (let's not even talk about the register) to understand. I'm kind of dissapointed that Wired didn't have more of a clue, though. At the end of the day, Wikipedia might be getting a lot of bad press recently, but that doesn't seem to be harming us ;) Jacoplane 18:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see no harm in editing your own biography if it needs editing and you adhere to Wikipedia policies. It is entirely possible to take a NPOV on at least some aspects of yourself. And hey, all publicity is good publicity. This will only make more people realize the good of Wikipedia. Cookiecaper 19:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that edits to your own bio could actually be helpful. I see a lot of bio changes that are ...well... just strange. If I saw an edit like that, and noticed it was the subject of the bio that made it, then I would know at least that the subject didn't find it insulting, and I wouldn't have to research it to verify it. --ssd 08:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RachelBrown socks

User:Zordrac/Poetlister (new discussion to resolve issues not covered so far)

A lot of information on this issue can be found here, including some quite shocking examples of use of admin to silence other people involved in the same edit war by User:SlimVirgin, as well as some very dodgy vandalism by a mysterious anonymous IP (example) who may well be a sockpuppet of one of the users involved here..:
User :Zordrac/Poetlister --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 09:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser shows Taxwoman (talk · contribs), Poetlister (talk · contribs), Londoneye (talk · contribs), and Newport (talk · contribs) to be likely sockpuppets of RachelBrown (talk · contribs) used to unfairly stack debates; they have been blocked. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence is there that they were used to unfairly stack debates? I thought that "AFD is not a vote" therefore making such a claim irrelevant. It should be logic, not numbers, that wins through. From what I can gather, they edited totally different articles, had different views, and on just a handful of occasions had similarity with votes - less than 5 AFDs. Thus if there is abuse, it is very technical in nature, and an indefinite block is, to put it mildly, an exaggeration. It is very difficult to WP:AGF under these circumstances, especially considering the complaint against 2 admins posed by Poetlister. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How has this been "proven"? You say "likely", but it was established elsewhere that the two are real-life friends... Are ALL edits from the same IP or just a few? It could just be that maybe some edits were made while round the same house, college, university or workplace

I have copied this message for administrator eyes, left on Mindspillage's talk page:

I feel I should join in here, I have been having conversations with these people separately and there is no way that Poetlister, RachelBrown or Londoneye are the same person. While it may be true that they support each other in disputes (Rachel's flatmate did revert on the British jewish page, once logged in on Rachel's account, but otherwise correctly logged out showing as an ip) I don't feel a block is justified at all. Arniep 01:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Mistress Selina Kyle 02:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I should point out here that the user who is protesting these claims seems to know clearly how CheckUser works, because s/he demanded that it be used on me when their user page was vandalised shortly after I commented on a personal attack they made against me, so any claims of not understanding how it works are untrue. --Kiand 02:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you clarify which user you are talking about. Me? Yes, I know how CheckUser works, as it was explained to me previously, a couple of times, and I even asked the admin who had CheckUser priveleges how it works. I don't know who else you might be talking about though, as I was the one who first made the protest about this action. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, not you. Mistress Serena Kyle, who I notice from talk page comments, went as far as to remove the sockpuppet notice demanding "proof" as if they didn't know how CheckUser worked. --Kiand 09:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then either they were engaging in vandalism or else don't know how CheckUser works. Note that CheckUser isn't something that is obvious to new users. Took me a good week of investigation to find out what it went through. Nonetheless, she is right that there is no proof that they are sock puppets. If there was, it would be presented on a public page somewhere. This has not been done. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These people are friends (in the UK) who have sometimes supported each other in article disputes or voted the same way in vfds, but actually I think thats a pretty normal thing for friends to do? If it is prohibited for friends to have similar beliefs or to give their opinion in a dispute that a friend has been having it should be stated that friends should avoid voting in the same vfds or joining in the same disputes. All these people have made positive edits and I think it is a pretty bad injustice to continue these blocks. Arniep 02:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even as friends versus sockpuppet accounts, they would be called "Meatpuppets". See WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets for the relevant description. Basically, meatpuppets act like sockpuppets, even if they are the same person, and the arbitrators, along with most admins, treat meatpuppets the same as sockpuppets. --D e ath phoenix 14:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unless of course the meatpuppets are on their side, and then they describe them as the "community". -- Grace Note.

Yes, but there is no evidence that they actually acted in the same manner as each other. If you view their contributions, they very rarely combined with each other, and did not make a significant difference when they did. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The checkuser shows that the accounts shared several different IPs; combined with the editing patterns and other evidence revealed in confidence, it's convincing enough to block. If there's a better explanation, my email box is open to hear from the affected user(s). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you provide this evidence publicly, as its accuracy is being heavily disputed here. There is quite a lot of evidence that they could not theoretically be the same person, such as the evidence that User:RachelBrown last edited on 10 December 2005, that they edited at the same times and so forth. It is possible that they all use the same ISP service, and that their IP addresses circle through. I am sure that there are several thousand Wikipedia editors who have at one point in time used the same IP address as me, because mine cycles, so does that make them all my sock puppets? It is a great stretch of the imagination, and, as stated elsewhere, the circumstances of this make it highly suspicious. This evidence needs to be made public. I ask that all blocks be overturned immediately pending a thorough investigation in to the matter, and to enable the affected users to participate in appropriate RfCs, RfArs et al that concerned them, which is a large part of the issue here. The link between these users is about as tentative as the link that Lulu of the Lotus Eaters, SlimVirgin and yourself are all the same person, just because you occasionally overlap with opinions. It is, in other words, a nonsense claim. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser information can not and should not be made public. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom decisions should be though, and its a lot more than just "are they the same IP?" Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the evidence in this case, and agree with the conclusion reached by Mindspillage. Either all of these editors are the same person, or several people all of whom share the same workplace, residence, and (apparently) a single computer. There is one point in the log where in the course of nine minutes three distinct accounts edited from the same IP, and multiple instances of two distinct accounts editing from the same IP within the space of two to five minutes. We've only heard one flatmate suggested; am I to believe that there are three (or more) people all sharing the same workplace and residence, the same obsession with the same topic, and who carefully coordinate their edits so as never to interleave them? No, the most probable conclusion is that this is a single person. Any other conclusion multiplies entities unnecessarily. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very bad conclusions there. My understanding is that User:RachelBrown and User:Poetlister are friends, although I gather that they do not live together (they might, I don't know), but they do visit each other. The "IP address" that you refer to is RachelBrown's IP, which was published once because she forgot to log back in, or Wikipedia accidentally logged her out. I shall clarify this for you to avoid confusion. User:81.153.41.72 is the IP that belongs to User:RachelBrown. User:Poetlister visits RachelBrown regularly, and they likely used the same computer. Thus, it is quite likely that these "3" users (really 2 people) may have got on to the same computer. Just to explain this a bit more explicitly here for people who are confused - Rachel Brown was logged in when Giselle (Poetlister - her name does not seem to be Lisa) asked to log in and have a go. Then afterwards Rachel Brown wanted to have a go, but for some reason Wikipedia didn't log her in properly. This is the very obvious explanation which had already previously been explained at the time that it happened. There was no sock puppetry as they never once pretended that the IP address did not belong to RachelBrown. All edits by that IP address were made by RachelBrown. Am I to understand it that it is illegal for an editor to ever accidentally log out? Or is it illegal for an editor to be friends with another Wikipedia editor? As for the other 3, it has been explained to me that Londoneye was Rachel Brown's cousin and may have visited her once or twice, and may have used Wikipedia whilst editing. The other two don't know Rachel Brown other than that they used to know each other at University. I suspect that they just happen to use the same ISP, as if they went to university together then they probably live in the same area. I think that you would agree that all using the same ISP is not a crime. It also should be noted that the above user, User:Kelly Martin is not neutral to this case. Indeed, she was the person to whom User:SlimVirgin made the request to have these people banned. See here: User_talk:Kelly_Martin#User-check_request. Thus Kelly Martin is an inappropriate person to make a review, as she likely simply told Mindspillage to ban them all. Indeed, it seems that Mindspillage's involvement was simply as messenger, as she seems to have no idea of the underlying problems surrounding this. Checking their contributions for the 5 users in question, RachelBrown (talk · contribs), Poetlister (talk · contribs), Londoneye (talk · contribs), Taxwoman (talk · contribs) and Newport (talk · contribs) they edited vastly different topics and acted in completely different, often opposing ways to each other, with no coordination whatsoever. Whilst Poetlister and RachelBrown did occasionally support each other, it was not consistent, and it is incorrect to state that they acted as "one voice". The IP address belonging to RachelBrown did act as "one voice" with RachelBrown, but that should not be a surprise, since RachelBrown was just kicked off Wikipedia a few times. Any other claims about them acting as "one voice" are blatantly false. I have reviewed every edit made by all 5 users, and I encourage everyone else to do the same. Indeed, Taxwoman (talk · contribs)'s edits were so vastly different to that of RachelBrown's that they could more accurately be described as enemies. The exception, however, is that they at one point in time clearly did call each other on the phone to ask each other to vote on the various Jewish lists, something which was likely organised by Rachel Brown. Thus, for those specific AFDs there is a possibility of meat puppeting. Thus, these Jewish lists should be relisted for deletion, with the 5 user names forbidden from voting. I think that this would be an appropriate result. I would also ask you to investigate matters properly in the future, as you seem to have made some grave errors in this case. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are strongly cautioned not to assume bad faith like this. I did not "order" Mindspillage to do anything; I don't have the authority to do so, and Mindspillage would simply ignore me if I tried to order her to do anything. I did not originally act on SlimVirgin's request (being otherwise occupied), nor did I review the evidence involved until Mindspillage asked me to. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate on "strongly cautioned". Are you threatening to ban me for trying to expose the truth of what is going on? I would like you to elaborate on this so that I can take it further if you are. Oh, and no, I was not wrong. Remember no weasel words in edit summaries. See WP:CIVIL. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To sum the evidence:

The accounts shared several different IPs (This really needs clarifying to be meaningful)
All the accounts have made very different contributions to Wikipedia, except that some have made an occasional edit to one particular page
Many have similar user pages, and seem to puport be similar kinds of people (ie young British females)

This doesn't come close to being grounds for blocking under Wikipedia:Blocking policy, and I've unblocked at once. Dan100 (Talk) 22:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we assumed good faith, as the admins in question order others to do, we would assume they were simply young women who knew each other and sometimes used the same PC to edit WP. We would all move on. The "debates" that were "stacked" will be fixed some other way. The people involved don't lose "debates" because they have far too many friends they can call on if they look like they will. So let's leave the accounts in question unblocked, let Slim and Lulu actually prove the merits of their case regardless how many sockpuppets oppose them, because if they're right, they're right and as Zordrac says, we don't decide who's right by numbers, right? And everyone have a happy Christmas. Or whatever you celebrate. If anything. If not, I wish you happiness anyway. -- Grace Note.

I'd prefer accuracy to greetings. Slim and Lulu have no case the merits of which they need to prove. There's an insanity to this situation, because there is no issue, is no case, is no dispute, and these accounts (two of them anyway) are clearly sock puppets. For reasons best know to him or herself, the operator of the account is pretending to be involved in a dispute, so someone is playing silly buggers, and all I know is it's not me and it's not Lulu; beyond that I neither know nor care. Please check your facts before commenting, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop mentioning my name all over the site, regardless of whether I'm involved in a situation or not. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. First off, Kelly didn't order me to do anything. (As a volunteer I don't suppose I can really be ordered to do anything, but sometimes people ask me to do specific things&mdashsuch as looking into potentially problematic situations—that I have volunteered to do in general, and I usually agree to do so.) Someone else asked me (in private, so as not to be harassed) to look at the relevant evidence to see if I thought that it suggested sockpuppets. Their IP evidence (for which the specifics are private) very strongly suggested it, and their all weighing in those AfDs was thus against policy, so I placed the block. (Yes, I am aware the rest of their editing is on different topics: that doesn't necessarily mean anything.) When it was questioned from multiple sources, I asked Kelly to sanity check by reviewing the evidence to see if I had been too hasty, but instead she concurred with it. There's not much more I can say about it; I have no interest in the dispute, and none of the accounts have contacted me to either question or protest. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jtdirl

This admin has been most unfair to me; I previously posted a single piece of vandalism, and was indefintely blocked (later changed to 48 hours), see Special:Contributions/84.9.73.251. I came back after my ban (changed to 48 hours) and posted an edit to show that I was back to be helpful (see contributions), and then left a message for jtdril effectively questioning whether he could really have thought my rather light hearted edit summary could really have been considered "[an] implication that [I] engage in sexual abuse, may leave [me] liable to police investigation and criminal prosecution.". For this alone, I was almost immediately blocked again (or at least my previous ip was), for "legal claims". Surely, if anyone, it is jtdril that has been making "legal claims". How on earth is a "vandal" supposed to reform when one gets this sort of treatment? And I wouldn't be suprised if jtdril's actions are endorsed for this, while this ip gets banned for "circumventing a ban" or similar nonsense, but I would at least like a proper sort of justification. 84.9.93.27 00:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While "defamatory claims" (from the IP talk page) is certaintly the wrong description, jtdirl explains his reasoning here. Given that and the message left with the block, I wonder why the ip edit hasn't been deleted. I think it also would've been helpful if jtdirl had briefly explained that reason before someone else asked, as the explaination isn't necessarily obvious. --Mairi 01:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am impressed that an anonymous editor with only three edits in total–including the complaint above–was able to correctly assemble such a thorough defacement of Trials of Saddam Hussein, including modification/replacement of several images and correct wikisyntax throughout. Use of an edit summary (I LIKE TO WANK SMALL BOYS - YES I DO - I LIKE TO PLAY WITH THEIR WILLIES) is also commended.

I would like to extend congratulations to the many editors who have assembled and refined our documentation and help pages over the years. If a new user is able to assimilate such advanced techniques so rapidly, the transparency and ease-of-use of our editing tools must be truly incredible. Worthy of mention as well is the anon's ability to find this page for his complaint, and his ability to use a correctly-formed Special:Contributions wikilink on it. Obviously our dispute resolution guidelines are extremely clear and concise.

Such a talented and fast-learning editor should be able to find more productive outlets for his expertise, and will no doubt appreciate that our administrators are very busy and have other urgent concerns. He will surely understand that refraining from doing dumb things in the future is an excellent way to avoid further blocks.

Because I suspect that Jtdirl's second block may have been the result of a slightly twitchy blocking finger, I am sending Jtdirl to bed without a cookie this evening. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you, now? All right, here's a little snack for Jtdirl. The absence of any smidgeon of regret for the "single piece of vandalism" (how nugatory it sounds) in the post above is interesting. Bishonen | talk 02:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How is it interesting? Why should I regret it? If I am to be punished, why should I regret it? Surely if I truely regretted it then there would be no point in punishment. BTW, this claim is absolutely not a notice of intent to recommence vandalising (this needs emphasing in case of more twitchiness).

(and, btw, I am philisophically against regretting things, as I consider life a learning experience; I would go into more detail, but as you chaps know, wikipedia is not a sounding board....) 84.9.93.27 02:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An experienced editor like yourself probably knows that Wikipedia is philosophically opposed to the notion of "punishment"; that wasn't why you were blocked. I used the word "interesting" as a civil euphemism for "displeasing". And that was when I assumed you did regret it, but merely omitted to say so through social ineptness. Now that you've informed me you don't, I'd use stronger words. Bishonen | talk 02:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to assume good faith and assume that is your real reason for using this, in which case I again point you to my philisophical objection to regretting anything. I must go to bed now, but I shall be pleased to respond in the morning. 84.9.93.27 02:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your sarcasm, but I made no claim of being a new user - I am indeed an experienced editor, albeit an exclusively anonymous one. However, let me state for the record that I have nothing at all to do with the bear fellow. Anyway, I wasn't so much complaining about the initial block, which made sense, so much as the one for making a "legal claim" - I still don't get this point. 84.9.93.27 01:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I take back the "most unfair" thing, I see how there may have seemed to have been a link, but I still don't see my statements as "legal" (other than them being, er, legal) 84.9.93.27 01:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blah, blah, blah. 84.9.93.27, you're just making Jtdirl look like he was justified in coming down hard on you. So, if that was your objective, congratulations. karmafist 20:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked User:84.9.93.27 for one month for vandalism, trolling and disruption. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fucking unbelievable ... --84.68.154.13 10:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Police Force

This was just posted to my talk page by User:160.96.200.18 in reply to a request left at User talk:160.96.200.19 as to why the logo was being removed. The Huai_Wei referred to is user User:Huaiwei. We have both been reverting the logo here until earlier whenit was replaced with a picture from the commons. Any comments?

