Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

User:Dudedontworry

Dudedontworry (talk · contribs) is creating a large number of articles about pianists, originally copyvios which have been deleted and replaced by one-paragraph stubs which rarely claim notability, and then don't prove it. No reliable sources are cited. All seem to have been the former students of Heather Slade-Lipkin, who might be notable if there were reliable sources who said so. I think that without reliable sources, most of these articles need to be removed. Opinions? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Anybody? If this isn't addressed, I'm just going to start speedying all of these articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

He's down to one-sentence stubs. At least he quit posting copyvios.... I can't tell whether he's a well-meaning but confused fan, or whether he's involved with publicity for this group of musicians. Sigh. FreplySpang 18:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh...

Just a guess, but this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this probably should be deleted.

I am a reliable source

Grow up Zoe. I am an academic researcher. My sources are excellent, in that they come directly from the musicians. I am the source. All information is researched by me. If you think that information can only be reliable, if it has been published elsewhere than on wikipedia, then you are insane. If that were true, then original advice a qualified lawyer provides on law would be regarded as no good, simply because he hasn't published his knowledge in a book somewhere other than wikipedia first. Equally, your attitude would also regard all previously unpublished research on AIDS/HIV as no good, simply because it hasn't yet been published by other publishers. That attitude is lunacy. Facts are facts. Research is Research, even if it is to date unpublished, my research is still valid and reliable. Wikipedia will never get anywhere if you continue to harass individuals, just because they know something that YOU do not.

Dudedontworry 05:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zoe"

Contributing to Wikipedia is Futile

In contrast to Wikipedia, regular publishers are happy to publish original contributions or research, and it is also normal to be allowed to quote other sources already in existence. Given that Wikipedia neither appears happy to publish original research, nor information quoted (and referenced/sourced) from elsewhere, and the extraordinary negativity of many of its administrators, who appear to enjoy berating contributing individuals for their contributions to Wikipedia, and yet also appear to assume that it is my full time activity, when in fact I am busy with my own 'real' life of academic research, and only contribute as and when time allows, the conclusion that contributing to Wikipedia is a futile exercise, looms large. If this is how Wikipedia wishes to treat contributors, then Wikipedia's future is in doubt. I for one am appalled at User/Zoe's attitude towards my contributions, and feel deeply offended by User/Zoe's threats to block me from contributing/editing, it is not I who vandalises, it is User/Zoe (et al) who came along and vandalised many hours of my efforts to contribute in many fell swoops, repeatedly. It appears some are quick to criticise, and eager to delete the work of others, with scant regard for the time and effort that was freely given. If this continues, I will delete everything I have contributed myself, and publish elsewhere with publishers who respect the fact I am a reliable source, and where there is commercial remuneration for my work.

Dudedontworry 05:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Laughing_Man"

If we didn't have rules about original research, Wikipedia would be full of all sorts of nonsense. We are an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original content. It is not our task to verify what is notable and what is accurate from contributors of original research. If you want to contribute here, follow the policies that have developed over time for good reasons. All of us, including admins have to follow those same policies. You are invited to contribute here, but sorry, you can't do so under your own set of rules. Cheers, NoSeptember 05:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

{{db-author}}

Dudedontworry 16:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Laughing Man: thank you for your assistance (please ensure all my contributions are deleted, and my user accoung/page)

Laughing Man is only person at Wikipedia who seems to talk any sense. I thank him for his suggestions and aid. I would be grateful if you could ensure (as you know I am trying to do) that all articles that I wrote and contributed, are deleted from Wikipedia, and that my user account is also deleted. Wikipedia's contribution rules are just too lunatic, for an academic researcher such as myself, who is used to being able to publish his findings. I am used to having my original academic research papers received with gratitude, warmth and delight.

I am not used to a publisher suggesting that I am not a reliable source. It appears that User:Zoe does not understand the concept of original research being reliable, and if User:Zoe were in charge of all the publishers in the world, humanity's recorded knowledge would never have accumulated, as User:Zoe wouldn't even accept the first caveman to discover how to make fire as a reliable source, never mind a Phd Academic Researcher's reliablity as a source of original research.

It is therefore serendipitous that professional publishers do understand that an academic researcher such as myself is a very reliable source. Adieu.

This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: This page was mistakenly created, no one other than its original author has made substantial edits, and he or she requests its deletion or has blanked the page. (CSD G7). If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please remove this notice. Administrators, remember to check what links here, the page history (last edit), the page log, and any revisions of CSD before deletion.

Dudedontworry 16:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Laughing_Man"

may want to look at WP:OWN--Hu12 16:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"I am used to having my original academic research papers received with gratitude, warmth and delight." What academic institution are YOU working at? :) A Train ^{take the} 17:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, not an academic journal. Journals publish original research, encyclopedias don't. It's that simple. See WP:NOR. —bbatsell ¿? 17:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought--Hu12 17:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have repeatedly pointed Dudedontworry to our guidelines at WP:RS and WP:V, but he has either steadfastly failed to read them, or has decided they don't apply to him. I think he's been given enough time to create content the same as everybody else on Wikipedia, and if he feels above us, I am sure there are other places that are more than willing to take anything people claim without documentation. MySpace comes to mind. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Unblock tennislover

An additional checkuser was performed on Tennislover (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cute 1 4 u. Based on this, I would like to assume good faith and unblock Tennislover (though obviously not Cute 1 4 u). However, I would like some reasonable amount of consensus before doing so. This is a particularly difficult case and I want to avoid even the possibility of a wheel war. Given that Twister Twist appears to have been a sockpuppet of Tennislover, I may be a bit hasty. But given the situation and given Tennislover's extreme patience and civility during this process, I believe an unblock and a general-Wikipedia-apology to be appropriate. I am not asking or demanding that the blocking admin apologise, however, as policy seems to have been followed appropriately; instead, whoever unblocks this user (myself, if I do) should extend an apology to the user. --Yamla 22:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It is fairly obvious that User:Sweet Pinkette and User:Tennislover are in contact outside of Wikipedia. Both have also been "cleared" from suspicion as sockpuppets of User:Cute 1 4 u, however, this connection is still suspicious overall. Since User:Sweet Pinkette is not blocked, I think User:Tennislover should be unblocked as well (pending explanations for actual sockpuppet accounts of Tennislover), but I do still hold some reservations about the character behind this account. -- Renesis (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Support the unblock on the grounds that he is not Cute 1 4 u. Not taking into account any other actions. Viridae^Talk 06:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Sarah Ewart did the unblock already. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry guys. I wasn't aware of this thread until just now. I unblocked on the basis of the inconclusive checkuser. Sarah Ewart 16:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Thelaststallion

Thelaststallion (talk · contribs) continues to add increasingly nonsensical variations on the theme "Richard Wright is cool" to Richard Wright (politician). My request for Thelaststallion to desist ([1]) was met with quite a dismissive attitude ([2]) and further insertion of nonsense, this time referencing the "Intergalactic Council on Coolness" ([3]). Could someone with a bit more patience and tact than myself help convince Thelaststallion that his additions are not, in fact, improving Wikipedia? Thanks! -- Jonel | Speak 23:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I just gave him a {{test2}}. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And now he has just been given a {{test4}} User:Zoe|(talk) 19:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

He seems to have brought all his friends, both to Dr. William M. Scholl College of Podiatric Medicine and Richard Wright. -- Jonel | Speak 06:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Berkeley City College

User:Berkeley City College - is this userpage appropriate? It's pretty much an ad for BCC. S/he's converted the Berkeley City College page to the same ad for BCC, which I've reverted. Argyriou (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Appears to be copyvio of official website[4], plus copyrighted photograph cannot be used on user page, only in article if necessary and fair use, blah blah blah. Can I blank it? Can I? Please, someone tell me I can blank it, and don't anyone do it before me. KP Botany 00:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. I'd personally comment it out and ask the user if I thought they'd take it the wrong way, or if the opposites were true, {{db-spam}}. 68.39.174.238 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Berkeley City College has replaced the article at Berkeley City College several times, also. See their talk page, and mine. Argyriou (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed two "fair use" images from the userpage and left a note on their talk page explaining my edit and the rationale behind it. Someome else may want to suggest a username change as the current one may not be legit. 68.39.174.238 00:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User has reverted your edits. In comment to my userpage, s/he claims to be part of promo dept of BCC. Argyriou (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, don't hold this against me, but I blanked the user page, and put a note on the user talk page, and really enjoyed it. I have always wanted to blank a Wikipedia page, and, it's not that I'm scared to, it's just that it's pointless and pretty much in the top 3 of most boring acts of vandalism on Wikipedia. The user is asking for help, someone outside can explain the situation. My note did explain the copy vios, the non-fair-use of a copyrighted picture on a user page, and plagiarism issues. KP Botany 00:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Tey reverted it. I get to do something even more fun- the blank-and-protect. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The user tried a workaround by duplicating their page at New Berkeley City College (which I redirected). I hope this isn't a trend. --Calton | Talk 05:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I should have also asked if the username is appropriate, or should be disallowed. There is no evidence that User:Berkeley City College has the right to represent BCC to Wikipedia. Argyriou (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be disallowed. According to the criteria on WP:USERNAME, a trademarked name with no sign of permission is not allowed. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've issued a {{Username-Warn}}, in addition to a test3 for image removal. Argyriou (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Giano on the radio!

I have been contacted by a producer with a public radio show called Weekend America. Who is looking into a story about the ArbCom elections and was wondering if I might have a few minutes to talk about my experience in Wikipedia. Tempted and amusing as that might be, I have strong feelings on blabbing to the media and those that do it, but does Wikipedia have a policy on this? I'm sure I am not the only obe to be singled out Giano 07:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether Wikipedia has a policy already, but I don't see the harm in it and I think that openness can only benefit us. If there's media interest in the ArbCom elections, the best course of action is to be honest and forthcoming, and do what we can to ensure that the coverage is fair. Clamming up makes it more likely that it won't be. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Curious. Giano, did the producer explain how they came to select you? (→Netscott) 07:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, why not me? I actually LISTEN to the show! In any case, go for it. --Calton | Talk 08:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Since we have some suffrage for the arbcom voting, I do not see the problem. I would be worried if an AfD or RfA advertised in the big media Alex Bakharev 08:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea why they chose me, cos I'm more horrible than you I expect! Is it real station then, I though it may be a hoax? Anyhow, I have enough experience of these things to know than a "nice happy story is no story" They want my "experience of Wikipedia" but I expect it will be all about Kelly Martin's arbcom result and behaviour etc, and the "Giano case" Neither of which are Wikipedia's finest moments. They are hardly going to want to discuss Palladian architecture are they? (Which is what I like talking about) No I shall leave it to others - interesting to see who though! Anyway they want me to phone them, and I'm certainly not spending megabucks on transatlantic phone calls. You lot would never understand my vowels anyway. I'll forward their email to Jimbo and he can tell them how marvellous the place is - especially the architecture section etc etc etc. Giano 08:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Tell them to phone "the co-founder, Jimmy Wales". That should give them a story... yandman 08:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Neille i (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been asking arbcom candidates on-wiki to beinterviewed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an arbcom candidate - heaven forbid, so I can't immagine what they want to know Giano 09:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have no qualms about giving interviews to the media. See for example [5], I was picked because of this I believe. Sure, go for it, and be honest in your answers. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That is hilarious! Jimbo recreated it two minutes later, with a rather endearing edit summary: [6]. Are you saying doing the interview was a form of punishment? :-) Carcharoth 13:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That had me laughing out loud for a moment :-) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a real radio show, at least. If the story comes off it will probably be available on podcast, too. [7]. Thatcher131 12:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The only concern is whether you know the questions in advance or not. I've into this before w/ David Gerard and pshapiro and that's why i am bringing this concern here. There may be tricky questions waiting for you Giano. Is it possible to check if you can get those questions in advance? -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Giano, I say go for it, I'm sure they'll call you for the actual interview. And yes, tell them about the architecture and how the articles are getting written. If they try to focus on the drama, just tell them that Wikipedia's internals being more transparent than their company's doesn't mean that we have to discuss our dirty laundry with outside players any more than they do. Zocky | picture popups 16:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• No, They would almost certainly want the drama, not the architecture. I shall not be commenting. Eeverything I do is above board and onwiki, that way others have their chance to comment legitimately and a right of redress. It is not my style to talk about others only when I know I am safe from reproach. If asked about certain subjects I would have a problem maintaining my usual kind disposition especially as the "IRCadmin" gang are now travelling on tour in a charabang hectoring voters at [8]. I'm not sure why they are called "elections". On Wikipedia they always seem more akin to those in dodgy countries, where one cast one's vote at one's peril. Giano 08:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I would have a problem maintaining my usual kind disposition especially as the "IRCadmin" gang are now travelling on tour in a charabang hectoring voters ... ah, classic Giano. It never gets old. Never. --Cyde Weys 21:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• No, and it never will so long as we have "Bonnie and Cyde" to point out the error of out votes and ways. Giano 08:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Death Threat Accusation

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Someone needs to have a chat with User:Morwen. The user has just accussed me of making a death threat against her [9] which is totally absurd. The user twisted a conversation where she had stated it was "wrong" that I be allowed to edit Wikipedia without access to sources [10]. My response to this was that she should be careful telling people who are deployed in the military that they are not allowed to edit Wikipedia: it is not only against every policy we have to tell anone they "can't" edit this site, but disrespectful to those who are serving thier country [11]. However, this user was never threatened and even stating such an accusation is very serious. Not to mention that I have tried to wrok with this user, have answered her many questions about sources, and even tried to be a bit friendly on her talk page [12]. As we can see, there are some issues with the user that she feels neccesary to post that I have threatened her and she is in fear of her life. -Husnock 10:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Time for deep breaths and a walk around the car park! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 10:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Let us see the comment here

I would be careful telling a deployed member of the military they shouldn't edit on Wikipedia for whatever reason

Do I think that User:Husnock is actually threatening to kill me? No. Did I say so. Did this comment scare me? You bet. Is this comment intimidating? Yes. It's intimidating in the "well, you wouldn't want this house to accidentally burn down, now would you?" type way. Was the comment intended to be intimidating? I don't know. Is it the type of comment we should be allowing users to go around making? Nope.

I linked everything above so people could see what was said and by whom. The fact is you stated you were "in fear of your life" based on a comment I had made on Wikipedia. Time to calm down here and reaize I don't even know who you are (or care) and have no plans to do anything towards you. Your statement was uncalled for as it it appears to me, and most liely others, you stated that you are fearful that I will harm you in some way. -Husnock 11:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, User:Husnock flagrantly misrepresents my position here. I said, that he should not be adding stuff from his (imperfect) memory of sources. Indeed, in one occasion he has cited his memory directly as a source, when patently that memory cannot possibly have been true. Obviously, he is free to edit Wikipedia. Morwen - Talk 10:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont recall ever putting "my memory" in a source section of an article. I have stated that I am sometimes writing things from memory and will check later when the sources are available. But that is not the issue here. The issue is you stating you were in fear of your life because a statement that was made against you. That bis the issue that should be resolved. -Husnock 11:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Easily done, you can cease to make intimidating statements? Morwen - Talk 11:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock, if it were certain that you had made a death threat you would be permanently blocked by now with zero chance of appeal. As that has not happened this hasn't been any sort of 'rush to judgement' and there seems little for you to be complaining about. You made a comment which could be interpreted as a threat. That's a bad thing in and of itself, but could just be a misunderstanding. The proper response right about now would be, 'no no... that's not what I meant, I was just suggesting that... <whatever you were suggesting>'... not 'trying to get the person in trouble' (for being concerned) by taking it to the Administrator's noticeboard. --CBD 11:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Solution

It doesn't appear that any death threat has taken place, there is no need for this to be here. My solution would be that you two acnowledge your misunderstanding (its easy to do - we are working with a purely text environment) and calm down and take a step back if necessary. Remember that fighting achieves nothing, its better to discuss this as adults, not argue. Viridae^Talk 11:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that sounds fine to me. This was not to get the other person in trouble, just to ASAP indicate that this had taken place to the noticeboard since, as stated above, an actual death threat against another user would have resulted in a permanent ban with zero appeal. I would also lke to add that I just had an actual real world incident where someone tried to find me in the real world and called my wife. It was not fun, so yes this stuff is scary. But, it is also very serious to say anyone on this site is threatening anyone else. -Husnock 11:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So are you going to apologise for your intimidating statement or what? The reason I did not bring it up immediately was as you outline. However, this did not stop the fact it was a very sinister and intimidating comment, and it did frighten me. I brought it up in on the talk page only to indicate the hostile atmosphere you were creating. Morwen - Talk 11:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to continue to argue this point, can you please do it in the user talk space. Viridae^Talk 11:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I will not apologize for something I didnt do. No one harrased you and no one intimidated you. If I had said "I will get you" or something like that you would have a point, but i didn't. I responded to your statement that it was wrong that I edit on Wikipedia without sources after I stated the reason why I had no sources was becuase I was deployed to the Middle East in the military and did not have access to them. The fact that you have twisted that into a threat against you I cannot comment on, but I will not apoligize to you for anything (kind of reminds me of that scene in Horatio Hornblower whe Hor is accussed of cheating at cards). -Husnock 11:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Come on guys, you both need to calm down. You both come across here, to others reading this (well, me at least) as over-sensitive and seeing problems where none exist. We all need to be a bit thick-skinned around here. Hopefully you have both learned lessons from this encounter. Carcharoth 12:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Husnock meant it as 'It's not my fault I can't provide references, I am a serving member of the military and so I can't provide them'. He should know better, anyway; if you're asked to provide a reference for a statement, whining about being 'away from your reference material' is not a getout clause. However, the way Husnock said it was not smart, could easily - very easily - be construed as intimidatory, and the fact the he's refusing point blank to apologise for such a boneheaded statement is pretty poor conduct. Proto::► 12:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Your use of the term "whining" is rather insulting. I am serving in a forward deployed unit in the War on Terrorism, am living abroad for over a year, and do not have immediate access to my reference material. As stated many times before, when I return to the US, I can double check and provide more exact references then, but not now due to my situation. That is not whining, that is stating the truth. And the "bonehead" statement stands: I will not apologize to someone in the United Kingdom, sitting comfortable in their home, who proceeds to tell a member of the U.S. military, living away from their family in the Middle East, that I should not be allowed to edit on Wikipedia without immediate access to sources, and then when I tell her she shouldn't tell *anyone* they shouldn't edit Wikipedia, a death threat is suggested and the user states "I am in fear of my life because of what Husnock said". Total nonsense and extremely insulting. -Husnock 12:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Where did Morwen suggest you shouldn't be permitted to edit Wikipedia? I think she suggested that adding contentious content without access to the sources you claim to have to back them up is ill-advised. When you return to the U.S., surely you could add the content, properly referenced, then? Your personal situation isn't a getout clause, nor does it entitle you to preferential treatment (such as a being allowed to ignore WP:V and WP:RS). Surely you understand this? Proto::► 12:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock, might I suggest that you make a list on one of your user pages of things that you intend to look up when you get back? It is highly likely that others could look them up for you, and even if they don't, this will help you follow through on these promises. Carcharoth 13:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats a very good idea, I actually already have such a list in the works. -Husnock 13:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, so we have a start point which is a comment which is thoughtlessly worded at best and intimidatory at worst; by common consent, if you explain and apologise there is not problem. Instead, you are arguing the toss. A statement which is perceived as intimidating is a minor, fixable problem; unrepentent self-justification is a bigger problem, indicating both an unwillingness to accept criticism and a refusal to learn from your mistakes. So, Husnock, please consider: do you really want to continue to escalate this dispute, or would you like to accept that what you said was interpreted as threatening, and go and clear the matter up in friendly terms? Your call. In respect of the information you wish to include, the deadline will not expire before you get back to your references. We can wait for inclusion until you have the sources to hand. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If I said I was sorry, that would be unture. I am not sorry, I think Morwen has been equal in her thoughtless wording. And let us not forget: she posted that I had threatened her and that she was in fear of her life. That is a very serious accusation and could have resulted from my being banned from Wikipedia forever. And, I hate to bring this up, but we seem to have all the people from the [[13]] [Trek AfD]s (who opposed with all vigor the very articles that Morwen and I are now debating on) now posting thier support of Morwen on this discussion. Not that I am saying I am not open to all inputs, but that seems rather one sided. To end this, if Morwen *really* feels I have threatened her, then please start an RfC. This discussion here is obviously not resulting in much except drawing back in the people from the AfD discussions who had issues with me in the past. -Husnock 13:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Husnock, what you wrote was, "I would be careful telling a deployed member of the military they shouldn't edit on Wikipedia for whatever reason". The first part, "I would be careful", is clearly a warning. Given that you and Morwen were not on chummy terms and your comment was presumably not inspired by affection and concern for her it might be characterized as an 'unfriendly warning'... also known as, a 'threat'. The question then becomes, just what were you threatening here? Morwen feared that your subsequent mention of military service indicated you were threatening her with bodily harm. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you were perhaps instead suggesting that 'patriotic fervor' would move other editors to be extremely annoyed with Morwen for so abusing a serving veteran. Something along those lines? While your current situation certainly warrants understanding of your inability to provide sources, Morwen is IMO correct that it would then be better to stick to adding content which is not likely to be hotly disputed / require sourcing... you apparently took her to mean that you should not edit at all, but I think she has explained that was not the intent. Certainly Morwen herself would not see her view on this matter as unreasonable/worthy of anger from patriots and thus naturally would have read your comment with the darker implications she took from it. An apparent mis-understanding, but not cause for the scorn you seem to direct towards her for having misunderstood what it was you meant her to "be careful" of. --CBD 13:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe this is actually happening. The guy is in a damned war zone and could get his ass shot into an early grave tomorrow and we're having a discussion about something like this. Do I think the comment was a bit arrogant and high handed on Husnock's part? Yeah. No offense, but reservists tend to be a bit touchy about forward deployments. Do I think this was a threat to Morwen? Absolutely not. Everyone needs to calm down and walk away from this one rather than escalating this further. Please. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 13:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is no basis for a "deployed member of the military" exception to Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Persons in Husnock's situation may make suggestions for content to be added to an article on the article's talk page, where editors who are not temporarily lacking access to sources may reference them against sources and make the relevant edits to the article. I have nothing but respect for those who serve their country honorably, but service in the Armed Forces is never a "free pass" for Wikipedia policies, whether that be the requirement for verifiability, or the requirement for civility. As an American citizen, I would expect more of an officer of the United States Navy. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Never said I had a free pass, in fact I don't, unsourced crap should be removed at once. HOWEVER- If I state that something is sourced, recall the name of a book or a manual or something else, I see no reason why that can't be posted and then, when I have time later, can get exact page numbers, etc. We are clouding the issue though. Another Wikipedia user stated that I had made a threat and that she was in fear of her life. No threat was made from me and this thread was started to inform everyone of this so that I did not get banned from Wikipedia for making a death threat against another user. This was my primary concern. I am amazed at this since, 2 years ago when I joined Wiki, Morwen would have been blocked in about 5 minutes for making a baseless, extremely serious, accusation against another user. I am not saying she should be blocked, though. I am saying I am very upset since I tried to work with her. I told her exactly where all my material was coming from, exactly what book, exactly what manual, etc. I left good hearted messages on her talk page, invited her to help improve my talk page as well. She responds by saying I would "not allow her to edit" [14] pages and then says "I am in fear of my life". What is this site coming to where people assume such things? Last but not least, for those who do not know, I just experianced a rfeal world Wiki-stalking incident where someone e-mailed my job, wrote two cities trying to find out where I lived, and contacted my wife. Real harrasement is very scary and I wouldn't do it to anyone else.

• Precisely. The comment was perceived as threatening, an apology or at least some kind of acknowledgement that it was problematic is clearly in order, but Husnock chooses instead to bluster. If editing in a war zone produces the kind of stress that makes it impossible to interact reasonably with other editors, you could always try not editing. We can help with that... Guy (Help!) 14:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• See my reason above for why this is upseting. And I again state I find nothing useful in harsh inputs from the same people who were very vocal and uncivil about my votes on the Star Trek AfDs. Especially when the statement above seems to covertly imply that I will be blocked, i.e. "you could always try not editing, we can help with that". -Husnock 14:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't give a toss about old AfDs, I do give a toss about you making statements which are perceived as threatening, and then pretending that complaints about that behaviour are baseless. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I could take half a dozen talk page statements on this site and say that they sounded threatening. I could probably take some of your edits and say they were threatening. But, I would never post to Wikipedia that I was in fear of my life because that is a serious statement that could get someone banned from this site. People don't seem to get that. -Husnock 14:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• And yet you are utterly unable to see the slightest threat in your own original comments. Funny that. --Calton | Talk 14:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not going to validate Morwen's accusation by making such a statement becuase it will probably be used against me later (i.e. "Husnock admitted to threatening me on XXXX"). No thank you. I am also slightly upset that when I was being Wiki-stalked, very real and scary, my concerns were met with deaf ears. People said I shouldn't accuse others, etc. That is a separate issue, now resolved, but my point is little has been said along the lines of "Morwen, you shouldnt post on Wikipedia that Husnock made you fear for his life because, you know, that could get him banned from this site". Going deeper into this will solve nothing, I suggest an RfC if Morwen really felt her life was threatened. The deck seems stacked against me with thsi debate. -Husnock 14:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) Little has been said to Morwen because all Morwen did was feel threatened by a creepy comment you made ("I would be careful telling a deployed member of the military they shouldn't edit on Wikipedia for whatever reason"). How dare she. In Morwen's defence, she posted this on your talk page. Instead of resolving it amicably, you decided to splurge it over the admin noticeboard, claiming that it was you who had been slighted. The comment is ambiguous, it can be read either way (as a creepy threat or not), and all you needed to do to resolve this was to apologise for the misunderstanding (not apologise for the "threat"). Instead, you have decided to refuse to apologise because 'it would validate Morwen's accusations', and continue to bluster on and on. Accept you made an error of judgement, apologise, and move on. Proto::► 15:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion

Yo, if I may break it down for a minute chaps: what seems to have happened here is a simple misunderstanding which has snowballed into a substantial misunderstanding. Husnock, you made a comment that was ambiguous; we're sure you didn't intend it to be threatening, but someone has perceived it that way and that's caused some problems. Instead of everyone getting together to resolve the misunderstanding it's ended up posted here.