I refer to your comment dated 21 Dec on the above subject.

I am writing on behalf of my organisation, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) with regards to your webpage posting on the SPF's history. We noted that there were no requests seeking consent for the use of our SPF crest for use on this website. All requests to use the SPF crest will have to be submitted formally, either via our webmaster or in writing, to the head of the organisation. Each request will be assessed on a case basis.

We have previously written to Huai_Wei (the initial publisher of this wiki) on 24 Nov, informing him of the unauthorised use of image (i.e. SPF crest) and likely, information from our publications. We did not receive any acknowledgement to date. We are in the process of checking the content posted on the history of the SPF in your website to see if there are any infringement of published information that is copyrighted.

We will be seeking our legal counsel's advice regarding the unauthorised used of our corporate logo and information published by the SPF. While we acknowledge and appreciate the interest in our organisation's rich heritage, and the promotion of such knowledge in the interest of both academic and personal research, we believe that the individuals who sought to use such information should responsibly seek clearance and consent for use accordingly. Until such time, please refrain from posting the SPF crest on the website.

Regards

Public Affairs Dept

Singapore Police Force

CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at the minimum there should have been a contact address (e.g. email). In any case, the current pic shows the logo as part of a building, and I believe this is OK copyrightwise, although I am not sure about the laws in Singapore. -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a lawyer and do not wish to become involved in this situation, but logos are considered fair use under U.S. law, and the servers are hosted in the U.S. I'm pretty sure they can't restrict people from publishing a photo of their building with their logo once it's been taken. You should probably forward this to Danny, who if I remember correctly, asked that all mailings dealing with legal issues be forwarded to him so that the appropriate people can take care of it. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify, that the logo in question was actually Image:Singapore Police Force Logo.png, which I uploaded on wikipedia claiming fairuse of a logo, although I was unsure if it infringes on Singaporean copyright laws. The logo was displayed in the said article on 18 November 2004 [2]. On 11 November 2005, I sent an email to the SPF to make an enquiry on an unrelated matter. A few emails were exchanged, asking me for which publication I was making my enquiry for. On 22 November 2005, an anon deleted the logo wih no comment left [3], and I subsequently reverted it on the same day thinking it was an act of vandalism [4]. On 24 November, I received an email from the SPF informing me that they have removed the logo due to alleged infringement of copyright, as well as issuing a warning over the unauthorised use of "any images, text and statistics from the Singapore Police Force website and all its publications". Unsure if I had indeed infringed on any copyright, I left the article as it is, and went about seeking a replacement to resolve the issue. No message was ever writtern in wikipedia informing others over the copyright infringement issue, and I admit my lapse in bringing the issue to the attention of others.

Hence almost a month later on 21 December 2005, another anon removed the logo once again [5], resulting in a series of revert warring between the same anon and User:CambridgeBayWeather [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. Finally on 22 December 2005, I ended the edit warring by replacing the disputed the logo with a self-taken image instead [13]. Only when this happen, did the anon finally left a message on the article's talkpage, as well as in CambridgeBayWeather's talk page a few hours after I replaced the logo [14]. Responses to the above message has been made in the respective article's talkpage expressing our intentions to act on any violations of copyright laws.--Huaiwei 13:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Attack of the Rugby Hooligans

There is apparently a concerted effort at the chat forums of http://www.planet-rugby.com to continually vandalize Wikipedia. A post to that forum, dated 12/21/05, entitled "Attn: Girv Gang", calls for comments on Talk:Girvan Dempsey. The articles edited by these folks invariably add nothing but POV text -- either in the form of effusive praise (which may possibly be "taking the piss") or in the form of direct attacks -- to a pre-existing stub about a rugby player. The same post calls for the continual recreation of the Planet Rugby and/or the Planet Rugby Chat Forum article, which was deleted by consensus (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planet Rugby Chat Forum). The text of the deleted article was pasted into the Planet Rugby forum for easier re-creation.

Articles targeted thus far:

Users apparently associated with Planet Rugby:

Currently, the Planet Rugby and Planet Rugby Chat Forum articles are protected and have a big ol' {{deleted}} template slapped on 'em. I'm a little unsure about how to deal with the rest of the mess. My gut instinct is to protect all the articles currently targeted by these folks until they get bored and go away, but I have not yet done so. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 11:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but this doesn't look like vandalism to me. This looks much more like newbies not knowing how Wikipedia works. Protecting the deleted pages was a good move. It solves the recreation problem without fuss. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure[21]. It looks to be over but if not it might be worth trying a bit of diplomacy.Geni 18:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection

Maybe I've been living under a rock for the last couple of hours, but I just realized that Semi-Protection of articles has finally been enabled. Since I didn't see an official announcement anywhere and more or less accidentally stumbled over the new feature, I thought it might be a good idea to drop a note here and let everybody in on the fun. Relevant policy page is at WP:SEMI, all our high-profile vandal magnets seem to be semi-protected already -- Ferkelparade π 12:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to the mailing list, it not entirely functional yet, in that new users aren't blocked from editing (anonymous contributors are, however). --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 14:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From my tests, it looks like it's preventing new users from editing semi-protected pages (list here). --Interiot 08:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Something is dreadfully wrong here

I just noticed that my account already has pagemove permisions, except I only registered my account about 30 minutes ago, the waitlist for pagemove permissions seems to have vanished, probably after the last server crash, perhaps someone wants to recreate the waitlist before other people notice this, the vandals could have a field day with this bug--1 use 17:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not mistaken, it is based on a specific percentage of the number of users who are new, rather than an actual time limit. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is presumably a side-effect of requiring people to create accounts to create new articles - many more accounts per day. Unless someone knows better. Rd232 ^talk 21:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's right. Earlier on December 22, pagemove was available immediately after registration, which Guillermo_con_sus_ruedas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) took advantage of. It seems to have been a software misconfiguration issue, and has hopefully been fixed now. -- Curps 08:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongfully accused of vandalism

I had technical difficulties with my computer that would delete sections of the King Kong (2005 film) article every time I would try to edit, which I did not intend. All I tried to do was move an image. My edits should not be considered vandalism, as the changes other than the image placement alteration aforementioned were completely accidental. Eliezer, an administrator, wrongfully accused me of vandalism and left a warning message. I apologize for the confusion. --24.253.120.206 12-22-05

Thanks for the note. You should probably be very careful in your edits then, knowing that you are having a technical issue. I would reccomend also using the Preview function before you post an edit, to make sure that the edit will not have any unintended effects. Thanks, and please do continue contributing. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 21:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dreamguy

My one and only complaint against this user is this:

I had set up in the Article:Bigfoot a section indicating where readers and others should go to if they have seen these things. Already one Wikipedian has reported one encounter with this thing. All it stated is this: "REPORTING A BIGFOOT (section title) Those who have seen/encountered this creature should go to a reputable Bigfoot website, data site to report the encounter." User:Dreamguy says that is "nonsense" in the Edit Summary section. How can this be "nonsense" ? Millions read Wikipedia, and how many of these people are using it to find a means to report a encounter with paranormal phenomena ?Martial Law 22:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Content disputes should be discussed on the article talk page. Friday (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My complaint has been settled. Appreciate the assisstance.Martial Law 23:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possible plagiarism by newspaper

I ran across what may be plagiarism by a newspaper entertainment reporter of a good chunk of a Wikipedia article. In an article in the Honolulu Star Bulletin ("'243' is horrific Aloha flight story" by Tim Ryan, dated December 22, 2005) a solid 138 of Ryan's 456 words (30%) appear to be nearly identical to our article on Aloha Flight 243.

I've put together a side-by-side comparison of the remarkably similar sections at User:TenOfAllTrades/Aloha Dupe. The passages in our article were added by at least four separate editors over a five-month period, so I consider it unlikely that the Star Bulletin reporter is reusing his own work. The last duplicated section was added to Wikipedia six months ago–in May of this year–suggesting that our article is the original source. (A quick search reveals no other online content from which both authors might have drawn the passages in question.)

I have a few requests.

Please don't send angry frothing emails to the Star Bulletin until we've figured out what we want to do here.
Is there a plausible alternate explanation? (Is our article 'clean'?)
How should we handle this? Whom should we contact, and who will be our spokesperson?
Have we run across this phenomenon before, and how was it handled? How did it work out? Should we (or do we already?) have a standardized process?

Comments or suggestions? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Posibly a shared PD source but I doubt it somewhat.Geni 23:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should we maybe be offended that they only used 30 percent? Is our writing no better than that??? Wahkeenah 23:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The very POINT of Wikpedia is to inform as many as possible. We should THANK him for helping us inform as many as possible and ask if perhaps he might help even more by mentioning us as one of his sources. WAS 4.250 23:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you misunderstand the definition of plagiarism? — Dan | talk 23:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not realeased under the GFDL and does not give credit as requied by the GFDL.Geni 23:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If they use our material, by the GFDL, the have to credit The Project. Their failure to do so is a violation of our copyright here. That they copied material, period, is a shocking lack of journalistic integrity that needs to be called on as a service to the readers of that paper and the paper itself, which is the bigger deal, frankly. The editors of this paper must be contacted, so that they can look into the author of the article. And if they willfully participated in this, then some other media need to be informed. Ten, since you cought it, I think you should put together an email with what you have cought and email the editors and see what happens. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with plagiariam; rather it's a straightforward copyright matter. A polite email to the newspaper telling them that they can use our copyright material freely subject to the GFDL would be enough. Possibly a sub-editor or reporter has copied our text without acknowledgement, in which case a bit of re-education is in order. But it's also possible that one of the authors of our piece submitted his own work to the newspaper and to us--which he's perfectly entitled to do as far as the GFDL is concerned. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with plagiariam. Uh, no, it's exactly plagiarism: copying material without attribution and passing it off as one's own, and copyright status or licensing or other hoo-hah is utterly immaterial to that act. And in the (in my opinion) unlikely case of Ryan having written it an contributed it to Wikipedia -- well, it's not his to contribute, it's the Star Bulletin's. --Calton | Talk 08:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At least ~~four~~three editors contributed to the duplicated material in the Wikipedia article. (One of those was an IP, so there might only be ~~three~~two unique editors.) Unless they're socks of the same meatspace person, I would tend to discount the theory that the same person wrote both the Star Bulletin story and the Wikipedia entry. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified Jimbo of this thread, per a suggestion from Jeffrey Gustafson. If there's worthwhile PR mileage to be had from this incident, there's nothing wrong with going for it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is the evidence it is not covered by "fair use"? Copyright only covers acts of creativity. Not any old bland putting together of facts. What creative use of language do you assert was apropriated? And why do you feel it is not covered under fair use? WAS 4.250 03:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Fair use" normally requires proper attribution, precisely what is lacking here. DES ^(talk) 08:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the theory that a writer is never caught for their first act of plagarism, I went googling on other Tim Ryan stories, and found one where he apparently lifted 5 paragraphs from a Sacremento Bee story. This has be added to TenOfAllTrade's dupe page. Dragons flight 06:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To not inform the editors of these transgressions provides an extreme disservice to the paper, the people that have been plagiarized, and the people of Hawaii that read that paper. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First stop, Ryan's editor at the Star-Bulletin; second, maybe a letter to Romenesko (an American media-watcher's website)? --Calton | Talk 08:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a tip from Dragons flight, I found stuff about Queensland (from about-australia.com) used to pad a travel article. I found multiple sources for the text, which seems to be from some Queensland government factsheet. Not a great transgression, but you're still supposed to credit sources for verbatim or near-verbatim 'grafs. --Calton | Talk 14:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not contact the author directly and see what he says? There may be another side of the story we are unaware of. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that some of the other stories are verbatim (or near-verbatim) extracts from a press release that both writers were given, rather than copying of the other writers' work. While such behaviour is lazy and dishonest and does a disservice to the reader, it's seen by many journalists as 'acceptable' plagiarism.

The last story–about cellist Matt Haimovitz–is very troubling if it was lifted straight from NPR. Unless it was Ryan who did the interview for NPR, there would seem to be something funny about the telephone interview he describes in his article.

What would we ask him? And is there a good reason not to cc: his editor on it anyway? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we could write and point out that we noticed the similarities in writing, and ask him to comment. If his reply is unsatisfactory, then we could check with his editor. It's always good to get the "other side" to the story; we could be missing something here, for all we know. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of continuing this discussion in a single location, I suggest making any additional comments at User talk:TenOfAllTrades/Aloha Dupe. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:POV Cleanup

The POV disputes list is immense and just skimming, many are old and already resolved disputes... would I be stepping on toes forming a project to clean it up? -- Jbamb 00:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, you would likely be barnstarred. Excellent idea. R adiant _>|< 01:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistalking personal attacks and sockpuppet slander

Yuber is calling me "chaosfeary" in every edit he makes to me and every time I make an edit he doesn't agree with he pulls on his friends to start revert wars.

He seems to think I'm a sockpuppet and has got Jayjg to do a user check (without asking for my permission or respecting my privacy at all..) which proved I wasn't.

Can someone please tell him to stop him to stop following me around making stupid allegations? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I never got Jayjg to do a "user check" on you, but I did request one on Chaosfeary's account to see whether or not he was Enviroknot, and this was all a long time ago. I think you're confusing your own accounts here.Yuber^(talk) 02:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

your friend anonymous editor and Katefan0 did though. Jayjg is all too happy to use his admin powers to violate others' privacy for you and your mates it seems.

And yes, please stop the stupid baseless whining or you won't have a foot to stand on if I make personal attacks back at you. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 04:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you start making personal attacks, I'll block you regardless of what Yuber's doing. I may block him as well, but that's beside the point. --Carnildo 08:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just butting in here. Jayjg did ask for a CheckUser on whether or not you and Chaosfeary were the same user, and the conclusion was that you were not. You should ask User:Jayjg to comment further, I have misplaced where I saw that listed. Jayjg is not against you in this, and in fact proved your innocence. There is no reason to attack him. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liel copy & paste merge to Liel Kolet

Liel had some two edits before this. I know copy & paste moves are generally frowned upon, but in this case I am not sure what needs to be done, if anything. Would appreciate an admin's assistance. Thanks pfctdayelise 02:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste moves are very frowned on since the history is lost. On the other hand, copy and paste is pertty much how merges have to be done. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a trick to merge edit histories though.Geni

This was talked about yesterday, and Liel Kolet was the more appropriate article. No problems since Liel is still there as a likely redirect unless i'm mistaken.karmafist 04:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

karmafist, I am not complaining about the move being made. I have no opinion about that at all. I am checking if something needs to be undone/redone by an admin to preserve the page history to comply with GFDL. pfctdayelise 04:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, I'll check it now, although making a page into a redirect doesn't do anything to edit histories. karmafist 04:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There we go.[22] karmafist 05:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

... so, in this case (since the redirect will carry its own history) it's sufficient to simply merge. There should be a reference to the pre-redirect history of the other article from the composite article's history (it's sufficient to note this on the talk page). If one of them were being deleted, the story is different (procedure is described at Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves). -- Rick Block (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed this. All edits on the topic of the musician have been moved to Liel Kolet. Liel is now a historyless redirect, and thus not a cause for concern if it needs to become a disambiguation page later. Please refer other incidents like this to the Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:42, Dec. 23, 2005

Template:User democrat

Ok guys, we've got a minor issue. There's been an rfc on the template above at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Democrat userbox, consensus was reached, but today a few people have been ignoring it. Can we get some assistance here? Copyright isn't an issue since it's a promotional image. karmafist 04:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Unwatchedpages updated hourly

Avar has set this to update hourly. The only way we are going to see items further down alphabetically is to watch all of the earlier items. So please, watch them, even if you don't know anything about them, especially if they've only had 1 edit in the last 6 months. You'll never notice them on your watchlist (unless, most likely, they're vandalized). — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-23 04:33

Closing Old Vfd

The vote of GH avisualagency™ finished a while ago but no one has closed it - it was raised here yesterday but seems to have disappeared - can someone who knows how to close these votes deal with this? It was heavily infested with sock-puppets but the clean vote seemed to be to vote for deletion. Thanks Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 09:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

on it --Doc ^ask? 09:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Annihilated with prejudice --Doc ^ask? 09:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to deal with self-repairing vandals?