Now no-one is asking you to apologise for making threats, because you say that you didn't intend your statement to have that meaning, and that's fair enough. But your statement was ambiguous, and someone did in fact feel threatened by it, so we are asking you to say that you're sorry that some completely unintentional harm resulted. I don't think that's too much to ask. --bainer (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Husnock apparently does. But that's OK, because it's everybody else who is the problem here :-) Guy (Help!) 15:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Again with the sarcasm and stating you know how I feel, much as you did here [15]. So Morwen is totally free from blame? People can post on Wikipedia that they are fearful of thier life based on vauge statements and the person must then apologize? I will apologize to to the Wiki community, and plan to do so after getting more comments on the matter, but to Morwen personally- NEVER. To say why I won't would violate WP:NPA, so I will simply state its due to personal feelings about that editor. -Husnock 15:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock, did you see the second part of my comment? We're just asking that you express that you're sorry your comment unintentionally resulted in harm. Without wanting to be presumptuous, I'm sure that Morwen would be similarly sorry if her misunderstanding has caused you any hurt. Can we all agree that we're sorry for the misunderstanding and put this behind us? --bainer (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • It doesn't matter, actually. How many people have to tell you that you're being a dick before you believe it? Guy (Help!) 15:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      • At last, a personal attack. You will notice that, up to now, I have not called Morwen (or anyone) any names. But, now, you are calling me a dick. -Husnock 15:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Did you read the essay he linked too? What do you think? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I think you should never call another user a Dick as I just was. If I called Morwen such a name, I would be blocked at once. I am trying to defend this position and dont need to be called names by other users for doing it. -Husnock 15:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
        • If you don't want to be called a dick, then all you need to do is stop acting like a dick. The essay at m:DICK was written to describe situationsjust like this. You have said something that someone finds offensive, and instead of acting like an adult you have spent five or six hours completely failing to persuade anybody else of the merits of your case. Ten out of ten for persistence but minus several million for style. Guy (Help!) 16:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
          • It's by now well established that in all situations where that essay might be pertinent, calling somebody a dick or (a dick) just makes things worse. So don't. Zocky | picture popups 17:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Pish and tush. I said he was acting like a dick, and sent him to read the essay, which I reckon he has from the post below. We don't have an essay at Wikipedia:Oh for heaven's sake get over it or anything like that, so this was the closest I could find. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't calling you a dick, he was pointing you to an interesting essay (that you need to read) by integrating it into his sentence. Can we calm down, please? yandman 16:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here's the comment that Morwen found threatening: "Not to go into a very toucy subject, but I would be careful telling a deployed member of the military they shouldn't edit on Wikipedia for whatever reason." [16] Now, I've been subjected to death threats myself, and I can see why Morwen saw this threatening. A warning to "be very careful" combined with a implication both of access to weapons and the capacity to travel (both clearly suggested by the "deployed member of the military") is a very common formulation for a threat of violence and is very likely to be perceived as a threat of violence, especially by women. Couple with that the advertisement in Husnock's userspage that Husnock is trained in firearms and holds decorations for accuracy in their use, and his statement that he has "visited four continents and 19 countries" and the threat becomes far more credible. Morwen's perception of being threatened is valid and reasonable, and she should certainly not suffer any sanction for having had such feelings or at having expressed concern about them.

Now, I don't think that Husnock intended any threat of violence, at least not explicitly, but was most likely instead lashing out aggressively out of frustration at his present situation, possibly combined with the stress of service in a combat zone. However, it worries me a good deal that Husnock is not willing or able to understand why someone would see his comments as threatening, and I therefore strongly suggest that Husnock consider taking a wikibreak until his personal stress levels have declined somewhat. It would be most unfortunate if stress related to editing Wikipedia interfered with the performance of Husnock's duties as a Naval officer, which are certainly more important than some Wikipedia article about Star Trek. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well convoluted, but I think it's rather simple: Husnock made an unfortunate comment, Morwen read to much into it. The normal procedure among adults (not to mention officers and gentlemen) is to gallantly apologize to the lady, so that the lady can accept the apology and apologize back for her overreaction. Zocky | picture popups 17:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Heh, got fooled by section breaks. I see they're managing without me :) Zocky | picture popups 17:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

More drama

someone has now posted this personal attack at my talk page. Morwen - Talk 15:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Charming. "Little girl, its time to grow up. Watch who you pick your fights with and remember who your friends are". I very much doubt this is a real Lt Colonel - they would have better things to do, and would be more concerned that one of their staff had been wasting his time on Wikipedia, rather than the actions of someone they don't know. IP address has been blocked for a week. Proto::► 15:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the block log and talk page, make that a month. Proto::► 15:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the IP address, it does appear to be in .ae. Oddly the IP seems to have vandalised User:Husnock/Durinconcerns at one point. Morwen - Talk 15:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That looks like someone expressing a viewpoint (granted, he shouldn't have called you a "little girl") But, should such a thing really be blocked? That looks like a legitimate edit from someone and I'm not just saying that because it supports my view of this. I would highly suggest unblocking that ip instead of a one week block with no warning, that didnt look like a personal attack and we can't assume that we know who that really was without evidence. It might be viewed as trying to "silence the opposition", so to speak. -Husnock 15:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the IP's history of vandalism, abuse, and previous vandalism of a page involving you (see Morwen's diff above), I won't undo it, no. Proto::► 15:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:RBI applies. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to start yet another problem, but the talk page says its a general ip address out of Dubai, which is a legitimate place a Lt. Colonel in Centcom would be. Also, should this blocked by people involved in the discussion supporting Morwen? It may be seen as blocking someone who disagreed with your position. -Husnock 15:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If that's how a US Colonel behaves, I understand why you're in such a pickle over there... yandman 15:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Useless comment, Yandman. Completely useless. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 16:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the block. - Aksi_great (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That post deserves either a strong NPA warning or a short block, but I am concerned that a week-long block on an IP described as above will cause too much collateral damage (an unfortunate phrase in this context, but it has an established wiki-meaning). Newyorkbrad 15:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem bad enough to warrant that long a block to me, either. I thought it would be better to sit this one out and not comment on the appropriateness of a block or whatever, since this could be seen as improper. But it was certainly quite a nasty personal attack. Morwen - Talk 15:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, a version of the post made to Morwen's talk page was also made to this page, again from this Lt. Colonel. The version on this page was removed as trolling. This situation is deteriorating rapidly. FWIW (I am not an admin), I support Proto's block of that IP address used to make those posts. See here. Carcharoth 16:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this has all gone far beyond ridiculous anyway. Move on, guys... Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. has it exactly right... Look bottom line is that editors shouldn't be adding content if they don't have access to their sources. Sometimes things that are written can be taken several different ways and it is clear that while Husnock didn't mean his statement as a person attack, Morwen took it that way and you can reasonably see why the text could be misunderstood. The IP Block was warrented because that contributor was adding nothing of value to this conversation and is simply pouring gasoline on a fire, though a month seems a bit excessive. All in all everyone needs to be WP:COOL. Apologies all around would be nice, but mostly this should just be dropped instead of continuing on ad infinitum because at this point it is just escalation of a misunderstood comment. Let it go.--Isotope23 16:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I am still concerned about collateral damage from this block. The general policy is not to block shared IP addresses for long periods of time, certainly not for a first offense. Newyorkbrad 16:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's not a first offence, though. A month-long block is probably too long, under the circumstances. A checkuser of the IP suggests that people using that IP rotate in and out, so 48 hours is probably enough to be rid of our 'Colonel' (whose existence I doubt, given the results). Mackensen (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Check the block log of 195.229.242.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This is not a first offence. Support shortening of the block,though, for the reasons stated. Guy (Help!) 16:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: I meant probably a first offense by this particular individual user, not by the IP as a whole. Concur with Mackensen. Newyorkbrad 16:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Isn't this why we can now block anon IPs only? Anyway, shortened to 1 week per comments, although do the IP addresses really rotate that much? I have my doubts ... given this IP has leapt to Husnock's defense on prior occasions, it has clearly been used by the same person to offend before, and clearly can't rotate that much. Proto::► 16:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Actualy, the ip address vandalized my account on a previous occassion, not defended it. I have never heard of this person but I do know there are CENTCOM offices in Dubai. -Husnock 16:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Olive Branch

I will be the first to start this since its been suggested as a means to end this dispute. The dispute started when Morwen posted she was in fear for her life because of something I posted on Wikipedia. To this, I posted at once to Admin Noticeboard since I did not want to get an indefinite ban on Wikipedia for making a death threat. So, now, here's my final comments:

1. I apologize to the Wiki Community for the major thread this has evolved into and the disruption which some have stated it has caused.
2. I apologize to Morwen for her getting scared. I ask that Morwen acknowledge that I am a married man with a family in the United States and the suggestion that I would travel to the United Kingdom to harm her is very offensive to me.
3. I request acknowledgement that at least two of the major contributors to this discussion were the same people who had major issues with me on recent AfD votes and, in the end, I was called a "dick" by one of them. This was offensive to me.
4. I ask that we all get back to editing and this not be used against me in the future (i.e. "You once threatened Mowen, so...") and we don't kick someone when he's down.

With that I wish everyone a good night and hope everyone learned something from all of this. -Husnock 16:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock, it was nearly six hours ago that I posted that I accepted you did not actually intend to kill me. I was scared by your comment, and while it gratifying that you are apologising for me getting scared by your comment, I still note you have not expressed the slightest bit of regret for your misadvised wording. I am perfectly happy to acknowledge that you did not have malicious intent, but where is your acknowledgement that your wording was infelicitous? Morwen - Talk 16:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If it defuses the situation, then fine, you have a full apology and I am so sorry for all that was said, all ill-chosen wording, all bad faith suggestions, and any other action or statement which I made which was in any way offensive. I will not be editing Wikpedia for the rest of the year as a self imposed cool-down period and will no lnger post any information to this site which does not have a source. Fair well until 2007. -Husnock 16:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Likewise, I apologise for harsh words that I have spoken against you and your edits. Have a merry christmas, and a happy new year! Morwen - Talk 16:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Woo-hoo! Peace breaks out. Wikihugs all round, and let's go and build an encyclopaedia. Just to share in the glee, Husnock, I don't think you are a dick, I think you were acting like a dick - you are now acting like an editor who has read m:DICK with their critical faculties fully engaged and got the message, kudos. Guy (Help!) 17:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And all was well in the wiki. --bainer (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Just in time for Christmas, too. Yay. (bells jingle) Thanks, Husnock, for being able to re-evaluate the situation and admit to your failings in this situation ... we all have to do it from time to time, and I appreciate it's neither pleasant nor easy to do. Proto::► 20:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Situation resolved, closing this so that it stays that way. Viridae^Talk 06:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Should admins be held accountable for false info and copyvios in user sandboxes they help move to articlespace?

As the topic states. Should admins be held accountable for false info and copyvios in user sandboxes they help move to article space? WP:RM says no discussion of moves. I added a general comment to one proposed move (not discussing the move itself!) that since the person requesting the move has a proven history of copyvios, the moving admin should check the article before performing the move. Is this legit? And should they get in trouble should there indeed be copyvios? – Chacor 16:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please consider WP:AGF, both on the part of the author of this article and on the part of the admin. Nobody on Wikipedia has mindreading software ... if a page isn't an obvious copyvio, an admin can't be expected to magically know that it is. BigDT 16:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused by all this talk of "held accountable", but a simple note saying "hey, would someone please check this for copyvio, they user has a record" seems appropriate, although I wouldn't be too annoyed if anyone missed this. Morwen - Talk 16:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant that if admins missed it, should they be warned about copyvio just as a normal editor would be? Should they [not?] be held as accountable as an editor if that happens? And to BigDT: It's not difficult to copy and paste two random sentences from the article into google. – Chacor 16:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that this is a big deal unless it is a chronic problem. Many veteran editors and admins have edited articles repeatedly without realizing that they are copyright violations, even when it is clear to anyone paying attention that it is a copyright violation. Once, a prolific editor added wikify tags to hundreds of copyright violations (I suspect that he or she was watching new pages/recent changes or went through the articles on Wikipedia:Dead-end pages). That is the kind of case where someone should be asked to be more careful. If someone misses an extremely blatant copyright violation (such as the article saying where it came from and/or the word "copyright" appearing in it) or misses several less blatant but still obvious copyright violations, I would consider leaving a message on their talk page. -- Kjkolb 16:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Who's warning admins about copyvios when their only edit is a pagemove? Guy (Help!) 17:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No. The responsibility for adding copyvios is the contributing editor. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Chacor, if you have a specific knowledge of a copyright violation (as you allege at User talk:Storm05/Tropical Storm Fabian (1991)), you should take it immediately to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. No one else is going to do the footwork for you. –  Anþony  talk  18:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Closing a withdrawn AfD

Would it be possible for somebody to close this AfD as the nominator wishes to withdraw but probably either does not know how to or is unsure whether they should. I'm not sure whether I should because I am a non-admin who has expressed an opinion (or two) on the matter. Thanks awfully. :) Bubba hotep 17:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd advise waiting for the AfD to reach its time limit; there are 'delete' !votes higher up, although it seems that many of them may now be obsolete. The withdrawal and the change in the article during the !vote should be taken into account by the closing admin. --ais523 17:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, sounds good to me. Bubba hotep 19:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Impersonator?

I just noticed a user without any user page editing Red Hot Chili Peppers with account name User:Werdna101. The edits were bad, so I think it's someone impersonating User:Werdna. Not sure where to post this, so adding it here. Nihiltres 17:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Now indef-blocked. (aeropagitica) 18:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The name "Werdna" gets thousands of hits on Google. We even have an article for it on wikipedia. I don't think this was an intentional impersonation. ---J.S ^(T/C) 19:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Still a valid username block either way, though. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Darin Fidika block

Darin Fidika (talk • contribs)

Just posting a notice here regarding my indef block of Darin Fidika due to his persistent and unrepentant abuse of Wikipedia copyright policy. Mangojuice and I have been cleaning up a huge mess of over 700 articles which were plagiarised from various locations around the net. Despite the magnitude, we decided to give Darin a chance to clean up his act and contribute without violating copyright. However, he has continued to upload obvious copyvio images from other sites on the web, and has been warned multiple times to stop doing so. Therefore, I've indef blocked him as it seems extremely unlikely that he's ever going to change his ways. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

E.Shubee block

This editor has challenged the unblock request review of a user block I performed. The basis for the challenge is that the reviewer removed three links that the editor had provided as evidence in his unblock request. In order to be perfectly fair to the guy, I'm linking to his challenge here.[17] Durova^Charge! 21:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Since this editor can't post here (he's blocked), he's asked me to clarify that it's only the blanking of his links that he challenges. Durova^Charge! 23:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This looks like that whoever did the unblock decline accidentally copy-and-pasted the formatted text, not the wikimarkup. Morwen - Talk 09:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Believed Vandalism

On the Cambridge City, Indiana page, someone has added a "not needed" paragraph on the "School Systems" part of the page. (It is underneath the school's website link.) I know this is not true and would delete this myself but don't know if there's a way to find out who did this. Thanks! MusicGirl21 22:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted some vandalism. You can find the username or IP address of the vandal by looking in the history tab of the article. Read Wikipedia:Vandalism for the procedure for warning vandals; after a few incidents, you can report the vandalism to WP:AIV (rather than here). Argyriou (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I clicked on the IP address and it looks like that same person has also done some vandalism on the Fountain City, Indiana page too, under the "Geography" section. (It is the last paragraph in that section.) Thanks for the help! MusicGirl21 23:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know! In the future, feel free to remove the vandalism yourself or revert to a previous version. Thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Username issue?

User:Supervisor Wiki posted a comment on a user's page purporting to be from "tech support." The user, User:Jjohnson 55, seems to be having some attack issues on his page, too. (well to be honest, I've got *no* idea what's going on there, so someone may want to investigate further.) Tony Fox (arf!) 23:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fascinating. I believe User:Supervisor Wiki and User:209.81.119.178 are sockpuppets (or perhaps meatpuppets) of User: Russian F, who was harassing User:Jjohnson 55 by replacing his userpage with different pictures of animals. Somehow, User:Bainer 21 is mixed up with all this, too. I'd suggest a short-term block on all except Jjohnson, but I'm not sure. I see that User:Supervisor Wiki has been indefblocked for a bad username, which is appropriate. Argyriou (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have idefblocked User:Bainer 21 - this is a single purpose attack acount. Alex Bakharev 23:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

and User:209.81.119.178 and User: Russian F for 48h Alex Bakharev 00:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone's back as User:Support.Tech. And now I'm not so sure that User:Jjohnson 55 is an entirely innocent victim in all this. Argyriou (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

User:John Hyams (possible botched user renaming)

I note that an active user, User:John Hyams, has his user and user talk pages redirect to the user and user talk pages of a non-existent user, User:John hyams. This is probably a bad idea for a number of reasons (see User talk:John Hyams#User and user talk pages), and on IRC it was suggested that this was probably a botched or misguided attempt to change usernames. I posted a message about this on User talk:John Hyams but didn't get any response. I'm currently involved in an editing dispute with this user so I don't want to pursue this matter further lest it seem I'm harrassing him, but perhaps an admin could find out what the deal is and guide him through the correct process to change a user name if necessary…? —Psychonaut 00:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. It looks like he mistakenly created his page under the lower case. He attempted to move it to the proper case, but was reverted by someone who thought he was trying to change his username[18]. Given that, I can understand why he stayed with his incorrect page. I have moved his pages to the correct place, but have left the redirects from the lowercase in place. I believe that the Wikipedia software won't let a new username with only case differences be created anyway and there are inbound links. -- JLaTondre 02:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I take part of that back. He did have his username changed. He just didn't move the page again afterwards (probably because he couldn't delete the redirect left by move revert). -- JLaTondre 02:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Shyam Bihari and images

I am very concerned about new administrator Shyam Bihari's work with image and copyright issues. I do not wish to start an RfC, but I would like opinions and help in reaching him, particularly from admins.

I had a long conversation with Shyam a month ago. Mostly, I pointed-out problems with his own uploads, many of which were marked with unsupported copyright tags. I didn't realize the scope of the problem then because many of his uploads had summaries indicating that he was their creator when they were actually taken from websites. Many of the mistakes were a year old, but his responses, even after my explanations, showed a continued lack of familiarity with basic copyright issues:

• He changed Image:Shyam_Bahadur.jpg, a straight reproduction of a copyrighted painting, from free license to free license without reason
• Despite the statement "changing it is not allowed", he retagged Image:SherKhanNasher.jpg as PD
• He tagged several images, such as Image:Bw_mm2.jpg, with GFDL and various Creative Commons tags based on "permission"-type statements

That was November. This past week, I began looking at his activities when my watchlist showed him changing Image:TAC SR6500 ~ Concert Audio Console.jpg to {{GFDL-self}} based on a permission statement from a third party. I reminded him about this issue (here), and asked if he would finish cleaning-up his own uploads. His response did not give me any confidence that his understanding has improved.

Now I see that Shyam has become extremely active in many areas of image administration, deleting {{no license}} and {{no source}} images at an astounding rate (a big problem in its own right as he is not investigating their issues or removing red links from articles), and rendering decisions in nuanced areas like {{no rationale}} and {{replaceable fair use}}. He deleted over 1000 RFU-tagged yesterday, sometimes exceeding 400 per hour! It looks as though he kept images exactly if a comment had been placed on its talk page.

I have suggested to Shyam that he should, at least for the time being, focus his admin work on other areas of the project. He was not receptive to the idea. If others administrators would speak to him —whatever the message— I would really appreciate it. I know we are in great need of admins to work on images, but we need ones that are familiar with the basics of copyright, who know Wikipedia policies, and who are patient enough to think before they delete. Others may also want to review his recent actions, especially the RFUs (marked "keep" in his image contributions and "I7" in his deletion log). ×Meegs 01:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Editor Impersonator?

I've had a user come to a board making constant changes. When I left him a personal note on his user talk, he responded to me on his OWN talk page. The only way I knew he did that was I went back to explain another edit I did. I told him that if he needed to leave me a message he needed to leave it for me on MY page, not his. He finally figured it out and posted a message on my page saying something about he would block me because he was an editor. I told him I would report him for both vandalism and harassment because there was nothing to show he was an editor. Then another user, User:Squeakbox contacted me saying that administrators would block me if I reported User:Media anthro saying he wasn't an editor because he really was. Does this sound fishy to you?Americanbeauty415 05:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs for all of the above? It would help speed up any investigation into what exactly happened. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute on Mulatto (edit history for interest's sake - bit of a hash, really, and is it really sprotected right now?). I think Americanbeauty415 may be confusing "editor" (which we all are) and "administrator" in his comments; there's a vandalism warning on his talk page from Media anthro regarding some of the reversions going on at the article. Also, I don't believe there's a specific policy for talk pages; some folks have notifications that they reply on their talk page, others go the other direction. The article looks to need some work, as the version it's at right now is missing a lead section, for one. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's common practice to respond to comments left on a page, on that same page. Use the watchlist, or just monitor the pages you've commented on. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

People operate their talk pages in all sorts of ways. Some reply on the same page, some reply on the page of the person who left the comment. I reply in both places, since it avoids disjointed discussion. But it's a point of personal preference, and ultimately it's no-one else's responsibility to make sure you read a message. --bainer (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate username

There's been a recent vandalous incident on the New Zealand page - not much worth reporting in itself, but the user has what I'd call an "inappropriate user name" - User:Niggers101. Where do I report this, or is this the right place? Grutness...wha? 09:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry - I've found RfC/User names. Grutness...wha? 09:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

A better place for such obvious bad usernames would be WP:AIV. Use RfC/User names for cases that are unclear. Jesse Viviano 04:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Class assignment to edit Wikipedia

Just wanted to give a heads up about this. A friend of mine considering taking the class brought it to my attention. The assignment is for everyone in the class to make an edit and then to write a paper about it. Incidentally, the teacher suggests people edit List of Oregon State University people, an article I created, so I will of course be keeping an eye out for it but it may be nice to have a few extra pairs of eyes on it just in case someone decides to make an "unhelpful" edit, or even give a few friendly tips to new contributors. VegaDark 10:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least they're not being told to write an article on the school (in true press-release style), which is what usually happens. yandman 11:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it doesn't tell people not to create vanity articles. MER-C 11:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it could have linked to WP:NOT, but I still think the overall net effect of this will be positive rather than negative. Who in the hell would vandalize Wikipedia and write a paper about it? Sounds like a guaranteed F. --Cyde Weys 20:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If they would summarize the what they felt was hard, etc., and send it to us, it might be even more helpful. Rmhermen 21:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, this isn't the first time something like this has happened. Wikipedia:School and university projects has all the gory details... Titoxd^(?!?) 21:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• The assignment looked to me to be pretty positive. Emphasis on making a contribution, fixing something up, that sort of thing. Plus you get marks for it, so there's an incentive to do a really good job. It gives examples of the kinds of things, and tells them to look around first. Where's the problem? They get more background before editing than the average newbie, I'd say. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I expect it in general to be good edits. However I can forsee people adding people to the list that aren't notable enough, unsourced redlinks, etc. that will have to be reverted not as vandalism but simply as stuff we can't accept as is. I don't anticipate much if any vandalism, but it's still helpful to be aware of this, even if only to give welcoming messages to all the people. VegaDark 01:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I just hope Read the policies is amongst the homework. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If you follow the first link, it will take you to the actual homework assignemnt. I agree with Cyde, this looks like a well organized assignement. Let's add it to the list of known school projects and move on. Johntex\^talk 02:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is interesting to note that the professor, who is probably non-notable, has his own entry. Prodego ^talk 01:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Nearly all of the contributions to Timothy Budd were made by Mr. Budd himself as an IP user. 128.193.38.234 (talk · contribs) - the IP resolves to budd.eecs.oregonstate.edu[19] –  Anþony  talk  01:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm deleting it. An associate professor is rarely notable due to lack of published research and peer reviewed works. Article definitely assert any major notability. Sasquatch t|c 04:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:PROF, admittedly a proposed guideline, says that a professor is notable if they've written a textbook that has been used in a college-level course not related to the professor. The guy's written several textbooks,[20] at least one of which I can confirm has been used at my university, unrelated to him. He's also published several journal articles.[21] He may be a borderline case for notability, but deleting it out of hand I think is a bit premature. It should go to AfD at least. –  Anþony  talk  06:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the out-of-process deletion? What was so urgent it couldn't be listed on AfD? —Doug Bell ^talk 06:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why "out-of-process"? Non-notable biographies are speedy deleted on a regular basis. Have you read WP:CSD? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you? "If the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead." Agree that the deletion was unnecessary at this point and AFD would be better. – Chacor 16:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just restore and AfD it, it can't hurt, though it very well may be deleted anyway. Prodego ^talk 20:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with restore and AfD, notability was claimed and shouldn't have been speedied. VegaDark 21:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The assertion wasn't controversial until Doug Bell made it such, and there was no previous AfD. How does it therefore fail to be a speedy deletion? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Because the article did assert the importance or significance of its subject by saying he was the author of several college textbooks. Unless you don't think being the author of several textbooks is a claim to notability? VegaDark 01:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really. If there had been some indication as to how many of the books have been purchased or how wide-spread they have been used, then that could have been judged as to notability. If they're only used in courses he teaches, then it's little more than self-publishing, and anybody who gets their books published at a vanity press then couldn't be speedied. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Technically true, the idea to delete it was good, but it should go through AfD if it make's a claim of notability. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Openserving