Every once in a while, I see a pair of edits from a new user, in which garbage is added to an article, the quickly removed by the same user. For example, [23]. What's the best way to deal with that? Hitting them with a {{test}} doesn't seem right, since they've already cleaned up their own mess. Just give them a {{welcome}} and let it go at that? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exterminate! (revert the vandalism warn the vandal, repeating offensises are punishable by blocks)--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some vandals think they can get away with vandalism if they vandalise wikipedia nd cleanup after themselves. It falls under both WP:POINT and WP:Vandalism. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just ignore it. What's happening here is that people are saying "wow, can I really make edits?" and then realise "oh, bugger, yes, I can" and get embarrased and remove it. They've already realised they did wrong, so no need to tell them not to. If they keep doing it, that's another matter. Morwen - Talk 16:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to drop something on their talk page, we've got {{selftest}}. —Cryptic (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you drop a scrap of paper on the sidewalk, and then pick it up and put it in the trashbin, should you still be hassled about it? If you think so, then...
Threaten to boil them in oil. Then cheerfully remind them that the oily boid catches the woim and revoits. 0:) Wahkeenah 16:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is to ignore it. I guess that the only possible reason to take it further is if you are concerned that it might be picked up in the edit history sometime later. If so, then perhaps delete it from the edit summary. Depends on how bad the vandalism is and if its something that could have legal repercussions. (Note: Seigenthaler etc). But ordinarily, ignore. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with Cryptic here. If you want to let them know in a friendly way that yes, we saw that, use {{selftest}}. More stern warnings would be appropriate if they're obviously repeat offenders or if they've left something particularly nasty in the edit summary field. As Morwen says, usually it's just someone who can't actually believe we would let just anyone edit Wikipedia—and someone who is mortified to discover that we really do. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to drop a note here that I have occassionally seen a vandal insert a bunch of trash and then remove most of it, in what might be an attempt to sneak vandalism in past the RC patrollers. So one does need to be careful in watching these in and out vandals as well. Dragons flight 21:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably best to just ignore it the first time, or maybe put a "selftest" template on the user's page. Get "tougher" if repeat offenses occur from the same user. *Dan T.* 21:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one that thinks the answer is obvious? Say something on their talk page and then IMMEDIATELY revert what you did on their talk page:) Or ignore it (don't you have better things to do?) WAS 4.250 22:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:82.19.186.45

User:MARMOT's IP indef blocked, I suspect its a shared IP. Since MARMOT himself is unblocked, much to my regret, I do not believe the indef block on that ip is necesarry. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have shortened it from an indef. block since indef. blocks are against policy, the current block will expire on January 1, 2600. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 17:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MARMOT is unblocked, and it may be a shared IP...why would we block for 594 years, 8 days, 2 hours, and 9 minutes? Ral315 (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IP addresses should never be blocked long-term (apart from open proxies) - even "static" IPs get re-assigned. That's why the blocking policy says what it says. Dan100 (Talk) 23:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IP

Can you tell me please the IP of user:ßonaparte? -- Bonaparte talk 16:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a violation of checkuers policy and wikipedia's privacy policies. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 17:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same for your attempts here to get the IP of the Node_ue impersonator. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 17:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to be sure that was not Node ue. He comes from Arizona. Can this be checked please? Bonaparte talk 17:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From what I gather from the discussion it has been checked by a person with checkuser and it isn't node_ue, your just going to trust whoever did the checking's word on it. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 17:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested to know the area from where is the IP. It may be very well from Arizona and this may be an evidence. -- Bonaparte talk 17:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can be checked if IP of user:ßonaparte is from the Arizona area?

If it is against policy to reveal the IP adresse can someone tell me if that IP of user:ßonaparte is from Arizona area? Because if it is it may be the hand of a certain user. -- Bonaparte talk 17:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you care? What does it matter? Userpages get vandalised all the time, we just revert and block if appropriate. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because I have to know. If it is from the person who I suspect it is I can start the procedure to block that user account. -- Bonaparte talk 21:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You already have your answer: it was not the user you would like to believe it was. Let it go; this is looking like harrassment. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hacking?

I noticed that someone recently used my account to vandalize Jimbo Wales' user page, and create an article called Wikipedia is Poop. Is my account being hacked? Macintosh User 16:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be a bad idea to change your password. Also, if you have an e-mail address entered in preferences, change the password of that as well. Ral315 (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if it's someone at your own place who's using your browser, you might want to turn off the "Remember me" option when logging in to Wikipedia. --D e ath phoenix 22:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you've logged in recently on a public computer (eg an internet cafe) your details might have been captured by a keylogger. Rd232 ^talk 23:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good idea to create similar names like Macintoshuser, Macintosh user, MacintoshUser since all these Wikipedia treats lowercase and capital letter user names differently. -- Eddie 06:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beware the Stanek

Robert Stanek has found Wikipedia, woe is us. He's a (self/small-press)-published author who's written a bunch of generic fantasy novels such as Ruin Mist (along with some computer-related non-fiction).

He's slightly (in)famous for what some people claim is the use of sockpuppets to prop-up his Amazon reviews (e.g., see: [24]), along with some mysterious reviews that appear of other, much more popular fantasy books, that in effect, say, "A wonderful book in the tradition of the giants of fantasy fiction, like Tolkein, George R.R. Martin, and Robert Stanek!". This sort of thing has been noticed by SF-commentators like David Langford ([25]).

Of course, none of this can be proven: Jnb27 (talk · contribs), Henrydms (talk · contribs), 24.18.60.159 (talk · contribs), and Cwnewma (talk · contribs) may just be tremendously enthusiastic fans of his. So far they've done nothing actually wrong or against WP policy. But it might be worth watching for Stanek-reference creep in other semi-related articles (e.g. Troll, Elf, Wizard, Dragon) and also some quite-unrelated articles Chess, Literacy). Editors might want to keep an eye out. --Bob Mellish 17:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Whatlinkshere/Robert Stanek is certainly an education; we've already had the reference creep in three of the six you mention! The temptation to copy these comments to Ansible is strong... Shimgray | talk | 01:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- ?I just went out to clear out a bunch of these. I think this was the diff that actually put me over the edge, and killed me. Nandesuka 05:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- - I thought Bob was joking when he mentioned hitting literacy... sheesh. Shimgray | talk | 14:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Lonzo (talk · contribs) reverted a lot of your removals, I note. Time to prune linkshere again. Shimgray | talk | 00:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Yeah, I just did another pass. My feeling is that I've no objection to this sort of thing being in "List of yadda yadda" articles, but you can't put Stanek on a short list with C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, and J.K. Rowling and expect us to accept it. A related problem, by the way, is that there is a growing group of Ruin Mist articles -- Dwarves (Ruin Mist), Dragons (Ruin Mist), etc. These don't really seem notable enough to me to have their own article; it would be more proper for them to be merged in to a single Ruin Mist entry. I've done the work of culling the herd in Whatlinkshere -- does someone else want to take a hit for the team and figure out a way to coalesce this stuff without biting the newbies? Nandesuka 06:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore button

Hi. I have someone who keeps writing me threats on my talk page, and when I remove them they keep reverting them so that the threats stay there. I would like to prevent them from being able to edit my talk page. Is there a way to do this? Alternatively, I would like for them to be asked to stop stalking me. The user concerned is User:Antaeus Feldspar. Thanks. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two words: Dispute resolution. Get a mediator and work things out. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the cabal for help :-) Dan100 (Talk) 23:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seigenthaler 2 prevention

Ummm... I just stumbled on something and was wondering if there are more instances of this type of thing. I know this isn't exactly the right forum for this, but thought it might need a little attention. My removal. Is this even relevant? Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To my eye, it looks suspicious...and its unsourced anyhow, so out it goes. I'll keep an eye out for similar things. --Syrthiss 18:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[26] sources it, and they're reasonably reliable. Shimgray | talk | 18:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd take anything that the spartacus site said about the JFK assassination with a couple shakers of salt. Double check anything they say about it. Gamaliel 18:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use Google, then either delete or add a source. WAS 4.250 19:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete it - move it to the talk page (with an edit summary to that effect), and ask people to source it before restoring it. Dan100 (Talk) 23:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Given what happened with Seigenthaler, I'm worried about leaving in sentences like "X was rumored to be involved in the JFK assassination, but nothing was ever proven," even if a source is provided. And before you say it, yeah, I already fixed it. Gamaliel 05:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached final decisions in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor cases. Raul654 18:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:AustinKnight

AustinKnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked with an expiry time of indefinite (Making nasty threats to another user (as discussed on WP:RFAR); repeatedly warned and is unrepentant.) according to the Blocklog. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AAustinKnight

Austinknight has sent me the following email requesting to be unblocked, I just became an admin so I don't want to unblock without the advice from some fellow admins. Here is the email:

If it wouldn't be too much trouble, would you mind unblocking me? An Admin who gave no warning (at all) blocked me this morning for a past 'offense' (currently in ArbCom...with 0 votes for and 3 against even hearing the matter in the first place). This same Admin is completely new to the issue, and apparently is just emotional for some reason. She is also a *former* member of the ArbCom, and so my guess is that she disagrees with all of the votes against (and...yes!...none "for") even hearing the matter. An ex post facto ArbCom 'vote' is apparently where she's coming from...but clearly and highly inappropriately.

Perhaps most importantly, the ArbCom has cleary stated in its comments that there should only be a warning to me, and no block unless there were a second offense...and there certainly has been none.

--Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He sent one to me as well, and probably numerous other admins. Note that the Arbcom has said no such thing since the Arbcom hasn't even accepted the case. I as an individual AC member said that I would warn first then block if he ever did it again. I do not speak for the whole AC.

I have replied to the email he sent and told him that i would be happy to unblock him if he agrees to make amends by striking his threat to the anon. I am waiting for his reply. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am the once-anonymous (or not so anonymous) user threatened by AustinKnight. I thought I would drop you a line to give you my two-cents worth.

I think that AustinKnight was trying to shut me up because whenever I clarified the applicable law, it undercut his POV. He really hated that. So, he targeted me, the editor of the article with (arguably) the most legal knowledge, so that he could shut me down and go back to pushing his POV. Well, mission accomplished, via the personal attack. It was a doubly irresponsible personal attack in my case. After tracing my IP, AustinKnight knew I worked in a court. He knows, or should know, that we get (death) threats from kooks all the time. These can't be brushed off, at least since Judge Lefkow's husband and mother were murdered. I have a panic button in my office that will summon armed marshals to burst into the room, precisely for that reason.

Of course, he didn't threaten violence, but he made it clear that he hated me for what I was doing and was unscrupulous enough to make threats against me. That's enough to put my nerves on edge.

On another note, is it just me or are some of AustinKnight's comments very misogynistic? (e.g. "fearful woman response", "she is acting emotionally for some reason") I fear that this editor may have some problems with women editors (and particularly, administrators) on wikipedia in the future.

Sorry for causing a stir, though. Have a super day and happy holidays.Ulpian 19:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I followed this incident very carefully after stumbling upon it by chance. I feel that AustinKnight has not only been obnoxious, xenofobic and mysoginistic but also made Personal Attacks against Ulpian (Then an anon user), threatening him with going to his employer. After being called on it, AK not only defended his position, but he proceded to attack the people that confronted him. I think he shouldn't be unblocked, especially after pulling a very sneaky (and unethical?) move trying to get admins to unblock him by providing them with a very biased view. AK displays blatant disregard for WP policies and shows that he is in fact a person who is more interested in looking for trouble than in contributing valuably. For more information, please go to his talk page where you'll see that shortly before this incident he goes on and on ranting against Jimbo and the evils of WP. I think that since he was so annoyed by our policies and procedures (and showed it by ignoring them blatantly), he deserves the block until he truthfully apologizes. Then he should be put in probation until he proves he can contribute within WP limits. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those looking over AustinKnight's edits should be aware that he edited for a long time as unregisterd 66.69.219.9 (talk · contribs). Among his contributions were complaints at Wikipedia:General complaints (unresolved)#Wiki Administrators: Systemic Left/Liberal Bias, and this uncollegial comment, arguably a personal attack: User talk:Rangerdude#The Willmcw Virus. -Willmcw 22:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the blocking administrator, I stand by this block. AustinKnight was making serious threats against another contributor who disagreed with him, and his comments on his talk page were very clear that he was completely unrepentant and would do it again - despite having been warned and asked nicely many, many times. The arbitration committee quite clearly felt that there was no need to hear the case because the community could deal with it with a ban by acclamation. I then proceeded to do so, and I note that as of this moment that block still stands. Ambi 00:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support this block Fred Bauder 01:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. I've been reading User talk:AustinKnight. If the user recants his threats and personal attacks, fine. If he can show that he is as superior to women, wikipedians, Australians, admins, Europeans, and lefties as he thinks, even better: then he must be a real asset to the project. If neither, why keep him around? Bishonen | talk 01:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do also. Threats are not on, and I've reviewed the way the author has posted to Wikipedia. Basically, they don't want to play nicely with others, and I strongly suggest that you see his messages on Jimbo's talk page (though Jimbo can look after himself, I know, I know...). I support Ambi in the block. Please note that I've had some pretty heated conversations on his talk page, so you might need to take that into consideration. The heated conversation occured because he threatened another editor, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-lawyer POV poster

An IP-shifting anon has been posting anti-lawyer rhetoric in Adversarial system, Lawyer, and Criminal law (including adding some statements that are flat-out inaccurate and removing statements that are accurate). Several editors, including myself, have tried to reason with him, but he responds with the claim that "The lawyers are sanitizing these pages" (even after I added a criticism section to Adversarial system that included his original poorly placed claims, and some additional criticisms he had not mentioned. As a frequent editor of pages relating to these topics, I don't feel that it would be appropriate for me to deal with them as an admin, so I'd appreciate if someone else could step in and have a look. Thanks. BDAbramson T 23:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted {{welcomeip}} templates on a couple of these IP addresses. Sometimes teh best course of action is to provide newbies about how Wikipedia works. Sometimes, these early "vandals" become useful contributors. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I don't think POV-pushers require administrator intervention; or at least this one doesn't seem to, yet. -- SCZenz 00:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was that he might continue to add his views to the articles, which might then require protection. It seems, however, that he would now prefer to press his points on the talk pages, which is fine with me. BDAbramson T 01:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to have registered as LegalEagle1798 (talk · contribs) and is still POV-pushing. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:Satan as Lawyer.jpg - 'nuff said (also Image:Movie poster the corporation.jpg)

What? I don't like lying even if it helps win a case/get money. :) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 09:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mass-watch tool for Special:Unwatchedpages

For those who would like to help, but don't want to click a million times, you can use this new tool to add X articles to your watchlist at once, using only 2 mouse clicks. Please note: to split up the work of watching all unwatched articles, each admin needs to add at least 1500 to their watchlist.

Add this to your monobook.js (e.g. User:ABCD/monobook.js)

/**** handy watch ****/
document.write('<script type="text/javascript"' +
  'src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:R3m0t/' +
  'handywatch.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

/* This is to keep track of who is using this extension: [[User:R3m0t/handywatch.js]] */

The script will trigger automatically on Special:Unwatchedpages. It will prompt you on whether you want to active the script. r3m0t ^talk 04:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

— ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-24 04:12

I've done my part and using this page and the mass-watch tool, I have added close to 2000 previously unwatched pages to my watchlist. I'll be adding more as they become available (apparently you can only view the first 1000 on the list so if you are waiting to see whats under "S" everything before that needs to be watched first). Perhaps someone should create a page to help divide things up. Maybe a list of names of those currently watching a lot of pages, and somewhere you can put the name of pages you are watching but have no real interest in. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 12:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Profanity confusion

When and where is profanity appropriate ? I am confused. Martial Law 05:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Wikipedia:Profanity? Does this help? -- Rick Block (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does help. Seen it all over the place. Is it OK to use it on a User's Talk page ?Martial Law 05:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use your fucking common sense. Phil Sandifer 05:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the above personal attack three times, but Snowspinner and his friends keep reverting it. I will not revert it again, as it appears futile, but I want everyone to know that I find this comment absolutely offensive, and is just more of Snowspinner's lack of civility and ability to deal with other users in a collegial manner. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A user you somewhat know? Or a random stranger? I wouldn't on a random stranger's page, but with someone you know do whatever the hell you want. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you feel the need to do so? User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say so, but the policy is referring to profanity in the article (or "main") namespace. Using profanity in comments on a user's talk page is likely to constitute a personal attack, despite the jokes posted here. --bainer (talk) 05:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still confused. Heard I might have some problems for using profanity on a User Talk page. A admin told me this, a User says it is appropriate to use profanity on a User Talk page. Whos right ? Martial Law 06:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I told another User where to place something, would that be offensive ? Martial Law 06:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly consider it offensive, as I consider Snowspinner's comment above offensive. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but offensiveness isn't the criterion. Never has been. The criterion is, basically, civility. So, for instance, if I were to object to your removal of my comment above by saying "It was a fucking joke!" this would probably not really violate any rules. If I were to tell you to go fuck yourself for removing it, that would be a problem.