I recently deleted the article Openserving, created by Shemshak (talk · contribs), as WP:SPAM. A few excerpts from the articles: "Openserving extends the essence of the open source model", "You can set up your own collaborative blogging site", and "users can keep 100% of the ad revenue for yourself." I therefore fully stand by this deletion. The reason I'm bringing this up here is that User:Shemshak has written a new article, which again borders on spam. Another issue is WP:WEB. The article doesn't seem to meet it, but I vaguely recall somewhere that wikimedia projects are exempt from the notability criteria. Is that correct? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 12:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a WikiMedia project, it's a Wikia project. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well so far from googling it I have lots of blog chatter, and one article on tmcnews...but I don't know how rigorous that is for meeting the news site criteria (ie is it just another blog too?). I'd like to see more feedback, but I wouldn't object to making it a redirect to Jimbo Wales and put as a note in that article if we can't find anything more substantiative. Syrthiss 12:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm redeleting, definitely doesn't meet WP:WEB. Sasquatch t|c 04:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Shared IP verification

A quick look at the talk page of 212.219.94.115 (talk · contribs) reveals a lot of vandalism warnings. I've checked the IP, and it is probably registered to Oldham Sixth Form College. I wanted to place a {{sharedip}} template at the top of the talk page, but I wanted to be 100% sure the IP indeed belongs to Oldham Sixth Form College. Where can I verify the IP whois? Pardon my ignorance. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 14:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you can ever be 100% sure. If you're reasonably sure per WHOIS and/or reverse DNS, that's about the best you can do. --Nlu (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, there is a {{SharedIPEDU}} specifically for schools, if that's what it turns out to be. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've now run about five checks, and they all resolve to Oldham Sixth Form College, so I've added the {{SharedIPEDU}} template. Thanks for the help. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 14:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests

CAT:PER has 12 entries, and has been backlogged for ages. --ais523 18:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam surveys on talk pages

• Sharlene Thompson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Spamming surveys on talk pages, 16+ so far..

Example:

Health Wiki Research

A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.

Please consider taking our survey here.

This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.

We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Wikipedia Foundation.

Thanks,

--Sharlene Thompson 19:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks, --Hu12 20:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone should give her a phone call (number on link provided) and find out if it's legit... ---J.S ^(T/C) 20:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

In particular, we should ask what members of the Foundation approved and then confirm. If it was explicitly approved by the Foundation, I personally have no problem with it. —bbatsell ¿? 20:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

OTRS ticket #2006073110013565 - Corey A. Hickerson, an assistant professor with JMU, wrote asking if he and Sharlene Thompson could conduct this research, and a member of the Communications Committee approved their request. Raul654 20:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm ok then. ---J.S ^(T/C) 21:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the unwanted messages. I've made a request to the OTRS thread for a review of messages left on user_talk pages. Raul654, who on the Communications Committee approved it? -- Jeandré, 2006-12-15t11:36

I thought you did - at least, that's the impression I got from your first email to them (We would welcome such research. It may be best to conduct phase two on the users' talk pages instead of the article talk pages, tho placing invitations to participate on the article talk pages would be fine - maybe linking to your or Sharlene's user pages where more indepth information could be posted.) I guess I just assumed if you were on OTRS you were a member of the comcom. Raul654 23:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This must be the colleague of Hickerca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who started out by spamming article talk pages before I advised her to only target user talk pages. For the record, I don't agree with any spam, however well intentioned. But it doesn't look commercial, and if the committee accepted it, so be it. However, I don't think they need two accounts to do this. yandman 07:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that if the editors targeted for this survey agree. Makes more sense if the sampling group of articles had a survey template so participation can be voluntary, rather than directly soliciting off article edit historys'.--Hu12 12:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I would consider this unsolicited and certainly not what people signing up to wikipedia might expect and it is therefore effectively spamming.

• The research methodology seems catastrophically flawed and any conclusions draw by the study will be dubious - the problem being subjects may partake in the study multiple times, or at least are being invided to do so - I've just ignored the 3rd opportunity to submit, see my talk page 4th December, which was my second time I completed the study (I naively assumed that this would prove to be a different series of questions from that which I had been previously asked) and now 14th December. The mutiple posting to my talk page to contribute is surely sloppy methodology and the survey's front explanatory page states "anonymously recorded" so there can not be any data validation to prevent this problem.
• Despite requests to Jeandré to become familiar "with conventions before you add messages to even more users", postings are still added to user talk pages without section headers which is disruptive. We have of course a policy of not biting newcomers, as a requirement of assuming good faith for those who are here to work on the collaborative project, however this survey is not contributing to the project.

In summary I feel the systematic targeting of wikipedians is intrusive/spamming and not the purpose of user talk pages. If people really feel this is a useful study to further undertanding of wikis/wikipedia, then would not a single posting to say the WP:CLINMED project page be sufficient ? David Ruben ^Talk 02:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Besides the flaws with the project itself, I would be unopposed to this if it was completely opt-in and voluntary (i.e. a message about it posted on one of the many boards around here; perhaps the creation of a new board for this purpose). Spamming in this way really doesn't seem like the way to do it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I reported a user for vandalism earlier but I'm not sure what happened afterwards

I posted a message at WP:AIV earlier regarding 24.151.106.196. I can see that (aeropagitica) removed my report with the comment "IP vandals blocked. LIST CLEAR." but I can't see any record of anything on the IP's page. This is the first time I've reported someone for vandalizing articles, I'm just wondering if I've missed something. 172.143.63.173 23:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• The block log says they were blocked for 1 hour on Dec 12. ---J.S ^(T/C) 23:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that previous block by Deville from 2 days ago, but I couldn't find any record of (aeropagitica)'s action today though, as they've vandalized again since the original 1 hour block. 172.143.63.173 00:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Put a note on aeropagitica's talk page. Seems like a honest mistake. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks, I've done that. 172.143.63.173 00:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this was an honest mistake on my part when I was cleaning out the noticeboard during an AIV shift. It does get busy there at times and I've had more than a few edit conflicts when I've been working on a large backlog! Apologies to all for any inconvenience. I will endeavour to be more careful in future. (aeropagitica) 16:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Problem with Upskirt images

I've agonized for a day about what to do here:Upskirt. Please see User talk:Jerkface for details. I would go to a single admin, but it's the second time it's happened. I'm afraid if it's not settled, it's going to go on and on. ThanksNinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 04:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Details on this: User:Jerkface has uploaded (and User:CommandoM reposted) several pornographic images to Upskirt. The current set are a bit less explicit than the original offerings, but they seem like probable copyvios. When asked to verify that these pictures are taken by User:Jerkface (as claimed) and posted with the subject's permission (as claimed) the answers are not assuring. Details on User talk:Jerkface. — edgarde 05:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

They are not pornographic images, but anyway it doesn't even matter. Because wikipedia is not censored, and as such images should be added where they would be of benefit to the article. Such as is obviously the case with upskirt. The user cooperated with your requests as much as is reasonable, and to claim the answers where not assuring is only true in your own mind. Mathmo ^Talk 05:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that more than one editor has removed such images -- for more than one reason, I might add -- snarky nonsense about how things are "only true in your own mind" aren't really called for. Not to mention that "wikipedia is not censored" is not an all-purpose carte blanche, either. --Calton | Talk 07:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

hmmm... true, perhaps somebody could mis-read what I wrote and take it too seriously. Whatever.. now I'll might add that more than one editor has also added in images to that article. Like the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words, and would be very handy in that article for the greater clarity of it. Shouting out OMG look look somebody put "pornography" in that article is also not an all-purpose carte blanche for deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 07:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, so you didn't write the insulting phrase "only true in your own mind"? My mistake, but that's how it shows up on my computer monitor. How does it show up on yours? --Calton | Talk 08:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, going to be picky with one phrase and take it out of context to turn about the meaning? If you are easily insulted then fine, be insulted. I can't do anything about changing your overly sensitive sensitivities. Am not one either to go out of my way to offend people, at worst you might just want to accept I at times state things a little too frankly of how see the world for your likings. Mathmo ^Talk 09:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

How exactly is it out of context? It's exactly what you said and it's exactly how you meant it. The reality is that there are laws (not to mention moral issues) regarding taking photographs of someone in a... "compromised state" (whether or not you think it's pornography is irrelevant) and providing the general public with access to them. The truth is that AGF doesn't work in some situations, including ones like this. It's far too easy for someone to take such a picture without the subject's knowledge (or to obtain it from another source) and claim that they have the right to take and publicly post such a picture. This is a legal issue; anything else you throw at it is a straw man. —bbatsell ¿? 16:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm not going to reply here anymore to what you have just said. Don't believe this page here is the right place to be discussing this, and simply don't feel like running the risk anymore of accidentally stepping on somebody's sensitive toes and "offending" them. So lets leave this as that for now. Mathmo ^Talk 21:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Downblouse

A similar controversy may exist on Talk:Downblouse. Apparently User:CommandoM is uploading over objections there. I have not been involved in that discussion. — edgarde 05:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read the page you will see there is no problem there, as HighInBC said: "The picture was requested, it is topical, it is legal, it illustrates the article, information should not be removed without reason". Mathmo ^Talk 06:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, I've commented there, but just because there is a request, that does not mean there is a need. I might want to see Julia Stiles with a look of love in her eyes in my bedroom, but that doesn't mean that such a photograph would help the encyclopedia in any way. Geogre 14:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That information is old, I had the image removed after several rude comments, and the whole publicgirluk cufuffle. That was a while ago, so any picture there now needs to be considered seperately. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

HELP - I can not believe

that the picture on the Main Page is supposed to be there. Carptrash 06:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Disgusting. How did it get there?! --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

am guessing you are refering to treecutoff.jpg? Is deleted now anyways... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathmo (talk • contribs) 06:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

lol, thanks bot! Was just about to do that myself... Can't fix the main page for you anyway, took a look but you need to be an admin to edit the mainpage. Odd that, remember when that didn't used to be the case... Mathmo ^Talk 06:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It almost cost me my dinner. Carptrash 06:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but maybe it's time to completely lock down all high-use templates until our template vandal goes away or we figure out where they're coming from and block the hell out of them. The featured article is one thing, but the main page is very much another. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's still there. Somebody screwed up? I thought the main pages and images it links to are protected. - Merzbow 06:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It was in Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries/December_15. Dragons flight 06:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Calm down everybody, take a deep breath in and out. Is all gone now. Mathmo ^Talk 06:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for External link on Protected Page

Hi, I am User:Xunit5ive, and I use the online tag reis_lover in the Tenku no Rakuen RPG and I was wondering if you could put the site as an external link in the Naruto and Bleach articles. I am still a beginner, so I have no understanding as how to do it on Protected Pages yet.

one of them is not protected, the other one is only semi-protected. so once you have been around a little longer you will be able to edit both of them regardless. Mathmo ^Talk 09:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sysop bot proposal

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Jmax-bot is the URL. Seeing what happened last time anything like this was proposed, I figured an AN post might be a good thing. No comment, just bringing attention to it. -- Tawker 07:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you're jumping the gun here. There's alternatives besides sysopping the bot, as I have mentioned in my most recent post at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Jmax-bot --Jmax- 08:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sanghak continuing to upload images with no source information

Despite receiving numerous warnings and being blocked for 24 hours, Sanghak has just uploaded yet another image with no source information. (More information about this user in IncidentArchive155) -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 12:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week.Geni 12:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on vandalism user subpages?

I am trying to build a consensus on vandalism user subpages. I do not think they are acceptable according to Wikipedia's policies, and should thus be done away with accordingly. But first, some background information.

For those of you not aware, a vandalism user subpage is a page created with the sole intent of being vandalized. Typically users will transclude these onto their user pages and leave some text along the lines of, "Vandalize this". To me, these are obviously a bad idea, as they encourage vandalism. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vandalism warehouse, and I don't think it's an appropriate use of WMF's servers to be hosting places for vandalism.

One major problem with the vandalism subpages is that they create a bit more work for admins. By their very nature, they attract vandalism, and often a bad kind of vandalism. I've seen some pretty vicious personal attacks in these subpages, which creates even more work for Wikipedians and admins, who have to patrol these abominations and remove all of the vandalism that is too bad to be displayed (like the aforementioned "He also masturbates while thinking about his mother."). It's a terrible misuse of admin resources to have to patrol pages that are vandalism magnets; it's much better simply to get rid of the magnets themselves.

Let's look at the kind of culture these subpages promote. They encourage the notion that vandalism is acceptable. Per WP:BEANS, this is a bad idea. They dilute Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission by saying "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but also a graffiti wall." Just look at the risk-to-benefit ratio on vandalism subpages; there's all negatives and no positives. Userspace was not created to give users total freedom to create anything they want on Wikipedia, and I do believe vandalism is beyond the pale. Also, they create the tricky issue of somehow trying to determine when someone has crossed a line; obviously if someone posts "You're a stupid cunt" on a userpage, they can be blocked for a personal attack, but if they post this on a vandalism subpage, they have some measure of defense by rationalization: "Ohh, but they wanted vandalism, I didn't really mean it." I can only see this leading to more problems and friction between users. Personal attacks should never be acceptable, and we shouldn't give the people making them any sort of excuse to try to make them.

If you go look over at WP:CSD, you'll see that global criterion for speedy deletion #3 is: "Pure vandalism, including redirects created during cleanup of page move vandalism." Thusly, vandalism subpages fall under a criteria for speedy deletion, unless and until we come up with some inane policy that "Vandalism is never acceptable, unless the user wants it." Since I really don't see that happening, I will be deleting all of the vandalism subpages that I come across, and I would encourage all of my fellow admins to do the same. --Cyde Weys 14:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've had the same position since I first saw one of these: they don't help the encyclopedia and as you point out can cause extra work and/or harm. I would support a move to delete them all, adding appropriate verbiage as necessary to Wikipedia:User page or other policies and guidelines as appropriate. While normally I am opposed to rules creep, this is not rules creep per se but a clarification of what Wikipedia is not, and of the exisiting rules. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur: I fail to see why WP:CSD#G3 fails to apply. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Nuke'em. Thatcher131 15:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Even mentioning vandalism on a user page - or any page - violates WP:BEANS. What encyclopaedic purpose do these pages serve? Anyone? Guy (Help!) 15:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • None…but I think you need to provide some context for your first comment. "My main activity on Wikipedia is fixing vandalism" is hardly an egregious beanstuffing slogan. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • So vandalism subpages don't harm anyone, but don't help the encyclopaedia and encourage trolls, therefore should go. Yet subpage galleries of all the pictures on Commons containing nudity don't harm anyone, but don't help the encyclopaedia and encourage trolls, but should stay. I don't get that. Bafflement at double standards aside, any and all "vandalism subpages" should go. Userspace subpages should either help the encyclopaedia, or be deleted. Wikipedia isn't free web hosting. Proto::► 15:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • • Are you referring to user subpages like this? (warning: not work-safe). FWIW, before I posted that, I commented on Cyde's talk page in support of nuking the vandalism subpages, and I still support nuking such subpages. Carcharoth 15:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• I think Cyde's policy will create more work for admins (now we have to check all userpages if they have a vandalism section??), and is completely unnecessary. Like most policing of userspace, it creates unnecessary drama in the name of "but this does not help building the encyclopedia" without actually helping to build the encyclopedia. Most of the "vandalize this section" sections I have seen on people's userpages were not used for real vandalism, but by usually vandal-fighting Wikipedians having some fun. Keeping Wikipedians happy builds the encyclopedia. Kusma (討論) 15:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please don't try to turn this on its head and suggest that I am calling for more work. It's clearly less work to simply remove these vandalism subpages than to have to continuously patrol them and clean up the nonsense they inevitably generate. I'm not suggesting that we patrol through every single userspace, looking for these things to delete; merely that we delete them as we run across them. --Cyde Weys 15:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• (posted after edit conflict) I think these pages should be covered specifically by a mention among the speedy deletion criteria at WP:CSD if they are not already. My feeling is that these are like the blank concrete walls of a highway underpass - taggers will fill any open space with graffiti and there are some who would argue "better there than on the building next door to my home"; the analogous argument here would be "better to provide an out-of-the-way place for scribblers to do their stuff than in article-space". However, I don't agree with that argument - these should be done away with, not necessarily only based on their falling under 'vandalism' but also because they are explicitly (when invitations to vandalize are involved) for social networking through shared contributions aimed at a goal other than improving the encyclopedia and therefore fall under part of WP:NOT ("Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site"). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think some social networking "vandalism" can be good for the atmosphere, see the sonnet section of User:Geogre. Kusma (討論) 15:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It sure as hell shouldn't be called vandalism then. Call it a "sandbox" or whatever. --Cyde Weys 15:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Certainly not all social networking involves vandalism and not all social networking is banned from Wikipedia; that networking that facilitates creation of the encyclopedia should be preserved and in moderation encouraged. Let's put it this way - any speedy deletion criterion needs to be applied using common sense and any page that is deleted under CSD can be taken up for undeletion - including 'valid networking exercises' where they can be considered for preservation in the Wikipedia environment. CSD is a broad, fast and crude instrument - which is why it shouldn't be applied letter-of-the-law style and notifications of CSD action need to be put on user talk pages so that remedies for recovery can be applied. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we are ignoring the big problem here, and is those fake You have new messages things... GRR! Ummm, oh ya, the vandalism thing, a sandbox is for learning, practicing, and testing wiki markup that is fine. But if it does not serve the encyclopedia and causes extra work for the community then it cannot be justified. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • "Fake You have new messages things" ... huh? I'm not sure what you mean. 'New message' notices generated as the result of vandalism to your user talk page, perhaps? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • No, some people actually write fake "new messages" banners and put them at the top of their pages. When you click on it, it doesn't take you to your own talk page, but to somewhere like Practical joke ... though I've seen some trolls making it go to much worse places. And yes, I have been removing those on sight. They're just plain annoying. --Cyde Weys 17:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh, ok. Sorry for making you spill some BEANS to educate me. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Lol, fergot about the beans. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that vandalism subpages fall under CSD 3 and should be speedied. There's no valid reason to have them here. If people want to goof off, they can use the sandbox. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If Cyde specifically talks about the User:Geogre#Sonnet_Vandalism then this piece of the social networking does not contradict the goals of the project and may even somehow encourage creating encyclopedic content. In general, I assume that whoever created a sandbox in his userspace is responsible for cleaning it from bad vandalism. If not G10,G11,G12,G3 are still applicable, no need for the instruction creep Alex Bakharev 23:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We're not talking about sandboxes here, we're talking about vandalism subpages that are explicitly labeled for, and encourage, vandalism. Indeed, in many cases, simply changing the name could make it acceptable. --Cyde Weys 00:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've put a note on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion that refers to a permalink copy of this discussion. I think a reasonable consensus emerged and my thinking is that further discussion would be best to pursue over at WP:CSD. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Closing Poll: "Ryūkyū" instead of "Ryukyu"

Can some admin please look over the following 2 recently closed polls, related to WP:MOS-JA, and determine if I conducted them properly?....

1. Poll: "Ogasawara Islands" instead of "Bonin Islands"
2. Poll: "Ryūkyū" instead of "Ryukyu"

We have exhausted the regular list of impartial admins in WP:MOS-JA, because many of them voted on this issue.

Although I went ahead and closed these 2 polls myself, can some admin look over the final results there, and either endorse or revise these final results? The 2nd poll is particularly controversial. (For full details on the controversy and background information, see Ryukyu vs. Ryūkyū (in the WP:MOS-JA talk page) and Talk:Ryukyu Islands.) If the results should be "no consensus" instead, there's also the qustion of what the status quo was to begin with, because there were massive undiscussed page moves and changes at around October. (See page histories of Ryukyu Islands, Ryukyu proper, Ryukyu Kingdom, Ryukyuan language, Ryukyu Trench, Ryukyuan history, Category:Ryukyu Islands, etc.) Thank you for your cooperation.--Endroit 15:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Husond has requested me to reopen the 2nd poll in my talk page, and I quote him below, but I believe a reanalysis (and possible change of the final results) by an impartial admin is sufficient.--Endroit 15:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)....

"Endroit, it is very unorthodox for a poll nominator to close his own poll, especially after actively participating in it. Please reopen the poll an wait for an administrator that did not participate to close it. Furthermore, the result was clearly not "oppose" but rather "no consensus". Regards --Húsönd 15:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)"

I too would appreciate it if a few administrators would comment on this poll. I can not claim to be impartial, however I think it is clear that the poll was "no consensus". Regardless of the result, I also question the conclusions drawn from the poll. I have left more specific comments after the poll. Thank you. Bendono 16:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I contacted Tariqabjotu asking him for a second opinion regarding this issue. In his reply, he agrees that Endroit should've not closed the poll in his favor. However, Tariq reckons that Endroid chose the right output ("oppose"). I am very reluctant to concede "oppose" as the outcome from a discussion with this result (regardless of my bias in this particular one). The borderline of consensus is of course at each editor's discretion, thus it would be pertinent if more administrators state whether they would close this discussion as "oppose" or "no consensus".--Húsönd 17:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference between no consensus and oppose / no move as it applies to this situation? -- tariqabjotu 23:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

In this case, it makes the entire difference. The question of the poll is rather unusual, "Proposal — Use the macronned form "Ryūkyū" instead of the common English form "Ryukyu", for all instances of the word "Ryukyu", in body texts and in page names", where "oppose" is agreeing with the proposer's position. A "no consensus" thus leaves everything as it is (Ryūkyū Islands), whereas an oppose leads to the article being moved to Ryukyu Islands.--Húsönd 00:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if it was no consensus, I think there a still a strong enough sentiment to keep/put the article at the version without the macrons. The initial move to the version with macrons in October 2006 was not the result of a move request. Although the article existed at the macron version for a month without contention, very few edits were made to the article in that time period and thus the move probably went largely unnoticed. I understand that some of the other articles (and the category) related to the islands may have been at the macroned version for awhile, but I don't think it would be a good idea to be inconsistent with the spelling. Thus, I think the move should be closed as keep at or move all to Ryukyu. -- tariqabjotu 01:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Requesting admin resolution of sockpuppet/meatpuppet accusation