Incidentally, it was a fucking joke. Phil Sandifer 06:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikipedians may want to know this. Martial Law 06:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To some extent, yes, but I really do think that the policy is ultimately silly - we are an encyclopedia, editors are expected to take the project seriously, and, for the most part, professionally. Profanity, generally speaking, does not contribute to that, although there are circumstances in which it is merely not good as opposed to bad, and these can generally be figured out by anyone with a modicum of social intelligence. Phil Sandifer 06:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, If I'm discussing Johnny Paycheck's song Take This Job And Shove It, I'm not being offensive, and if I "cuss" out another User, this is considered offensive ? Martial Law 06:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, yes, though I'd still use "incivil" over "offensive," just because offensiveness is ultimately a matter of personal taste, whereas civility is more objective. Phil Sandifer 06:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I am referring to a article, profanity is OK, while it is not OK to use on a User Talk page, even if two or more users are ticked off @ each other ?Martial Law 06:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you're right. no mater how ticked off at each other, WP:CIVIL holds as it's official policy. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's no hard and fast rules, but common sense suggests that when users are ticked off at each other that's the worst time to user profanity. -- SCZenz 06:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I told someone what he/she can do with himself/herself, and where at, this is considered offensive/uncivil, and if I had done this while referring to a article, such as the Johnny Paycheck's song, it is not ? Interesting. Martial Law 06:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the first case you're being uncivil to an editor, second case you're talking about an article (which may conttain profanity) ut you're doing so in a civil way. uncivility not the same as profanity, you can e uncivil without cursing. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, New Wikipedians should know this. I've found a Wikipedian who may be a newbie who is using more foul language than a USMC Drill Sergeant. Martial Law 06:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Where are Wikipedians like that are reported, dealt with ? What is the disciplinary protocol ? Martial Law 06:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is being uncivil in a continually disruptive way, you could report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and an admin might intervene (most likely by talking with the user). Come to think of it, you should talk with the user first if you think there's a problem. If all else fails, there's the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. -- SCZenz 07:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. New Wikipedians should know this. However, if they do not, it is not our failure for not telling them the obvious - it is their failing for being idiots. Phil Sandifer 07:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Penalties for this ? Martial Law 07:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do penalties here. We do what, in our judgement, is most likely to make the encyclopedia as a whole more productive. In most cases, this will involve encouraging a user to change his behavior. The most an admin can do, without broad consensus among other admins, is apply a short block. -- SCZenz 07:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Martial Law 07:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Heard about Users being banned and the like. These rumors true ? Martial Law 07:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be more helpful if you pointed to the situation that's prompting you to ask these questions, and an admin could have a look at it and take appropriate action. Phil Sandifer 07:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being banned is possible for very substantial, persistent disruption of the encyclopedia (or in certain specific cases like usernames that impersonate real people). This is only done (outside those specific cases) by the Arbitration Committee, User:Jimbo Wales, or the Wikimedia Board of Trustees. (See Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Bans.) It will certainly not be done because of profanity alone. -- SCZenz 07:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No situation. IF I did'nt ask, someone else might, and NOT be so polite about this matter.

Appreciate the assisstance. Martial Law 07:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV Cleanup, Changing POV Templates

In the process of cleaning up old and stale POVs I thought of something that could help. The cleanup-date tags allow for sortinf by month and year. Would it be acceptable to do this for POV? That would help at least identify when POVs started and easily identify stale POVs, or POVs that really need to be moved along via another process. If I just went ahead and did this, would it make people cry? -- Jbamb 14:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Template:POV-date and Template:POV-section-date... send comments. -- Jbamb 17:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Special:BrokenRedirects

I'll be spamming speedy getting this cleaned up... I sent about 50 so far, if that's a problem let me know and I'll stop. -- Jbamb 15:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with it. (On an unrelated note, Special:DoubleRedirects is active as well). Ral315 (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Check ?!

User Check ?! Can this be explained ? Martial Law 21:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC) :)[reply]

And simulated emoticons ? :) Martial Law 21:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC) :)[reply]

Would you mind clarifying what you mean? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Santa on Sleigh

I am suspecting (based on user name and edit pattern) that this is a Willy sock, but no true vandalism yet. Should this user be blocked? --Nlu (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this is Willy, then I say all the more power to him. He's doing something that's nice, not naughty ;-) Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 00:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he's sending christmas presents to all the good little editors so I see no need to ban even if it is WoW, though after tommorow someone should ban the account for their own good until 00:00 25, December 2006 Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! What about Chanukah, there are many Jewish admins like User:Eliezer :D (But I don't think they would like Spam Presents for 8 days) Obvously without the "xmas" part. 220.233.48.200 14:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like Spam (& otherwise) Presents for 8 days! El_C 14:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

K, you can have 8 dreidels, I'll take an XBox 360. Redwolf24 (talk) 14:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh I'd like to see that ban summary...but looks to be a nice account so no harm done — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ban Summary: Block enforced vacation for Santa Clause until next Christmas. 69.182.48.34 03:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He can't edit until he's finished making all the toys, I'd say. -- SCZenz 04:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done [27]. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 13:59, Dec. 25, 2005

Pssh. I do know I see a lot of good admins in his contribs, I'm proud to be in such company myself. It's just a nice bit of wiki-fun, no need to cry "omgwillyohnoezzz!" unless there'd evidence of wrongdoing. If there's no vandalism, the more power to him/her. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was watching Image:RacingBicycle-non.JPG to make sure it was still a bicycle, but I've decided to assume good faith / Christmas miracle. :] --CBD _☎ ^✉ 04:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And we have our first bah humbug --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever template he's been using appears to have malfunctioned. I got a Merry Christmas wish for Voice of All. Silly Santa! android 79 04:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, so did I. Lucky Voice of All! -- SCZenz 05:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that any mass spamming of talk pages, for whatever reason, is a problem. In this case, some non-Christians may object to the message, and even some Christians may object to equating Merry Christmas with materialism. Scrooge, aka ^Blank ^Verse 06:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They can grow up. --Golbez 11:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm jewish and I don't really care. If anyone objects to something as nice as that I say they can...well perhaps I ought not to finish that setence. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 19:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those offended by it can add themselves to Santa's No Spam list (at his talk page, you can create it). Though most people I know can tolerate it. Redwolf24 (talk) 12:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please check this ip against User:RK

66.155.200.129 that made this change http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad_Lubavitch&diff=29940179&oldid=29902552 aginst User RK at the same time about 15 minutes later. Thanks. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I can say is that I am not certain it is RK - in fact, there's a LOT of users I recognise on that IP - but I cannot say it isn't. And the edit summary and edit content style is certainly enough to make him a highly plausible maker of that edit. RK, was that you? - David Gerard 00:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting in that edit, it starts off by using "hasidim" then moves onto using "Chassidim" yet it uses "Chosid" as the singlar form. Who ever this 66.155.200.129 is he managed using all three versions of the spelling.

It is weird that RK calls the reverting of an IP edit as vandalism.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=active&sa=G&q=%2266.155.200.129%22 shows that the IP is envolved with a scam (http://www.voy.com/190449/9.html and http://www.voy.com/8191/38.html) the second link has the name "Mohamed Delhoum."
He has visited http://moe365.org/ according to the site's logs.
According to this sites http://www.emmersonnet.com/htdocs/ logs, he visited that site with the referral of http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=salary%2Finternational+marketing with MSIE6.
According to another wiki http://www.biocrawler.com/encyclopedia/Biocrawler:Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200410#66.155.200.129 he has vandalise their wiki 3 times in one day before getting banned.

There is a lot more that you can find in the google search. The IP should be banned for life, wether or not it was used by RK.

Ah, no. It's a widely-shared IP and should not be blocked for more than a very short time to deal with vandalism in progress at the actual time. Do a whois and see who it belongs to. And we do have quite a lot of editors, good and bad, who come in through it - David Gerard 18:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everyking arbitration violation

Not wasting any time after the expiration of his agreement not to snipe at Snowspinner, Everyking decided to take another potshot, in violation of the recent Arbitration decision. Raul654 01:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Describe how that was a violation. I was very careful in how I wrote that. I actually removed the first paragraph one minute after I made the edit, so you can only judge the second paragraph. Everyking 05:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It still shows up in the edit history. I will also note and should especially not confer that trust to someone who many people feel is usually wrong—perhaps they have a good reason for feeling that way? from the second paragraph. It is in the policy/guidelines regarding NPOV to not use many people/some say in articles as it is merely a crutch to not have to cite actual sources for facts and to push a particular POV. This is followed by a statement that Everyking should have special trust granted to him as his views are in general accordance with those of the broader community. Is there any evidence to back up this claim? It seems to me that this was a major issue in the cited Arbitration decision. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 06:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What difference does the history make? I decided it might get me in trouble, decided "better safe than sorry", and removed it within one minute. Also, I don't know where you're going with that NPOV business, since of course my comment represented my POV. NPOV is for articles. Everyking 06:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you removed it should count for something, but taking back your word after you posted it doesn't necessarily reflect well on you. In the future, I suggest using the Show preview button and doing something else for a while to cool down before clicking Save. Zocky 11:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, but I think I remember reading somewhere that Snowspinner also promised not to bait Everyking (or maybe that's just WP:C). On the mentioned page (a community project talk page from which he has not been banned that I know of), Everyking at first left a reasonable comment, which was not addressed to Snowspinner and did not mention Snowspinner or allude to Snowspinner [28]. Snowspinner responded with What a shock, you've shown up on yet another page shortly after I edited it [29]. I don't see this as any better than what EK is doing. Zocky 11:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:24.6.35.54/User:Vitaphone

This guy is vandalizing several aticles on cartoons (Flip the Frog, Beans (Looney Tunes)), Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, and my talk page! Can someone please block him? --FuriousFreddy 02:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked 24.6.35.54 (talk · contribs) for edit-warring and general disruptiveness. They have immediately returned as 212.112.232.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Jkelly 02:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked 212.112.232.175 (talk · contribs) as well. Jkelly 02:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And now 213.249.155.239 (talk · contribs). Sigh. Jkelly 20:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two accounts created by the same user. User:AnimationFanatic and User:PietroShakarian. I have blocked the latter as being an impersonator of User:Pietro Shakarian, one of the users that the above IPs and usernames is in dispute with. Jkelly 21:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

202.47.247.156 (talk · contribs) now blocked as well. Same as above. Jkelly 01:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!!

Am I allowed to have some? —Guan aco 02:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, since you're an admin. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not since before last Christmas (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus vs. Guanaco). That's why I asked. —Guan aco 03:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can have mine :-) Dmcdevit·t 05:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I stoles some from the admin noticeboard omg STUCK IT TO THE MAN ^_^ --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 09:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mistress Selina Kyle has been blocked for 82 years for confessing to theft. Redwolf24 (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

eep. :o

Happy Christmas ;) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 09:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*snarf* --Maru (talk) Contribs 15:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fundraising adverts

Last night I decided to implement this for myself and I know some other people have done this as well but I have been reluctant to publicly post this due to the fact that people might get rid of the notices without donating which I think is wrong but if you want to hide both the main page fundraising box and the fundraising box on the top of every page go to your monobook.css file at User:USERNAME/monobook.css where USERNAME is your username and edit in the following.

#siteNotice { display:none; }
#mpbanner { display: none; }

Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But, if you do, remember you are hiding the sitenotice, which is also used for important announcements. --cesarb 19:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure people would only include the code until Jan 6. Dan100 (Talk) 22:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure people would mean to do it and then forget, leaving it on their stylesheets forever. --cesarb 16:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Errr... I don't have that, I have:

* #fundraising {display:none;}

I don't know if it has the same effect, but it's shorter and it might not hide the sitenotice... Someone'll have to test that. Fir e Fox 16:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That one is better; it only hides the fundraising notice (which explicitly uses id="fundraising"), instead of hiding the whole sitenotice. --cesarb 20:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Expected Edit Wars:

UFO and The Roswell UFO Incident

Found two users who wish to make these articles reflect the "Skeptical" view. When the "Pro-UFO" editors, the "Pro-Roswell/Alien" editors see this sort of thing going on, there will be a Edit war going on. I've had to help settle a Edit war that had taken place in the Bigfoot article. That was a real bloody war. Told both Users this: The object is NOT to prove or disprove these matters, only to be encyclopedic.

Will investigate. Am trying to prevent two edit wars. Martial Law 03:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any Administrators who are knowledgable about these matters out there ? Martial Law 03:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is important. No use starting the new Year with two edit wars. Martial Law 04:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that there is a current edit war, and as such no administrator action is required. If your worried that one might errupt, perhaps you should speak to the potential warriors to encourage them to start discussion. It might help if you could be more specific about what you would like someone to do, who the potential warriors are, and what they did to draw your attention. If an edit war does in fact occur you can report WP:3RR violations at WP:AN/3RR. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must object most strongly to your claim of having "had to help settle a Edit war that had taken place in the Bigfoot article" as you were someone who was edit warring to insert your POV and OR into the article, ignoring people explaining why you couldn;t do that, and egging the controversy on. Considering your inability to understand NPOV on that article, I find it very unlikely that there are really people trying to make the default view on UFO and etc. pro-skepticism, as a quick glance there earlier showed no such thing. Having an article not endorse a concept is not the same as it being pro-skeptic. And, really, this whole topic is misplaced here, as there's nothing for an admin to take note of. Please restrain yourself from overzealous posts here, as I see you;ve made plenty here and none of them were relevant to this page's purpose. DreamGuy 03:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator abuse????

Administrator mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had blocked me illegal for so-called vandalism. Actually he's doing vandalism with his buddy Node ue. Someone can unblock me to defend myself and to ask de-adminiship of mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ? -- Bonaparte talk 08:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Next block

Blocked for 1 week for persistent and fully aware distortion and deletion of official info, e.g., in Republic of Moldova, Tighina and in other places. This is considered persistent and malicious vandalism. Persistent removal of Cyrillic spelling of moldovan toponyms is an intolerable censorship of information. mikka (t) 21:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read here very careful mikka: I was just reverting Node's edits which are considered persistent and malicious vandalism. So you have to block Node, not me! And your persistent adding of Cyrillic spelling of Moldovans toponyms is also persistent and malicious vandalism. Moldovan (Romanian)'s official spelling is in LATIN ALPHABET. So, block yourself! Bonaparte talk 08:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to relax a bit. Don't make me bring my comrade, Santa. Unlike moi, he knows when you've been naughty, and when you've been nice. El_C 08:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NoMultiLicense template update

Please update the protected Template:NoMultiLicense with

I am content with licensing my contributions only under the GFDL. I believe that introducing other incompatible licenses complicates the legal situation of Wikipedia, so I choose not to do it.

This is User:squell's version, see Template_talk:NoMultiLicense --logixoul 13:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And please add this icon: [[Image:Heckert_GNU_white.svg|30px]]. --logixoul 13:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did that. Leave me a user talk message if you don't like the way I put the icon in, or if you have any other requests on this. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 14:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Signa Vianen, Journalist

Can someone take a look at this page please? Kappa 17:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. You still sure you don't want The Buttons yourself? —Cryptic (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, today is sure my day

I've got people making threats all over my Talk page and I get an email threatening to get me fired for posting from work because they don't like my edits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They know where you work!? enochlau (talk) 05:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They only know that she posts from work because she edits as User:216.234.130.130. In any case, I wouldn't worry about it- people make stupid threats all the time, although it's unfortunate that your talk page seems to be filled with said stupid threats at the moment. --Sean|Black 05:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You sure can pick 'em Zoe. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why are these facts not allowed on the Bigfoot article

Why are these facts not allowed on the Bigfoot article ?

1. People will shoot at anyone,anything that is considered a threat. 2. Hoaxing a Bigfoot is not only a criminal offense, it can get the hoaxer killed. 3. Some people, especially those in Rural areas, don't like intruders and will kill them. 4. Three of the crimes committed by the hoaxer are Felonies. 5. Several states in the United States allow the landowner to kill tresspassers.

This has been removed by User:Dreamguy as being "nonsense", worse.

Any regulations exist that do NOT allow this ? I'm NOT trying to prove, nor trying to disprove the existance of this creature, just stating these verifiable facts. Martial Law 07:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So long as sources outlining the above are cited, that's fine. Policy tends to encourage the verifiable rather than the truth (Original research could, of course, end up being true). But all of that belongs on the article's talk page, not here. El_C 07:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you may also wish to place a notice at WP:RFC/SOC. El_C 07:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can't cite specific police related incidents, since in the case of a Bigfoot hoax shooting, who wants to report that they've been shot committing at least 3 felonies, several misdemeanor offenses ?