I've been accused of being a sockpuppeteer by User:BenBurch. This sockpuppet accusation is false. There has been no request for Checkuser; instead, the false accusation has been used as a vehicle for interrogating me, with varying degrees of hostility and incivility, for the past five days. On his own Talk page, this individual has addressed me with the sentence, "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on." I am asking whatever administrator reads this first to resolve Ben's accusation. Declare me guilty or innocent, and let's move on. I've been editing without registering an account for about three years; most of my edits have been for errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. This practice has two significant features: it's never led to any arguments or animosity before, and it is a much needed service. I continue to have a lot of work to do. -- 68.253.133.63 04:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Are you User:BryanFromPalatine? Alex Bakharev 05:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, I am. And I would venture to say that the only "bad" thing that 12ptHelvetica and I have done is to express opinions that differ from those of BenBurch. I would add that he has posted the sentence, "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on," addressed to me, then quickly deleted it because he knew I had seen it. I'd appreciate a prompt and amicable resolution of this issue before proceeding with any more edits. -- BryanFromPalatine 13:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you specify where that message was left. I don't see it on your talk page. I did see some edit warring over the sockpuppet investigation notice, and civility and AGF warnings to you from User:Fairness And Accuracy For All. -- Donald Albury 18:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BenBurch&action=history Please review the series of edits between 20:33 and 21:12 on 5 December. Ben and I were having a conversation. He knew that I was on his Talk page, editing. He knew that it was a two-way conversation and that I would see that remark immediately. He posted it and, seven minutes later after he was sure that I'd seen it, he deleted it; and at 21:12, he deleted the entire conversation. This isn't the only personal attack I've received; it's simply the most reprehensible. I must admit that in response to Ben's provocations, I have engaged in behavior that was less than amicable. F.A.A.F.A. is Ben's tireless defender, supporter and agent in all things Wiki, far more persistently than 12ptHelvetica has supported me, and behaving in many respects like a meatpuppet himself -- though I won't make that accusation. The obvious distinction between the Ben/FAAFA relationship and the 12pt/Bryan relationship is that 12pt and I have extensive edit histories spanning 2-1/2 or three years, independent from each other; but they were done from unregistered IP addresses. A review of the archives from Ben's talk pages proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has a very contentious history here. -- BryanFromPalatine 15:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You started that conversation civilly enough, and BenBurch was not polite in his replies, but you let yourself get dragged into an argument. Ben's comment was definitely out of line but he did remove it himself before anyone spoke to him. As that incident is now ten days old, and you made a point of quoting it in your reply to him after he had removed it from his edit, I'm not inclined to do anything about it now. I do think it would be best if Ben apologized for posting that comment, however briefly it was up, but I think this calls for dispute resolution, not admin intervention. -- Donald Albury 16:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • That remark isn't the point of this request for admin intervention. What about the meatpuppet accusation? What happens with that? Is it just going to be an open-ended inquisition, with Ben and FAAFA declaring it "proven" the moment I refuse to tolerate their interrogation any further? I'd appreciate an admin stepping in and resolving that matter one way or the other. Bear in mind that the hostile exchange on Ben's talk page started on 5 December; the sockpuppet accusation was made on 10 December. -- BryanFromPalatine 16:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • • The sockpuppet case has not gone anywhere. It's over. This looks like a dispute between you and BenBurch, and frankly, I'm not interested in taking either side in this dispute. I strongly urge the two of you to be civil, avoid personal attacks and pursue dispute resolution. -- Donald Albury 01:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite Block of User:XP

User:XP has been involved in a heated, but polite, discussion in a Request For Arbitration [22] discussion. This discussion [23] is followed by dozens of Admins, the majority of whom disagree with User:XP's opinion. [24] Admin User:Chairboy has blocked User:XP as a sockpuppet of a banned user, User:Rootology. No rationale was given for how these users were determined to be the same. User:XP had a multi-month long edit history [25], and denied being User:Rootology when asked. [26] I am concerned a legitimate user may have been silenced by hasty admin action. I request admin's not associated with the Request For Arbitration [27] User:XP was commenting on ask Admin User:Chairboy for his rationale in blocking User:XP. If inadequate rationale exists, in my opinion the user should be unblocked. Abe Froman 18:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to discuss the methods used to support the block, the evidence is square, solid, and the identity of the user as a sock puppet is not in doubt. I appreciate Abe's interest in the matter, and his concern for a fellow editor is both commendable and in the best spirit of Wikipedia. Because of the sensitivity of the issue and the history of the blocked user (Rootology), I invite any administrator who is interested to contact me off-wiki. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't call myself completely uninvolved, because I have commented in the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan arbitration case, although I have no experience of editing in the same articles as Seabhcan, MONGO, or XP. I will say, though, that I'm satisfied in this case. Sockpuppetry evidence is never made public, as it would teach people how to avoid detection. In public, I'll say that Rootology was known to be using sockpuppets, and that it was fairly obvious that XP was a sockpuppet of somebody. Regarding the specific evidence that linked the two accounts, let's imagine we had an abusive user who constantly made the same spelling mistake — one of which he was completely unaware — and who was known to use sockpupets. Abe, do you think that it would be a good idea for the administrators who knew about it to post here exactly what that spelling mistake was? Chairboy seems, as far as I can tell, to be completely uninvolved in this case. On his talk page, he has said that administrators who would like to know more may contact him. As one who has dealt with this kind of thing before (detecting sockpuppetry, circulating the evidence privately to other admins and to the ArbCom mailing list, and accepting that uninvolved administrators could carry out the block or not, according to their judgment), and as one who has seen some of the evidence in this case, I'd like to say that I'm completely satisfied. AnnH ♫ 19:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am a regular Wikipedia contributor, and have not before seen secrecy cited as an integral part of how this project conducts business. Perhaps I am naive, but I would still like an admin uninvolved with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan to investigate the rationale behind User:Chairboy's indefinite block of User:XP. That is all I am asking for. Abe Froman 19:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Chairboy could e-mail his evidence to me. I'm willing to review it. Would that do? Thatcher131 19:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. Abe Froman 19:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131 has the data. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have had my suspicions about XP for quite some time, since he started editing the MONGO/Seabhcan RfA pages. Thanks, Choirboy. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Having seen the evidence I agree it is a very strong circumstantial case; about as good a match as you're going to get without finding a mistake like mis-signing a talk post. I will say in addition to the private evidence, it is worth noting in the XP's contribution history that he went out of his way to antagonize MONGO on several AfDs even though he had never edited the articles in question. Of course, XP can always appeal to Arbcom. Thatcher131 00:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Abe, I trust Thatcher131, although we have different views about a lot of things, I respect his integrity and I am impressed how he has helped me several times before. Travb (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this Thatcher131. I'm satisfied with the review. Abe Froman 00:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have serious problems here

I'm the user who worked as Lieutenant Dol Grenn and Pooter-the-clown. I edited the Street Fighter-characters and I searched for more informations. I only added the real heights and weights to these characters and User: Danny Lilithborne called it "nonsense". So he added my two usernames to the Administrators' noticeboard. I'm afraid that if someone else would add the heights and weights to these Street Fighter-characters again, that User:Danny Lilithborne and also other administrators would blame me again. Please solve my problem. Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.32.99 (talk • contribs)

Well, in my opinion, adding the heights and weights of the characters (remember, these are fictional characters, so they aren't "real") is nonsense; they were struck from Mortal Kombat character articles a long time ago. I would recommend taking it up with Danny directly, rather than coming here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Fictional characters can have heights and weights, just that they would be fictional heights and weights. Nothing wrong with that at all. Mathmo ^Talk 21:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with it as long as it's verifiable and encyclopedic. Anchoress 04:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What is not mentioned here is that height and weight were removed from MK and SF articles precisely because of Lt. Grenn's constant edit-warring over the issue. It is much simpler to just eliminate those extraneous details entirely. Danny Lilithborne 05:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, Danny, I agree but I'm afraid that if another user would add the heights and weights to these characters that you would blame me again. Is there a way to protect these character-pages?

Another problem is that I used several IPs, namely IPs from a school and from a bank and I made the same edits to these Street Fighter-characters and to the list of famous tall men.

But I'll stop with these edits. Promise. I don't want to have serious problems.

WP:OFFICE means Please Edit

Jimbo says "WP:OFFICE should not be 'hands OFF' but 'hands ON'" (and indicates that the recent stubbing and rewrite of Ron Jeremy is an example of how things are supposed to work) [28] and "The problem is that far too often, when something is tagged WP:OFFICE it just sits there, for months, with everyone scared to do anything. This is the opposite of what is intended."[29]. WAS 4.250 20:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that usually, the existing page is deleted and protected. While there's mention down on the bottom of WP:OFFICE that someone should set up a temporary page, and editing should proceed from there, that's not likely to happen, because each potential editor might end up creating his own temp page, and if a subject involves possible liability to the Foundation, then even temporary pages need a good deal of scrutiny before being posted. If Jimbo wants people to try to repair office-protected articles, then he should make structural changes to make it easier. Argyriou (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

this has not been cleared by danny and there is no formal board statement. I would recomend doing nothing for the time being.Geni 22:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Since when did Danny have to clear Jimbo's statements? --Tango 23:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No one will touch a WP:OFFICE-tagged article because you have a random chance of getting either censured, immediately reverted, desysopped or killed, with no real definite way or knowing which will happen, and the people who tag the article as WP:OFFICE often don't explain why the article is so marked (usually because someone has threatened to sue Wikipedia), and why they have made the edits they have (often they have a reason for this). Well, maybe not killed. Sooner or later, usually later, it will be untagged. Possibly. So trust to eventualism in the meantime, and go outside. Oh, and you argue with Danny, you get booted, regardless of how much more you may or may not know about the issue at hand. Proto::► 23:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"you argue with Danny, you get booted, regardless of how much more you may or may not know about the issue at hand."

Wow, talk about negative perspective. I at least trust that Danny is a rational individual, and would be capable of changing his mind if given persuasive reasons for it. --tjstrf talk 23:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Lets just say a few of us have veteran status.Geni 23:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Since jimbo was not the board and thus cannot directly give danny orders. We know that jimbo is not always on the same page as other senior people and it is generaly best to be careful.Geni 23:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you read WP:OFFICE? Administrators, who have the technical power to undo protections and deletions, are strongly cautioned against modifying these edits. Official statements and past incidents indicate that such unauthorized modifications will be actively reverted, and possibly the rights of the modifyer will be revoked.. That's a sure sign that Danny can, at a whim, remove somebody's admin status and block them on sight. This has been done in the past. Geni knows this from personal experience. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Having read the WP:OFFICE page before and just looked at it again, I think it can be understood as meaning that (1) if the Office has tagged a page as Office-protected and it is still protected (note: there are only 7 pages in this category in the entire project, see <Category:Office protected>), then (a) no one should even think about lifting the protection before the Office does, and (b) extreme caution, at a minimum, is required before an admin edits the article (meaning functionally most people should keep miles away); (2) if the Office has indicated a page is being monitored (such as by stubbing it) but has not protected it or has unprotected it, then it can be edited, but admins should keep an eye on the page to make extra-sure that edits comply with WP:LIVING and other applicable policies. As I said, that's my best understanding of what is trying to be communicated on WP:OFFICE, but if administrators are uncertain as to the scope of the policy, some clarification could be in order. Newyorkbrad 00:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeated requests for clarification have been ignored. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Frustrating 'though a WP:OFFICE action is, we really shouldnt' blame the foundation for it. Defending even the most spurious lawsuit would wipe out the foundation's meagre funds, and Brad, Danny, and the board are obligated to husband those funds as carefully as they can. So they blank the article, issue a stern notice, and they're off the hook (and can show a judge, if necessary, that the foundation took immediate and significant action, which generally gives it safe harbor protection). We might like more information, and we might like a considered opinion from Brad about what we should and shouldn't do, but we aren't going to get it - Brad is the foundation's lawyer, not the encylopedia's, and if he or Danny start opining about what should or could be in the article, they risk losing that safe harbour protection. So expect them to continue to zap articles without meaningful comment or discussion.

That leaves the matter of how we, the community of editors, should treat an article that has been WP:OFFICEd. That an article has been OFFICEd means that a credible (or at least not utterly incredible) threat has been made. Given that there are a million other articles in need of fixing, I don't see why any editor should expose himself to the (probably small, but certainly nonzero) legal risk that editing the OFFICEd artice entails. I believe we should treat article subjects who legally threaten us the way we treat other editors who do so - we say "sorry, we're not playing". We delete the article, replace it with a tag that says "This article has been blanked due to legal threats by its subject or their agent", and protect the article. And we leave it that way forever. There have, as far as I'm aware, been really two categories of threateners: very marginally notable characters (marginal widdle-diddle metal musicians, some retired 80s porn starlet) whose loss is immeasurably small, and self-promoters who are pissed their article describes them in an unfavourable light. I have no problem whatever with our not having a page on such subjects, ever, and if they like having the top google hit for their name being forever more a notice about their willingness to sue a charity and its volunteers, bully for them.

WP:OFFICE is just the foundation taking the necessary steps to protect itself. We need to do the same; to my mind anyone who edits any OFFICEd article ever again is plain bonkers. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You definitely have to think about what you are doing before you edit an Officed page, and though certain edits may be OK to make, certainly don't use any admin tools. Prodego ^talk 01:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The solution is, of course, to not create articles filled with unsourced, compromising crap, and we won't need the WP:OFFICE Monty Python Foot of Power to crush nonsense from above in the first place. Judging from the majority reaction to the Ron Jeremy incident, however, we're still a fair distance away from realising that. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

69.19.14.44 (talk · contribs) Pov pushing, now personal attacks

User seems to have some sort of POV pushing agenda in regards to the article James Kim. Continues to try and paint their donation fund as some sort of evil money scam. Very abrasive and his last comment on the talk page contained a personal attack [30].--Crossmr 23:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have access to multiple IPs 69.19.14.27 (talk · contribs) also same user.--Crossmr 00:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

semi-protected. Thatcher131 00:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

{{mprotected2}}

I created {{mprotected2}} and Category:Protected pages associated with Main Page articles to assist with keeping track of templates and images that are protected because they are used in articles linked from the Main Page. Hopefully, protecting images and templates used in Today's Featured Article will not be a requirement as it is for images and templates used on the Main Page. However, due to the recent deceptive and disturbing vandalism, some images and templates have had to be protected. Hopefully, admins who do that from now on will add {{mprotected2}} so other admins will know to unprotect the pages at some point. -- tariqabjotu 00:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks for creating it. Chick Bowen 04:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Prads28

He continues to make a test page, removing the {{G2}} I place on his Pradschico page. Please intervene as I believe I have warned him as much as I possibly can for removing the aforementioned CSD, after I referred him to the sandbox explicitly in the welcome message I first left him. Pumeleon 02:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I may have been too hasty. He has not removed the latest CSD. Please watch for further violations. Pumeleon 02:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: He just blanked his page. I will list it as {{G2}} and see if the issue resolves itself. Pumeleon 02:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Backlog of expired prods

Currently at 4 days or 499 "articles" and user pages. Please help out to eliminate this backlog. Thanks. MER-C 02:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ethics of banning socks

Now that AWilliamson is community banned as the sockmaster of the Joan of Arc vandal I have a query about whether there's still a conflict of interest reason for me to refrain from banning his sockpuppets. So far I've touched only one: an impersonation account User:Durova. that deleted archive contents of Williamson's prior talk page wars. Some of those socks have been inactive for many months but other suspected socks remain disruptive at Williamson's other interest points: cross-dressing, homosexuality, and Catholicism. In particular I noticed WP:RFCU#CC80 this evening - a declined request whose other named accounts don't look like red flags for Williamson socks to me - but the edit history for CC80 is classic Williamson activity. I've suspected the account of being a sock since September when it edit warred to delete a link from Joan of Arc.[31][32][33] My long investigation probably puts me in the best position to identify his socks - I'd checkuser anything that's dubious. Do I have the community's support to use sysop tools here? Durova^Charge! 05:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There are no conflicts of interest with banned users. There are no conflicts of interest simply because an abusive user declares one. —Centrx→talk • 07:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Then here's my second question: I'd like to notify the relevant Wikiprojects for these other subjects because I suspect he'll attempt to dodge enforcement by hopping between socks and different articles. Those project participants would be more likely to spot that behavior than I would. The only catch is where to send them to report such a complex case. WP:RFI doesn't normally handle sockpuppet investigations. Since I know this case in so much depth, would it be appropriate to refer new reports directly to my user talk?

And BTW I don't think this user has claimed I have a conflict of interest. I want to proceed in a way that proves I've been fair and honest in case some future troublemaker ever tries to claim I acted improperly. Since I do a lot of investigations I field spurious misconduct allegations fairly often. I'm open to recall so I want to cover all my bases. Thanks, Durova^Charge! 14:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I see several possible approaches. One, enlist another sysop to take over. Two, enlist a couple of admins to review your work and handle appeals. Three, document the heck out of each action you take - specifically the reasoning behind each action. This leaves the door open for peer review and is probably the most practical. Rklawton 14:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If any of these suspected socks appeals a ban I'll be ready with evidence, although this user's long and creative career makes it slow reading to even review the documentation, much less replace me (I wouldn't wish this on anyone). I suppose my long hours of work on the case are far from ended. Durova^Charge! 15:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

CC80 (talk · contribs) and socks have been trolling on Goa Inquisition and vandalizing sourced information. They have succeeded in getting a contradictory and jumbled version protected.Bakaman 18:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Christine_Maggiore semiprotection

Semiprotection was requested on WP:AN/I#Christine_Maggiore by User:JohnnyBGood. I think semiprotection for a couple of days is warranted. The article was edited in a POV manner by at least two IPs. The question is sensitive and attractive for vandals and POV pushers. I see no problems if the article will be protected for a couple of days. Everybody interested in the edit warrings could get an account. Obviously, if could persuade another admin to unprotect the article I would not revert his or her actions Alex Bakharev 05:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Chronic vandal duplicates my username

A vandal i've been chasing and reverting(they've regsitered several accounts over the past 15 minutes), has registered a username discernably similar to mine and is performing vandalism with it. thanks, i kan reed 07:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Ikanread76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for the name and for being an obviouse sockpuppet. I have also blocked The Megocian76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and YankeesGlen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as obvious sockpuppets (of an as yet unidentified puppetmaster). (Just look at their edit summaries.) There's probably more to be found, but I need to go back to bed. If more than one admin agrees that these blocks should be lifted or modified, you don't need to contact me first. -- Donald Albury 10:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I Requesting to admin to block User srkris Permanently from Wikipedia

1 ) He is lying

please read a sentence he typed in his user page

Wikipedia seems to have a lot of nuts, and this user decided to stay away from it for his own sanity ~ Srkris .

My question is that if user srkirs stay away from wikipeidia for his own sanity why he editing in wikipeida using varios IP Address 59.92.xxx.xxx ?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Srkris
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/59.92.63.37
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/59.92.66.141
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/59.92.87.12
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/59.92.83.98
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/59.144.27.187
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/59.92.38.148
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/59.92.50.88
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/59.92.46.102
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/59.92.59.162

2 ) He is spamming He is the owner of some website like Chembai.com, rasikas.org(PunBB.org Forums ). He tried to put weblink like chembai.com, rasikas.org etc in almost all article to promote his personal website.

3) He is trying to put images and images belong to Chembai in various article. And editing that article to show Chembai and his other fans/relative are great and others are nothing in carnatic music especially Yesudas and M. Balamurali Krishna. And trying to emphasize chembai.

4) This is a request to admin that please don't allow Aum (OHM) or Flag of India before any user name. It may be an Website of USA , but we have to Keep our Values.

5) He is pretending that he is a scholler in Carnatic music.

6) A blocked user should not try to edit any article . But he violate the law in the wikipedia.

7) He is threatening some users with some wiki rules. and he is not obey the rules.

• if the above mentioned are not matching with character of user srkris any body can remove this .

thanks and bye Pluto.2006 07:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand half of these. Please provide diffs. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The guy has a definite point here even if his English grammar is a bit sub-par. For some diffs, take a look at these ones to Chembai:

[34][35][36][37]

and the ones to Carnatic music:

[38][39][40]

It should be noted, however, that the IP 59.144.27.187 simply seems to be making your normal newbie test edits and may be unrelated. Those edits were in September though, so it is equally possible that it was User:Srkris prior to his creating an account, as he officially joined in October. Does this need to go to checkuser, or is the evidence good enough for blocks of any recently used IPs already? There are numerous similar diffs, I found those ones in about 45 seconds. --tjstrf talk 12:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

He appears to have a possible account sock as well: User:Harikw, who keeps edit warring over the picture to use on Carnatic music for no explicable reason[41][42][43] and conveniently appeared after the page was semi-protected. --tjstrf talk 12:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Harikw indef as a sock of Srkris‎, and increased Srkris‎' block to 21 days from today for evasion. Please review this if you think I was in error, but it seemed clear to me. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please unblock

Please unblock [44] It was a compromised host someone hacked into my system but my network admin fixed the issue. Please unblock. 65.99.214.132

How do you know it's fixed? How are we to know that it's fixed? Claiming that someone else did it is more than iffy. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I know it´s difficult but it is fixed. How can I prove this to you? You can watch the edits after you unblock me, then you see I like wikipedia. I would not do such things. I beg you please unblock. 65.99.214.132

Sorry, but the account had been compromised and will not be unblocked. Naconkantari 07:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It was not anymore, please unblock it i like wikipedia. 65.99.214.132

There's some sound reasoning behind it. i.e. sockpuppet User:Mnbvcxy, and that your account vandalized your own failed RfA, which is unlikely for a random vandal who got control of the account. In any case, if the hackishness is true we can't know if it's still compromised or not, and can't unblock it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please! Everything of that was the vandal. Now the network leak is fixed. Please unblock the account. What about the IP adress? Please unblock at least this. Otherwise I can´t do anything on wikipedia. 65.99.214.132

I've blocked the above IP. Naconkantari 07:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

He's persistent. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Large numbers of redirects to Hexspeak

See Special:Whatlinkshere/Hexspeak, many of which were created by Hexdec16 (talk · contribs), who does not seem to be stopping. Is this going to get to represent every possible word that can be expressed with 0-9 / A-F ? It seems a bit much. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of like a reverse category through redirects. I wouldn't see the harm in doing this for values that actually have some documented use (as people might then encounter these), but just entering every combination of those letters that can make a word seems rather pointless. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Chinese River Dolphin move to Baiji

Chinese River Dolphin is needed to be moved to Baiji. Baiji was a disambig page but has now been moved to Baiji (disambiguation) so that Chinese River Dolphin can take its place. Could someone please move Chinese River Dolphin to Baiji.

The Chinese River Dolphin is not an accepted English term, Baiji is.

Thanks Chris_huh^talk 12:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

umm the BBC uses "Chinese River Dolphin" http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/66.shtml Geni 13:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

And CNN call it 'Baiji' - [45]. Proto::► 13:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The Worldwide Fund for Nature (China) call it the Yangtze River Dolphin, which has more Google hits than either of the other two names. [46]. Proto::► 13:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Baiji gets by far the most results on JStor (and everyone I looked at seems to be about the Dolphin) from academic journals. So um... an argument could be made pretty much any way. --W.marsh 15:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Also way more on Google Scholar. [47] Honestly since all 3 terms are used, the pagename really isn't that critical... no need to rush into moving it just because the story just broke. A movewar would be a bad idea. --W.marsh 15:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Pacific Western University debate has spilled into WP:CFD; Administrative oversight needed

The debate on the content of Pacific Western University has spilled into WP:CFD. One editor has claimed that Category:California Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPVE) and its subcategories were created to give Pacific Western University the false appearance of accreditation. Since Pacific Western University has a notice about action by the Wikipedia Foundation Office on the article, I think administrative oversight of the related category debate may be appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 17:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You probably want to drop Guy a note as he is actively editing this article. --Spartaz 17:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:United Methodism

Could an administrator look at recent edits to Category:United Methodism? The category was turned into a redirect for Category:United Methodist Church following an undisputed nomination for renaming on 2006 November 2. Since then, Pastorwayne has added text and parent categories to Category:United Methodism. This seems to violate the spirit of turning the category into a redirect. It may be appropriate to discuss the issue with Pastorwayne. Dr. Submillimeter 19:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Huge backlog at CAT:CSD

Please fix, lots of admins required. Cheers, Moreschi 21:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of images that have been tagged with User:Mecu/nffh this "template." It was created yesterday by Mecu (talk · contribs) and is being added to any personal-type photo, including those used on Wikipedians' user pages. It states that "The given reason is: Unencyclopedic and Wikipedia is not a free file host. The image appears to have no encyclopedic value and is not used on Wikipedia (excluding vandalism)." Is this appropriate or not? This isn't a speedy deletion criteria, so basically, the user has created policy and a matching template for the policy. Metros232 21:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

They aren't speedy deletion candidates. The images should be listed on WP:IFD. J Di ^talk 21:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Note there is a discussion thread on the image speedy deletion criteria at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Speedy deletion criteria for images?. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

So what's the appropriate course of action here? Rollback the edits where Mecu added the tags? Metros232 21:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Images apart, CSD is still backlogged, guys! Best, Moreschi 22:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

When is CSD not backlogged? The name CSD is a lie. Would anybody support a name change? J Di ^talk 22:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like the best solution, but look at each edit before you roll them back. J Di ^talk 22:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Pacific Western University

More eyes needed here, please, we have a batch of single-purpose accounts inflating this unaccredited university (categorised as a diploma mill in Senate testimony), which has included creating a list of "notable PWU people" (most of whom are, of course, not notable at all), adding PWU "degrees" to existing biographies without the relevant qualifier that the school is unaccredited, that kind of thing. It's all strongly reminiscent of Gastroturfing. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Cleft.jpg

Image:Cleft.jpg is apparently a bad image, only for use on pages it is specifically allowed. Despite the fact that on the MediaWiki:Bad image list page it lists the pages it can be used on (eg Cleft of venus), on those pages it's only shown as a link rather than as an image. Can this be fixed? Fishies Plaice 22:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)