Who answers these questions on WP:RFC/SOC ? Martial Law 08:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That page is designed for content disputes. Many editors have it on their watchlists or browse the page occasionally — they are the ones who read and respond to notices placed there (meaning, they respond on the respective article's talk page, and so on). Hope that helps. El_C 08:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the info. Martial Law 10:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These sort of questoins should be directed to the talk page of the article in question.... and were, and were answered there... the things you listed above are unverified, original research and biased. You can;t just assume rural people will shoot people and then try to justify that as a rationalization for why you think nobody hoaxes Bigfoot sightings, as that's a non-sequitar and wholly inappropriate. It's bad enough that you ignored explanations on Talk:Bigfoot and also my talk page (until I had to tell you to stop posting there for filling it up with the same questions and comments you already put on Talk:Bigfoot), but you shouldn;t be putting that kind of stuff here also. Stop wasting everyone's time with the same questions you didn;t pay attention to the answers to the first time around on. DreamGuy 03:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin's attention needed

Here: Talk:John_Titor#Too_many_tags. Also can the article be deleted. It has been worded in such a way to make it sound more beleive than it should be, possibly edited by aurthors of the books about him as everyone of them is used as the only type of references (e.g. there is no he is a hoax book used as a reference) as part of a scam. The books sell well on amazon and ebay, so this article is really causing people to buys those books, not that this is any valid proof. 220.233.48.200 15:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention didn't seem a good place to request this, so I requested it here. 220.233.48.200 15:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that an article should be deleted you can list it on Articles for deletion see WP:AFD for more information. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is appropriate if he really doesn't deserve an article at all. If the issue is that the current article is crap, then it's an editorial matter that should be solved using the talk page and "Edit this page" - David Gerard 18:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"He" isn't a real person, he is a make beleive person that the article makes it sound that he is real. I can't go throught the whole article to fix it up, and when I edited the introducation to make it more clear, it was reverted make to the more beleivible wording. 220.233.48.200 02:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also could we get these public domain images uploaded which are used for proving they are faked, http://communities.anomalies.net/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=001138 (popups warning) 220.233.48.200 02:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One week block for disruption, personal attacks

I'm sure we've all been following the ongoing train wreck that is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia. I have not yet expressed an opinion on the substance of the debate. One user, User:Endomion, was solicited to vote on the AfD. When she or he voted to delete, noting that they themselves were Catholic, they were rewarded with this lovely comment on their talk page[30]:

 **Comment, from what I can see of your user page you hardly qualify as a devout catholic.
  Chooserr 19:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as though every time I turn around User:Chooserr is throwing his weight, such as it is, around, trying to browbeat editors into supporting his worldview. Spirited debate is one thing. But leaving insults about people's religion on their talk page is, for me, the straw that breaks the camel's back. It is rude, it is incivil, it is disruptive, it is absolutely unacceptable, and by God I have had enough of it. I have blocked User:Chooserr for a week for this edit, as part of his continuing and ongoing pattern of disruptive and incivil behavior. Nandesuka 23:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One week seems excessive. I know he edit wars and doesn't conform to NPOV, but he wasn't aggressive or obscene. I have seen far worse comments from other people that have been left completely unrebuked. And I have noticed for some time that people are following him around Wikipedia, reverting him unnecessarily, with snide remarks,[31], sneering at him[32] etc. On three occasions, when he left a message on my talk page, other people who would certainly not have had my talk page on their watchlists followed him with comments. It's late at night in Ireland, so I'm not going to hunt out diffs; I'll just say that I've noticed this going on for quite some time. I can understand that people have to revert some of his extremely POV edits, but they don't have to revert edits about cow tipping; they don't have to sneer; they don't have to be insulting; they don't have to harass him – and he has definitely been harassed.

With regard to his remark on Endomion's talk page, I don't condone it at all. It was ignorant, and unnecessary. I have already commented on it at Chooserr's talk page[33]. However, to claim that it was an insult is to claim that it is bad not to be a devout Catholic. Chooserr didn't tell her she was a bad person or a horrible person; he (rudely) suggested that she was not a devout Catholic. Now, since she openly has information on her user page (that she has a girlfriend, and that she identifies herself as a "lipstick lesbian") which implies a contradiction with the teachings of the Catholic Church,[34] then she left herself open to such an opinion, though it was still completely out of line (and stupid, in my view) to voice that opinion on her talk page. But it wasn't an appalling insult, unless, as I say, we take it that not to be a devout Catholic is a very bad thing. (I'm sure lots of excellent Wikipedians are not devout Catholics.) If I had put a user box on my page saying, "this user is a vegetarian" and another saying, "this user eats meat", and someone made the comment that I hardly qualified as a committed vegetarian but did not say that I was a bad person for eating meat, I doubt if that person would get blocked for a week.

I'd like to make it absolutely clear that I don't condone Chooserr's remark. However, in my time on Wikipedia I have seen far worse attacks that either did not incur blocks, or got shorter ones. I have seen a lot of harassment of Chooserr, which must make it very difficult for him to contribute calmly and constructively. I don't think that leaving him blocked for a week is going to help him to be less extreme in the way he edits and interacts with others. Nandesuka, I'm not going to overrule you and unblock, but I'd like you to consider shortening the block on the grounds that Chooserr has been the target of some very nasty comments and that when people are bullied and harassed they tend to hit back, or even to hit at others. AnnH ^(talk) 02:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like this needs to head to dispute resolution then Ann.--Tznkai 03:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think your analysis is not quite right: specifically, "to claim that it was an insult" is not "to claim that it is bad not to be a devout Catholic". The insult is to tell a Catholic that she hardly qualifies as a devout catholic on the basis of her sexuality. That's not only an insult, it's a very personal insult. ChoosErr may have the point of view that being gay is incompatible with being a devout Catholic, but he's not entitled to push that point of view by insulting Wikipedia users. - Nunh-huh 02:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, attacking the strength of someone's faith, especially their own self judgementis very personal, and very insulting, no matter however accurate. Clergy have a hard time getting away with it, nevermind the rest of us--Tznkai 03:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 week is to little, the person hasn't learnt what he/she has done is wrong. By the very fact he/she is disputing it as unfair and says that is fair for him/her to make a personal attack because it is his/her POV. 220.233.48.200 03:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned on Chooserr's talk page, while I agreed to unblock him under date-range parole a bit ago, this block is quite fair. He needs to take some time out from the edit button to think about his editing style and the way he interacts with other editors, because, in the long run, what he's doing is not going to get him anywhere but the ArbCom or a consensus ban. FCYTravis 11:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's quite clear from messages that I have left on Chooserr's talk page that I agree with the fact that he was blocked, but consider that one week is too harsh (even taking into account the fact that people get longer blocks if they have a history of being disruptive).

Nunh-huh. I'm not sure whether by "sexuality" you mean sexual behaviour or sexual preference. Since the Catholic Church forbids homosexual activity, it is simply not possible to be an obedient Catholic and to be homosexually active. To say that the Catholic Church forbids such acts is not expressing a POV; it is stating a fact. If you don't believe me, please click on the link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church which I supply here (scroll down to Section 2357). To say that the Catholic Church is right or wrong to forbid such acts is, of course, to express a POV, and is also an misuse of Wikipedia server space. I would very much like to avoid such a discussion. But I repeat that the severity of the insult does depend on whether "not being a devout Catholic" is seen as a very bad thing. I would like you to consider the following: If a hypothetical user put two user boxes on her page, one saying "This user is a Muslim", and another saying "This user eats pork", people might think that she didn't qualify as a devout muslim. If someone pointed that out, would you say, "The insult is to tell a Muslim that she hardly qualifies as a devout Muslim on the basis of her taste buds?" I don't want to dwell on this, because I think that Endomion could quite reasonably feel indignant to discover that her sexuality is being discussed at the Administrator's Noticeboard. Chooserr had absolutely no right to make the remark he did, but I think that part of the reason we're shocked is that sexuality and religion in many cultures are very private, personal things. Most Wikipedians do not put such information on their user pages. If they do (as Endomion does), then they are implicitly stating that these things are not completely private, though of course they still shouldn't be treated to the kind of comments that Chooserr made.

I may be wrong on this, but as far as I can tell, the only administrators, other than myself, to have expressed concern at the fact that Chooserr was being harassed by other users are FreplySpang [35] and GTBacchus[36]. I would like to see some sign that those who criticize Chooserr do not condone it when other users sneer at him, revert him when it isn't necessary (and I know it often is necessary!), call him a "mindless troll", etc. He seems to be rather naive (note how her self-nominated for adminship when he was new and had about a hundred edits, presumably in controversial articles). I really don't think that blocking him again and again and leaving unrebuked those who make snide remarks about him will help him to become a better Wikipedian. AnnH ^(talk) 16:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...the fact that Chooserr was being harassed' Look up "beg the question" next chance you get, will you, before you float your next set of excuses for Chooserr's bad behavior. Reversing bad edits one comes across is not "stalking" and having to explain -- more than once -- why they are bad (POV, original research, unverifed, and plain illogical) is not "sneering", it's frustration. Looks like the starting point for your application of AGF starts off at different places for different people (Chooserr naive, opponents evil): why does that seem to be so?--Calton | Talk 00:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuke the rest then. Harrasment is an unacceptable behavior, isn't it? And again, I think the focus is/should be on the uninvited insult on the strength of someone's convictions.--Tznkai 16:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to, Tznkai, but I haven't got much support, and I am appealing for help from all the administrators to ensure that snide remarks and harassment, even when directed against problematic users, are discouraged. AnnH ^(talk) 18:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Musical Linguist, thanks for clarifying that you share ChoosErr's point of view on homosexuality and Catholicism. While you argue your point less offensively than ChoosErr did, you are arguing your points, not the ones he actually made, and it's those that are pertinent. ChoosErr made no practice/orientation distinction, btw, and would in any case have no basis for presuming the former rather than the latter. Regardless, as far as I can tell, while there is Catholic doctrine specifying certain sexual acts as sinful, there is no Catholic doctrine that specifies that devout Catholics do not sin. There is no Catholic who does not sin. Even the devout ones. No, putting information on one's user page does not invite insults based upon it. Yes, I think unsolicited opinions on one's devoutness are improper, and that Wikipedia is right in forcefully letting those who make such comments aware of their unacceptability. - Nunh-huh 17:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nunh-huh I don't think I ever said that I shared Chooserr's point of view on homosexuality and Catholicism. For the record, I accept all the teachings of the Catholic Church. Chooserr may well hold to more extreme views; I have not examined all his contributions. However, I see no reason to discuss my beliefs (or his) here. You are quite correct in saying that there is no Catholic doctrine specifying that devout Catholics do not sin. Catholic doctrine, however, does distinguish between venial sins and mortal sins, and also between those committed out of frailty and repented of, and those that one has no intention of giving up. That's why the Church does not allow respectable, law-abiding, divorced-and-remarried Catholic to receive Holy Communion, unless they either separate or agree to live as brother and sister — since it is impossible to be a "devout Catholic" while having no intention of giving up something that the Catholic Church considers (rightly or wrongly) to be gravely sinful. However, this is rather straying from the purpose of the Administrators' Noticeboard, in my view. If you have further comments, my talk page would be a better place. I came here to discuss the possible harm done by a severe punishment for Chooserr combined with what must seem to him like a condoning of the behaviour of those who follow him around with snide remarks. Please do not say that I share his POV. First of all, it's unlikely that I do, and secondly, I have tried to keep my POV out of this. And while I agree with you that putting information on one's user page does not invite insults based upon it, and that unsolicited opinions on one's devoutness are improper, you have not given any indication of agreeing with me that Wikipedia should discourage users from following other users around and calling them "mindless trolls". Isn't there any administrator who agrees with me that people can start behaving worse when they are treated abusively, and that we are failing such users if we do nothing to help them? AnnH ^(talk) 18:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one way to avoid having your beliefs discussed is to avoid discussing them<g>. So I shan't elaborate on venial and mortal sins and the nature of automatic excommunication, except to note that none of them are germaine to ChoosErr's comments. I do agree with you that people can start behaving worse when abused, or even when simply disciplined. And I agree with your implicit statement that abusive epithets are inappropriate. There are, I believe, mentoring options available for ChoosErr, should he either [1] wish to make use of them upon his return, or [2] act so badly that he is required to make use of them. As for following users around, unfortunately some users make that necessary, and it would be good if they learned to comport themselves in such a way as to make it unnecessary. Our mission here is to build an accurate encyclopedia. If rehabilitation of abusive users can achieve that, that's fine, but the primary objective is the encyclopedia, not "helping users". It seems clear that (besides being abusive of users and process) ChoosErr was not helping build an accurate encyclopedia, but rather distorting its content to suit his point of view. I would hope any mentoring would also address this facet of his behavior. - Nunh-huh 18:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly feel that people will behave worse when treated abusively. If people have a problem with a user, they themselves need to remain civil. If civility and offers of assistance are met with hostility then they should escalate to an RfAr, not escalate with hostility. Note that these comments are in general... I haven't been following the entire Chooserr harassment / harassee thing. --Syrthiss 18:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think theres a pretty simple thing to address here.

Correctly examined or inncorrectly examined, an uninvited negative judgement on the strength of one's faith is definatly a breach of WP:Civility and probably WP:NPA
Harrasment of any kind is intolerable. Being harrassed is not an excuse
Punishment/corrective action should be tailored to be effective, proportional the offense and mitigating circumstances and definatly not make the situation worse

Thus the questions asked are:

Did ChoosErr commit sufficient breaches of Civility to warrant a block?
Does the harrasment of ChoosErr exist?
- Does the said harrasment constsiute mitigating circumstances for the length of the block?
- Have those who have harrased ChooErr been properly punished/corrected?
Is any and all of the previously mentioned corrective action likley to exaserbate the situation?
What is the long term solution?

Thats my two cents and then some. I'll let the admins sort the rest out for now--Tznkai 19:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Back online after a couple of days in the world, I'm not quite prepared to dive into this conversation (I will in a couple of hours), but I will ask this question now - why did Nunh-huh and Tznkai start spelling Chooserr's user name with a capital 'E' in this conversation? It seems to highlight the word "Err". That's not how Chooserr spells his name, why would you do that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um... because I thought that was the correct orthography. Some trick of mind, I suppose, as I tend to think of it as (Choos-(e)-rr). I think there are more important issues here than capitalization. - Nunh-huh 02:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%, Nunh-huh, I was really just curious. Dealing with the actual issues involved here will take more than the 30 seconds it took me to ask "what's up with the spelling?" I've gotta put someone to bed right now, but I'll be back in a few minutes. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wasn't intentionally getting someone's name wrong in order to make some kind of immature point. Rush Limbaugh already has that gig<g>. - Nunh-huh 04:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I follwed him like a blind sheep--Tznkai 05:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, sorry for the orthographic digression. I especially apologize for seeming to compare Nunh-huh to Rush Limbaugh - I have no desire to tar anyone with that brush. Maybe I was being over-sensitive, but this is a touchy situation.

Now... I just accidentally closed a tab and lost an hour's worth of work here, so I'll try to recall and summarize. In fact, I'll just answer Tznkai's questions. Some little bit of background first - I've been watching Chooserr closely for about 2 months, and observed most of his edits and interactions here. Also, in the interest of putting my bias on the table up front - I vehemently disagree with Chooserr on almost every issue about which he's expressed a POV:

Did Chooserr commit sufficient breaches of Civility to warrant a block?
Yes. He's been warned before about WP:CIV, and although I really don't think he thought he was being rude, this is a good way for him to learn something about how not to talk to people about their religion.
Does the harassment of Chooserr exist?
Absolutely. Ann provided some good examples above, in the form of remarks by Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused and Calton. The former user in particular (whom I've also been observing) has been on a sort of crusade against Chooserr since December 5, it seems. His history here spans two different accounts - check out this edit history and then this one. Spend some time going through those edits, and you'll find a pattern of behavior that includes following Chooserr around Wikipedia, telling Chooserr to stop welcoming new users and reporting him for "spamming" when he didn't, edit warring with Chooserr on many articles, gaming the 3 revert rule in those edit wars, characterizing Chooserr's good-faith edits as "vandalism", nominating Chooserr's new articles and templates for deletion (sometimes warranted, sometimes not), writing insulting messages to Chooserr in his edit summaries, and leaving rude and imperious messages on Chooserr's talk page. He seems to have taken it upon himself to make Chooserr's experience here difficult, with very little regard for whether he attacks fairly or not.
- Does the said harassment constsiute mitigating circumstances for the length of the block?
  Yes, see next question.
- Have those who have harassed Chooerr been properly punished/corrected?
  No. Aolanonawanabe/Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused has been repeatedly warned to stop riding Chooserr's back, and when he's failed to heed those warnings, and continued to violate WP:CIV with Chooserr, he's never been blocked for this behavior. This selective application of the rules sends a terrible message to Chooserr, and I think we need to stop sending that message. I think that Chooserr's block should be reduced from a week to 4 days, and that Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused should receive a comparable block if he attacks Chooserr again. More generally, those who are uncivil to Chooserr should be warned, and if they continue, blocked. (Surely that should go without saying?)
Is any and all of the previously mentioned corrective action likley to exacerbate the situation?
Well, the message that we're currently sending to Chooserr: "You get the book thrown at you, while those who attack you get winked at" is very unlikely to result in much improvement. If a system seems blatantly unfair to you, what motivation is there to follow its "rules"? Why shouldn't he game the system, when it works so well for those who disagree with him?
What is the long term solution?
Per the previous couple of answers, I'd have to say that a more equitable application of rules would be a start. Something like a restraining order between Chooserr and Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused might be a good idea, too. The fact remains that Chooserr has some learning to do about how Wikipedia works. He's made some progress already, but he's likely to make much more in an environment that he can see is fair. Once that's established, or perhaps as that's established, I think something like mentoring might be a good idea. I think that Chooserr has shown that he's willing and able to learn to work within Wikipedia's guidelines, but that he's not all that quick about understanding how this place is supposed to work. Given the behavior that he's had a chance to observe from others, I'm not all that surprised. I am confident that a combination of more interactions with fair-minded and civil Wikipedians, and fewer interactions with hot-headed and antagonistic Wikipedians will bring out a much more productive side of Chooserr, and that Wikipedia will benefit from that. This opinion is based on interactions I've observed (and sometimes participated in) in which he's reacted much better to polite, patient explanations than he's reacted to insults, bullying and sarcasm. Kind of like... any of us would. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, GTBacchus for that very thoughtful answers to Tznkai's questions, which must have cost you some time to produce. (Excellent questions, by the way, Tznkai!) I agree with all your points, especially that Chooserr has reacted better to polite explanations than to insults and sarcasm, and that a more equitable application of rules would be better. I would strongly support reducing Chooserr's block to four days (and of course, re-blocking if he violates WP:NPA again). I would also support blocking Aolanonawanabe/ Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused if he taunts Chooserr again, and I think a note to his talk page warning him of this before it happens would be in order. I have promised Chooserr to watch out for people attacking him, and since I am on a wiki-reduction (gradually turning into a wiki-break) until the middle of January, I would request that other administrators would watch for that as well. Although I'm not British, I've always been deeply impressed by the British idea of not kicking a dog when he's down. If we have a WP:BEANS page, maybe we should also have one for WP:DOG! AnnH ^(talk) 11:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This[37] is absolutley appalling and easly qualifies as mitigating circumstances. I think his block should be removed (as a reducted penalty), and if I could I would myself. This kind of treatment is pretty appalling--Tznkai 17:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once I've had a chance to discuss the current situation with Chooserr (and assuming no further issues arise here), I think I'll feel good about removing his block a few days early - I don't expect that to happen tonight, as I'm off to bed in a minute, but within a day or two. Naturally, I (and certainly several other admins) will continue to keep an eye on the situation, and will be perfectly willing to block either Chooserr or Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused for WP:NPA violations. Thanks to everyone who's taken the time to wade through any fraction of the backlog and weigh in with opinions and suggestions. I really believe that a positive resolution of this situation is possible, and that it will result in a better Wikipedia for all of us. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed policy regarding inactive administrators

Please see Wikipedia:Inactive administrators and indicate whether you support this proposal on the talk page. Thank you. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons

There are nearly 8,700+ images at Category:NowCommons and growing, with hardly any deletions happening. No doubt, it is a relatively cumbersome procedure, but it would be good to have more admins working on this category. Thanks, --Pamri • Talk 13:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This might be due to the fact that everyone isn't entirely sure if putting all images of Commons is a great thing to do. There are several benefits in keeping images and media locally (for example, easier protection in case of a Main Page image). Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 16:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Another Pointless Style Crusade

User:Bobblewik has spent the last few days engaging in a rather prodigious one-$GENDER_SIGNIFIER crusade against years (and related items) which are wikilinked. I noticed this this morning when he/she edited Beer to remove all the wikilinking from years (and related items) in the article, e.g [[1067]] → 1067; [[800s]] → 800s; [[18th century]] → 18th century; etc. This change (a rather extensive one for an article the size of Beer) was flagged as a "minor" edit, and was accompanied by the wholly misleading edit summary "AWB Assisted cleanup". [38]

Looking over Bobblewik's contributions for the past few days, it seems that this is an ongoing issue. As near as I can tell, a significant chunk (and possibly even a majority) of the last 5000 edits (at least — I stopped counting after clicking "Next 500" 10 or so times) from this user involves imposing his/her particular view of what constitutes "overlinking" onto a plethora of articles.

The user is a long-term contributor, so I'm pretty firmly convinced that a block of any kind would be unreasonable, especially for such a nebulous infraction. But, on the other hand, this crusade to de-link years (and months and days) from articles seems to be a very close cousin to similar style crusades we've seen elsewhere, e.g. the ongoing footnote format shitfest between SEWilco and William McConnelly, or the ongoing BCE/CE vs. BC/AD contretemps. So I figured a notification here was in order. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 15:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tricky question, and surely one that it would be "better" to have policy on than to arbitrarily change articles over. That being said, some of our articles are overly wikilinked, particularly to dates. The style rule I remember reading, which seems to be not honored, generally, is that one should only wikilink a year if it would be appropriate (and encyclopedic) for the given article to appear in the list of events that happened in that year. So it would make sense for 1066 to be wikilinked in the William the Conqueror article, but not to link it in the Beer article in a sentence like "...and in 1066, William the Conqueror drank a pint of beer to celebrate his victory." Nandesuka 15:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not understanding the harm done by linking single years within an article. I have certainly found such links enjoyable, useful, and edifying in my wikipedia tenure, and cannot fathom what makes them so damaging that they must be eliminated. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 16:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that when too many things are linked, it can make an article unreadable. That's the general principle I believe he is following. See the style guide Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context. Nandesuka 16:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. However, I do not personally believe that linking individual years qualifies as "overlinking." See also: Slippery slope. That said, if I am in an obvious minority, I will withdraw my complaint and revert Beer back to the state of unlinked years. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 16:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me that I need to create a redirect from That's to That's. --Syrthiss 16:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also understand that, but there is no harm in linking years. I've never understood why we delink them. Who came up with this guideline? Where is it written? Was there consensus to do this? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is that editors tend to overlink single years in an article. This leads to clutter and makes the relevant links stand out less. I agree with the Manual of Style, which states (about single years) "Generally, do not link, unless they will clearly help the reader to understand the topic." Carbonite | Talk 16:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is applying the manual of style guidlines, and is being careful not to de-link dates that affect date preferences, he has a enough of support to do this. I note that when you reverted his changes User:ClockworkSoul reverted back to him, which you then promptly reverted again, and as he is following guidlines, in my book that makes you the style crusader. Martin 16:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Linking single years was standard style for a long time, well before user date-preferences appeared, and in fact was one argument for keeping "number" articles as referring to years (rather than the numbers themselves). The idea was probably to evenually allow the collection of some kind of meta-data /year indexing. I've no idea when the changes to the MoS were made that depreciated this, but I for one didn't know the changes were made, and have been following the old style. --Bob Mellish 16:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I remember seeing someone put in the dates into the Windows 2000 article, and they looked bloody awful, and almost killed the flow of text. IMO, it is worse to put in the user defined dates than it is to wikilinks dates! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also support the removal of linked stand-alone months and years, because they're pointless (like wikifying the), and the overwikification makes pages hard to read. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few things to clean up here. Firstly, Bobblewik is not actually removing them himself, he's using a bot to do it. And because it's an automated procedure, it removes wikilinked dates which are in useful places, such as in image captions, and in list tables. The dates there are highly relevant to the section and shouldn't be removed. I fail to see how it compares at all to wikifying the word "the". That is absolutely a straw man. No one's arguing to wikify every single word in a sentence, so please don't try and pidgeonhole people's comments in a box that small.

I'm also interested how overwikification makes pages hard to read. As far as I can tell links appear in blue rather than black if they are linked. This is a contextual encyclopedia taking advantage of the entire point of the web - links! If you don't like the way the links appear, maybe you should change your preferences. It's better to overlink than underlink in a website like this. I hate it when I'm reading a paragraph which is expanding on a point mentioned earlier and nothing is linked because someone has argued that it's "already been linked" a couple of screens up, so I can't go and get context about a concept. Remember, this is an encyclopedia for the readers' benefit - if we provide context, it helps more than if we don't.

Removing excess wikilinks from overlinked text is fine. But it's not something which should be automated, and I can't imagine that Bobblewik is spending time making sure that the bot he's using is not removing links where having it is useful at the rate his edits are being made. Spending time "enforcing" the Manual of Style's suggestions on date linking seems to me to be a complete waste with little benefit and there are lots more important things to help out with. Talrias (t | e | c) 03:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You just keep saying it shouldn't be automated without saying why not, and you've been asked several times. Can you answer please: what is the bot doing that a human being who was following the MoS would not do, apart from being faster? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Failing to exercise discretion. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But in what kind of situation, Kelly? I can't imagine when linking to 1999 will be informative, and if there really is something special about that year that's relevant to the article, it should be spelled out as part of the text. I hope Talrias will give just one example of when a bot would get it wrong but a human being wouldn't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I routinely click on wikilinked years. I have certainly found such links enjoyable, useful, and edifying in my time here at Wikipedia, both as a casual reader and as an active editor. Yes, even 1999. Did you know that the Euro was introduced on January 1, 1999? I didn't, until I clicked that link. Please do not assume that since you find them useless, everyone else will (or should) find them useless as well. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 09:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are fundamentally wrong, it is not a bot, it is a semi automated process, he checks every single edit before posting it. Martin 11:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that is possible. Looking through his contributions he is making, in some cases, 6 edits a minute. He could make a cursory glance at the changes the bot has made, sure, but I don't think that he can consider each bot's changes properly at all. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have read some of the above and with the differing of opinions I think he should be asked to stop for the time being at least. I am worried about removing links from succession boxes, the ( ) containing a person's birth, image captions and other offset places like those. Those places don't ruin the flow of the article and the links have use. If we can assure that those won't be removed I'd be happy but I think before anyone starts wholesale change it needs more discussion. Like with British English vs. American English words an article should stay as it was originally created until a fully explanatory policy is made. gren グレン 04:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is a policy which bobblewik is following, but it is fair enough to re-affirm it I suppose. If you see Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Bot_permission_please? where bobblewik has asked for a bot to do the job, there is strong support for the task to be automated, and all but a couple who opposed this (including myself) only did so on the basis that it should not be totally automated. Martin 11:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested before, it might be useful to divide complaints into those about:

Manual of Style guidance
edits consistent with the Manual of Style.

For example, Talrias complained about the removal of spaces in headings. He also suggested that dates in captions must have links. グレン suggests that links are required in succession boxes and birthdates. yakkity yak describes a scenario involving the euro and "1999" although it is not clear if this was relevant to the article, perhaps the suggestion is that there is insufficient understanding of the term 'relevance' in the Manual. These are all plausible criticisms of conventions used and promoted by the Manual of Style. There are many editors that act in accordance with the Manual of Style. If the Manual is changed, I am sure their actions would change accordingly. The talk page of the Manual of Style is the place to debate such things. I don't know why we are debating it here. Bobblewik 18:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB copyvios?

I wanted to get a clarification... Does copying and pasting content from IMDB constitute a copyvio? A movie list or episode list I could see as being fair use, but if someone takes an entire review or bio or something verbatim I have a harder time seeing fair use. --Syrthiss 17:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is very definitely a copyvio. Imdb explicitly claims copyright on each page. Reviews are unacceptable anyway, as they are opinion. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. The only things we should be getting from IMDB are raw facts, not chunks of text. A list of movies is OK (it is pure information) but a bio is not. Of course, we can still check the dates of birth etc, but the text must be our own. Physchim62 (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And there have been incidents when the author of the IMDB bio has posted portions thereof here, which is acceptable as (despite IMDB's claim) it's the author that has the copyright. Though this clearly isn't the case in most cases we spot. - Nunh-huh 17:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That helps my understanding a lot. --Syrthiss 18:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of the big issues with IMDB (and somewhat the same issue with Amazon.com) is that they claim copyright on things that they blatantly can't claim copyright on, for example lists of who the actors were in a movie or the birth date of an actor or actress and in that respect we can use that information since it's raw movie data and it isn't theirs to hold copyright to but other than that we can't use any of their stuff directly copy and pasted. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 18:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A list of movies can't be copyrighted, but I wouldn't copy-and-paste it straight in anyway. For one thing, it feels like a copyvio, even if it's not. For another, IMDb list all films (if they get it right, that is) and we should be aiming to list only the important ones in a "selected filmography" (otherwise we're just aping IMDb). Finally, the IMDb formatting looks crap when unconverted to wikisyntax. When getting info from IMDb, I always copy down what looks important, and change the formatting. I think that should be the way for everyone to go, rather than just copying and pasting — regardless of the legalities. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is also rather stupidly organized in reverse chronological order. It makes no sense in the context of a biography of an actor to go backwards. - Nunh-huh 04:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy....

I had placed a non - Wiki source concerning Bigfoot in the Sources section, and a editor had removed it, citing it as "silly" and WP:NOR. This source is The Ten Creepiest Creatures In America", written by Allan Zullo, published in 1997 by Troll Communications, website is Troll's Homepage. This is a non-fiction soft cover book. It has some Bigfoot related articles in it, including Bigfoot, MOMO - a bigfoot creature seen in Missouri, Champ, The Fouke Monster(I've personally investigated this incident myself, and almost got shot by some local who thought I was a abusive "skeptic" while doing so after I had heard about this thing being in Fouke, Arkansas). Why is it that non-Wiki sources are prohibited, as same editor had indicated w/ the "silly" remarks and the WP:NOR protocol ? Martial Law 02:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do humbly apologise for any inconviences.Martial Law 02:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not with the sources being "non-wiki", but with the fact that any source must be credible to be considered. Allen Zullo appears not to be a reputed cryptozoologist. If someone would not be recognized as authoritative by others in the same field, then he is probably not a credible source. See WP:CITE et al. R adiant _>|< 02:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking in the Library of Congress, Allan Zullo appears to produce jokebooks, "strange but true" books, and so on - Most outrageous golf quotes ever; Haunted schools : true ghost stories; Could it be true?; Nash & Zullo's believe it or else!!... you get the idea. I wouldn't be filing them as reference material, let us say.

More to the point... where did you do this? I've looked in the history, and can't find the edit you're complaining about... Shimgray | talk | 02:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to insert it into the Bigfoot article. As stated, I have, after hearing about the "Fouke Monster" on all manner of media, I have investigated this matter myself. This matter is true. This is one of many sources regarding the thing seen in Fouke, Arkansas. This creature is mentioned in many websites and data sites, and this non-wiki source also mentions this thing. To be safe, I have done a Google Search on "Bigfoot,Fouke,AR.". You try it and you see what I'm referring to as well. Appreciate the help. I also have a documentary DVD called The Legend of Boggy Creek. One does'nt grab some heat(guns) to go looking for myths and lies. I have also investigated other really famous paranormal incidents. In Fouke, AR., there is really a creek called Boggy Creek, and this thing has also been seen in Texarkana, Texas/Arkansas (the place is on a state line). There are police incident files on file. How do I cite this ? Martial Law 05:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The police don't like having files stated in open formats, due to various investigations. Appreciate the assisstance. Cheers. Martial Law 06:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Packer on WP:ITN

I'm not certain why this was removed. According to the guidelines, significant deaths should be included. This is an extremely significant death in Australia. I have reverted, but as noone bothered to note why it was reverted on the talk page I'm posting a comment here in the fond hope that someone will be able to answer why it was reverted. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, it appears that Australia is not counted as significant enough in the global scheme of things. It will be interesting to see what happens to WP:ITN when Ted Turner dies. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that was a pretty stupid thing for me to say. However, the whole rule that notable people who die should not be listed is pretty stupid, really. I'll leave THAT topic for the talk page of WP:ITN, however, as it's not appropriate for here. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It does look, in this specific instance, to be a good faith "no obit" revert. That said, I agree with what you struck out — that is, I agree with what you said, and I also think it was pretty petulant and you were right to strike it out :-). I wasn't aware of any "no obit" rule (given that I don't pay much attention to ITN, except to complain occasionally), but it's quite reasonable to have one. However, we've all seen extremely minor incidents in the USA given "airplay" while events of great importance elsewhere in the world were kept off the front page, and at first blush this looked like yet another case. It will be interesting to see what happens when Ted Turner dies ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Turner died in 1992. A robot has taken over his shell of a body. Ral315 (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But will we note it at ITN when the robot finally breaks down? :)--Sean|Black 21:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only if we have a source. ;) --Syrthiss 21:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*drew

I have blocked User:*drew indefinitely, pending a thorough investigation of his copyright violations. We need to deal with such activities with absolute harshness, no mercy, because this kind of plagiarism is 100% at odds with all of our core principles. All admins are invited to block any and all similar users on sight. Be bold. If someone takes you to ArbCom over it, have no fear. We must not tolerate plagiarism in the least. --Jimbo Wales 04:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:.2Adrew - anyone care to permaban User:Vaoverland, now an admin? --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the circumstances of this block, but note that warning should always be given. One of my first contributions ever was a cut-and-paste from IMDb, since I honestly didn't know any better. Ral315 (talk) 08:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if most users' first edits were not cut/pastes from IMDb or AMG (as mine was). – Clockwork Soul 16:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"absolute harshness, no mercy" is now my favourite jimbo quote. Martin 16:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Antaeus Feldspar

This user is repeatedly editing the user pages of people who have left Wikipedia due to his harassment. It seems that he has some friends among administrators, and is allowed to vandalise Wikipedia pages and user pages as he sees fit. I left Wikipedia after I was blocked for reverting his blanking vandalism on the page Andrew Orlowski. After that he repeatedly vandalised my user page, and eventually I had my user page deleted in order to stop this person vandalising it any further. I see he is carrying out similar behaviour on User:Zordrac's page. I'd like to request that he is told to refrain from vandalising other people's user pages, especially those of people who have decided to leave Wikipedia due to his incessant campaigns of harassment. DannyWilde 05:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DannyWilde (talk · contribs) leaves out several important facts, and presents as "facts" things that aren't so. Prime among them is that he himself is harassing people, by publishing what he mistakenly believes to be my real name, which he does here and here. This alone should dispel any notion that Danny is acting in good faith. Furthermore, what he is describing as "vandalism" to user pages is actually removing categories created for the purpose of harassment (Category:Users who have left Wikipedia,Category:Users who will probably be using a different account if they ever return, unless the stalking situation is dealt with, Category:Users who will ask a trustworthy administrator to delete this account if they ever make a new account, Category:Users who left Wikipedia due to being victims of stalking, Category:Users who left Wikipedia due to being harassed, Category:Users who were threatened with being banned for helping out others, and Category:Users who tried to make Wikipedia better for everyone, all of which are now up on WP:CFD.)

Danny's claims that I am a "vandal" are of course entirely false, as hinted by the fact that he never made any report to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. What he calls "vandalism", everyone else calls "content disputes" or in fact "not trying to find loopholes around Wikipedia policy"; for instance, what he calls "blanking vandalism" on Andrew Orlowski was in fact removing the entire verbatim contents of the now-deleted article Wikifiddler, which he had merged into Andrew Orlowski a day before the AfD was to close. I'm sure he also thinks it was "vandalism" that I nominated Andrew Orlowski (journalist) for AfD, as well; that "article" was Danny's copy-and-paste of the entire contents of Andrew Orlowski the way he preferred it (with the contents of the now-AfDed Wikifiddler in it) to a new title that should of course been a redirect. Of course, that is a textbook case of a POV fork, and the article was of course deleted by unanimous consensus, but I have no doubt that Danny considers it "vandalism" for which he feels entitled to retaliate by attempts to "out" my personal information (which he has done to other editors as well) and to smear my name, for instance, in the false report he left on this page. I would request that Danny be instructed that misdescribing edits he doesn't like as "vandalism" is not acceptable and that attempting to harass other editors by "outing" what he thinks are their real names and geographic locations is in no way acceptable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Undelete

This seems to kinda wierd, and might violate GFDL.[39] Can I get an opinion on this? I'm also going to ask Brian0918, who did this, probably for the edit summary. karmafist 08:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Do you mean that we can now undelete only some of the edits in the history? That's only to be used in the case of abusive edit summaries, vandalism, copyvios etc. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check User ?!

What is this ? Martial Law 10:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

m:CheckUser. —Locke Cole 10:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of WP:RM vote on Islamofascism (term) -> Islamofascism by User:Marudubshinki

User:Slim Virgin has already raised this issue on User talk:Marudubshinki#Islamofascism, where that admin closed the move request by counting participants in the neutral discussion together with those who voted move in order to arrive at a consensus to move. Comments by experienced admins on closing WP:RM discussions and assessing consensus on the talk page appreciated. --- Charles Stewart 17:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blockable hate speech by User:Travb

Travb (talk · contribs) left the comment below on User talk:CJK. In it he calls CJK a "little Eichmann" and compares him to a Holocaust denier:

CJK, throughout history their have been people like you, extreme ideological jingoists who will downplay and deny their own country's attrocities. I see you in the same leagues with Jewish Holocaust Deniers and those who deny the attrocities of Stalin and the Gulags. These are the attrocities that America demonizes, and most familar to Americans, but added to the list are less known attrocities: Japan's attrocities in China, Frances attrocities in Algeria, the first genocide of Armenians against Turkey, Colonial attrocities, etc. All of these attrocities have something in common: their are always "little Eichmann's" like yourself, who deny and downplay these attrocities. As long as their are people like yourself, their will always be genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. I have no respect for you and your ilk. None. I cannot adequately express in words my disgust for you.Travb 05:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC) [40][reply]

For those of us whose families were annihilated by the Nazi genocide, no attack can be more extreme; and when such an attack is lodged for reasons as trivial as a Wikipedia edit war, the impact of the attack only serves to trivialize the Holocaust. Although I have had some disputes with CJK myself, I will not feel comfortable editing Wikipedia today unless TravB is blocked for at least 24 hours for violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks in the most extreme way any individual can violate it. I urge an administrator to block Travb promptly. 172 17:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TravB's comment was way over the line and I've blocked him for 72 hours for violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Carbonite | Talk 17:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Thanks. 172 17:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went to do the same, but Carbonite was ahead of me. Bishonen | talk 17:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. R adiant _>|< 18:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would support such a block as falling withing the "disruption clause" of the Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Izehar 18:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just a casual observer here, but even I am deeply offended by his unprovoked hate speech, does anyone else think an indef ban is in order here if he doesn't show significant improvement upon his return--Petral 19:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- indef - never. Secretlondon 19:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Banning policy - it's not easy to ban a user indefinitly. Izehar 20:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest escalating blocks for remarks that are this offensive. The next one is a week, the one after that is a month. After that, we can probably talk about 'banned indefinitely by community consensus'. While I doubt that someone who would write such a thing is ever going to be able to work within Wikipedia's civility policy, the usual process seems to require that we let him demonstrate it conclusively. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - personal attacks are widespread, as we all know. I think that they should be dealt with with something like test templates ({{test}}, {{test2}}, {{test3}} and {{test4}}). If a user makes a PA or an uncivil comment, then you give him/her a level 1 warning. If he/she makes another then he/she is given a level 2 warning and so on. If he/she makes PAs or uncivil comments after the fourth warning, then he/she can be blocked for up to, say, 12 hours. The problem is how to define a PA or an uncivil comment. Izehar 20:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, 4 strikes and you're out for a short period of time? It is okay to be a little more blunt than that. After one or two warnings, it will be obvious that they know what they are doing is wrong. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Test templates are fine for edits that only affect an article. If someone add "Bush is a idiot!" to an article, a warning is entirely appropriate. However, when edits are aimed at editors, this is far more serious and requires immediate attention. Personal attacks are disruptive and may lead to blocks without warning. Depending on the severity of the personal attack, a block ranging from 3 - 72 hours might be warranted. Carbonite | Talk 20:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy allows that though? Izehar 20:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMO liberal interperetation of "disruptive" could be abused. Izehar 20:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are almost always disruptive and thus have policy basis for blocking. Most of the time an attack is mild enough that a warning will suffice, but some personal attacks are so offensive that the user is blocked immediately (as in the case of TravB). With 700+ admins, abuse of the blocking policy will be noticed very quickly. Should any admin believe that the block shouldn't have been placed, they can unblock (although it's usually polite to discuss with the blocking admin first). Carbonite | Talk 20:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a particular edit?

I cannot find how to go about deleting a particular edit of an article, though I believe I've seen policy that says it's justified in this case; an anonymous editor posted what is purported to be a celebrity's personal cellphone number. It's been reverted but should not stay in the database and edit history, IMHO. Even if it's not really the number of the person it purports to be – it could be a prank to harass a third party with a lot of calls. If it's agreed here that it is justified to remove the edit, and if this is something that an admin can do instead of needing a bureaucrat or higher, I'll do it if pointed to the procedure; I'd just as soon not publicize the page and therefore the phone number here. — Kbh3^rd talk 20:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the procedure, where it states, "Situations where such a selective deletion might be warranted include copyright violations that occur only in certain revisions, or personally identifying information that has been deemed inappropriate by consensus." I'll take a couple of affirmative responses here as a consensus. — Kbh3^rd talk 20:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with the removal of the cellphone number from the edit. --Syrthiss 20:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as a consensus. ;-> I think that this is clearly the proper thing to do in this instance. I've removed the offending edit from the Ricky Ullman article. — Kbh3^rd talk 21:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe we have policy, or at least precedent, against inclusion of personal contact information, and for removing it from articles and history. Seconded. R adiant _>|< 22:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serious sexist and abusive personal attacks by Escobar600ie/Anti-establishment

From his page it's evident he's very much a staunch Irish Republican - I reverted his removal of "Ulster" from the {{User Ulster Unionist}} template as vandalism a week ago.

Now I have a message on my talk page from him with hate speech including a very nasty comment saying I "must have" sand in my vagina for disagreeing with him and calling me a "fuck up". -_-

Please, please, block him, or at least warn him.. Though I doubt he cares about the rules against no personal attacks if he knows he can get away with it anyway. :¦ --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at his contributions and noticed, well, there aren't any.

Special:Contributions/Anti-establishment

It seems he makes all his edits with account Escobar600ie:

Special:Contributions/Escobar600ie

I guess this may be to make seeing his contributions harder, to confuse new editors or have a spare sockpuppet account in case his main one gets blocked. -_- --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He just removed "Ulster" from {{User Ulster Unionist}} again. It's obvious he has bad intentions here. I reverted him again but I bet he carries this on in a revert war.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Provide the diff please. You just reverted what appears to be a completely different user. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They're both the same user and he admits this as no secret: User:Escobar600ie&action=history., that's not the issue here. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. The change you reverted was from User:Andux.--Syrthiss 20:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. You're wrong. The most recent one was though, I agree there, I made a mistake and misread who the editor was, thinking it was Escobar600ie/"Anti-establishment" again. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one we were both talking about. Anyway he is being watched, Hopefully this one will resolve itself. We'll just keep an eye on things Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And as for your comment "WTF does sand in the vagina mean", it's a phrase originating from American slang, it's used commonly by femalehating males to mean "female who stands up to men", basically - and is pretty much accepted as misogynist except by the men that use it. -_- --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's also redirecting his user and user talk pages to ones of a user (Anti-establishment (talk · contribs)) which simply does not exist. IIRC that's generally frowned upon unless the target user exists and is the same person. --cesarb 20:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I warned him on the anti establishment talk page against NPA, and will try to keep an eye on him. --Syrthiss 20:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume good faith here. I reckon he just wants to change his user name. I've advised him how to do it. Let's see how he responds. As for Mistress Selina. I'm not sure his intentions are bad. Perhaps he has a reason for removing the ulster from ulster unionist? And we don't block straight off for personal attacks even if they do mention rude bits. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why the actual Unionist edit might have been made. Ulster Unionist Party is just one party, but the link was to Unionist (Ireland), which could also includes supporters of the Democratic Unionist Party. Morwen - Talk 20:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh, I guess.. It's not really about the party though, not like for example the template for Green Party membership, it's about whether they believe in Ulster being in the Union or not. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are there other parts of Northern Ireland apart from Ulster that a unionist might also include but an Ulster Unionist might not? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, as Ulster includes the entire Northern Ireland. Historically, though, there were unionists in the rest of Ireland, though they are now a tiny tiny minority. However, the point is that "Ulster Unionist" is a name of a political party, and is never used as the name of the generic movement, and DUP supporters would find the term strongly objectionable. The edit in the first place was good - the reaction to the reversion was very bad though. Morwen - Talk 20:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Political parties always have to ruin perfectly good words. Grrr. -_- --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Julianna Rose Mauriello

Not sure if this is the right place to put this, but an administrator may want to take a look at this page. There have been several edits to this page blanking it or requesting it be taken down by the supposed parent of the child/the the person themseves saying Wikipedia doesn't have the right to have a page on her because she is a minor. I am no expert in law (yet), but as far as I know the info on her page qualifies her as a public figure which means it is perfectly acceptable to have a page on it, but someone should look at it nonetheless. An example is this edit and this edit. I think the second link is probably vandalism but the first looks like the user has made some helpful contributions which is the only reason that makes me think they might be serious. VegaDark 22:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well its a straight copyvio from the play website. Whether she is a good enough actor to qualify for an article I don't know. Secretlondon 22:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I didn't notice that. I don't know if she qualifies as notable enough for an article either, I wouldn't be opposed to it being deleted via NN. I'd say it's borderline. That wasn't why I mentioned it here though. VegaDark 23:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a comment from anyone at Wikimedia Foundation as to whether they have indeed received any legal documents regarding this, or comment from one of our lawyer admins as to their interpretation (assuming there are indeed such laws). The page can be rewritten to avoid copyvio, if consensus holds that it is a notable subject (if brought to afd), but until we have someone from either of my two cases above commenting I'd say the article stays...and that blankings should be treated as vandalism. I'd put a note on the talk page though reminding blankers not to blank. My armchair interpretation is that a minor who has starred in broadway plays and on tv is a public figure. Her name obviously appears on playbills for the play, and a name is quite different than personal information like address, SSN, or whatever. --Syrthiss 14:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everyking will not interact with or comment about Snowspinner

The Arbitration Committee has amended its ruling in Everyking 3 to include the following provision:

Everyking shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Snowspinner, on any page in Wikipedia. Should he do so, he may be blocked by any administrator (other than Snowspinner) for a short time, up to one week; after the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be one year.

Any adminstrator, other than Snowspinner, may enforce this provision. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be on enforcement requested?--Tznkai 02:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is. We generally announce both there and here. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for Kelly, which I'm positive will greatly please her, Phil should'nt be interacting with James, either. Not to imply he so intends. El_C 02:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom has not seen fit to so order. Kindly refrain from speaking on my behalf; I'm quite capable of speaking for myself. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will not so kindly refrain! But I did not mean that as an order on your part, more like an advise to keep the peace in one piece. El_C 02:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? You will not refrain or you will refrain but not do it in a kindly manner? And "peace in one piece" ? sounds like wiered verse to me - are you going all poetic? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 02:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think its an overly clever way of saying everyone should shut the fuck up and stay out of everyone's way.--Tznkai 02:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess I'm not very funny. :( El_C 02:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Funny in a clever sort of why. As opposed to funny in a stupid way which is what I aim for. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn03:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that I was aiming for stupidity! El_C 03:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But try as you might, you never quite get there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thx! I am so smart, s-m-r-t! So, once I become a member, where do I pick my free drugs? El_C 08:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are, the situation just manages to suck the fun out of it like a... I'd better not say anything--Tznkai 02:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I cut back El_C's dosage too much too soon... /me hands out free drugs to everyone. Tomer ^talk 03:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stop worrying about this now. Instead, let us now think instead of pancakes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pancakes (are deliciousness!); anything to deflect attention from my ~~vandalism~~ correction of User_Free drugs!. Phew. El_C 03:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I love pancakes, but these are too small and the one on the top left is slightly burned. Are you sick of christmus yet because I still have some pud left over.

It doesn't look like this - looks more like a dollop with a few nuts on a plate. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 03:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to have to make pancakes this weekend, if for no reason other than get a better picture than that one. Burned pancakes, poor composition, and poor lighting. Geez, people. Whatever happened to our quest for quality? Kelly Martin (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, you people are Not Sound on the issue of French Toast. In any case, yet another application of David Gerard's ArbCom Principle: "No, you can't do that, either." --Calton | Talk 03:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ruh-roh. Will this new ruling affect my ability to participate in dispute resolution with Snowspinner? At present I am planning on an Arb case against him. Everyking 05:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC) --Calton | Talk 05:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I'm confused. Who's mad at who now? --D e ath phoenix 03:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm mad at the people who foisted artificial-maple-flavored corn syrup-based "pancake syrup" as a substitute for real Canadian Grade-B Dark maple syrup. Years of my childhood, wasted, I tell you, WASTED. --Calton | Talk 05:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Grade-A Light Amber, myself. --Carnildo 07:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What, no waffles? What's wrong with you people? :)--Sean|Black 07:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

El C hints at yet another problem here: why isn't there an equal standard? Why does it only apply to me? Everyking 05:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume because you have been judged by those who have something resembling perspective on the situation to be more likley to cause trouble and/or have a history of doing the same.--Tznkai 07:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see. And who do you suppose instigated all this between us? Can you tell me the basis for all of it, what factors have caused our dispute to develop? Or one of these people with perspective could do it? How did it start, and what are the driving forces for it continuing? Who is generally on the offensive, and who is generally on the defensive? Everyking 07:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Answers for Everyking: You; Ashlee Simpson and Snowspinner's role in the RfAr that wrested control of the article away from you; Your utter lack of perspective and over-large sense of entitlement; No idea; See answer #2; You; You and Snowspinner, respectively. Hope that clears things up. --Calton | Talk 08:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I in fact have not reviewed all the evidence at hand, but I would suggest this discussion is likley to make anything better for you, for him, or for the project. As an aside, I don't think it matters generally, or to most people, and especially to most adminstrators that it matters who started it, only that it happens and continues to happen.--Tznkai 07:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, then, that you're saying the mere fact of the dispute indicts both participants equally. Shouldn't there thus be equal penalties imposed on both sides, then, if we're going to be just according to this line of logic? Everyking 08:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying you're wasting our time pursuing this, and that it doesn't matter who started it. Equal penalties exist for equal offenses, and unequal penalties for unequal offenses. This in no way implies that ignoring who started what automatically makes the offenses commited in the exchange equal. I do not know the specifics, so I can't judge in specific, but I understand the general guidelines.--Tznkai 08:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is what is known as a fallacy. Perhaps, while both you and Phil have both shown poor judgment in continuing this affair, you have demonstrated that you have absolutely no self control in the matter, whereas Snowspinner's actions have not warranted such exteme measures. Participation in a dispute, even fault, does not necessarily equal arbcom restrictions, but your actions do. Dmcdevit·t 08:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that comments by Snowspinner towards you (trying to incite a comment from you) would be a similarly blockable offense. I'd interpret the ArbCom decision to give admins (not Everyking of course) the authority to make such blocks. Broken S 08:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, then, that you're saying the mere fact of the dispute indicts both participants equally. Nice bit of chop-logic. How about, the mere fact you've been "singled out" -- multiple times, with no real opposition inside or outside ArbCom, over the last year -- indicates that the problem lies larger with you? Occam's Razor, least number of assumptions, yada yada. --Calton | Talk 08:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I hinted on reciprocal conduct, not equale penalties - I consider that an absurdity in the face of the evidence. El_C 08:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please redirect the discussion back to something other than a platform for rehashing the Ek/Ss dispute? I recommend returning to free drugs and pancakes, and would like to point out that it's the pancake in the upper right, not the upper left, that's burned...although, in Matrix parlance, perhaps it should be stated that it's the pancake in the upper other left that's burnt... Tomer ^talk 14:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the matrix reference (I've only seen the film once and that was ages ago, don't all gasp at once, i've seen all the LOTR, and read the book, seen war games, seen all the hitchhikers tv episodes and the film and read all the book, read dozens of discworlds - so I'm safe) but obviosly I was talking about the gremlins point of view. Hey! GPOV to replace NPOV whole join me in drafting a policy proposal? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my ignorance, but what's GPOV? Gremlin point of view? Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hugely insignificant spoiler warning!

Neo is directed, while in the Matrix, to go thru a door to his left, whereupon he tries the door on his right, prompting Trinity to yell "Your other left!!!"

End big huge irrelevant spoiler!!! Tomer ^talk 19:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy assassination theories

User:RPJ is obviously very interested and has a certain POV on this subject. I reverted most of his changes to the article, and reinserted his CIA addition. I don't think this will go over too well, but I did say my piece on RPJ's user talk, and on the article talk. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of over 100 templates by User:Ral315

A couple of days ago, Ral315 full protected well over 100 templates. I'm wondering if we want this. Many of the templates hadn't been touched in months and months, but it's my opinion that we should not be pro-active with protection as it is unwiki. I'm not criticizing Ral (in fact Ral wants input on this as well). Just wondering what others thought. I just think it's a bad precedent. But I can see some merit in it since these are high profile pages. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As above, I did it mainly because they were high-profile pages. I wouldn't mind unprotecting them if others think my actions went too far, but I believe that all copyright-related templates, as well as any being used significantly as meta-templates, should be kept protected no matter what, for obvious reasons. I'd appreciate some input on this. Ral315 (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest using semi-protection instead. Of course, one could argue, being so "high profile", it's highly unlikely that vandalism to them would go unnoticed. With that in mind, if it's possible to just semi-protect pagemoves, that might be a good idea. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at a random few of those templates and they do not seem to be the target of any vandalism at all. I think that we should embark on the odious task of unprotecting them as their protection seems to be pre-emptive. While I'm sure that Ral315 meant well, IMO this will get in the way of editing them if they do need to be edited. Izehar 12:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think preemptively protecting them is a good idea. Most editorial templates (as opposed to series boxen, for instance) do not require a lot of editing ever. Protecting them prevents 1) server load whenever someone modifies them, and 2) the possibility that we get a template vandal at some point. The Wiki standard that everything must be mutable applies primarily to articles, and less so to meta-pages. I believe most templates aren't watchlisted very much, judged by the fact that the average template talk page never yields a response to queries. R adiant _>|< 12:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(ed conflict) Full protect is a good idea, imagine a vandal puts a large pornographic image (or large amount of text etc.) on to a lot of these templates, we suddenly have thousands of articles with porn in, and server meltdown. Plus of course there is the fact that they rarely get editted anyway, and when they are editted, the edits should always be discussed first. Martin 12:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I'd like to know is how can these protections be reconciled with the Wikipedia:Protection policy. Izehar 12:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- By modifying the protection policy, obviously. What we're asking here is if this is a good idea, not if we've done it before or if it fits the letter of policy. R adiant _>|< 13:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, two or three large templates - {{bio-stub}}, {{redirect}}, {{user-en}}, a couple others - were hit by an image-substitution vandal back in August, causing a lot of hassle. The first two have been protected indefinitely since then; I assume there are others. I would feel there is a very strong case to be made for protecting all templates transcluded in, say, more than 1-200 articles. Redirect is used in ~320; {{POV}} on ~1200, {{wikify}} ~1900... and I gave up counting {{disambig}} at twenty thousand! I don't want even to imagine all the talk-page ones, like test-templates... Protecting high-visibility transcluded templates is a good idea; vandalism to a page using these is much harder to notice by normal means. Shimgray | talk | 15:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Using my program I can tell you Template:Disambig is used on 39,503 pages, all the test templates are used a total of 36,585 times. Martin 16:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If protection is seen as too drastic, I'd support semi-protection. I think template vandalisms are less likely to be spotted through watchlists. This was vandalized during my RfA and I didn't notice any change to my user page until I just happened to look at it. And it must be so pleasant to get back from a wiki-break and discover that this was on your user page in your absence! AnnH ^(talk) 12:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Umm => Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy: Is not intended for pre-emptive protection of articles that might get vandalized. Izehar 12:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And honestly, generally, we don't full protect pre-emptively either, even though it's not in the official policy. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- What we're asking here is if this is a good idea, not if we've done it before or if it fits the letter of policy. WP:NOT a bureaucracy. Just because we haven't often done this before doesn't mean it's bad - please argument on the case, not the legalistics. Radiant_>|< 13:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Full protection is bad, even on templates where full protection is currently in use (such as {{welcome}}). I strongly suggest taking some of these permanently protected pages and considering just permanently semi-protecting them instead. As for these 100+ templates, I don't think it's a bad idea to semi-protect them. It'll keep the casual vandal from doing something that'll be widespread (and if WP:AUM is to be believed, may harm server performance). —Locke Cole • t • c 13:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - As above... no, this isn't contemplated under semi-protection policy. However, it isn't contemplated under protection policy either. I can't imagine that people who are skittish about 'restriction of editing' would prefer the current 'admins only' situation to 'admins and users who have been registered a few days'. I'm not advocating switching the main page from protection to semi-protection, but there are plenty of other pages where this would be appropriate. Unprotecting them in full might also be appropriate for many. On meta-templates... I'd actually like to see alot of these unprotected so they can be worked on. We've got a directive to reduce the usage of them, but now they are protected... which prevents 99.99% of the people who might make the necessary adjustments from doing so. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 13:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I fully agree with Radiant, this is a good idea and I've actually protected a number of high visibility templates myself (mainly the "test" templates). If a template rarely changes and is present on hundreds or thousands of pages, it's quite reasonable and prudent to limit editing. Even protected templates can still being edited by 700+ admins, so it's not as if they can't be updated when necessary. Carbonite | Talk 13:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - If posible Protection should never be used unless absolutely necesary, lots of protected pages snould be semi protected so they are editable. There is nothing wrong with that. Furthermore we should semi-protect pages such as language templates as its not like they are going to change. Templates are not subject to change, much --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - You should never fully protect an article or template except in extreme circumstances. I think it would be much better to, if some form of permanent protection is desired, semi-protect these pages. This at least allows non-admins to work on them, and only rejects the group most likely to vandalize (anonymous users and new users). —Locke Cole • t • c 13:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - For an article, it's true that protection shouldn't be used unless necessary. However, we're talking about templates here, especially highly visible ones. Vandalism on one article only affects that article. Vandalism on a template can affect thousands of pages. This type of vandalism can also be much more difficult to identify. Carbonite | Talk 13:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Templates that were likely created by non-admins, and that now fully protected, can only be improved upon by full admins. I think semi-protection of these high visibility templates makes a lot more sense; it forces a would-be vandal to sign up, and then makes it easier to block them (no issues with dynamic IP's unless the vandal wants to sign up a new account). It would also allow regular editors to continue to contribute without being forced to run and find an admin for every minor (or major) change. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        No one is suggesting that we protect all templates, just ones that are highly visible and seldom changed. Anything that can affect thousands of other pages should only be edited by trusted users (ie. admins). Any changes to these templates should be discussed, so there's no reason why a non-admin would need to make the actual edit. Semi-protection is insufficient because it allows non-trusted users to edit what are essentially "system administration" pages. I'm just having a hard time seeing why some users think these templates need to be open to editing by almost everyone. The "open" part of the tagline refers to the actual encyclopedia (article namespace), not every single mechanism that's used to keep Wikipedia running. Carbonite | Talk 14:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Changes to high profile templates should always be discussed first, so it is really academic whether a non admin can make any changes that are agreed upon. Martin 14:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        This is the key point to me, so I'm fine with protecting all high profile (by any reasonable definition) templates so they can't be used to cause problems. Adjust the protection policy as needed to accomodate that. - Taxman ^Talk 19:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(pulling back all the levels of indent) While I think it is academic really (like WHK said, these templates have mostly been untouched), I don't see why this cannot be covered using existing watchlists (after all, you don't often see a template appear on the recent changes list, I'm sure people would inspect it pretty quickly). novacatz 14:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

High profile templates should be on watchlists and should be protected so that users can see discussions on the template talk pages. Since all changes should be discussed and there over 700 admins, there's really no reason why all users need to be able to edit high profile templates. On the other hand, there's several reason why these templates should be protected. It eliminates vandalism, prevents inexperienced users from making a harmful (but well intentioned) edits and encourages discussion (non-admins have to discuss and admins get the "protected page" warning). Carbonite | Talk 14:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking to Freakofnurture on IRC and he gave me one reason for why these high-profile templates shouldn't be easily editable: WP:AUM. For that reason, I guess I withdraw my complaint. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of meta-templates, this should be seen as a stopgap measure while we deprecate them. Vandalizing these templates - and by vandalizing I mean changing in any way - is likely to cause a brief database lock. For this reason, they ought be protected. Because they ought be protected, they ought be deleted, because the nature of Wikipedia is that we don't like creating pages that we absolutely have to permanantly protect. Phil Sandifer 16:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think a lot of these comments miss the point. Perhaps it's okay to protect meta-templates preemptively, but look at the list. These are stub templates and cleanup templates. Honestly, I was kind of irritated when I saw that huge accmulation of protected templates a while ago too, but I didn't realize they had all been protected so recently in one go. That's senseless. Most vandals wouldn't know how to find them, and if they could, the chances of them finding a particular one of out of 100+ is so slim. Let's say I look at the histories of 4 random templates there, [41], [42], [43], [44], (this is true, these are the first ones I randomly picked), I find that the last edit before protection in each of them was a productive non-admin one. And I see almost no vandalism in those for histories at all. The fact that {{opentask}} was protected, which is regularly updated by non-admins (I used to do it before I was one, too), makes me think this was done blindly. I'm all for unprotection of most of them. Not that I'm saying we should unprotect blindly either, because some of them should surely remain protected, but not most of them. Dmcdevit·t 19:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Stub templates and cleanup templates are (1) frequently used, and (2) hardly ever changed. Any changes, as indicated before, should (1) be discussed first, and (2) if implemented will invalidate a large amount of page cache. I'm glad to hear we haven't had a template vandal yet, but nobody ever thought of large-scale page move vandalism either before we met Willy. And template vandalism would be less annoying to clean up, but far more straining on the server. Even a well-meaning newbie that changes the layout on a bunch of templates causes database strain. Hence, it makes perfect sense to protect just about any template that is editorial (e.g. "cleanup") rather than content (e.g. series boxen). R adiant _>|< 22:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Semitic people

I listed this for deletion, I expect vandals to remove or change votes. Can you guys whatch this one? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zen-master: Two week ban from editing Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights

For disruptive edits (multiple removals of the {{rejected}} tag), Zen-master has been banned from editing Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights until 13 January 2006 (per terms of his probation). He may still edit the talk page. Carbonite | Talk 15:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie admin: deleted page protection?

Hi, newbie admin here. I speedied Paul Preissner then saw in the undelete logs that this article has been deleted three times since December 24 (once in December 24, twice today). Is this a candidate for {{deletedpage}} protection? --D e ath phoenix 16:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact it was protected at 17:08 by Bratsche, so yes. :) --Syrthiss 17:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most excellent. :-) --D e ath phoenix 18:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just my 2 cents here: on the whole, use your own judgement: if you think that the page will continue to be re-created as nonsense, use the template and protect. If not, don't. (Pardon if that was a bit confusing...) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember to add it to the list at WP:PP. --cesarb 21:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

German copyright issues

I have received a number of messages from Admins and legal experts on the German Wikipedia warning me that the English Wikipedia is potentially violating German copyright laws with a number of its images and photographs. We have an automatically inserted Template (Template:GermanGov) that is currently undergoing a minor revert war about its language. The German users also argue that any images that do not clearly fall into the public domain should be probably be deleted. Many of these images come from the Nazi era and have some important utility however -- Nazi propaganda, WW2 photographs, and there may be different interpretations about the legal use of these materials in the United States and other countries. This seems like an important long-term issue that should be resolved (and perhaps a precedent has already been made and forgotten). Tfine80 20:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While we must respect German copyrights, we are not required to respect the specifics of German copyright law, are we? The English Wikipedia is subject only to American and Florida law, IIRC. Some pediae choose to be stricter (Japanese). --Golbez 21:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have to respect the copyright on works of authors from other countries in the same way it protects the copyright of its own nationals (Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works). --ST ○ 21:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it needs to be established that each work is actually public domain in the United States. This hasn't been done in this case. This is different from some of the exceptions and issues we are familiar with regarding written work because many of these photos are only 60 years old. And no one is suggesting that every work by the German government is public domain in the United States if it is not in Germany. Tfine80 22:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletions

Could we get some admins to sort through Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Izehar 22:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards