Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Numbo3-bot

2009-09-28T14:52:36Z

Numbo3: /* Adding/Deleting */

== SZL ==
Please do not add "szl" interwiki links, they doesn't work. - [[User:Darwinek|Darwinek]] ([[User talk:Darwinek|talk]]) 21:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
:Have seen that issue, wiki has been created, PyWikipedia contains code; but links do not work. --- Sorry, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 21:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
::Links do work now. --- Best regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 00:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

== [[Fern]] ==

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that Numbo3-bot just made a mistake: A user added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fern&curid=66512&diff=226395168&oldid=226170839] the interwiki TL link, and about 12 hours later the bot added the same link again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fern&curid=66512&diff=226489681&oldid=226395168] . Maybe you want to check what went wrong... [[User:Rror|Rror]] ([[User talk:Rror|talk]]) 18:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
:Strange. I tried to reproduce this, but it didn't happen again. --- Best regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 02:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

== Bot blocked ==

Your bot has been blocked for its recent edits. The were entirely inappropriate. The bot was approved as a "Pure interwiki bot." Your bot was "correcting" links in a horrible fashion. If it is going to be editing archives and other pages, it should at least use an interwiki prefix like [[tools:|tools:]] so that the links won't break again in the future. I have no intention of unblocking this bot until I see a full explanation of why you thought it was appropriate for an interwiki bot to be making the edits this bot was making and why you didn't seek approval (where I would have told you to use tools: and to avoid page archives). --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 01:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
:I am doing this changes on all wikis, as http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/ is a '''dead''' domain! It has been replaced by http://toolserver.org/ instead. If it's that strict with it ("Pure interwiki bot."), I promise to not do any other changes but interwiki links anymore. Nevertheless, the changes were '''not''' inappropriate; they fixed broken URLs; thus please unblock. --- Best regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 02:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
:P.s.: But how to include URL parameters with [[tools:]] (? and & get URL escaped then ;-)? --[[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 02:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
::You were editing archives and other pages that are explicitly not supposed to be edited by bots. And if, tomorrow, toolserver.org stops working, all of the link fixes you've made will break again. If you instead use {{nwt|[[tools:~veinor/cgi-bin/VeinorBot.cgi|here]]}}, for example, it won't break (as badly) if the URL changes in the future. Either way, a pure interwiki bot shouldn't be doing non-interwiki work. Your bot was approved for only interwiki changes. If you would like to make this type of edit, please file another bot request. I'll unblock your bot in a moment. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 02:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

== Bot blocked again ==

Your bot has been blocked again for performing tasks it is not authorised to do. If you can demonstrate that you got approval from BAG to run the bot to edit [[Template:Popular articles]], please do. Just notifying you, thought it would be courteous since I noticed the edits were highly suspect. Regards, — [[User:Neurolysis|neuro]][[User talk:Neurolysis|(talk)]] 19:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
:(ec) I have blocked your bot again for making inappropriate edits, the bot was approved as a "Pure interwiki bot." However, the bot has been editing [[Template:Popular articles]] and it is not approved to do so. Therefore, the bot will remain blocked until you explain the reason for this and seek approval from the BAG if you wish for your bot to continue its edits to [[Template:Popular articles]]. [[User:Thehelpfulone|'''The''']][[User_talk:Thehelpfulone| '''Helpful''']][[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone| '''One''']] 19:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
::This block seems entirely out of line and I'm strongly inclined to immediately unblock. If there's paperwork that needs to be filed, a warning (or even a nice note) is far more appropriate than an indefinite block. I see no evidence that this bot was causing any kind of harm to the project. This seems like any entirely punitive block. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 19:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Unblocked, but I think you should seek approval from BAG to make the edits to the template. [[User:Thehelpfulone|'''The''']][[User_talk:Thehelpfulone| '''Helpful''']][[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone| '''One''']] 19:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Sorry for that, but MZMcBride is right; there is no harm. See [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Numbo3-bot]] (although bureaucracy is really a pain for me, note that my bot/services are working on a lot of wikis (partially with other name(s)); altogether, bureaucracy eats a huge amount of time then; just doing something is much more efficient ;-) --- sorry again, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 21:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

== List of Latin digraphs ==

Please don't and interwikis to this article. There apparently is no such article in other wikis. (There are about 4 bots that do this over and over and over.) [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 14:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
:Probably some article(s) on other wiki(s) are incorrectly poiting to [[List of Latin digraphs]]. This can be fixed manually (only). --- Kind regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 23:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

== Duplicate links in [[:Template:Popular articles]] ==

[[WP:POPULAR]] transcludes [[:Template:Popular articles]] in a way that generates two "more" items that have different meanings: a collapsible frame and also a "» more" link. The former contains the list extended beyond the first 15, the latter links to the template page itself (same as the "v" link in the collapse-frame title-bar). That's pretty confusing UI! I think "» more" is only needed if the collapse-frame is not displayed. It should be controlled by the same #if logic as the collapse-frame (display one or the other) rather than controlled by <nowiki><includeonly></nowiki>. Does the bot edit the items in the template-page list or does it just upload the whole template page? That is, if I edit the template to try to improve the links, will the bot just overwrite my work? [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 05:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
:I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Popular_articles&diff=294333482&oldid=294328349 edited the template] to avoid duplicate "more" links, and tested its display in various direct and transclusion settings...seems to do what I wanted. Let's see how bot handles updating it... [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 07:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
::Nuked it:( [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 07:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello DMacks, the "» more" is intended for all circumstances, e.g. user showing only the top 5 on their user page. Shall I just call it "» source" e.g. instead of "» more"? -- Kind regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 23:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

== Incorrect function ==

Hi
Please check out the [[Dortmund Airport]] article. This bot replaced a valid language link instead of appending it. I have reverted this edit as I cannot block your bot. Regards [[User:TinyMark|TINY]][[User talk:TinyMark|MARK]] 12:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:Everything is OK with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dortmund_Airport&diff=296023812&oldid=294120167 this edit], "mk" has just been moved upwards and "vi" been placed there where "mk" had been ;-) --- Kind regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 13:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

== The Beatles ==

I noticed [[The Beatles]] article was commented out from [[Template:Popular articles]].[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Popular_articles&diff=next&oldid=298233861] I've been wondering what's going on with the hit numbers for that article for a while now. Do you have any more info? Thank you. [[User:Siawase|Siawase]] ([[User talk:Siawase|talk]]) 15:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
:Yes, I had to comment out this entry, as the numbers for [[The Beatles]] have been ridiculous high for too long; they are just inaccurate; +/-5000 hits steadily, 24 hours, every day. I consider that being plain traffic spam. The reason is most probably an automated process requesting the article over and over again, without the article actually being read, compare http://stats.grok.se/en/200811/The_Beatles – initially I thought there might be any music portal or music software suddenly linking or embedding the Wikipedia content, but I do not believe in that anymore. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Popular_articles&oldid=297946597 That high numbers] and then no other music related articles following close (like [http://stats.grok.se/en/200905/Madonna_(entertainer) Madonna] or [http://stats.grok.se/en/200905/Michael_Jackson Michael Jackson] or [http://stats.grok.se/en/200906/Eminem Eminem]), as well as mysterious music spam [[Wikipedia:Most missed articles|there]] forced me to hide that entry. As if there would be nothing more important and more interesting than [[The Beatles]], constantly all the time; that gave it the rest! ;-) I know [[The Beatles]] are popular, but not that popular :-D --- Best regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 21:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
::Thank you very much for your reply! I think you're correct in your assessment. I checked google trends and there are no spikes in the beatles searches there corresponding to the traffic here, and comparing to other artists it makes no sense either.[http://www.google.com/trends?q=the+beatles%2C+eminem&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0][http://www.google.com/trends?q=the+beatles%2C+eminem%2C+britney+spears&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0] It seems like a good idea to hide it to limit the value of the spamming. It's too bad someone decided to spam it too, since now any legitimate traffic spikes will be unnoticable with the already padded numbers, whether the article is hidden at popular articles or not. [[User:Siawase|Siawase]] ([[User talk:Siawase|talk]]) 20:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
:::That is truly sad, yes. But the numbers are still logged with this template, although hidden; but as long as the traffic is being spoofed, the numbers for [[The Beatles]] are useless, unfortunately. And unfortunately I do not have any access to the Squid server logs to set up an IP filter or something... --- Kind regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 22:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

== Adding/Deleting ==

In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_political_party%2Fdoc&diff=308539967&oldid=307470490 this] edit, the summary text from your bot mentions "robot Adding: mwl:Modelo:Partido político, pt:Predefinição:Info/Partido Político", but it neglects why it deleted 16 others. I can see a multiple issues here. <tt>+[[User:Mwtoews|m]][[User talk:Mwtoews|t]]</tt> 03:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
:I do not know why PyWikipedia (the used framework for most interwiki bots) did this (especially in regard to the wrong summary)); maybe the other wikis didn't link back or respectively the iw links outside were conflicting in some way (/doc and ../). But my bot is not and will not be touching any template for interwiki linking anymore, anyway (was only for minutes; checked quickly once, didn't see that the summary was misleading too). PyWikipedia has too many serious bugs when it comes to the template namespace. --- Sorry for that, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 14:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Numbo3-bot

2009-09-28T14:51:15Z

Numbo3: /* Adding/Deleting */

== SZL ==
Please do not add "szl" interwiki links, they doesn't work. - [[User:Darwinek|Darwinek]] ([[User talk:Darwinek|talk]]) 21:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
:Have seen that issue, wiki has been created, PyWikipedia contains code; but links do not work. --- Sorry, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 21:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
::Links do work now. --- Best regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 00:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

== [[Fern]] ==

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that Numbo3-bot just made a mistake: A user added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fern&curid=66512&diff=226395168&oldid=226170839] the interwiki TL link, and about 12 hours later the bot added the same link again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fern&curid=66512&diff=226489681&oldid=226395168] . Maybe you want to check what went wrong... [[User:Rror|Rror]] ([[User talk:Rror|talk]]) 18:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
:Strange. I tried to reproduce this, but it didn't happen again. --- Best regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 02:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

== Bot blocked ==

Your bot has been blocked for its recent edits. The were entirely inappropriate. The bot was approved as a "Pure interwiki bot." Your bot was "correcting" links in a horrible fashion. If it is going to be editing archives and other pages, it should at least use an interwiki prefix like [[tools:|tools:]] so that the links won't break again in the future. I have no intention of unblocking this bot until I see a full explanation of why you thought it was appropriate for an interwiki bot to be making the edits this bot was making and why you didn't seek approval (where I would have told you to use tools: and to avoid page archives). --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 01:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
:I am doing this changes on all wikis, as http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/ is a '''dead''' domain! It has been replaced by http://toolserver.org/ instead. If it's that strict with it ("Pure interwiki bot."), I promise to not do any other changes but interwiki links anymore. Nevertheless, the changes were '''not''' inappropriate; they fixed broken URLs; thus please unblock. --- Best regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 02:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
:P.s.: But how to include URL parameters with [[tools:]] (? and & get URL escaped then ;-)? --[[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 02:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
::You were editing archives and other pages that are explicitly not supposed to be edited by bots. And if, tomorrow, toolserver.org stops working, all of the link fixes you've made will break again. If you instead use {{nwt|[[tools:~veinor/cgi-bin/VeinorBot.cgi|here]]}}, for example, it won't break (as badly) if the URL changes in the future. Either way, a pure interwiki bot shouldn't be doing non-interwiki work. Your bot was approved for only interwiki changes. If you would like to make this type of edit, please file another bot request. I'll unblock your bot in a moment. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 02:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

== Bot blocked again ==

Your bot has been blocked again for performing tasks it is not authorised to do. If you can demonstrate that you got approval from BAG to run the bot to edit [[Template:Popular articles]], please do. Just notifying you, thought it would be courteous since I noticed the edits were highly suspect. Regards, — [[User:Neurolysis|neuro]][[User talk:Neurolysis|(talk)]] 19:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
:(ec) I have blocked your bot again for making inappropriate edits, the bot was approved as a "Pure interwiki bot." However, the bot has been editing [[Template:Popular articles]] and it is not approved to do so. Therefore, the bot will remain blocked until you explain the reason for this and seek approval from the BAG if you wish for your bot to continue its edits to [[Template:Popular articles]]. [[User:Thehelpfulone|'''The''']][[User_talk:Thehelpfulone| '''Helpful''']][[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone| '''One''']] 19:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
::This block seems entirely out of line and I'm strongly inclined to immediately unblock. If there's paperwork that needs to be filed, a warning (or even a nice note) is far more appropriate than an indefinite block. I see no evidence that this bot was causing any kind of harm to the project. This seems like any entirely punitive block. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 19:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Unblocked, but I think you should seek approval from BAG to make the edits to the template. [[User:Thehelpfulone|'''The''']][[User_talk:Thehelpfulone| '''Helpful''']][[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone| '''One''']] 19:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Sorry for that, but MZMcBride is right; there is no harm. See [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Numbo3-bot]] (although bureaucracy is really a pain for me, note that my bot/services are working on a lot of wikis (partially with other name(s)); altogether, bureaucracy eats a huge amount of time then; just doing something is much more efficient ;-) --- sorry again, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 21:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

== List of Latin digraphs ==

Please don't and interwikis to this article. There apparently is no such article in other wikis. (There are about 4 bots that do this over and over and over.) [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 14:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
:Probably some article(s) on other wiki(s) are incorrectly poiting to [[List of Latin digraphs]]. This can be fixed manually (only). --- Kind regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 23:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

== Duplicate links in [[:Template:Popular articles]] ==

[[WP:POPULAR]] transcludes [[:Template:Popular articles]] in a way that generates two "more" items that have different meanings: a collapsible frame and also a "» more" link. The former contains the list extended beyond the first 15, the latter links to the template page itself (same as the "v" link in the collapse-frame title-bar). That's pretty confusing UI! I think "» more" is only needed if the collapse-frame is not displayed. It should be controlled by the same #if logic as the collapse-frame (display one or the other) rather than controlled by <nowiki><includeonly></nowiki>. Does the bot edit the items in the template-page list or does it just upload the whole template page? That is, if I edit the template to try to improve the links, will the bot just overwrite my work? [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 05:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
:I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Popular_articles&diff=294333482&oldid=294328349 edited the template] to avoid duplicate "more" links, and tested its display in various direct and transclusion settings...seems to do what I wanted. Let's see how bot handles updating it... [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 07:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
::Nuked it:( [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 07:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello DMacks, the "» more" is intended for all circumstances, e.g. user showing only the top 5 on their user page. Shall I just call it "» source" e.g. instead of "» more"? -- Kind regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 23:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

== Incorrect function ==

Hi
Please check out the [[Dortmund Airport]] article. This bot replaced a valid language link instead of appending it. I have reverted this edit as I cannot block your bot. Regards [[User:TinyMark|TINY]][[User talk:TinyMark|MARK]] 12:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:Everything is OK with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dortmund_Airport&diff=296023812&oldid=294120167 this edit], "mk" has just been moved upwards and "vi" been placed there where "mk" had been ;-) --- Kind regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 13:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

== The Beatles ==

I noticed [[The Beatles]] article was commented out from [[Template:Popular articles]].[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Popular_articles&diff=next&oldid=298233861] I've been wondering what's going on with the hit numbers for that article for a while now. Do you have any more info? Thank you. [[User:Siawase|Siawase]] ([[User talk:Siawase|talk]]) 15:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
:Yes, I had to comment out this entry, as the numbers for [[The Beatles]] have been ridiculous high for too long; they are just inaccurate; +/-5000 hits steadily, 24 hours, every day. I consider that being plain traffic spam. The reason is most probably an automated process requesting the article over and over again, without the article actually being read, compare http://stats.grok.se/en/200811/The_Beatles – initially I thought there might be any music portal or music software suddenly linking or embedding the Wikipedia content, but I do not believe in that anymore. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Popular_articles&oldid=297946597 That high numbers] and then no other music related articles following close (like [http://stats.grok.se/en/200905/Madonna_(entertainer) Madonna] or [http://stats.grok.se/en/200905/Michael_Jackson Michael Jackson] or [http://stats.grok.se/en/200906/Eminem Eminem]), as well as mysterious music spam [[Wikipedia:Most missed articles|there]] forced me to hide that entry. As if there would be nothing more important and more interesting than [[The Beatles]], constantly all the time; that gave it the rest! ;-) I know [[The Beatles]] are popular, but not that popular :-D --- Best regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 21:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
::Thank you very much for your reply! I think you're correct in your assessment. I checked google trends and there are no spikes in the beatles searches there corresponding to the traffic here, and comparing to other artists it makes no sense either.[http://www.google.com/trends?q=the+beatles%2C+eminem&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0][http://www.google.com/trends?q=the+beatles%2C+eminem%2C+britney+spears&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0] It seems like a good idea to hide it to limit the value of the spamming. It's too bad someone decided to spam it too, since now any legitimate traffic spikes will be unnoticable with the already padded numbers, whether the article is hidden at popular articles or not. [[User:Siawase|Siawase]] ([[User talk:Siawase|talk]]) 20:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
:::That is truly sad, yes. But the numbers are still logged with this template, although hidden; but as long as the traffic is being spoofed, the numbers for [[The Beatles]] are useless, unfortunately. And unfortunately I do not have any access to the Squid server logs to set up an IP filter or something... --- Kind regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 22:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

== Adding/Deleting ==

In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_political_party%2Fdoc&diff=308539967&oldid=307470490 this] edit, the summary text from your bot mentions "robot Adding: mwl:Modelo:Partido político, pt:Predefinição:Info/Partido Político", but it neglects why it deleted 16 others. I can see a multiple issues here. <tt>+[[User:Mwtoews|m]][[User talk:Mwtoews|t]]</tt> 03:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
:I do not know why PyWikipedia (the used framework for most interwiki bots) did this (especially in regard to the wrong summary)); maybe the other wikis didn't link back or respectively the iw links outside were conflicting in some way (/doc and ../). But my bot is not touching any template for interwiki linking anymore, anyway (was only for minutes; checked quickly once, didn't see that the summary was misleading too). PyWikipedia has too many serious bugs when it comes to the template namespace. --- Sorry for that, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 14:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Numbo3-bot

2009-09-28T14:50:19Z

Numbo3: /* Adding/Deleting */ re

== SZL ==
Please do not add "szl" interwiki links, they doesn't work. - [[User:Darwinek|Darwinek]] ([[User talk:Darwinek|talk]]) 21:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
:Have seen that issue, wiki has been created, PyWikipedia contains code; but links do not work. --- Sorry, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 21:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
::Links do work now. --- Best regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 00:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

== [[Fern]] ==

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that Numbo3-bot just made a mistake: A user added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fern&curid=66512&diff=226395168&oldid=226170839] the interwiki TL link, and about 12 hours later the bot added the same link again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fern&curid=66512&diff=226489681&oldid=226395168] . Maybe you want to check what went wrong... [[User:Rror|Rror]] ([[User talk:Rror|talk]]) 18:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
:Strange. I tried to reproduce this, but it didn't happen again. --- Best regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 02:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

== Bot blocked ==

Your bot has been blocked for its recent edits. The were entirely inappropriate. The bot was approved as a "Pure interwiki bot." Your bot was "correcting" links in a horrible fashion. If it is going to be editing archives and other pages, it should at least use an interwiki prefix like [[tools:|tools:]] so that the links won't break again in the future. I have no intention of unblocking this bot until I see a full explanation of why you thought it was appropriate for an interwiki bot to be making the edits this bot was making and why you didn't seek approval (where I would have told you to use tools: and to avoid page archives). --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 01:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
:I am doing this changes on all wikis, as http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/ is a '''dead''' domain! It has been replaced by http://toolserver.org/ instead. If it's that strict with it ("Pure interwiki bot."), I promise to not do any other changes but interwiki links anymore. Nevertheless, the changes were '''not''' inappropriate; they fixed broken URLs; thus please unblock. --- Best regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 02:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
:P.s.: But how to include URL parameters with [[tools:]] (? and & get URL escaped then ;-)? --[[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 02:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
::You were editing archives and other pages that are explicitly not supposed to be edited by bots. And if, tomorrow, toolserver.org stops working, all of the link fixes you've made will break again. If you instead use {{nwt|[[tools:~veinor/cgi-bin/VeinorBot.cgi|here]]}}, for example, it won't break (as badly) if the URL changes in the future. Either way, a pure interwiki bot shouldn't be doing non-interwiki work. Your bot was approved for only interwiki changes. If you would like to make this type of edit, please file another bot request. I'll unblock your bot in a moment. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 02:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

== Bot blocked again ==

Your bot has been blocked again for performing tasks it is not authorised to do. If you can demonstrate that you got approval from BAG to run the bot to edit [[Template:Popular articles]], please do. Just notifying you, thought it would be courteous since I noticed the edits were highly suspect. Regards, — [[User:Neurolysis|neuro]][[User talk:Neurolysis|(talk)]] 19:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
:(ec) I have blocked your bot again for making inappropriate edits, the bot was approved as a "Pure interwiki bot." However, the bot has been editing [[Template:Popular articles]] and it is not approved to do so. Therefore, the bot will remain blocked until you explain the reason for this and seek approval from the BAG if you wish for your bot to continue its edits to [[Template:Popular articles]]. [[User:Thehelpfulone|'''The''']][[User_talk:Thehelpfulone| '''Helpful''']][[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone| '''One''']] 19:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
::This block seems entirely out of line and I'm strongly inclined to immediately unblock. If there's paperwork that needs to be filed, a warning (or even a nice note) is far more appropriate than an indefinite block. I see no evidence that this bot was causing any kind of harm to the project. This seems like any entirely punitive block. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 19:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Unblocked, but I think you should seek approval from BAG to make the edits to the template. [[User:Thehelpfulone|'''The''']][[User_talk:Thehelpfulone| '''Helpful''']][[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone| '''One''']] 19:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Sorry for that, but MZMcBride is right; there is no harm. See [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Numbo3-bot]] (although bureaucracy is really a pain for me, note that my bot/services are working on a lot of wikis (partially with other name(s)); altogether, bureaucracy eats a huge amount of time then; just doing something is much more efficient ;-) --- sorry again, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 21:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

== List of Latin digraphs ==

Please don't and interwikis to this article. There apparently is no such article in other wikis. (There are about 4 bots that do this over and over and over.) [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 14:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
:Probably some article(s) on other wiki(s) are incorrectly poiting to [[List of Latin digraphs]]. This can be fixed manually (only). --- Kind regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 23:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

== Duplicate links in [[:Template:Popular articles]] ==

[[WP:POPULAR]] transcludes [[:Template:Popular articles]] in a way that generates two "more" items that have different meanings: a collapsible frame and also a "» more" link. The former contains the list extended beyond the first 15, the latter links to the template page itself (same as the "v" link in the collapse-frame title-bar). That's pretty confusing UI! I think "» more" is only needed if the collapse-frame is not displayed. It should be controlled by the same #if logic as the collapse-frame (display one or the other) rather than controlled by <nowiki><includeonly></nowiki>. Does the bot edit the items in the template-page list or does it just upload the whole template page? That is, if I edit the template to try to improve the links, will the bot just overwrite my work? [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 05:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
:I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Popular_articles&diff=294333482&oldid=294328349 edited the template] to avoid duplicate "more" links, and tested its display in various direct and transclusion settings...seems to do what I wanted. Let's see how bot handles updating it... [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 07:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
::Nuked it:( [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 07:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello DMacks, the "» more" is intended for all circumstances, e.g. user showing only the top 5 on their user page. Shall I just call it "» source" e.g. instead of "» more"? -- Kind regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 23:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

== Incorrect function ==

Hi
Please check out the [[Dortmund Airport]] article. This bot replaced a valid language link instead of appending it. I have reverted this edit as I cannot block your bot. Regards [[User:TinyMark|TINY]][[User talk:TinyMark|MARK]] 12:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:Everything is OK with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dortmund_Airport&diff=296023812&oldid=294120167 this edit], "mk" has just been moved upwards and "vi" been placed there where "mk" had been ;-) --- Kind regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 13:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

== The Beatles ==

I noticed [[The Beatles]] article was commented out from [[Template:Popular articles]].[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Popular_articles&diff=next&oldid=298233861] I've been wondering what's going on with the hit numbers for that article for a while now. Do you have any more info? Thank you. [[User:Siawase|Siawase]] ([[User talk:Siawase|talk]]) 15:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
:Yes, I had to comment out this entry, as the numbers for [[The Beatles]] have been ridiculous high for too long; they are just inaccurate; +/-5000 hits steadily, 24 hours, every day. I consider that being plain traffic spam. The reason is most probably an automated process requesting the article over and over again, without the article actually being read, compare http://stats.grok.se/en/200811/The_Beatles – initially I thought there might be any music portal or music software suddenly linking or embedding the Wikipedia content, but I do not believe in that anymore. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Popular_articles&oldid=297946597 That high numbers] and then no other music related articles following close (like [http://stats.grok.se/en/200905/Madonna_(entertainer) Madonna] or [http://stats.grok.se/en/200905/Michael_Jackson Michael Jackson] or [http://stats.grok.se/en/200906/Eminem Eminem]), as well as mysterious music spam [[Wikipedia:Most missed articles|there]] forced me to hide that entry. As if there would be nothing more important and more interesting than [[The Beatles]], constantly all the time; that gave it the rest! ;-) I know [[The Beatles]] are popular, but not that popular :-D --- Best regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 21:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
::Thank you very much for your reply! I think you're correct in your assessment. I checked google trends and there are no spikes in the beatles searches there corresponding to the traffic here, and comparing to other artists it makes no sense either.[http://www.google.com/trends?q=the+beatles%2C+eminem&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0][http://www.google.com/trends?q=the+beatles%2C+eminem%2C+britney+spears&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0] It seems like a good idea to hide it to limit the value of the spamming. It's too bad someone decided to spam it too, since now any legitimate traffic spikes will be unnoticable with the already padded numbers, whether the article is hidden at popular articles or not. [[User:Siawase|Siawase]] ([[User talk:Siawase|talk]]) 20:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
:::That is truly sad, yes. But the numbers are still logged with this template, although hidden; but as long as the traffic is being spoofed, the numbers for [[The Beatles]] are useless, unfortunately. And unfortunately I do not have any access to the Squid server logs to set up an IP filter or something... --- Kind regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 22:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

== Adding/Deleting ==

In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_political_party%2Fdoc&diff=308539967&oldid=307470490 this] edit, the summary text from your bot mentions "robot Adding: mwl:Modelo:Partido político, pt:Predefinição:Info/Partido Político", but it neglects why it deleted 16 others. I can see a multiple issues here. <tt>+[[User:Mwtoews|m]][[User talk:Mwtoews|t]]</tt> 03:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
:I do not know why PyWikipedia (the used framework for most interwiki bots) did this; maybe the other wikis didn't link back or respectively the iw links outside were conflicting in some way (/doc and ../). But my bot is not touching any template for interwiki linking anymore, anyway (was only for minutes; checked quickly once, didn't see that the summary was misleading too). PyWikipedia has too many serious bugs when it comes to the template namespace. --- Sorry for that, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 14:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Numbo3

2009-08-07T08:18:49Z

2009-07-01T11:09:49Z

2009-06-27T21:09:14Z

Numbo3: /* The Beatles */

== SZL ==
Please do not add "szl" interwiki links, they doesn't work. - [[User:Darwinek|Darwinek]] ([[User talk:Darwinek|talk]]) 21:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
:Have seen that issue, wiki has been created, PyWikipedia contains code; but links do not work. --- Sorry, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 21:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
::Links do work now. --- Best regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 00:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

== [[Fern]] ==

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that Numbo3-bot just made a mistake: A user added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fern&curid=66512&diff=226395168&oldid=226170839] the interwiki TL link, and about 12 hours later the bot added the same link again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fern&curid=66512&diff=226489681&oldid=226395168] . Maybe you want to check what went wrong... [[User:Rror|Rror]] ([[User talk:Rror|talk]]) 18:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
:Strange. I tried to reproduce this, but it didn't happen again. --- Best regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 02:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

== Bot blocked ==

Your bot has been blocked for its recent edits. The were entirely inappropriate. The bot was approved as a "Pure interwiki bot." Your bot was "correcting" links in a horrible fashion. If it is going to be editing archives and other pages, it should at least use an interwiki prefix like [[tools:|tools:]] so that the links won't break again in the future. I have no intention of unblocking this bot until I see a full explanation of why you thought it was appropriate for an interwiki bot to be making the edits this bot was making and why you didn't seek approval (where I would have told you to use tools: and to avoid page archives). --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 01:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
:I am doing this changes on all wikis, as http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/ is a '''dead''' domain! It has been replaced by http://toolserver.org/ instead. If it's that strict with it ("Pure interwiki bot."), I promise to not do any other changes but interwiki links anymore. Nevertheless, the changes were '''not''' inappropriate; they fixed broken URLs; thus please unblock. --- Best regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 02:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
:P.s.: But how to include URL parameters with [[tools:]] (? and & get URL escaped then ;-)? --[[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 02:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
::You were editing archives and other pages that are explicitly not supposed to be edited by bots. And if, tomorrow, toolserver.org stops working, all of the link fixes you've made will break again. If you instead use {{nwt|[[tools:~veinor/cgi-bin/VeinorBot.cgi|here]]}}, for example, it won't break (as badly) if the URL changes in the future. Either way, a pure interwiki bot shouldn't be doing non-interwiki work. Your bot was approved for only interwiki changes. If you would like to make this type of edit, please file another bot request. I'll unblock your bot in a moment. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 02:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

== Bot blocked again ==

Your bot has been blocked again for performing tasks it is not authorised to do. If you can demonstrate that you got approval from BAG to run the bot to edit [[Template:Popular articles]], please do. Just notifying you, thought it would be courteous since I noticed the edits were highly suspect. Regards, — [[User:Neurolysis|neuro]][[User talk:Neurolysis|(talk)]] 19:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
:(ec) I have blocked your bot again for making inappropriate edits, the bot was approved as a "Pure interwiki bot." However, the bot has been editing [[Template:Popular articles]] and it is not approved to do so. Therefore, the bot will remain blocked until you explain the reason for this and seek approval from the BAG if you wish for your bot to continue its edits to [[Template:Popular articles]]. [[User:Thehelpfulone|'''The''']][[User_talk:Thehelpfulone| '''Helpful''']][[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone| '''One''']] 19:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
::This block seems entirely out of line and I'm strongly inclined to immediately unblock. If there's paperwork that needs to be filed, a warning (or even a nice note) is far more appropriate than an indefinite block. I see no evidence that this bot was causing any kind of harm to the project. This seems like any entirely punitive block. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 19:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Unblocked, but I think you should seek approval from BAG to make the edits to the template. [[User:Thehelpfulone|'''The''']][[User_talk:Thehelpfulone| '''Helpful''']][[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone| '''One''']] 19:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Sorry for that, but MZMcBride is right; there is no harm. See [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Numbo3-bot]] (although bureaucracy is really a pain for me, note that my bot/services are working on a lot of wikis (partially with other name(s)); altogether, bureaucracy eats a huge amount of time then; just doing something is much more efficient ;-) --- sorry again, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 21:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

== List of Latin digraphs ==

Please don't and interwikis to this article. There apparently is no such article in other wikis. (There are about 4 bots that do this over and over and over.) [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 14:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
:Probably some article(s) on other wiki(s) are incorrectly poiting to [[List of Latin digraphs]]. This can be fixed manually (only). --- Kind regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 23:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

== Duplicate links in [[:Template:Popular articles]] ==

[[WP:POPULAR]] transcludes [[:Template:Popular articles]] in a way that generates two "more" items that have different meanings: a collapsible frame and also a "» more" link. The former contains the list extended beyond the first 15, the latter links to the template page itself (same as the "v" link in the collapse-frame title-bar). That's pretty confusing UI! I think "» more" is only needed if the collapse-frame is not displayed. It should be controlled by the same #if logic as the collapse-frame (display one or the other) rather than controlled by <nowiki><includeonly></nowiki>. Does the bot edit the items in the template-page list or does it just upload the whole template page? That is, if I edit the template to try to improve the links, will the bot just overwrite my work? [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 05:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
:I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Popular_articles&diff=294333482&oldid=294328349 edited the template] to avoid duplicate "more" links, and tested its display in various direct and transclusion settings...seems to do what I wanted. Let's see how bot handles updating it... [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 07:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
::Nuked it:( [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 07:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello DMacks, the "» more" is intended for all circumstances, e.g. user showing only the top 5 on their user page. Shall I just call it "» source" e.g. instead of "» more"? -- Kind regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 23:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

== Incorrect function ==

Hi
Please check out the [[Dortmund Airport]] article. This bot replaced a valid language link instead of appending it. I have reverted this edit as I cannot block your bot. Regards [[User:TinyMark|TINY]][[User talk:TinyMark|MARK]] 12:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:Everything is OK with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dortmund_Airport&diff=296023812&oldid=294120167 this edit], "mk" has just been moved upwards and "vi" been placed there where "mk" had been ;-) --- Kind regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 13:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

== The Beatles ==

I noticed [[The Beatles]] article was commented out from [[Template:Popular articles]].[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Popular_articles&diff=next&oldid=298233861] I've been wondering what's going on with the hit numbers for that article for a while now. Do you have any more info? Thank you. [[User:Siawase|Siawase]] ([[User talk:Siawase|talk]]) 15:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
:Yes, I had to comment out this entry, as the numbers for [[The Beatles]] have been ridiculous high for too long; they are just inaccurate; +/-5000 hits steadily, 24 hours, every day. The reason is most probably an automated process requesting the article over and over again, without the article actually being read, compare http://stats.grok.se/en/200811/The_Beatles – initially I thought there might be any music portal or music software suddenly linking or embedding the Wikipedia content, but I do not believe in that anymore. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Popular_articles&oldid=297946597 That high numbers] and then no other music related articles following close (like [http://stats.grok.se/en/200905/Madonna_(entertainer) Madonna] or [http://stats.grok.se/en/200905/Michael_Jackson Michael Jackson] or [http://stats.grok.se/en/200905/Eminem Eminem]?), as well as mysterious music spam [[Wikipedia:Most missed articles|there]] forced me to hide that entry. As if there would be nothing more important and more interesting than [[The Beatles]], constantly all the time; that gave it the rest! ;-) I know [[The Beatles]] are popular, but not that popular :-D --- Best regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 21:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Numbo3-bot

2009-06-27T21:05:37Z

Numbo3: /* The Beatles */

== SZL ==
Please do not add "szl" interwiki links, they doesn't work. - [[User:Darwinek|Darwinek]] ([[User talk:Darwinek|talk]]) 21:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
:Have seen that issue, wiki has been created, PyWikipedia contains code; but links do not work. --- Sorry, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 21:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
::Links do work now. --- Best regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 00:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

== [[Fern]] ==

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that Numbo3-bot just made a mistake: A user added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fern&curid=66512&diff=226395168&oldid=226170839] the interwiki TL link, and about 12 hours later the bot added the same link again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fern&curid=66512&diff=226489681&oldid=226395168] . Maybe you want to check what went wrong... [[User:Rror|Rror]] ([[User talk:Rror|talk]]) 18:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
:Strange. I tried to reproduce this, but it didn't happen again. --- Best regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 02:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

== Bot blocked ==

Your bot has been blocked for its recent edits. The were entirely inappropriate. The bot was approved as a "Pure interwiki bot." Your bot was "correcting" links in a horrible fashion. If it is going to be editing archives and other pages, it should at least use an interwiki prefix like [[tools:|tools:]] so that the links won't break again in the future. I have no intention of unblocking this bot until I see a full explanation of why you thought it was appropriate for an interwiki bot to be making the edits this bot was making and why you didn't seek approval (where I would have told you to use tools: and to avoid page archives). --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 01:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
:I am doing this changes on all wikis, as http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/ is a '''dead''' domain! It has been replaced by http://toolserver.org/ instead. If it's that strict with it ("Pure interwiki bot."), I promise to not do any other changes but interwiki links anymore. Nevertheless, the changes were '''not''' inappropriate; they fixed broken URLs; thus please unblock. --- Best regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 02:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
:P.s.: But how to include URL parameters with [[tools:]] (? and & get URL escaped then ;-)? --[[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 02:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
::You were editing archives and other pages that are explicitly not supposed to be edited by bots. And if, tomorrow, toolserver.org stops working, all of the link fixes you've made will break again. If you instead use {{nwt|[[tools:~veinor/cgi-bin/VeinorBot.cgi|here]]}}, for example, it won't break (as badly) if the URL changes in the future. Either way, a pure interwiki bot shouldn't be doing non-interwiki work. Your bot was approved for only interwiki changes. If you would like to make this type of edit, please file another bot request. I'll unblock your bot in a moment. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 02:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

== Bot blocked again ==

Your bot has been blocked again for performing tasks it is not authorised to do. If you can demonstrate that you got approval from BAG to run the bot to edit [[Template:Popular articles]], please do. Just notifying you, thought it would be courteous since I noticed the edits were highly suspect. Regards, — [[User:Neurolysis|neuro]][[User talk:Neurolysis|(talk)]] 19:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
:(ec) I have blocked your bot again for making inappropriate edits, the bot was approved as a "Pure interwiki bot." However, the bot has been editing [[Template:Popular articles]] and it is not approved to do so. Therefore, the bot will remain blocked until you explain the reason for this and seek approval from the BAG if you wish for your bot to continue its edits to [[Template:Popular articles]]. [[User:Thehelpfulone|'''The''']][[User_talk:Thehelpfulone| '''Helpful''']][[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone| '''One''']] 19:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
::This block seems entirely out of line and I'm strongly inclined to immediately unblock. If there's paperwork that needs to be filed, a warning (or even a nice note) is far more appropriate than an indefinite block. I see no evidence that this bot was causing any kind of harm to the project. This seems like any entirely punitive block. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 19:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Unblocked, but I think you should seek approval from BAG to make the edits to the template. [[User:Thehelpfulone|'''The''']][[User_talk:Thehelpfulone| '''Helpful''']][[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone| '''One''']] 19:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Sorry for that, but MZMcBride is right; there is no harm. See [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Numbo3-bot]] (although bureaucracy is really a pain for me, note that my bot/services are working on a lot of wikis (partially with other name(s)); altogether, bureaucracy eats a huge amount of time then; just doing something is much more efficient ;-) --- sorry again, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 21:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

== List of Latin digraphs ==

Please don't and interwikis to this article. There apparently is no such article in other wikis. (There are about 4 bots that do this over and over and over.) [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 14:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
:Probably some article(s) on other wiki(s) are incorrectly poiting to [[List of Latin digraphs]]. This can be fixed manually (only). --- Kind regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 23:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

== Duplicate links in [[:Template:Popular articles]] ==

[[WP:POPULAR]] transcludes [[:Template:Popular articles]] in a way that generates two "more" items that have different meanings: a collapsible frame and also a "» more" link. The former contains the list extended beyond the first 15, the latter links to the template page itself (same as the "v" link in the collapse-frame title-bar). That's pretty confusing UI! I think "» more" is only needed if the collapse-frame is not displayed. It should be controlled by the same #if logic as the collapse-frame (display one or the other) rather than controlled by <nowiki><includeonly></nowiki>. Does the bot edit the items in the template-page list or does it just upload the whole template page? That is, if I edit the template to try to improve the links, will the bot just overwrite my work? [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 05:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
:I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Popular_articles&diff=294333482&oldid=294328349 edited the template] to avoid duplicate "more" links, and tested its display in various direct and transclusion settings...seems to do what I wanted. Let's see how bot handles updating it... [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 07:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
::Nuked it:( [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 07:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello DMacks, the "» more" is intended for all circumstances, e.g. user showing only the top 5 on their user page. Shall I just call it "» source" e.g. instead of "» more"? -- Kind regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 23:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

== Incorrect function ==

Hi
Please check out the [[Dortmund Airport]] article. This bot replaced a valid language link instead of appending it. I have reverted this edit as I cannot block your bot. Regards [[User:TinyMark|TINY]][[User talk:TinyMark|MARK]] 12:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:Everything is OK with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dortmund_Airport&diff=296023812&oldid=294120167 this edit], "mk" has just been moved upwards and "vi" been placed there where "mk" had been ;-) --- Kind regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 13:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

== The Beatles ==

I noticed [[The Beatles]] article was commented out from [[Template:Popular articles]].[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Popular_articles&diff=next&oldid=298233861] I've been wondering what's going on with the hit numbers for that article for a while now. Do you have any more info? Thank you. [[User:Siawase|Siawase]] ([[User talk:Siawase|talk]]) 15:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
:Yes, I had to comment out this entry, as the numbers for [[The Beatles]] have been ridiculous high for too long; they are just inaccurate; +/-5000 hits steadily, 24 hours, every day. The reason is most probably an automated process requesting the article over and over again, without the article actually being read, compare http://stats.grok.se/en/200811/The_Beatles – initially I thought there might be any music portal or music software suddenly linking or embedding the Wikipedia content, but I do not believe in that anymore. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Popular_articles&oldid=297946597 That high numbers] and then no other music related articles following close (like [http://stats.grok.se/en/200905/Madonna_(entertainer) Madonna] or [http://stats.grok.se/en/200905/Michael_Jackson Michael Jackson]), as well as mysterious music spam [[Wikipedia:Most missed articles|there]] forced me to hide that entry. As if there would be nothing more important and more interesting than [[The Beatles]], constantly all the time; that gave it the rest! ;-) I know [[The Beatles]] are popular, but not that popular :-D --- Best regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 21:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Numbo3-bot

2009-06-27T21:02:03Z

Numbo3: /* The Beatles */ answer

== SZL ==
Please do not add "szl" interwiki links, they doesn't work. - [[User:Darwinek|Darwinek]] ([[User talk:Darwinek|talk]]) 21:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
:Have seen that issue, wiki has been created, PyWikipedia contains code; but links do not work. --- Sorry, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 21:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
::Links do work now. --- Best regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 00:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

== [[Fern]] ==

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that Numbo3-bot just made a mistake: A user added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fern&curid=66512&diff=226395168&oldid=226170839] the interwiki TL link, and about 12 hours later the bot added the same link again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fern&curid=66512&diff=226489681&oldid=226395168] . Maybe you want to check what went wrong... [[User:Rror|Rror]] ([[User talk:Rror|talk]]) 18:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
:Strange. I tried to reproduce this, but it didn't happen again. --- Best regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 02:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

== Bot blocked ==

Your bot has been blocked for its recent edits. The were entirely inappropriate. The bot was approved as a "Pure interwiki bot." Your bot was "correcting" links in a horrible fashion. If it is going to be editing archives and other pages, it should at least use an interwiki prefix like [[tools:|tools:]] so that the links won't break again in the future. I have no intention of unblocking this bot until I see a full explanation of why you thought it was appropriate for an interwiki bot to be making the edits this bot was making and why you didn't seek approval (where I would have told you to use tools: and to avoid page archives). --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 01:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
:I am doing this changes on all wikis, as http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/ is a '''dead''' domain! It has been replaced by http://toolserver.org/ instead. If it's that strict with it ("Pure interwiki bot."), I promise to not do any other changes but interwiki links anymore. Nevertheless, the changes were '''not''' inappropriate; they fixed broken URLs; thus please unblock. --- Best regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 02:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
:P.s.: But how to include URL parameters with [[tools:]] (? and & get URL escaped then ;-)? --[[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 02:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
::You were editing archives and other pages that are explicitly not supposed to be edited by bots. And if, tomorrow, toolserver.org stops working, all of the link fixes you've made will break again. If you instead use {{nwt|[[tools:~veinor/cgi-bin/VeinorBot.cgi|here]]}}, for example, it won't break (as badly) if the URL changes in the future. Either way, a pure interwiki bot shouldn't be doing non-interwiki work. Your bot was approved for only interwiki changes. If you would like to make this type of edit, please file another bot request. I'll unblock your bot in a moment. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 02:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

== Bot blocked again ==

Your bot has been blocked again for performing tasks it is not authorised to do. If you can demonstrate that you got approval from BAG to run the bot to edit [[Template:Popular articles]], please do. Just notifying you, thought it would be courteous since I noticed the edits were highly suspect. Regards, — [[User:Neurolysis|neuro]][[User talk:Neurolysis|(talk)]] 19:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
:(ec) I have blocked your bot again for making inappropriate edits, the bot was approved as a "Pure interwiki bot." However, the bot has been editing [[Template:Popular articles]] and it is not approved to do so. Therefore, the bot will remain blocked until you explain the reason for this and seek approval from the BAG if you wish for your bot to continue its edits to [[Template:Popular articles]]. [[User:Thehelpfulone|'''The''']][[User_talk:Thehelpfulone| '''Helpful''']][[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone| '''One''']] 19:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
::This block seems entirely out of line and I'm strongly inclined to immediately unblock. If there's paperwork that needs to be filed, a warning (or even a nice note) is far more appropriate than an indefinite block. I see no evidence that this bot was causing any kind of harm to the project. This seems like any entirely punitive block. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 19:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Unblocked, but I think you should seek approval from BAG to make the edits to the template. [[User:Thehelpfulone|'''The''']][[User_talk:Thehelpfulone| '''Helpful''']][[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone| '''One''']] 19:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Sorry for that, but MZMcBride is right; there is no harm. See [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Numbo3-bot]] (although bureaucracy is really a pain for me, note that my bot/services are working on a lot of wikis (partially with other name(s)); altogether, bureaucracy eats a huge amount of time then; just doing something is much more efficient ;-) --- sorry again, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 21:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

== List of Latin digraphs ==

Please don't and interwikis to this article. There apparently is no such article in other wikis. (There are about 4 bots that do this over and over and over.) [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 14:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
:Probably some article(s) on other wiki(s) are incorrectly poiting to [[List of Latin digraphs]]. This can be fixed manually (only). --- Kind regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 23:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

== Duplicate links in [[:Template:Popular articles]] ==

[[WP:POPULAR]] transcludes [[:Template:Popular articles]] in a way that generates two "more" items that have different meanings: a collapsible frame and also a "» more" link. The former contains the list extended beyond the first 15, the latter links to the template page itself (same as the "v" link in the collapse-frame title-bar). That's pretty confusing UI! I think "» more" is only needed if the collapse-frame is not displayed. It should be controlled by the same #if logic as the collapse-frame (display one or the other) rather than controlled by <nowiki><includeonly></nowiki>. Does the bot edit the items in the template-page list or does it just upload the whole template page? That is, if I edit the template to try to improve the links, will the bot just overwrite my work? [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 05:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
:I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Popular_articles&diff=294333482&oldid=294328349 edited the template] to avoid duplicate "more" links, and tested its display in various direct and transclusion settings...seems to do what I wanted. Let's see how bot handles updating it... [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 07:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
::Nuked it:( [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 07:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello DMacks, the "» more" is intended for all circumstances, e.g. user showing only the top 5 on their user page. Shall I just call it "» source" e.g. instead of "» more"? -- Kind regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 23:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

== Incorrect function ==

Hi
Please check out the [[Dortmund Airport]] article. This bot replaced a valid language link instead of appending it. I have reverted this edit as I cannot block your bot. Regards [[User:TinyMark|TINY]][[User talk:TinyMark|MARK]] 12:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:Everything is OK with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dortmund_Airport&diff=296023812&oldid=294120167 this edit], "mk" has just been moved upwards and "vi" been placed there where "mk" had been ;-) --- Kind regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 13:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

== The Beatles ==

I noticed [[The Beatles]] article was commented out from [[Template:Popular articles]].[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Popular_articles&diff=next&oldid=298233861] I've been wondering what's going on with the hit numbers for that article for a while now. Do you have any more info? Thank you. [[User:Siawase|Siawase]] ([[User talk:Siawase|talk]]) 15:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
:Yes, I had to comment out this entry, as the numbers for [[The Beatles]] have been ridiculous high for too long; they are just inaccurate; +/-5000 hits steadily, 24 hours, every day. The reason is most probably an automated process requesting the article over and over again, without the article actually being read, compare http://stats.grok.se/en/200811/The_Beatles – initially I thought there might be any music portal or music software suddenly linking or embedding the Wikipedia content, but I do not believe in that anymore. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Popular_articles&oldid=297946597 That high numbers] and then no other music related articles following close (like [http://stats.grok.se/en/200811/Madonna Madonna]), as well as mysterious music spam [[Wikipedia:Most missed articles|there]] forced me to hide that entry. As if there would be nothing more important and more interesting than [[The Beatles]], constantly all the time; that gave it the rest! ;-) I know [[The Beatles]] are popular, but not that popular :-D --- Best regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 21:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Pixelface

2009-06-24T03:07:13Z

Numbo3: /* Template:Linked on Google News */ new section

{{Archive box|[[/Archive 1|August 2006 to December 31, 2007]] [[/Archive 2|January to March 2008]] [[/Archive 3|April 2008 to February 2009]]}}

==Happy [[Saint Patrick’s Day]]!==
[[Image:Irish clover.jpg|75x100px|left]]
On behalf of the [[Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign]], we just want to spread [[Wikipedia:WikiLove]] by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --[[User:A Nobody|A Nobody]]''[[User talk:A Nobody|My talk]]'' 15:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
:Thank you. Happy Saint Patrick's Day to you to. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 19:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
::You're welcome and thanks! Sincerely, --[[User:A Nobody|A Nobody]]''[[User talk:A Nobody|My talk]]'' 16:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

== Alert ==

I'm just letting you know that I filed a [[WP:WQA]] alert, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Pixelface.27s_behaviors_and_civility this page], regarding your behavior on several talk pages. [[User:Bignole|'''  BIGNOLE ''']] [[User talk:Bignole|(Contact me)]] 16:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
:Thank you for letting me know. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 03:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

::I'm only going to mention this once, as a courtesy. Please watch the tone you take with me and your fellow editors. If you disagree over something, that's fine. Your rudeit i attitude ("you're wrong, yet again") is uncouth, unprofessional, and will not be tolerated any longer. My patience with it has dried up. Just to clarify, because you feel that NOTE is not a requirement does not mean that those who do are "wrong". It is your opinion, nothing more. Your opinion is no more "right" than anyone else's opinion. Please try and respect other people's opinions on Wikipedia, it will only serve you better in the future. Thanks, and cheers. [[User:Bignole|'''  BIGNOLE ''']] [[User talk:Bignole|(Contact me)]] 00:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

:::Listen, you cannot keep making false claims. How can I say that any more civilly? If you say something incorrect, and someone point out that you're incorrect, and you think that's rude, then simply stop spreading misinformation and people will stop telling you that you're wrong. If you say something that's incorrect, I will point it out. It's not a matter of disagreement. It's a matter of you being ''clearly'' wrong and misrepresenting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You ''are'' wrong. That's the point. Would you like it if I kept making false statements as if what I was saying was correct? You are blatantly wrong when you say that Wikipedia requires every article to provide significant coverage. That is a fact, I'm sorry to say. I can respect your opinions just fine — but I ''cannot'' respect your false statements. If it's ''your opinion'' that Wikipedia requires significant coverage in every article, you may want to point out that that's ''your opinion'' when you say as much, and stop making people think that what you're saying is a fact. Go ahead and say "In my opinion, every article must provide significant coverage" all you want. But please ''do not'' misrepresent Wikipedia's policies and guidelies and say that Wikipedia requires it. Thank you for your message, and you're courtesy. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 01:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

::::Per [[WP:NOTE]]: "''Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article. Article topics need to be notable, or "worthy of notice.''" - "''A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below.''" - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.''" - The page clearly says this. Now, it is your interpretation that this does not apply to all articles, but this page does not say "this does not apply to every article". If it said that, then I wouldn't assume that "every" article requires significant coverage. You can do what you want with it, but the page's wording is on my side. The "opinion" part comes from your personal assessment on whether "notability" is something every article must satisfy. If you believe that every episode is notable, then per [[WP:NOTE]] it must meet the GNG requirements, as the "episode" is a "topic". Per the GNG, "significant coverage" is required. That is what is says, plain and simple. I'm not making it up, I'm not misinterpreting it, I'm merely citing it verbatim. [[User:Bignole|'''  BIGNOLE ''']] [[User talk:Bignole|(Contact me)]] 01:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, and [[WP:NOTE]] said topics ''should'' be notable up until Equazcion unilaterally [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability&diff=270364428&oldid=270345251 changed] it last month without consensus to do so, which is discussed on the talkpage. "Should" does not mean must. And a ''guideline'' cannot enforce ''musts'' anyway. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, the topic is ''probably'' notable. If a topic ''has not'' received significant coverage, that does not therefore mean that the topic is ''not'' notable. [[WP:NOTE]] has ''never'' said "''Only'' if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable" — and if it ever does, that phrase is false anyway.

:::::Every article does ''not'' require significant coverage. Why is that so '''difficult''' for you to understand? Do the Himalayas require significant coverage in order to be notable? No. People were noticing the Himalayas before the written word was even invented, and they'll be noticing the Himalays long after you and I are dead. And no, the page's wording is ''not'' "on your side." [[WP:NOTE]] itself says "Notability requires objective evidence" — '''not''' "Notability requires significant coverage." '''You are wrong'''. And that section that Kubigula wrote is ''also'' disputed. You clearly ''do not'' understand the [[WP:GNG]]. It currently says, and I quote, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Notice it does not say "Only if a topic.." Learn the [[If_and_only_if#The_difference_between_if.2C_only_if.2C_and_iff|difference]] '''please'''. The GNG also says "A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is ''usually'' worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia." And the GNG is merely [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]]'s opinion ''anyway''.

:::::Notability is a ''subjective opinion''. Like you said above, opinions ''cannot'' be wrong. So if it's someone's opinion that every episode of a notable show is notable, they ''cannot'' be wrong. And the GNG is ''not'' a requirement. "Per the GNG", coverage is ''not'' required. That is not what it says, so please stop saying it does. You ''are'' making it up, you ''are'' misinterpreting it, you're ''not'' citing it verbatim, so please stop it. Thank you. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 15:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::Oh, and by the way, if Wikipedia really ''did'' require every article to provide significant coverage, you ''never'' could have created the article [[Traitor (comics)]]. But you did, and it doesn't. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 15:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

::::::Go back to the page before he changed it, and you'll see that all of my quoted text appears before he changed the wording, so your argument about him unilaterally changing the page is irrelevant because it doesn't affect anything I quoted. The page already stated that topics should meet the GNG, and the GNG says "significant coverage". Even if you stick with the "probably notable", lack of "significant coverage" only means that there is not notability asserted. Without information reliably sourced then you cannot argue something is notable. It's all he said/she said, with no actual facts to back it up. Exactly where, please point it out, does it say "significant coverage is not a requirement". If you can point that out on any policy or guideline, I'll be happy to retract my statement. If you cannot do that, then you cannot say I'm legitimately "wrong". I get the distinct impression that you don't like losing arguments, because you try and twist everything your way. Have what you will. I know I'm right in my assessment. You seem to be the only person actually claiming them I'm wrong (to clarify, you are the only person claiming that the GNG doesn't require significant coverage for all topics, everyone else who disagrees is doing so because they don't agree with the requirements themselves and not because they are in denial about what the page actually says). Anyway, this is like arguing with a brick wall...it's going no where. Believe what you want, but I'm letting you know that if you continue to respond in the tone that you have been with me, or anyone else, on any of the non-user talk pages (e.g., guideline pages, article pages, etc.) the I will go to the Administrative noticeboard. If you disagree with me, that's cool, but try and be more professional and respectful with your tone and choice of words. Good day. [[User:Bignole|'''  BIGNOLE ''']] [[User talk:Bignole|(Contact me)]] 15:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::::No, all of your quoted text ''does not'' appear in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability&diff=270345251&oldid=270311761 the version] of WP:N before Equazcion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability&diff=270364428&oldid=270345251 changed] the wording on February 13. You're free to look for yourself. And Equazcion ''also'' tried to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&diff=270790993&oldid=270747315 sneak] "significant coverage" into [[WP:V]], which [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:V#Third-party_sources.2C_again this thread] at [[WT:V]] is about. Thankfully, I see that someone reverted Equazcion's attempt to change that policy. I notice now that Equazcion apparently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Equazcion&diff=prev&oldid=275556709 retired] on March 7. Please read ''that'' message and then compare that with what I'm saying if you have any problem with my "tone."

:::::::If you'll notice, [[WP:N]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability&oldid=279166121 says] "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic ''can also be considered notable'' if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more '''subject-specific guidelines''': Academics, Books, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content." WP:N does not say "''only if'' it meets the GNG."

:::::::Notability cannot be "asserted." It cannot be "established." Whether something is "worthy of notice" is a subjective opinion. Significant coverage is evidence of notability. But that is not the ''only'' evidence of notability. Gordon Brown is notable. Why? He's notable because he's the Prime Minister of the UK. Now, there ''is'' significant coverage of Gordon Brown. But Gordon Brown is not notable for coverage. He's notable because he's the Prime Minister.

:::::::I don't have to point out where it says "significant coverage is not a requirement." You're the one saying it ''is'' a requirement and you have nothing to back it up except ''your'' word. You ''are'' wrong. I'm not twisting everything my way. You are wrong in your assessment. If you like, go ahead and start a thread at [[WP:AN]] or [[WP:ANI]] and ''ask'' if significant coverage is required in order for a topic to be notable. I asked a similar question of every Arbcom candidate in the 2008 elections. There is no requirement present in the GNG. If there were, it would say "Every article requires significant coverage", and it doesn't.

:::::::It's not that I disagree with you, it's that you're saying is blatantly false. Your inability to comprehend the GNG is unfortunate, but not as unfortunate as your unwillingness to cease spreading your false claims. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 16:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

== WP:AN/Arbitration Enforcement notification ==

An [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Enforcement_of_the_second_remedy_of_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FEpisodes_and_characters_2.3F Arbitration Enforcement case] regard you has been opened. --[[User:Masem|MASEM]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 20:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks for the message. I see the thread was archived. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 03:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

== Someguy1221 ==

Do you actually have any evidence for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Someguy1221&diff=279175217&oldid=279141800 this serious accusation]? If so, you should open a [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations|sockpuppet investigation]] without delay. If not, you should strike that comment without delay. — Martin ([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]]) 16:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
:I've never opened an SPI before, so I'm unfamiliar with the process. I'll open one, but there will be some delay as I figure it out. Thanks. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 17:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
::I can help you if you have the evidence Pixel. [[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 17:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
:::I'm busy putting it together, but thank you for the offer. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 17:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
:::: I've pinged a notable CU. Jeers, [[User:Jack Merridew|Jack Merridew]] 09:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
<div style="text-align: center;">

<imagemap>
File:Rainbow trout.png
rect 16 4 270 293 [[:WP:TROUT|To join the secret cabal follow me!]]
desc none
</imagemap>
'''''Whack!'''''
</div>{{-}} {{center|[[User:Jack Merridew|Jack Merridew]] 10:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)}}

Pixelface, or more like "egg on face" considering your gaff ... have you considered an apology to either of the two editors involved? Cheers, — Martin ([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]]) 18:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
:Yes, I turned out to be wrong. I've apologized to the people who deserve one. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 20:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
::A [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bad_faith_and_baseless_accusations_by_User:Pixelface|thread at AN/I]] has been started about you regarding the allegations you've made about sockpuppeteering. [[User:Reyk|'''Reyk''']] [[User talk:Reyk|'''YO!''']] 03:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
:::That seems unnecessary, given that he acknowledged being wrong and apologized above. It is time to return to building and improving articles not create needless drama. Sincerely, --[[User:A Nobody|A Nobody]]''[[User talk:A Nobody|My talk]]'' 14:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Seconded. [[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 17:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

==Something different to work on==
Pixelface, why don't we all set the right example by moving away from all these ANI and what have yous and focus on bringing some articles to good and featured status? Check out the April 3, 2009 issue of ''Entertainment Weekly''. Much of this issue focus on profiling "Your Ultimate Guide! Heroes & Villains WHy we Love Them Both" with top twenty lists of "Scariest Villains" and "Coolest Heroes", a top ten list by [[Stephen King]] of "literature's greatest evildoers," and a "Rogues Gallery" of four major actors and the characters they played. Anyway, there are lots of out of universe commentary on production, reception, and oddly enough "notability" as presented in a verifiable reliable source. We have everything from commentary from the actors, commentary by one of the greatest modern writers, information on what characters these characters inspired, etc. This issue is by far one of the finest secondary sources I have seen in a mainstream publication for our purposes of improving fictional character articles and it gives us a sense of which ones are priorities to boot. The magazine doesn't just list them, but has a whole paragraphs (and in some cases in multiple separate articles) on each of those I am listing below. All of the following are covered in this extensive manner and from this issue alone has enough information for at least good status (the following is sort of like a list based on the various articles combined of literature and cinema's most notable heroes and villains; if we bafflingly don't have an article on any of these, they are prime candidates for new articles for which we can get DYK credits, i.e. Did you know such as such was listed as one of the top villains of all time due to x, y, and z.?):
*[[Alex DeLarge]] (covered in "The Top 20 Villains" and "Rogue's Gallery")
*[[Alex Forrest]]
*[[Annie Wilkes]] (covered in "In Bad Company: In an issue celebrating heroes and villains, here are my picks for literature's greatest evildoers" and "The Top 20 Villains")
*[[Anton Chigurh]]
*[[Atticus Finch]]
*[[Batman]] (already a Featured article!)
*[[Big Brother (Nineteen Eighty-Four)]]
*[[Buffy Summers]]
*[[Captain James T. Kirk]]
*[[Catherine Tramell]] (covered in "The Top 20 Villains" and "Rogue's Gallery")
*[[Count Dracula]] (covered in "In Bad Company: In an issue celebrating heroes and villains, here are my picks for literature's greatest evildoers" and "The Top 20 Villains")
*[[Darth Vader]]
*[[Dr. Hannibal Lecter]] (covered in "In Bad Company: In an issue celebrating heroes and villains, here are my picks for literature's greatest evildoers," "The Top 20 Villains," and "Rogue's Gallery")
*[[Ellen Ripley]]
*[[Foxy Brown]]
*[[Frank Booth (Blue Velvet)]]
*[[Gordon Gekko]]
*[[Hans Gruber]]
*[[Han Solo]]
*[[Harry Callahan (character)]]
*[[Harry Potter (character)]] (already a Good article!)
*[[Indiana Jones]]
*[[Jack Bauer]]
*[[Jack Torrance]]
*[[James Bond]] (already a Good article!)
*[[John McClane]]
*[[J.R. Ewing]]
*[[Max Cady]]
*[[Max Rockatansky]]
*[[Michael Myers (Halloween)]] (already a Good article!)
*[[Mr. Burns]]
*[[Nancy Drew]] (currently a good article nominee; I already did what I could with the information on her)
*[[Norman Bates]] (covered in "In Bad Company: In an issue celebrating heroes and villains, here are my picks for literature's greatest evildoers" and "The Top 20 Villains")
*[[Nurse Ratched]] (covered in "The Top 20 Villains" and "Rogue's Gallery")
*[[Pazuzu (The Exorcist)]]
*[[Popeye]]
*[[Queen (Snow White)]]
*[[Reverend Harry Powell]]
*[[Rhoda Penmark]]
*[[Robin Hood]] (already a Good article!)
*[[Sauron]]
*[[Spider-Man]] (already a Good article!)
*[[Superman]] (already a Featured article!)
*[[Sydney Bristow]]
*[[The Joker]]
*[[The Wicked Witch of the West]]
*[[Voldemort]] (covered in "In Bad Company: In an issue celebrating heroes and villains, here are my picks for literature's greatest evildoers" and "The Top 20 Villains", but anyway, already a Good article!)
*[[Will Kane]]

The following are also mentioned in sort of "honorable mention" kind of capacities:
*[[Agent Smith]]
*[[Alexis Colby]]
*[[Anakin Skywalker]]
*[[A Time to Kill's Jake Tyler Brigance]]
*[[Benjamin Linus]] (already a Good article!)
*[[Cora Papadakis]]
*[[Cruella de Vil]]
*[[Cujo]]
*[[Dexter Morgan]]
*[[Dorothy Gale]]
*[[Drake Merwin]]
*[[Flynn Carson]]
*[[Freddy Krueger]]
*[[Frederick Clegg]]
*[[Jack T. Colton]]
*[[Jason Bourne]]
*[[Jason Voorhees]] (already a Featured article!)
*[[Jaws]]
*[[Jigsaw Killer]]
*[[Kate Austen]]
*[[Lara Croft]]
*[[Luke Skywalker]]
*[[Magneto (comics)]]
*[[Maleficent]]
*[[Miss Havisham]]
*[[Neo (The Matrix)]]
*[[Obi-Wan]]
*[[Sherlock Holmes]]
*[[Tom Ripley]]
*[[Tony Stark]]
*[[Ursula (The Little Mermaid)]]
*[[Velma Dinkley]]
*[[Veronica Mars (character)]]
*[[Wolverine (comics)]]

Anyway, all of the above on both lists, but especially the first list are fertile fields for DYKs, Good, and even Featured articles (I reckon some might already indeed be up to those standards and if any aren't, let's ignore all the back and forth hubbub and focus on bringing all of the above to such status!). Best, --[[User:A Nobody|A Nobody]]''[[User talk:A Nobody|My talk]]'' 18:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

:a really good idea. There is nothing that more soundely defeats a fiction deletionist thatn developing n article that he didn't think developable, and finding sources he didn't think were there. At that point, the rational among them admit that in this case at least, they were wrong; the less rational, whom nothing will convice,make it clear to everyone that the dont actually care about sourcing or content, just about deletion of as much fiction as possible. What library facilties do you have available?Let me know and I will make suggestions. .
:And if you want to work on some different sorts of fictional people, consider the protagonists of Little Women---all of whom need articles. There's enough material here--its a prime example of something that just hasnt been worked on seriously yet.'''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 09:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
::The library at my university is currently being totally renovated, so I am relying primarily on Google Books and Google News. Best, --[[User:A Nobody|A Nobody]]''[[User talk:A Nobody|My talk]]'' 22:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

:I may check out the issue A Nobody, but I'm actually going to avoid editing many fictional character articles lately because that only puts a target on them. You mentioning them on my talkpage also puts a target on them. A better question would be if those editors ''insisting'' that the [[WP:GNG]] is a "requirement" consider that issue of ''Entertainment Weekly'' evidence of notability. I certainly do, but I don't need convincing. And I instantly recognize many of those characters. Jumping through other people's hoops in order to show that those articles meet the GNG would only seem to strengthen people's claims that the GNG is a requirement that all topics must pass, when that is simply untrue. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 20:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
::The above are notable to the point that if someone tried to delete he/she would look pointy and as such they would be overwhelmingly kept as the above are all award winning, reliable sourceable ones, some of which are even covered in mainstream encyclopedias. Please do help as I really would like to get some of these to DYK and Good status and I am too busy to do them all by myself. Your friend, --[[User:A Nobody|A Nobody]]''[[User talk:A Nobody|My talk]]'' 22:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
:::I've edited four of the articles so far. Hopefully there are some Wikipedia readers that appreciate it. It looks like the top twenty villain list will come online on Monday. Thanks for bringing the source to my attention and thank you very much for providing reference information. Regards, --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 07:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Cool, thanks for the help. By the way, see also [http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40582 here]. Apparently the list is drawing some intention in its own right. Best, --[[User:A Nobody|A Nobody]]''[[User talk:A Nobody|My talk]]'' 17:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

== [[WP:AGF|Extending a hand]] ==

I just saw your (very long :D) response to Durova where you brought up the recent Wikietiquette report. I just wanted to thank you for acknowledging that at least some of things you were saying were not civil. I know that we will probably never agree on what constitutes being "worthy of notice" for a separate article, but maybe we can both be a bit more gentler in the tongue (or the fingers, since we're typing) with our response to each other in the future. Cheers. [[User:Bignole|'''  BIGNOLE ''']] [[User talk:Bignole|(Contact me)]] 04:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
:You actually caught me right in the middle of typing up a reply to you at ANI. I'll reply there first. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 04:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
:I stepped away from the computer for a bit, and I thought more about what I was going to say to you at ANI. One thing I ''was'' going to say was that I ''can'' recognize when I'm being uncivil. I said multiple uncivil things to you at [[WT:EPISODE]] and [[Talk:List of South Park episodes]]. I am sorry. And I was not exactly civil [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pixelface#Alert on this talkpage] above. I apologize. You ''have'' done a lot of good work on season articles (and scores of other articles as well). I just happen to support episode articles. We probably ''will'' never agree about episodes of ''South Park'', but I ''can'' agree to be gentler in my responses to you from now on. Thank you for your message. Regards, --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 05:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
::Thank you. And I apologize for any uncivil remarks that I may have made towards you in the past as well. Some things on Wikipedia just seem to bring out the worst in people at times, in this particular case it is [[WP:NOTE]]..lol. [[User:Bignole|'''  BIGNOLE ''']] [[User talk:Bignole|(Contact me)]] 05:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
:::So what can we do? Between inclusionists and deletionists, is this dispute going to expand until it ends in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2]]? The ball's in your court. [[User:Durova|Durova]]''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]'' 00:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Durova, you must mean E&C 3. And why should you think that it will settle the issue? anyway it is not between inclusionists and deletionists. One can be a inclusionist pr deletionist with respect to fiction and not other things. Its time to get the argument make into twin streams: content, and separate articles. I dont think people will ever agree on the amount of detail to be devoted to fiction, but perhaps there is room for a compromise about what will consitutes a separate article, here or in other topics. Or perhaps we will only sovled this when we get away form the concept of "an article" . '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 08:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::Of course, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=262892600&oldid=262730174 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration:Characters and Episodes 3] failed. I guess it would still be 3? [[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 20:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::E&C1 and E&C2 were both about TTN. But TTN stopped editing in late December. E&C1 didn't accomplish anything. And during E&C1 I said if Arbcom's ruling mentioned [[List of South Park episodes]] that those episode articles would be targeted next. Eventually they were, as seen now. E&C2 made things worse for the most part with the time it took for Arbcom to render a decision. And Collectonian's request in December to extend TTN's editing restrictions shouldn't have been rebranded and re-filed as E&C3 by Coren anyway. Once again, that was about TTN. And [[WP:EPISODE]] is ''still'' not a notability guideline. And [[WP:N]] ''still'' does not not establish any "thresholds", below which a topic is not notable. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 16:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
''[[WP:N]] still does not not establish any "thresholds", below which a topic is not notable.''

That is intriging what do you mean, maybe you should write an user page essay like DGG does. (or is it that other editor?) [[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 22:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

:Significant coverage is an indicator of notability, but the absence of that means nothing, since other indicators of notability exist. I'll think about writing a userpage essay. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 09:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

==Happy Easter!==
[[File:Hase mit Ostereiern (2).jpg|left|thumb|180px]]
On behalf of [[Wikipedia:Kindness campaign|the Kindness campaign]], I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --[[User:A Nobody|A Nobody]]''[[User talk:A Nobody|My talk]]'' 07:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
:Thank you A Nobody. Happy Easter to you too :) --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 09:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
::You're welcome! Sincerely, --[[User:A Nobody|A Nobody]]''[[User talk:A Nobody|My talk]]'' 17:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

==AfD nomination of Creatures in the Half-Life series==
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|42px]]</div>I have nominated [[Creatures in the Half-Life series]], an article that you created, for [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]]. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creatures in the Half-Life series]]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.{{-}}Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  [[User:Zxcvbnm|ZXCVBNM]] ([[User Talk:Zxcvbnm|TALK]]) 19:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

== [[Notability in Wikipedia]] ==

Didn't you do a ton of research that would help to make the new [[Notability in Wikipedia]] article look really good? :) [[User:BOZ|BOZ]] ([[User talk:BOZ|talk]]) 19:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
*I did this research: [[Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation#Journalists]] [[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 20:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
::Well, hopefully you've gone and added all of that to the article. :) [[User:BOZ|BOZ]] ([[User talk:BOZ|talk]]) 00:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
:I created a [[User:Pixelface/Timeline of notability guidelines|timeline of notability guidelines]] that I haven't updated in a long time, but I'm really not sure how much of that could be cited in the article. However, the coverage that Ikip thankfully found can be. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 06:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
==Please be civil==
If you disagree with my point of view, by all means says so and say why. However, I would be grateful if you could refrain from being uncivil. I like a joke from time to time, even at my own expense, but I don't see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not&diff=286815001&oldid=286814968 this reference] about me being [[Useful idiot]] as being civil at all. If you have any personal concerns about me as an editor, take them to [[WP:ANI]]. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins#top|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Gavin.collins|contribs)]] 12:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
:By directing Wikipedia volunteers to [[Wookieepedia]], you ''are'' being a [[useful idiot]]. And if you continue to suggest they contribute ''there'' instead of here, I will continue to say so. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 14:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
::Pixel, you only hurt yourself by saying things like this, apologize, remove, and move on. [[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 14:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
:::Well, I think it's interesting that I also told Gavin to stop trolling in that comment, yet it's the "useful idiot" part he objected to. My comment stands. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 14:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

== Re: Notable ==

The discussion is somewhat moot now, but [[WP:N]] states that "Article topics need to be notable, or "worthy of notice"."; this isn't established by "subjective opinion", but [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], primarily secondary sources. The sources that establish Half-Life's notability do not automatically establish notability for the ''creatures'' of Half-Life. If there are sufficient sources to do this, then, for [[WP:V|verifiability]], they should be directly cited in this article. If there are insufficient reliable sources for an article to establish notability, then by all means what little sourced content there is should be merged into the parent article. [[User:Haipa Doragon|Haipa Doragon]] ([[User talk:Haipa Doragon|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Haipa Doragon|contributions]]) 14:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
:Whether something is "worthy of notice" *is* a subjective opinion. Secondary sources are just ''one'' indicator of notability, not the ''only'' indicator of notability. Notability cannot be "established." And there are plenty of secondary sources about the creatures in ''Half-Life''. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 14:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
==Baiting==
RE: "Please stop behaving like a petulant child." on another page in response to you.

It would be nice if you took the high road, instead of being baited into a uncivil argument. [[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 16:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
:I haven't seen that remark, and it's not worth responding to. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 16:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
:I decided to reply afterall. I guess we'll see what happens. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 16:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
::Good. :) you are too valuable of editor. [[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 16:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

== Please refactor the personal attacks in the NOT#PLOT discussion. ==

Pixelface, I generally agree with where you are going, but you need to remove those comments (like your RfA and probably the "to win an editwar" thing). Otherwise you are going to be blocked very shortly indeed. Not a threat, and please don't take it that way. I'd just rather not see you blocked and I dislike seeing the personal attacks. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 02:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
:Both of those comments are true, and I'm not going to remove them. The truth can hurt, but those are not personal attacks. They are statements of fact. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 02:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
::I'd argue that things can still be personal attacks when they aren't exactly on target to the discussion. But not my call. Best of luck! [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 02:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

==Please trim your statement on [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration|requests for arbitration]]==
Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration|requests for arbitration]]. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee. [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 05:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

:Sorry about that. After I posted my statement, I noticed it was about twice that length — but I do think my statement was the most informational. It looks like that request was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=289220006&oldid=289219144 declined] so I suppose it's moot now. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 04:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

==Invitation==
I am just starting this page: [[User:Ikip/p]], to create a straw poll for all ARS members to comment in.

I welcome your comments and contributions. [[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 21:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
:The page looks like a redirect now, but the section looks okay to me. I'm not an ARS member by the way (although I appreciate what they do). --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 04:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

== Barnstar ==

{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:Barnstar-lightbulb3.png|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For creating [[User:Pixelface/AFDs bilateral relations]], my new favourite page on the web! I just wanted to let you know that the effort of compiling all those articles into one list has not gone unnoticed! [[User:HJ Mitchell|'''HJMitchell''']] [[User_Talk:HJ Mitchell|You rang? ]]
|}
Just a token of my own, and, no doubt, everyone else's appreciation! [[User:HJ Mitchell|'''HJMitchell''']] [[User_Talk:HJ Mitchell|You rang? ]] 23:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

:Thank you. It may have been a poor idea for editors to create so many of those articles, but a handful of editors steamrolling with AFDs when there is no deadline sure does put a strain on other volunteers willing to do research. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 04:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

==Re "A deletionist proposal"==
I thought I'd handled the proposal at [[Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#A_deletionist_proposal]] quite, er ... robustly, but you made me look like a Sunday school teacher. Your rhetoric and choice of examples were right on target, and had me laughing by the end. If certain people had any sense, they'd give up or at least adopt a more moderate line - but that's a huge "if". --[[User:Philcha|Philcha]] ([[User talk:Philcha|talk]]) 09:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
:Oh, thank you. And I really thought your comments were quite good. I agreed with everything you said. But I didn't see them until after I posted. I just felt I had to comment myself after seeing the proposal. People should be working on finding common ground. Unfortunately, I think it's more likely that [[WT:FICT]] will hit Archive 100 sooner than much sense entering the discussions there. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 18:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
::On the bright side, if you're right [[WT:FICT]] will give us plenty of much-needed opportunities to let off steam. Then we check which deletionist is getting most ........ and .......</s> --[[User:Philcha|Philcha]] ([[User talk:Philcha|talk]]) 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

==Rehoboth Carpenter Family==

Regarding [[Rehoboth Carpenter family]] - We have surveyed, we have compromised, we have repeatedly asked to user Iwanafish to communicate. He refuses with his snide comments and reversions to non-wiki versions. We have warned him "offically" a lot more than 3 times. Repeatedly, we have asked for mediation, we have asked for help and I do not know who else to ask. Can you pass this up the chain of editors?

User Iwanafish continues to disrupt and vandalize this page and it has spread his behavior to other pages. [[John Carpenter (bishop)]] [[John Carpenter, town clerk of London]] What else can we do but shut down the articles involved and provide warnings that when they are restored by user Iwanafish that they are garbage? Has wikipedia lost the ability to police itself? I am beginning to think this is a hopeless cause where such bullies can inflict such damage to wikipedia. What else can be done?
John R. Carpenter [[User:Jrcrin001|Jrcrin001]] ([[User talk:Jrcrin001|talk]]) 05:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
:I don't know if I would characterize their edits as vandalism, as I don't know enough about the situation. The editor may have legitimate concerns, but not voicing those concerns makes things very difficult. I've asked that editor if they could explain their thinking on the article talk page. You might also try asking an [[Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/Active|active admin]] to look at the situation. Based on your username, an admin may point you to [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] which I think you should read. Thanks. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 01:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:The supreme, inviolate, pure virtue of Wikipedia]] ==

This page came up on MfD and after some spirited discussion, I was moved to #rd it to [[Wikipedia talk:Five pillars]]. The MfD may now be moot but on the offchance that the #rd gets deleted, you may want to change your links. — [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]][[User:Xiong/Look|*]] 18:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks for the message. At first I thought "My links? What?" but then I checked whatlinkshere and now I understand. I see why you left the page blank. I guess if you think the page should be a redirect, that's your call. Your post at [[WT:5P]] is interesting, and I found myself agreeing with several things you said. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 23:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the redirect is ''not'' my call; see the outcome of the MfD. This is exactly the sort of thing that provokes me. I cannot see for the life of me why the #rd should not stand; I much doubt that there will ever be harm done by it. On the other hand, I can't see sufficient payoff from contesting the deletion. Once again, the bean-counters, the dossers, with nothing better to do, overcome rational argument from editors who are just too busy earning a living and taking care of business.

WP, lacking any inviolate core values, is fat prey for those with more free time to push their viewpoints than sense. If I didn't think something important was at stake, I'd leave it alone. I've tried -- manfully -- and failed, because again and again I'm driven to stand for something in a community that seems to stand for nothing. — [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]][[User:Xiong/Look|*]] 22:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

== NOTPLOT ==

Hello,
I'm contacting folks who have been participating on NOTPLOT to get their feedback on Masem's proposal which seems to have some traction. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 14:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
*Thanks for the comments. I was pretty sure that's what you were going to say. I agree with you about removing NOTPLOT, but I view this as an improvement over what is there now and is perhaps the best bad thing we are going to get... [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 23:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
**If people want to pretend the straw poll didn't happen, they can write and rewrite WP:NOT#PLOT to their heart's content. While the proposed section is better than the current section, just about ''anything'' would be better than [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not&oldid=290895434#PLOT current version] of WP:NOT#PLOT, which appears to be end run attempt to make [[WP:N]] policy, when there is no consensus for it to be policy. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 23:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

== My talk ==

I've replied at my [[User talk:Hiding|talk page]] rather than [[WT:NOT]] as it saves swamping debate there. I left a note at [[WT:NOT]], but the page seems to be geting a lot of reverts lately. [[User:Hiding|Hiding]] [[User talk:Hiding|T]] 12:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
:I'll reply there within the next few days. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 20:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

==Mediation at [[WP:FICT]]==

I'm suggesting we ask for mediation to help build teh guidance at [[Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)]]. What I propose is that a mediator be the only person to edit the project page itself and be the one to guide discussion and discern consensus. I've proposed it at [[Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Mediation]]. As a past participant in the lengthy debates, I'd appreciate your input and hopefully your agreement. [[User:Hiding|Hiding]] [[User talk:Hiding|T]] 10:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
:Until the policy status of WP:NOT#PLOT is resolved (meaning, until WP:NOT#PLOT is properly removed from that policy page), I don't think mediation regarding WP:FICT or WP:FICTION can be productive. I will however comment at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Notability and fiction]], which I noticed in {{tl|cent}} today, and noticed you created. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 20:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
::Yeah, I'm hoping to at least get some clarity on the issue of whether any agreement is possible, because if it isn't, then I would prefer that Wikipedia took the approach that it is better to agree to disagree than try to enforce anything as having consensus. That might actually allow parties to work towards areas of agreement rather than areas of disagreement. [[User:Hiding|Hiding]] [[User talk:Hiding|T]] 12:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

== "Hiding hastily added" and WP:WAF ==

That's perfect. I think that's a fair reflection. I'm perfectly willing to agree/concede I was hasty. However, regarding [[WP:WAF]], there never was any guidance that admins should not close discussions they've participated in back then when I did it. Please strike or refactor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not&diff=295852793&oldid=295848194 that assertion] at [[WT:NOT]]. Also, you seem to have missed a reply regarding how widely advertised [[WP:WAF]] was, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)&diff=next&oldid=58940691]. Might be wroth re-factoring to mention that too. [[User:Hiding|Hiding]] [[User talk:Hiding|T]] 12:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:While I'm glad you're willing to agree/concede you were hasty, and I'm interested to learn there was no such guidance about admins back then, I'm not going to refactor any of it. There was no policy on plot summaries at the time that scores of articles under [[:Category:Fiction]] were created either, during the first 5 1/2 years after Wikipedia was founded. But WP:NOT#PLOT "enforcers" don't let articles created prior to WP:NOT#PLOT off the hook. It's funny how guidance sometimes works retroactively. And I did see that reply from Amcaja. When he said it's "pretty widely known, methinks", I take it with a grain of salt because it was his proposal. And we're talking about something that under 20 people voted on during one week in June 2006. I saw that you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)&diff=prev&oldid=59011215 apologized], saying "I thought a week was an acceptable period given it was a straw poll rather than an official poll, and there was such a strong consensus." Charcaroth also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)&diff=prev&oldid=61380719 said] "I don't think everyone who was interested in this proposal was aware of it." I do notice that it had strong support, but I guess all the editors who've edited the 1,000,000+ articles under [[:Category:Fiction]], but weren't one of the dozen and a half editors at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)]] during 8 days in June 2006[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)&offset=20060616143900&action=history&limit=64] are out of luck? The irony is that Amcaja [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)&diff=57705602&oldid=57698576 said] during the straw poll "The last thing I want to see is all-out war on in-universe articles." If the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)&oldid=58934946#Straw_Poll straw poll to make WAF a guideline] looked like the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_27#RFC recent straw poll] about WP:NOT#PLOT, would you have marked WAF a guideline? What does that say about WP:NOT#PLOT? --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface#top|talk]]) 00:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

===Replies to this, that and the other===

I didn't actually amend policy and guidance to win any argument, I asked questions to find out what the consensual position was from people I thought would know, and acted accordingly, in line with what I understood to be Wikipedia practises. It was never about one article it was about something more, it was about what was expected. I didn't want to devote my time to an activity that would prove meaningless. Which, ultimately, is ironic. It was never an argument and it was never one article, it was trying to work out what we were building before I helped build it. Kind of how a builder will have plans from which to work. I'm sorry that Wikipedia practises have changed such that what I have done cannot appear to be undone, because that goes against the spirit of Wikipedia I believe in. How we would change that I have no idea, because it is quite clear we can't actually work together given you feel the need to hold me accountable for your frustrations. I've already countered your argument that any change of mine to policy affects ''x'' amount of articles; it's a redundant argument. Any change to any policy affects everything. And no, I'm not going to hold off editing policies and guidance, and I reject the accusation that I am despicable. Where I edit policies I do so in one of two manners: after gaining a consensus on the talk page, or to test consensus. I find it more troubling that people allege that you cannot edit policy. That's despicable, and that's dangerous. All of our policies should be editable, at all times, otherwise we have failed ourselves and the future. Why do I believe this? Because sometimes we do get it wrong, and we need to be able to admit that, but more importantly, correct it. I've already said somewhere in the endless [[WP:PLOT]] debacle that I believe most in the idea that our policies must represent consensus. I think that answers any lingering questions you have of me. I find your final question: "why should people who've never edited an actual encyclopedia before be writing a rulebook on how to do it anyway?" amusing, since it begs the retort "why should people who've never edited an actual encyclopedia before be writing one anyway?" Isn't that how we got in this mess in the first place. I think at the end of the day we have very different wiki-philosophies. I walk an antifactionalist-eventualism path, and you seem to be wandering an factionalist-immediatism one. I think all we can agree on is a conflict-driven view of wiki. Personally, I think you'd have a better time of it if you stopped attacking people and started attacking the issue itself. But you need to escalate it, get more people involved, and stop allowing people to tar you as a fringe view by building a broad consensus for your opinion. You won't do that by scatter-shot accusations against me or Masem or whoever falls into your firing line. You need to do it by holding to a line that PLOT does not belong in NOT because of the impact it has on Wikipedia, and that the general idea that is behind PLOT needs to be better explained in one page which deals with how we edit articles on fiction. And that page needs to explore the competing philosophies and highlight what we expect from all of them. We expect people to provide sources, but we expect people to afford them time to do so. We have a style on fiction, and always have, and articles should be edited towards that style, rather than away from it, and the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform from a neutral point of view. Personally, if we could get all articles on Wikipedia something like what the Dr Who project turn out, I don't think either of us would have a problem with that. I'd like every television series, every comic book series, every novel treated like that, provided we can source it. I believe Wikipedia is not paper, but I also believe it is an encyclopedia. Anyway, all the best, and see you around sometime. And seriously, if I'd known how it all would turn out, I doubt I would have done it. I have the sneaking suspicion someone else would have, though. I always troubled to leave a back door. I doubt other people would. Read very carefully the sentence in WP:V, ''If '''no''' reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.'' I was very careful to write '''no''', because I firmly believe that one is enough. The reason we ended up with multiple at [[WP:N]], which for me goes too far, is because some people think that what I wrote means that one news article would justify an article. And that's when I learnt the lesson you seem to be attempting to teach me. We don't need any more rules, and we need to deprecate a vast number of them. I recall trying to merge a large number of policies, but we never got anywhere, because, weirdly, people like policies. That's the inertia you've got to fight and change. Not me.I'll march to hell and back for [[WP:CONSENSUS]] because that's what I believe in. But I have no idea how we get rid of [[WP:PLOT]], because any path looks like it will lead to arb-com. I don't think I'm the first to work that out. No-one wants mediation though, so it's best if I just trundle away. I'm sorry you have such a poor opinion of me, but all I can say is that I am one person. Ask yourself, can one person really matter that much? [[User:Hiding|Hiding]] [[User talk:Hiding|T]] 11:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

===Also===

Can you think of anywhere else to publicise [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Notability and fiction]]? [[User:Hiding|Hiding]] [[User talk:Hiding|T]] 12:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

== [[Template:Linked on Google News]] ==

Hello Pixelface, great idea; see my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANumbo3&diff=298260839&oldid=298046549 answer] [[User_talk:Numbo3#An_idea_for_a_template_similar_to_Template:Popular_articles|there]]. --- Kind regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 03:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Numbo3

2009-06-24T03:01:13Z

Numbo3: /* An idea for a template similar to Template:Popular articles */ re

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval

2009-06-24T02:50:04Z

Numbo3: /* Requests to add a task to an already-approved bot */

{{Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Header}}

=Current requests for approval=

{{BRFA|EarwigBot III||Open}}
{{BRFA|Ipatrol-bot||Open}}
{{BRFA|JCbot 2||Open}}
{{BRFA|NKbot 2||Open}}


=Requests to add a task to an already-approved bot=

{{BRFA|Numbo3-bot|3|Open}}


=Bots in a trial period=

{{BRFA|AnomieBOT|31|Trial}}
{{BRFA|Coreva-Bot 2||Trial}}
{{BRFA|Erik9bot|9|Trial}}
{{BRFA|Erwin85Bot|8|Trial}}
{{BRFA|SPCUClerkbot|3|Trial}}
{{BRFA|CSDCheckBot||Trial}}
{{BRFA|OgreBot||Trial}}
{{BRFA|UnitBot||Trial}}
{{BRFA|NNBot II||Trial}}


=Bots that have completed the trial period=

{{BRFA|DrilBot|3|Trial}}
{{Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Approved}}

=Denied requests=
Bots that have been denied for operations will be listed here for informational purposes for at least 7 days before being archived. No other action is required for these bots. Older requests can be found in the [[:Category:Denied Wikipedia bot requests for approval|Archive]].
{{BRFA|Lancbot||Denied|21:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|WpuserBot||Denied|11:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|EnsureBot||Denied|14:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|SoxBot|17|Denied|01:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|JagRoBot||Denied|01:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Py123||Denied|23:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Angria77Bot||Denied|12:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|MathCoolBot||Denied|13:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|tomerbot||Denied|12:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|BetaxTheBot||Denied|00:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|AdvertisingBlockBot||Denied|03:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|BugBot52.4||Denied|00:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|TechBot|2|Denied|19:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Int21hBot||Denied|13:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Pfsilvabot||Denied|13:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|O98-bot||Denied|23:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|PictureBot||Denied|02:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|L07ChLeo3 Bot||Denied|20:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Darkicebot II||Denied|13:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|AwOcBot||Denied|20:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|PurposeAutoBot||Denied|04:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|PseudoBot|4|Denied|23:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)}}

=Expired/withdrawn requests=
These requests have either expired, as information required by the operator was not provided, or been withdrawn. These tasks are ''not'' authorized to run, but such lack of authorization does not necessarily follow from a finding as to merit. A bot that, having been approved for testing, was not tested by an editor, or one for which the results of testing were not posted, for example, would appear here. Bot requests should not be placed here if there is an active discussion ongoing above. Operators whose requests have expired may reactivate their requests at anytime. The following list shows recent requests (if any) that have expired, listed here for informational purposes for at least 7 days before being archived. Older requests can be found in the respective archives: [[:Category:Expired Wikipedia bot requests for approval|Expired]], [[:Category:Withdrawn Wikipedia bot requests for approval|Withdrawn]].

{{BRFA|Thehelpfulbot|9|Withdrawn|22:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Polbot|13|Withdrawn|12:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Polbot|14|Withdrawn|14:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|CiteFixBot||Expired|14:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Muro Bot|5|Expired|13:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Bot0811||Withdrawn|22:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|NorefBot||Withdrawn|14:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|GoblinBot||Expired|14:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|FritzpollBot|2|Expired|14:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Thehelpfulbot|5|Withdrawn|17:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|DatabaseBot||Expired|13:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Legobot|11|Expired|19:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|KevinBot||Withdrawn|15:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Legobot|2|Withdrawn|23:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Dylan620 Bot||Withdrawn|17:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Null edit bot||Withdrawn|17:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Addbot|21|Expired|14:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|CatempBot||Expired|02:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|JCbot||Expired|00:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Bot0612|8|Expired|23:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|JaGaBot||Withdrawn|13:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|MBisanzBot|8|Withdrawn|14:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|VP-bot||Expired|14:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|NeuRobot|3|Withdrawn|02:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|OverlordQBot|6|Withdrawn|13:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Robert SkyBot|2|Expired|00:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|MelonBot|11|Expired|07:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|BrokenRedirectBot||Withdrawn|00:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|JL-Bot|4|Withdrawn|16:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|ConvenantTebot||Withdrawn|15:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|SoxBot V|5|Withdrawn|20:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Addbot|17|Withdrawn|08:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Thehelpfulbot|6|Withdrawn|22:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Main Page Image Bot||Withdrawn|18:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Main page protection robot||Withdrawn|19:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)}}

[[Category:Wikipedia bots]]

[[ar:ويكيبيديا:طلب صلاحية بوت]]
[[arz:ويكيبيديا:بوتات/طلب علم بوت]]
[[frp:Vouiquipèdia:Bot/Statut]]
[[ast:Uiquipedia:Bots/Autorizaciones]]
[[ba:Wikipedia:Бот тамғаһына ғаризалар]]
[[be:Вікіпедыя:Запыты на статус бота]]
[[bg:Уикипедия:Бот/Заявки]]
[[ca:Viquipèdia:Petició de marca de bot]]
[[cs:Wikipedie:Bot/Žádosti]]
[[da:Wikipedia:Anmodning om botstatus]]
[[de:Wikipedia:Bots/Anträge auf Botflag]]
[[dv:Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval]]
[[es:Wikipedia:Bot/Autorizaciones]]
[[eo:Vikipedio:Permespeto por robotoj]]
[[eu:Wikipedia:Bot-ak/Baimenak]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:اتحادیهٔ کارگری ربات‌ها/تقاضای پرچم]]
[[fo:Wikipedia:Áheitan um bott støðu]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Bot/Statut]]
[[gl:Wikipedia:Bots/Peticións de aprobación]]
[[ko:위키백과:봇/등록 신청]]
[[hy:Վիքիփեդիա:Բոտի կարգավիճակի դիմումներ]]
[[hr:Wikipedija:Botovi/Zahtjevi za status]]
[[io:Wikipedio:Demandi pri roboti]]
[[id:Wikipedia:Bot/Permohonan]]
[[ia:Wikipedia:Bot/requestas]]
[[it:Wikipedia:Bot/Autorizzazioni]]
[[he:ויקיפדיה:בקשות לדגל בוט]]
[[ka:ვიკიპედია:ბოტები/სტატუსის მოთხოვნა]]
[[lad:Wikipedia:Bot/Permesos]]
[[lv:Vikipēdija:Bota statusa pieteikumi]]
[[hu:Wikipédia:Botok/Jelentkezés]]
[[ml:വിക്കിപീഡിയ:യന്ത്രങ്ങള്‍/അംഗീകാരത്തിനുള്ള അപേക്ഷകള്‍]]
[[mt:Wikipedija:Politika tal-bots/Rikjesti għall-approvazzjoni]]
[[ms:Wikipedia:Bot/Permohonan]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Aanmelding botgebruikers]]
[[ja:Wikipedia:Bot/使用申請]]
[[oc:Wikipèdia:Bòt/Estatut]]
[[pms:Wikipedia:Domande për avej la qualìfica da Trigomiro]]
[[nds:Wikipedia:Andrääg op Bot-Status]]
[[pl:Wikipedia:Boty/Zgłoszenia]]
[[pt:Wikipedia:Robôs/Pedidos de aprovação]]
[[crh:Vikipediya:Botlar#Requests]]
[[ro:Wikipedia:Bot/Cereri de aprobare]]
[[ru:Википедия:Заявки на статус бота]]
[[sq:Wikipedia:Botët/Kërkesë për miratim]]
[[sk:Wikipédia:Žiadosť o príznak bota]]
[[sl:Wikipedija:Prošnje za delovanje botov]]
[[sr:Википедија:Ботови/Захтеви]]
[[fi:Wikipedia:Botit/hakemukset]]
[[sv:Wikipedia:Robotansökan]]
[[vi:Wikipedia:Robot/Xin phép]]
[[th:วิกิพีเดีย:บอต/ขออนุญาตใช้งานบอต]]
[[chy:Wikipedia:Community Portal]]
[[vec:Wikipedia:Bot/Elesion]]
[[wa:Wikipedia:Inte di nozôtes]]
[[yi:װיקיפּעדיע:באטס/בקשות פאר הסכמה]]
[[zh-yue:Wikipedia:機械人/請求核准]]

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Numbo3-bot 3

2009-06-24T02:45:36Z

Numbo3:

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Numbo3-bot 3

2009-06-24T02:43:30Z

Numbo3: new

Template talk:Popular articles

2009-06-23T21:45:40Z

Numbo3: /* Display of more/standalone-page results */

==Alternative display options==
I'd like to have this displayed on my user talk page similar to that implemented at [[User:Glover]] by proprietary tweaking. If it could fit above or below {{tl|Signpost-subscription}} on [[User_talk:Meco|my talk page]] that would suit my fancy presicely. Perhaps a <tt>small=yes</tt> field could be included? __[[User:Meco|meco]] ([[User talk:Meco|talk]]) 11:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:See [[Template:Popular_articles#Usage]]. --- Best regards, [[User:Melancholie|Melancholie]] ([[User talk:Melancholie|talk]]) 23:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

== Display of more/standalone-page results ==

I'm trying to remove the floating ">>more" link on [[WP:POPULAR]] but the bot that updates this template overwrites the changes. Waiting to hear from bot-maintainer on [[User talk:Numbo3-bot#Duplicate links in Template:Popular_articles|bot's talk-page]]. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 07:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
:This is now possible by using the template with <code><nowiki>...|nolink=true}}</nowiki></code>. But the link has been changed anyway, see answer at [[User talk:Numbo3-bot#Duplicate links in Template:Popular_articles|bot's talk-page]]. --[[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 21:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Dortmund Airport

2009-06-18T13:52:50Z

Quake-Catcher Network

2008-12-11T21:52:49Z

Numbo3: +map

The '''Quake-Catcher Network''' is a joint collaborative initiative run by [[Stanford University]] and [[UC Riverside]] that aims to use computer based [[accelerometers]] to detect earthquakes.<ref>[http://qcn.stanford.edu/ Main project page]</ref> It uses a [[distributed computing]] interface, similar to [[BOINC]] or [[folding@home]].

== References ==
{{reflist}}

== External links ==
* [http://qcn.stanford.edu/qcnalpha/maptrigtime.php Interactive world map, showing recent earthquakes (day/week/month)] – result of QCN

{{geophysics-stub}}
{{California-university-stub}}

Earthquake

2008-12-11T21:47:24Z

2008-12-10T21:07:20Z

Numbo3: moved Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Numbo3-bot2 to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Numbo3-bot 2

#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Numbo3-bot 2]]

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Numbo3-bot 2

2008-12-10T21:07:20Z

Numbo3: moved Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Numbo3-bot2 to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Numbo3-bot 2

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval

2008-12-10T21:06:45Z

Numbo3: ?

{{Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Header}}

=Current requests for approval=

{{BRFA|Denbot|3|Open}}
{{BRFA|DeadLinkBOT||Open}}
{{BRFA|Xqbot||Open}}
{{BRFA|PseudoBot|4|Open}}


=Requests to add a task to an already-approved bot=

{{BRFA|Numbo3-bot2|2|Open}}
{{BRFA|Legobot|9|Open}}
{{BRFA|Legobot|8|Open}}
{{BRFA|Muro Bot|4|Open}}
{{BRFA|Chris G Bot|(5th request)|Open}}
{{BRFA|AnomieBOT|16|Open}}
{{BRFA|MBisanzBot|6|Open}}


=Bots in a trial period=

{{BRFA|XLerateBot||Trial}}
{{BRFA|SoxBot IX|2|Trial}}
{{BRFA|DSisyphBot||Trial}}
{{BRFA|DavidWSBot|1|Trial}}
{{BRFA|LOLibot||Trial}}
{{BRFA|Hockeybot||Trial}}
{{BRFA|BotPuppet|2|Trial}}
{{BRFA|Addbot|15|Trial}}
{{BRFA|Addbot|14|Trial}}
{{BRFA|Addbot|13|Trial}}
{{BRFA|Rootology Bot 2||Trial}}
{{BRFA|PDFbot|3|Trial}}
{{BRFA|anybot||Trial}}


=Bots that have completed the trial period=

{{BRFA|Legobot II|2|Trial}}
{{BRFA|Simplebot||Trial}}
{{BRFA|DYKBot|2|Trial}}
{{Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Approved}}

=Denied requests=
Bots that have been denied for operations will be listed here for informational purposes for at least 7 days before being archived. No other action is required for these bots. Older requests can be found in the [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Rejected|Archive]].
{{BRFA|SLMSBot||Denied|21:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Trailbehind-bot||Denied|22:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Hintssbot||Denied|22:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|DavidWSBot||Denied|23:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|W950712Bot||Denied|05:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Rd108ExampleBot1||Denied|17:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Tyler Bot I||Denied|07:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Worldbot||Denied|03:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Cleanbot||Denied|16:10, 22 October 2008}}
{{BRFA|MBisanzBot|5|Denied|02:54, 20 September 2008}}
{{BRFA|RockfangBot|4|Denied|06:11, 7 September 2008}}

=Expired/withdrawn requests=
These requests have expired, as information required by the operator was not provided. These bots are ''not'' authorized to run, but such lack of authorization does not follow from a finding as to merit. A bot that, having been approved for testing, was not tested by an editor, or one for which the results of testing were not posted, for example, would appear here. Bot requests should not be placed here if there is an active discussion ongoing above. Operators whose requests have expired may reactivate their requests at anytime. The following list shows recent requests (if any) that have expired, listed here for informational purposes for at least 7 days before being archived. Older requests can be found in the [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/rejected#Expired|Archive]].

{{BRFA|Chris G Bot|(4th request)|Expired|23:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|SoxBot IX||Expired|23:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Legobot|4|Expired|23:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Jeremybot||Expired|21:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|StatBot||Expired|21:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|FeroceBot||Expired|21:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Jager_Bot||Withdrawn|20:34, 07 November 2008}}
{{BRFA|CategoryBot||Withdrawn|04:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|OKBot|3|Withdrawn|11:01, 21 October 2008}}
{{BRFA|STBot|14|Expired|07:37, 19 October 2008}}
{{BRFA|Rootology Bot||Withdrawn|23:29, 16 October 2008}}
{{BRFA|Plasticbot|3|Withdrawn|18:31, 14 October 2008}}
{{BRFA|ThorBot||Expired|01:30, 8 October 2008}}

[[Category:Wikipedia bots]]

[[ar:ويكيبيديا:طلب صلاحية بوت]]
[[frp:Vouiquipèdia:Bot/Statut]]
[[ast:Uiquipedia:Bots/Autorizaciones]]
[[ba:Wikipedia:Бот тамғаһына ғаризалар]]
[[be:Вікіпедыя:Запыты на статус бота]]
[[bg:Уикипедия:Бот/Заявки]]
[[ca:Viquipèdia:Petició de marca de bot]]
[[cs:Wikipedie:Bot/Žádosti]]
[[da:Wikipedia:Anmodning om botstatus]]
[[de:Wikipedia:Bots/Anträge auf Botflag]]
[[dv:Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval]]
[[es:Wikipedia:Bot/Autorizaciones]]
[[eo:Vikipedio:Permespeto por robotoj]]
[[eu:Wikipedia:Bot-ak/Baimenak]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:اتحادیهٔ کارگری ربات‌ها/تقاضای پرچم]]
[[fo:Wikipedia:Áheitan um bott støðu]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Bot/Statut]]
[[gl:Wikipedia:Bots/Peticións de aprobación]]
[[ko:위키백과:봇/등록 신청]]
[[hy:Վիքիփեդիա:Բոտի կարգավիճակի դիմումներ]]
[[hr:Wikipedija:Botovi/Zahtjevi za status]]
[[io:Wikipedio:Demandi pri roboti]]
[[id:Wikipedia:Bot/Permohonan]]
[[ia:Wikipedia:Bot/Requestas]]
[[it:Wikipedia:Bot/Autorizzazioni]]
[[he:ויקיפדיה:בקשות לדגל בוט]]
[[ka:ვიკიპედია:ბოტები/სტატუსის მოთხოვნა]]
[[lad:Wikipedia:Bot/Permesos]]
[[hu:Wikipédia:Botok/Jelentkezés]]
[[ml:വിക്കിപീഡിയ:യന്ത്രങ്ങള്‍/അംഗീകാരത്തിനുള്ള അപേക്ഷകള്‍]]
[[mt:Wikipedija:Politika tal-bots/Rikjesti għall-approvazzjoni]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Aanmelding botgebruikers]]
[[ja:Wikipedia:Bot/使用申請]]
[[pms:Wikipedia:Domande për avej la qualìfica da Trigomiro]]
[[nds:Wikipedia:Andrääg op Bot-Status]]
[[pl:Wikipedia:Boty/Zgłoszenia]]
[[pt:Wikipedia:Robôs/Pedidos de aprovação]]
[[crh:Vikipediya:Botlar#Requests]]
[[ro:Wikipedia:Bot/Cereri de aprobare]]
[[ru:Википедия:Заявки на статус бота]]
[[sq:Wikipedia:Botët/Kërkesë për miratim]]
[[sk:Wikipédia:Žiadosť o príznak bota]]
[[sl:Wikipedija:Prošnje za delovanje botov]]
[[sr:Википедија:Ботови/Захтеви]]
[[fi:Wikipedia:Botit/hakemukset]]
[[sv:Wikipedia:Robotansökan]]
[[vi:Wikipedia:Robot/Xin phép]]
[[vec:Wikipedia:Bot/Elesion]]
[[wa:Wikipedia:Inte di nozôtes]]
[[yi:װיקיפּעדיע:באטס/בקשות פאר הסכמה]]
[[zh-yue:Wikipedia:機械人/請求核准]]

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval

2008-12-10T21:05:32Z

Numbo3: +me, again

{{Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Header}}

=Current requests for approval=

{{BRFA|Denbot|3|Open}}
{{BRFA|DeadLinkBOT||Open}}
{{BRFA|Xqbot||Open}}
{{BRFA|PseudoBot|4|Open}}


=Requests to add a task to an already-approved bot=

{{BRFA|Numbo3-bot|2|Open}}
{{BRFA|Legobot|9|Open}}
{{BRFA|Legobot|8|Open}}
{{BRFA|Muro Bot|4|Open}}
{{BRFA|Chris G Bot|(5th request)|Open}}
{{BRFA|AnomieBOT|16|Open}}
{{BRFA|MBisanzBot|6|Open}}


=Bots in a trial period=

{{BRFA|XLerateBot||Trial}}
{{BRFA|SoxBot IX|2|Trial}}
{{BRFA|DSisyphBot||Trial}}
{{BRFA|DavidWSBot|1|Trial}}
{{BRFA|LOLibot||Trial}}
{{BRFA|Hockeybot||Trial}}
{{BRFA|BotPuppet|2|Trial}}
{{BRFA|Addbot|15|Trial}}
{{BRFA|Addbot|14|Trial}}
{{BRFA|Addbot|13|Trial}}
{{BRFA|Rootology Bot 2||Trial}}
{{BRFA|PDFbot|3|Trial}}
{{BRFA|anybot||Trial}}


=Bots that have completed the trial period=

{{BRFA|Legobot II|2|Trial}}
{{BRFA|Simplebot||Trial}}
{{BRFA|DYKBot|2|Trial}}
{{Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Approved}}

=Denied requests=
Bots that have been denied for operations will be listed here for informational purposes for at least 7 days before being archived. No other action is required for these bots. Older requests can be found in the [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Rejected|Archive]].
{{BRFA|SLMSBot||Denied|21:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Trailbehind-bot||Denied|22:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Hintssbot||Denied|22:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|DavidWSBot||Denied|23:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|W950712Bot||Denied|05:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Rd108ExampleBot1||Denied|17:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Tyler Bot I||Denied|07:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Worldbot||Denied|03:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Cleanbot||Denied|16:10, 22 October 2008}}
{{BRFA|MBisanzBot|5|Denied|02:54, 20 September 2008}}
{{BRFA|RockfangBot|4|Denied|06:11, 7 September 2008}}

=Expired/withdrawn requests=
These requests have expired, as information required by the operator was not provided. These bots are ''not'' authorized to run, but such lack of authorization does not follow from a finding as to merit. A bot that, having been approved for testing, was not tested by an editor, or one for which the results of testing were not posted, for example, would appear here. Bot requests should not be placed here if there is an active discussion ongoing above. Operators whose requests have expired may reactivate their requests at anytime. The following list shows recent requests (if any) that have expired, listed here for informational purposes for at least 7 days before being archived. Older requests can be found in the [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/rejected#Expired|Archive]].

{{BRFA|Chris G Bot|(4th request)|Expired|23:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|SoxBot IX||Expired|23:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Legobot|4|Expired|23:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Jeremybot||Expired|21:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|StatBot||Expired|21:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|FeroceBot||Expired|21:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|Jager_Bot||Withdrawn|20:34, 07 November 2008}}
{{BRFA|CategoryBot||Withdrawn|04:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)}}
{{BRFA|OKBot|3|Withdrawn|11:01, 21 October 2008}}
{{BRFA|STBot|14|Expired|07:37, 19 October 2008}}
{{BRFA|Rootology Bot||Withdrawn|23:29, 16 October 2008}}
{{BRFA|Plasticbot|3|Withdrawn|18:31, 14 October 2008}}
{{BRFA|ThorBot||Expired|01:30, 8 October 2008}}

[[Category:Wikipedia bots]]

[[ar:ويكيبيديا:طلب صلاحية بوت]]
[[frp:Vouiquipèdia:Bot/Statut]]
[[ast:Uiquipedia:Bots/Autorizaciones]]
[[ba:Wikipedia:Бот тамғаһына ғаризалар]]
[[be:Вікіпедыя:Запыты на статус бота]]
[[bg:Уикипедия:Бот/Заявки]]
[[ca:Viquipèdia:Petició de marca de bot]]
[[cs:Wikipedie:Bot/Žádosti]]
[[da:Wikipedia:Anmodning om botstatus]]
[[de:Wikipedia:Bots/Anträge auf Botflag]]
[[dv:Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval]]
[[es:Wikipedia:Bot/Autorizaciones]]
[[eo:Vikipedio:Permespeto por robotoj]]
[[eu:Wikipedia:Bot-ak/Baimenak]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:اتحادیهٔ کارگری ربات‌ها/تقاضای پرچم]]
[[fo:Wikipedia:Áheitan um bott støðu]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Bot/Statut]]
[[gl:Wikipedia:Bots/Peticións de aprobación]]
[[ko:위키백과:봇/등록 신청]]
[[hy:Վիքիփեդիա:Բոտի կարգավիճակի դիմումներ]]
[[hr:Wikipedija:Botovi/Zahtjevi za status]]
[[io:Wikipedio:Demandi pri roboti]]
[[id:Wikipedia:Bot/Permohonan]]
[[ia:Wikipedia:Bot/Requestas]]
[[it:Wikipedia:Bot/Autorizzazioni]]
[[he:ויקיפדיה:בקשות לדגל בוט]]
[[ka:ვიკიპედია:ბოტები/სტატუსის მოთხოვნა]]
[[lad:Wikipedia:Bot/Permesos]]
[[hu:Wikipédia:Botok/Jelentkezés]]
[[ml:വിക്കിപീഡിയ:യന്ത്രങ്ങള്‍/അംഗീകാരത്തിനുള്ള അപേക്ഷകള്‍]]
[[mt:Wikipedija:Politika tal-bots/Rikjesti għall-approvazzjoni]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Aanmelding botgebruikers]]
[[ja:Wikipedia:Bot/使用申請]]
[[pms:Wikipedia:Domande për avej la qualìfica da Trigomiro]]
[[nds:Wikipedia:Andrääg op Bot-Status]]
[[pl:Wikipedia:Boty/Zgłoszenia]]
[[pt:Wikipedia:Robôs/Pedidos de aprovação]]
[[crh:Vikipediya:Botlar#Requests]]
[[ro:Wikipedia:Bot/Cereri de aprobare]]
[[ru:Википедия:Заявки на статус бота]]
[[sq:Wikipedia:Botët/Kërkesë për miratim]]
[[sk:Wikipédia:Žiadosť o príznak bota]]
[[sl:Wikipedija:Prošnje za delovanje botov]]
[[sr:Википедија:Ботови/Захтеви]]
[[fi:Wikipedia:Botit/hakemukset]]
[[sv:Wikipedia:Robotansökan]]
[[vi:Wikipedia:Robot/Xin phép]]
[[vec:Wikipedia:Bot/Elesion]]
[[wa:Wikipedia:Inte di nozôtes]]
[[yi:װיקיפּעדיע:באטס/בקשות פאר הסכמה]]
[[zh-yue:Wikipedia:機械人/請求核准]]

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Numbo3-bot 2

2008-12-10T21:02:13Z

Numbo3: ...

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

2008-09-05T06:22:22Z

Numbo3:

<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 400K
|counter = 166
|algo = old(48h)
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}

__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude>

== Imposter of Sceptre ==

Just come across [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kmweber&diff=235249939&oldid=234214340 this vandalism] to {{user|Kmweber}}'s userpage. Looking at [[Special:Contributions/Petulant_little_shit|the account contributions]], the strikes me out immediately as {{user|Sceptre}} (due to his past with Kmweber) under a new account. Although it's blocked indefinitely, this may need further looking into. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kmweber&action=history Kmweber's page history] recently shows that the Sceptre IP is the only person that has vandalised it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Civility&diff=235250005&oldid=234484097 This] also makes me think that it is Sceptre under the {{user|Petulant little shit}} name. Although Sceptre has "declared" he is retired, it may be worth checking this out, even though the "Petulant little shit" account is blocked indef. Thoughts? [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] ([[User talk:D.M.N.|talk]]) 21:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
:Most likely an imposter. '''[[User:Majorly|Majorly]]''' ''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' 21:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
::Given that both Petulant little shit's and Sceptre's IPs have triggered autoblocks in the same 10 minute period, they probably are not on the same IP, and not the same person. '''[[User:MBisanz|MBisanz]]''' [[User talk:MBisanz|talk]] 21:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
:::OK. Just double-checking in case Sceptre had created a new account. [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] ([[User talk:D.M.N.|talk]]) 21:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I was asked in IRC to check... It is {{unlikely}} these are related. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 21:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
*Yeah, not unless he grew wings and flew 3000 miles since his last edit. [[User talk:Thatcher|Thatcher]] 21:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

:Its not like Sceptre is the only person who dislikes Kmweber... [[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']] 22:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

:One of the internet connections I use living in California routine resolves to New Jersey when using geolocating packages. So anything is possible. That said, I have no reason to believe Sceptre is active in this case. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] ([[User talk:Dragons flight|talk]]) 01:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

::Good chance that 78.105.113.152, vandalizing Weber before Petulant_little_shit, is banned [[User:Fredrick day]], even though that isn't his primary IP range (87.112-87.115); he uses neighborhood wireless routers, and other means of alternate access, and this could be in his neighborhood. He's currently vandalizing from the 87.112-87.115 range; vandalizing Kmweber has been common for him, and, as I recall, Fredrick day has had an interest in [[Dr. Who]], hence the IP's edit to [[The Trial of a Time Lord]]. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 02:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

::Unlikely indeed, but it is certainly true that the trolling from [[Special:Contributions/207.112.43.3|207.112.43.3]] is the same as Petulant little shit, and has been blocked for a month. There are various other bits of trolling from the same user on that /24. [[User:Sam Korn|Sam Korn]] [[User talk:Sam Korn|(smoddy)]] 13:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

:::I have to defer to a checkuser. My comment referred, not to Petulant, but to the IP 78.105.113.152, which was acting in a similar manner to Petulant and the 207.112 IP. Hence I'd have some suspicion, still, that Fredrick day was using some kind of proxy (since Fredrick day is in London and 207.112.43.3 is in Canada); however, of course, Fredrick day is not the only highly knowledgeable and entrenched vandal, plus he has attracted some significant sympathy. We should be so lucky! --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 16:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Sorry, the "unlikely indeed" was a reference to Lar's comment. You will see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sceptre&oldid=235085599#Block here] a positive identification of those edits with Sceptre, which I absolutely confirm to be the case per lengthy CU inquiry prior to Sceptre's admission. This isn't Fredrick day, with whom I am, as you are aware, familiar. [[User:Sam Korn|Sam Korn]] [[User talk:Sam Korn|(smoddy)]] 16:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Thanks, Sam. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 02:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:: I'm not in london, no idea why you think that. --[[Special:Contributions/87.112.5.23|87.112.5.23]] ([[User talk:87.112.5.23|talk]]) 16:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Ah, Plus.net is in Sheffield. But I don't know what territory they cover. Why London? Possibly some other IPs used, maybe, or just bad memory. In any case, Fredrick day has indeed been active in the last week, as [[User:Procutus]]. [[Whack-a-mole]]. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 02:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Uhm, IP 87.112.*.* appears to be from the same range as many Fredrick day socks. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] [[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]] 02:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Right. And he's not in London, as he said. Speak of the devil. Procutus was revealed as Frecrick day because of his support for the IP above in an edit war. It's obvious that 87.112-87.115 is very convenient for him. He's frequently used other IP, and quite likely has multiple ISP access going at once. It's going to be tricky to find the true puppet master; for Fredrick day clearly isn't the original account, and he's claimed so a number of times; Fredric day was a bad hand account for.... for whom I either don't know or can't say yet, not enough proof. What I find fascinating is that Fredrick day gives voice to what some editors and administrators think, but don't usually say, because it would be uncivil. But his days are numbered. Or at least named. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 03:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::If you check edit histories carefully, you may find additional slip ups where the user forgets which account they are using, or is logged out, and connects two or more of their identities. Given the volume of editing, the evidence is probably there for the finding. If there is another master account, still active, it would be good to find it. But please, do not make any accusations until there is solid evidence, preferably reviewed by an uninvolved party to help avoid [[confirmation bias]]. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] [[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]] 03:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I know this is really isn't the thread to start such a discussion, but it seems I was out of town when the fun was happening.. Anyone else feel that Spectre's current block is a major over reaction? For someone who's never been blocked before (besides test blocks, which don't count), this is absurd. From what I've read, the only reason he was "indef" blocked was to get him to apologies, which he did, and then it could go to the community to decide if he should be blocked. Seems that didn't happen, and he retired instead. Regardless if someone has "retired" or not, I think that block discussion should still happen. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 03:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:He couldn't believe he was held to certain levels of decorum, which is why he overreacted from having any kind of block, and then claimed retirement in response.--[[User:Bedford|'''King Bedford I''']] [[User talk:Bedford|Seek his grace]] 04:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::Bedford, go troll somewhere else. A two month block for an editor who has never been blocked before is in very bad taste. I've probably done worse, and I've never been blocked that long. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 05:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::See --> [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sceptre_2]]. Cheers, [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 06:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I've already seen that, and it's not a blocking discussion. Two months is extreme over-kill, and is nothing more than a form of punishment, rather than a realistic attempt to protect the Wiki from harm. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 04:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Well, the block length is academic now as he has retired. I suspect had the discussion on mentorship proceeded then a comback would have been negotiated fairly readily. Cheers, [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 05:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::I disagree. I think he retired out of frustration over the block itself, so had he not been blocked he likely would not have "retired". I think we owe it to him to say "if you want to come back, you can do so in less than two months". I would even go so far as to say that no block is needed at this point, at least according to our blocking policy. Having a block discussion even after a user has "retired" is important. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 05:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(<--) A reminder in relation to comments further up this thread: Geolocation in the UK is virtually meaningless. ISPs generally serve the whole country. It is however extremely uncommon (but not impossible) for the same person to have two different broadband ISPs at home. </stating the obvious> [[User:Brilliantine|Brilliantine]] ([[User talk:Brilliantine|talk]]) 04:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

hahahahahahahaha so far you've spent 2 pages talking about a 2-edit account and congratulating each other for the great job you're doing. Sam Korn likes to publish the IPs of random accounts with no contributions, and hand out punishment like candy. Are the checkuser rules supposed to be a bad joke? Do you have any standards at all? {{unsigned|207.112.39.99}}

I'd like to suggest, not for the first time, that you stop treating all new users like shit, as a strategy for reducing vandalism. {{unsigned|207.112.39.99}}
:We don't treat new users like "shit", however if new users vandalise, that's a completely different kettle of fish. [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] ([[User talk:D.M.N.|talk]]) 19:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== warning template for Hurricane Gustav ==

During Hurricane Katrina, Wikipedia had this warning template on the top of the page

<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': ''Residents of areas affected by Hurricane Katrina are advised to seek advice and information from local authorities through television and radio. Information on Wikipedia may not be current or applicable to your area. '''Do not decide whether to leave your house, shelter, or vehicle based on Wikipedia information.'''
</div>

I placed one on the page for [[Hurricane Gustav]] but someone removed it. I think it should be there and want an admin's opinion on the issue. It may be against the rules but I think the rules should be allowed to be bent in an emergency situation. The page on Katrina had the warning up for days with no objections. One can see so in the edit history--[[User:Ted-m|Ted-m]] ([[User talk:Ted-m|talk]]) 03:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:Wikipedia isn't the place for medical advice, and I think in the same vein we shouldn't serve as a PSA system. [[User:David Fuchs|Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs]] <nowiki>(</nowiki>[[User talk:David Fuchs|talk]]<nowiki>)</nowiki> 03:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::(ec) I agree. But that's ''the whole point of the template.'' So what's the objection?[[User:Basil "Basil" Fawlty|Basil "Basil" Fawlty]] ([[User talk:Basil "Basil" Fawlty|talk]]) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Then how come it was allowed during Katrina?--[[User:Ted-m|Ted-m]] ([[User talk:Ted-m|talk]]) 03:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

:Cause we made a mistake in allowing it. We have this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 03:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:And this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Risk_disclaimer [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::I think it should be up there. [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
(copied from [[User_talk:CrazyC83]], who just reverted my re-addition of the box....)
:::On principle? How about the one that your opinion isn't the only one that matters Lar? I especially like your comment on my talk page. - [[User:AuburnPilot|auburnpilot]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|talk]] 05:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't revert you, Crazy.. but I do think that it's worth having that box up there for a while. I certainly wouldn't worry about the Manual of Style in this context, because I think it's appropriate to bend the rules a little once in a while for strong reasons.... and our article is the second result in Google, so could well get quite a lot of traffic. Follow your conscience... :-) [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 03:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)this has been mentioned on [[WP:AN]] too, so I'll copy this note across there as well....
::: :o) I think it should ''not'' be up there. :) :) Speaking of which, we have an applicable content guideline... [[WP:NDA|over here]]! :) [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 03:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:Um, no. I see it now:

<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': "Those contemplating [[Liposuction]] are advised to seek advice and information from true medical professionals through their websites and in-person visists. Information on Wikipedia may not be current or applicable to your procedure. '''Do not decide whether or not to get liposuction or other cosmetic surgeries based on Wikipedia Information".
</div>
:Yeah, let's not. - [[User:AuburnPilot|auburnpilot]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|talk]] 03:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::um.. Auburn... you're comparing a liposuction disclaimer with a note about a very dangerous Hurricane. I see a difference. [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 03:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::PrivateMusens, you are ignoring the content guideline I cited above. [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 03:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Lipo is a very dangerous elective surgery (1 death per 5000?). [http://www.surgerywatch.com/Death-due-to-Liposuction.php][http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/liposuction/risks.html] In all seriousness, it was just an example of what some may see as equally valid, but most will see as showing how equally unnecessary such warnings are. - [[User:AuburnPilot|auburnpilot]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|talk]] 03:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I agree; part of the point of removing these things is that even at the most narrow scope there's a lot of articles that can be argued to be life or death.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 10:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Or worse:
<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': "Those considering a conversion to [[Catholicism]] are advised to seek advice and information from a trusted spiritual adviser. Information on Wikipedia may not be current or applicable to your personal circumstances. '''Do not decide whether or not to change your religion based on Wikipedia Information".
</div>
::: -- [[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']] 03:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) How about a reminder of/reference to the disclaimers added to {{tl|HurricaneWarning}}? [[User:WODUP|'''WODUP''']] 03:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:That still seems pretty ridiculous, I am sure that those affected are ''very aware'' of the storms in this date and age. - [[User:Caribbean H.Q.|Caribbean~H.Q.]] 03:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::Well I'll be... the risk disclaimer is already linked from {{tl|HurricaneWarning}}. [[User:WODUP|'''WODUP''']] 04:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And another...

<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': "Those considering a [[smoking cessation]] are advised to seek advice and information from a licensed practioner. Statistics on Wikipedia may not be current. '''Do not decide whether or not to change your smoking habits based on Wikipedia Information".
</div>
[[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 03:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:Not weighing in on the opinion at hand, but I think the main concern is that a [http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS275&=&q=Hurricane+Gustav&btnG=Google+Search Goggle search string for "Hurricane Gustav"] shows it's Wikipedia page as the 3rd result. It seems that users are just concerned that someone may stumble upon the article and may take the information as fact, which could be true or false. I have a feeling that the concerned users are just wanting to make sure that the poor souls who are having to leave their homes, their jobs, their lives, and who could possibly get injured or killed understand that we are not a reporting service and that our content should not be mistaken for advice. This is an extraordinary case that is not easily comparable to other issues, beliefs, or surgeries. I respectfully ask that editors stop making parody templates of the above template and please be respectful so as to not mock the original poster of the template. Obviously s/he had the best of intentions and the joking and comedy over a very serious matter is of very poor taste. Can we please get to the issue at hand and seriously discuss whether the template should be placed or not? Thank you.[[User:Gonzo_fan2007| « Gonzo fan2007]] ''([[User talk:Gonzo_fan2007|talk]] ♦ [[Special:Contributions/Gonzo_fan2007|contribs]]) @ '''' 03:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::Nobody is making light of "the poor souls who are having to leave their homes...". The template should not exist, and we've shown why through the use of examples. - [[User:AuburnPilot|auburnpilot]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|talk]] 04:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::It is not parody. It is contrast and comparison. Additionally, I don't think anyone will decide evacuation on this article, the PSA/EAS is the responsibility of local city/state and federal authority. ''We'' are building an encyclopedia, let us not lose sight of that. [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 04:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::In any case, why add it it now? Gustav already hit Cuba quite hard and no one seemed to care. Because its entering the United States? What about [[WP:UNDUE]]? Its clear that all the commotion its because of the actual state that its going to hit, because I don't see such a haste when they go over Florida. Some users are being influenced by memories of Hurricane Katrina's destructive pass. Sorry it that seems harsh, but I call a spade a spade. - [[User:Caribbean H.Q.|Caribbean~H.Q.]] 04:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::(ecX3) Guys! All I am asking is that you just talk about it without being [[WP:DICK|dicks]] and take the request made by the original poster as a serious request. Just be respectful of the situation. All I am asking is for comments like Caribbean's, which address the issue at hand without mocking the template.[[User:Gonzo_fan2007| « Gonzo fan2007]] ''([[User talk:Gonzo_fan2007|talk]] ♦ [[Special:Contributions/Gonzo_fan2007|contribs]]) @ '''' 04:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::[[WP:DOUCHE|Don't be a fucking douchebag]]. - [[User:AuburnPilot|auburnpilot]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|talk]] 04:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Thiz iz seriouz buzinnezz. [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 04:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::(e/c)And why only hurricanes? Do we do this for other events? Floods, tornadoes, blizzards, forest fires, riots, wars, chemical spills? At what point is a disaster significant enough to merit a warning? [[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']] 04:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Off topic: Am I the only one irritated by edit conflicts? The software really should resolve this automagically. :) [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 04:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::(ec)In any case, I personally do not believe the template should belong. I understand the reasons for adding it, but making this a special case just doesn't make sense to me. I have a feeling that the template would just be an eye-sore, and it could be argued that this is just systematic bias. Why don't we add templates like this to every big event? I think that the encyclopedia is fine with just reporting the information in an encyclopedic manner, and we should just let our disclaimers do the disclaiming. And yes I am hating the conflicts (especially the one I just had with your comment ;)[[User:Gonzo_fan2007| « Gonzo fan2007]] ''([[User talk:Gonzo_fan2007|talk]] ♦ [[Special:Contributions/Gonzo_fan2007|contribs]]) @ '''' 04:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not use one of our other "current" templates, that already warn of such things? -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 04:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:Because we have [[WP:NDA|content guidelines]] that should generally be used. [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 04:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::You seem to be confused. The current templates are article issue templates, not disclaimer templates. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 04:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Oh no, I am very clear. I am very clear that the pink boxes in this section of AN are in fact... ''disclaimers''. Even if in the loosest form, they intend to warn and caveat. Don't [[WP:NPA|call me confused please]]. [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 04:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Just to be crystal clear, I think Ned is referring to the {{tl|current}} templates. - [[User:AuburnPilot|auburnpilot]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|talk]] 04:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Oops. [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 04:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': ''Editors of articles such as [[Hurricane Gustav]] are advised to seek advice and information from ArbCom before placing a template such as this. Information in Wikipedia: space may not be current or applicable to your ArbCom's current mood. '''Do not decide whether to place a template on the article based on Wikipedia policies.'''
</div>
[[Image:718smiley.svg|20px]] --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 04:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': There are hundreds of stupid arguments on AIV, and this is one of them.'''
</div>
Word. --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[User_talk:mboverload|@]] 04:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
: LOL. Particularly when this was the shape of {{tl|HurricaneWarning}}, a template that survived TFD several times, until [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Current_tropical_cyclone&oldid=155328072 September 2007]. [[User:Titoxd|Titoxd]]([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]]) 04:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Since we're churning out silly disclaimer templates, how about one for [[Wikipedia]]:
<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': Those considering using Wikipedia are advised to seek advice and information from a trusted reliable source. Information on Wikipedia may not be current or applicable to your personal circumstances. '''Do not decide whether or not to use Wikipedia based on Wikipedia information.'''
</div>
It just had to be said. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 10:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:Perhaps it would be easier for Wikipedia to consider a help page about its own articles and making decisions based on one's trust in their accuracy. That's a question for the offices, most likely.[[User:Miquonranger03|Miquonranger03]] ([[User talk:Miquonranger03|talk]]) 07:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
===prelude to edit war===
You lot are debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and thus miss the actual point. The style guide matters not, the general principle against disclaimers matters not. They're good ideas, but blanket prohibitions are bad. This is a situation where we may well be getting a large influx of readers who have no idea what WP really is about, and haven't the time or energy to go to the bottom of a page, and then realise they should read a general disclaimer to see if maybe there is something there they ought to read. IAR and add the damn warning template, and stop standing on formality about whether it's in accordance with general principles about not having disclaimers. Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 05:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
: What he said. [[User:Titoxd|Titoxd]]([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]]) 05:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:IAR only works when it improves the pedia. I would posit that it does not, so IAR is not applicable. [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 05:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::[[WP:IAR]]: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." So, how does this help improve or maintain Wikipedia? It doesn't. We don't add such templates to articles, and this doesn't deserve an exception. - [[User:AuburnPilot|auburnpilot]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|talk]] 05:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Don't be ridiculous. Don't stand on rules. And don't revert me for the sake of some principle. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 05:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::echo Lar. [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 05:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::I don't particularly like the idea of it being there, either, but I think this is one of the cases where we can and should ignore the rules. People have the capacity for '''incredible''' stupidity. While I'm generally against the idea of keeping this like this around, not everyone is intelligent enough to realize that at any given point in time, Wikipedia could be hosting information that could result in some bad things if people were dumb enough to use it as a guide for emergency procedures, and that's really not something I want to think about. Remember that Wikipedia does exist in the real world. [[User:Celarnor|'''Celarnor''']] [[User_talk:Celarnor|Talk to me]] 05:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::: I would posit that it does improve the pedia, by sending away the users who really need the info to the proper place, hence making us be a more reliable source of info. That said, please don't edit war over this. This is an extremely unstable article, and hence protections are inappropriate here; I'll be handing out blocks instead of simply elevating the protection level of the page. [[User:Titoxd|Titoxd]]([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]]) 05:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::echo Lar. [[WP:IAR]]. Do what you feel is right. --[[User talk:Duk|Duk]] 05:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Indeed, Lar makes an excellent point above. Putting that up there, is simply the right thing to do. [[User:SQL|SQL]][[User talk:SQL|Query me!]] 07:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

: So you're worried about people who run around the Internet randomly trusting sites, and you think they should be warned away from Wikipedia so they find some blog to trust? You can't honestly say that you're helping people who can't be trusted to use the Internet wisely by warning them away from an updated fairly reliable source.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 11:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

:Just so we note, this box violates some of our principles, UNDUE and NPOV. Also, the guideline is a good guideline, this is not what we do (PSA/EAS). [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 05:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::A guiding principle is "do no harm" and people relying on this article for decisions on evacuation can clearly lead to real harm. The disclaimer should be on the page. Apparently it is presently unprotected so that IP editors and newbies can have their way with it. An Ip editor changed the windspeed in the info box from the correct 115 mph to 390 mph, and it stayed that way for 26 minutes until I restored the correct information. The disclaimer should remain on the article. It is about a pending natural disaster affecting millions of people and tens of billions of dollars property damage, and if a vandal can introduce incorrect information, or if stale or incorrect information is in the article, it could lead people to take actions affecting their safety adversely. And the article should once again be semiprotected, because sufficient established and registered users are working on it that newbies and IP editors are not needed to keep it up to date while the storm is a few hours from landfall. Let the IPs back in when it is a historical matter in a day or so. [[User:Edison2|Edison2]] ([[User talk:Edison2|talk]]) 05:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::: I have repeatedly stated on that talk page that protection would be extremely inappropriate in this case, but like I said above, I agree with the inclusion of the box. [[User:Titoxd|Titoxd]]([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]]) 05:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::: Well I semi'ed it but feel free to undo that, I won't consider that any sort of wheeling. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 05:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::We have principles, we strive to be an accurate academic institution. This type of thing should no go into our articles, for neutrality, and other reasons as echoed by me above. Incidentally, why are anons not permitted to edit that article? Please undo the prot. [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 05:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Question, how does this violate undue or npov? I don't see it but I might be missing something ;) [[User:Rx StrangeLove|RxS]] ([[User talk:Rx StrangeLove|talk]]) 05:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=235517445 As above]. [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 05:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::As I said, the only reason that all this argument is going on its because Gustav will hit New Orleans, which received a lot of destruction with Katrina. The decision to add it is directly influenced by the psychological effect of the horrible events seen three years ago. If that wasn't the case a template would have been added when it passed over Cuba, which by the way has also been heavily affected by tropical cyclones in the last years. - [[User:Caribbean H.Q.|Caribbean~H.Q.]] 05:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Perhaps you're right. And perhaps it should have been added earlier. Better late than never. (and I'll say that I don't necessarily have a lot of confidence in the governments of the area and their ability to have learned from Katrina, but I digress). ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 06:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::So we if we didn't do something in the past (rightly or wrongly), we can't do it going forward? I know that's not what you're saying but that's the practical effect. Shouldn't we decide if something's a good idea and then work out the application afterwards? Anyway, it seems like a good application of IAR, and it's been worked out so it's all good. [[User:Rx StrangeLove|RxS]] ([[User talk:Rx StrangeLove|talk]]) 06:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
It's a good principle. But sometimes exceptions are needed. This is one of those times. The harm to the encyclopedia from having this disclaimer for a day or 3 is slight. The harm if someone got hurt and it got into the media is immense. No brainer. All principles have exceptions. That's the real world. Deal. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 05:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:I'll compromise here. Lets make sure the template goes away after the disaster subsides. [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 05:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:: Back when it used to be a proper template, that was always the case. [[User:Titoxd|Titoxd]]([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]]) 05:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::NVS, 4 days from now (or whatever the right time is, it should be short, I agree) I'll baleet it out of there myself... This is a temporary thing only. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 05:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:The other option would be not to pretend to be posting "Current storm information" as if Wiki was providing the latest and greatest. Maybe Wiki shouldn't be a newspaper or public notice system? --[[User:Pnoble805|Pat]] ([[User talk:Pnoble805|talk]]) 05:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:: Which is not going to happen unless you intend to kill [[WP:WPTC]] and break [[WP:RAUL|my third law]]. Wikipedia has been ''lauded'' previously over our hurricane coverage, and even cited in government tropical cyclone coverage, so I don't think we're interested in changing that any time soon. [[User:Titoxd|Titoxd]]([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]]) 05:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I myself find it interesting that there has only been interest in putting up this template as the storm hits the United States. I guess the human beings in Cuba, Haiti, Dominican, etc. just aren't as important? Perhaps the current hurricane template should have a link to the risk disclaimer, but putting up this red template only when a disaster happens to the USA looks very unpretty. —[[User:Elipongo|Elipongo]] ([[User talk:Elipongo|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Elipongo|contribs]]) 06:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::: Well, there is the perhaps relevant fact that Cuba, the Dominican Republic etc. are Spanish -speaking countries, Haiti is French-speaking, and we are the English Wikipedia. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald ''"unreachable by rational discourse"''''']]'''([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]])''' 06:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::But Jamaica and the Caymans are English-speaking. Eleven deaths have been reported so far in Jamaica. -- [[User:Avenue|Avenue]] ([[User talk:Avenue|talk]]) 11:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Quite true. Perhaps the notice should be affixed to the article on Hanna now, as it seems to be aimed at the Bahamas. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald ''"unreachable by rational discourse"''''']]'''([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]])''' 19:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::: There's no ulterior motives here. We used to have it last year; only this year it got edited/redirected to the bland current version (which was being used, by the way), {{tl|current tropical cyclone}} due to the ambox change. As people remembered Katrina, they remembered how the red box, and asked for it back. [[User:Titoxd|Titoxd]]([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]]) 06:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps {{tl|current tropical cyclone}} should itself have a link to the risk disclaimer- maybe even highlighted in red. That way anybody in the path of a storm would be warned not to use Wikipedia for life-safety decisions and we wouldn't be in the position of having to judge when the people affected are "important" enough to warrant a red warning banner.—[[User:Elipongo|Elipongo]] ([[User talk:Elipongo|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Elipongo|contribs]]) 06:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::That box does include such a link, but we Americans are now in danger so it much be enormous and clearly visible. - [[User:AuburnPilot|auburnpilot]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|talk]] 06:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::So... by that interpretation you're saying that we Americans are too dumb to heed the regular disclaimer used for the rest of the world? —[[User:Elipongo|Elipongo]] ([[User talk:Elipongo|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Elipongo|contribs]]) 06:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Not to be making light of things, but speaking as an American myself, I'd say better safe than sorry to your question. That can be read many ways, I know. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 06:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::I do feel it's important for people to be reminded not to base life-safety decisions on our data, however things should be the same if the disaster hits Mexico or New Zealand as if it hits the United States. This red banner is a [[WP:NDT|bad idea]], the proper course is to make the standard current disaster template a bit clearer about our standard disclaimers. —[[User:Elipongo|Elipongo]] ([[User talk:Elipongo|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Elipongo|contribs]]) 06:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::I agree, I'm not opposing this because of any guidelines, I'm opposing it because of the precedent it sets. Nobody bothered to respond to my question above, so I'll ask it again down here. And why only hurricanes? Do we do this for other events? Floods, tornadoes, blizzards, forest fires, riots, wars, chemical spills? At what point is a disaster significant enough to merit a warning? Do we put one up after an earthquake warning people there might be a tsunami? Why wait until there's a tornado warning, by then it may be too late, do we put up a warning for every severe thunderstorm watch? What strength of hurricane warrants a template? Do we put one up for a Category 1? A tropical depression? I normally agree with Lar, but I'm disappointed to see him simply dismissing all the opposition as based on formalities. [[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']] 14:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)... I'm sorry if it seems like I was simply dismissing opposition, if I acted brusquely and more forcefully than I normally would. But I came to this discussion and what I saw was a lot of ''tomfoolery''. Sorry, but that's what it looked like to me, despite those pointing out that the stuff being shown was shown to bring forth counterexamples... sure, maybe they were, but they were also ''funny''. That to me suggests this matter wasn't being taken seriously. So I acted. That's what we are supposed to do, after all. Know when deliberation is needed, and know when quick action is needed, and know how to tell the difference. The subsequent discussion seems to show that the consensus, or at least a majority of voices, was in the end, OK with this temporary measure. (and it should be temporary!)

Now, I think our general rule against specific disclaimers is good. But I think maybe for anything that is worthy of a "current event" tagging, we need a more '''bold''' pointer to that disclaimer, right at the top of the article, where it is seen by everyone visiting, rather than buried in fine print towards the bottom (It is on the very bottom line of the page, in small print, after other stirring reads like the Privacy Policy and the About Wikipedia prose... how many people coming to a site when they're in a hurry are going to read that??? NOT MANY.) So I think after this tempest in a teacup about this specific box blows over (sorry!), we need to revisit the design of the current events box. Even if it just points to our general disclaimer, it's good to have that pointer ''at the top'' for current events. Tornadoes, fires, bridge collapses, earthquakes, hurricanes, wars, you name it. Anyone using Wikipedia for their first source for advice about hangnail cures is a fool. And the buried disclaimer is fine for them, they have time to regret their foolishness. But people in emergency situations, with not much time? They need a more clear reminder NOT TO TRUST this source for life and death info. What if the vandal who set the speed to 300+ mph for 20 min last night had set it to 15 mph and people made decisions based on that? Do you all standing on policy actually want that on your conscience? I don't. So let's work together to get that box changed while still hewing to our spirit.

I apologise to anyone I gave offense to last night. It was not my intent, and I'm sorry. But I felt this was important enough to override some of the norms I usually go by. Heck I even reverted something... once. That's pretty shocking behaviour for me! ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 17:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

===Actual disaster warning box===
<-- Whats the actual "live disaster" template? I didn't know we had one? [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 06:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:{{tl|Current disaster}}—[[User:Elipongo|Elipongo]] ([[User talk:Elipongo|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Elipongo|contribs]]) 07:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::Heck, this is all silly then. Just to mock it up quick I flipped that to be the speedy type graphically instead of the notice type, and changed the image, to make this:

<center>{{Current disaster}}
 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Current_disaster&oldid=235540763 visible on this diff]</center>
::Isn't that better? [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 07:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Much better, thank you. Anyone object to its use on the article now? —[[User:Elipongo|Elipongo]] ([[User talk:Elipongo|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Elipongo|contribs]]) 07:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': ''Editors considering [[WP:BEANS|sticking beans up their nose]] are advised to seek advice and information from medical professionals and/or horticulturalists prior to attempting to do so. Information on Wikipedia may not be applicable to your nostrils or the type of beans you may have in your pantry. '''Do not decide whether or not to shove foodstuffs in your bodily orifices based on Wikipedia information.''' ''
</div>
Had to be said... [[User:Caknuck|caknuck]] [[User talk:Caknuck|°]] is geared up for football season 08:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:Now you tell me... [[User:Kevin|Kevin]] ([[User talk:Kevin|talk]]) 08:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::Um... you may wish to link [[pantry]], unless you enjoy resolving [[pulse (legume)]]/[[lingerie]] issues (I know I do!) [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 10:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Current_tropical_cyclone&oldid=236230043 {{Current disaster|name={{{1}}}|event={{{2|tropical cyclone}}}|notes={{red|'''Do not decide whether to leave your house, shelter, or vehicle based on Wikipedia information.'''}}|red=yes}}
--[[User talk:Random832|Random832]] ([[special:contributions/Random832|contribs]]) 13:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Dan Schneider ==

Just to note that I am revisiting [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive470#Dan Schneider (writer)]] now the dust has settled a bit - there is an issue of [[WP:VSCA|vanispamcruftisement]] to sort out and also some [[WP:BLP]] issues with the sockfarm on the other side of the debate.

[[WP:SPA]]'s listed in that report as promoting Schneider and spamming his site:
* {{userlinks|Cop 666}}
* {{userlinks|Theovetes}}
* {{userlinks|Lazarus86}}
* {{userlinks|Mathemaxi}}
* {{userlinks|Ingupper}}
* {{userlinks|Athenosia}}
* {{userlinks|Filialprojector}}
* {{userlinks|Fordhawk}}
* {{userlinks|Vandenflexor}}
* {{userlinks|Wallaby Jones}}
* {{userlinks|Stratuspower88}}
* {{userlinks|Mondocanetoomer}}
* {{userlinks|Rebeccamack}}
* {{userlinks|SouthernLights}}
* {{userlinks|Verbaleaux}}
* {{userlinks|Verdipun}}
* {{userlinks|Sunstruckglass}}
* {{userlinks|Alfonsogloriano}}
* {{userlinks|Ambersoniata}}
* {{userlinks|UmaPa}}
* {{userlinks|Deadsandsflashing}}
* {{userlinks|Anatolikarpantov}}
* {{userlinks|Corinthiani}}
* {{userlinks|Chasfagan}}
* {{userlinks|Lyledag}}
* {{userlinks|Timesawaste}}
* {{userlinks|Slopack}}
* {{userlinks|Tallulahdor}}
* {{userlinks|Nathanor}}
* {{userlinks|Landoloch}}
* {{userlinks|Good Shoestore}}
That's more than enough for a cross-wiki spam search, which turns up more links but I've not yet found if they were added by the same IP range. {{userlinks|Mathemaxi}} is a good example; note the way good and bad are intermingled and sometimes two links are added at once, one of which is to one of Schneider's reviews. Oh, and "correcting" to US spelling in articles about British and Aussie subjects gets up my nose a bit :-) Example of the kind of thing: inserts link to a review, www.theyshootpictures.com/review_seventhseal.htm, which is now 404 but the goo 'ol wayback machine reveals was a review written by (surprise, surprise) Dan Schneider. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 21:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

* I've found a couple of articles with a dozen or more cites to a single interview with Schneider, all the content and cites added by one of the sockfarm. Feel free to look over my edit and block logs and review. I'm leaving a standard message to choose one account and request unblock. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 22:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well its good to know that my tracking down wasn't ignored - I feared all the silliness on the discussion page might have just made both sides look as bad as eachother and nothing would be done. I know its unproven, but just have a look at the discussion and then at one of the articles. I think the similarity in style is too close to be looked over. Also, what is up with that Ovenknob guy? He seems to be so over-the-top I wouldn't be surprised if its just another sockpuppet designed to make me and other editors look unreasonable. [[User:Tmwns|Tmwns]] ([[User talk:Tmwns|talk]]) 17:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And:
* {{userlinks|Crayonedcat}}
* {{userlinks|Veraciter}}
* {{userlinks|Blanton84}}
* {{userlinks|Bekaymecca}}
* {{userlinks|Shelfgoddess}}
* {{userlinks|Nugluts}}
* {{userlinks|Picacipa}}
* {{userlinks|Tedlam1972}}
Plus {{userlinks|NormalGoddess}} is a possible. How best to identify this sockfarm and tie them together, without violating [[WP:BLP]]? [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 21:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is another one * {{userlinks|Harikawa}} It looks like the only editors arguing for DS's notability are socks of DS. I have seen other editors community banned for less then what this prolific sockpuppeteer has done to self promote on wikipedia. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]] | [[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 21:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

* This game of whack-a-mole is getting a bit tiresome, are there any Checkusers who wouldn't mind looking over this one and perhaps helping with other sleepers or a rangeblock? [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 10:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== It's that time of year again, more college classes to keep an eye on... ==

{{resolved|Transwiki-ed to Wikiversity. Thanks for the help everyone. '''[[User:MBisanz|MBisanz]]''' [[User talk:MBisanz|talk]] 14:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)}}
Just noticed a couple users and after a closer look found what appears to be two college classes, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=50&username=Eas4200 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=Eml4500&group=&limit=50 here]. Not sure yet what their goal or focus is on. Just an FYI. [[User:KnightLago|KnightLago]] ([[User talk:KnightLago|talk]]) 23:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:I left notes on what looks to be the main accounts asking what they were doing and offering any help. [[User:KnightLago|KnightLago]] ([[User talk:KnightLago|talk]]) 23:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::A couple of those accounts have been blocked for username violations--looks innocent though. See [[User talk:Eas4200c.f08.vandal.a]]. [[User:Chick Bowen|Chick Bowen]] 05:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::As far as I can tell, the courses are both at the University of Florida and are [http://clesm.mae.ufl.edu/~vql/courses/aero1/2008.fall/ EGM 4200C Aerospace Structures] & [http://apollo.mae.ufl.edu/~vql/courses/fead/2008.fall/ EML 4500 Finite Element Analysis and Design]. Both are being taught by the same person. Personally, given the nature of the courses, I'd be surprised if they did any damage to speak of, but it is certainly worth watching. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 05:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::They've created over forty accounts so far that we can trace: one for each student, plus professorial accounts, class accounts, "team" accounts, etc. The clear intent is to [[:WP:NOT#WEBHOST|use us as their webhost]], in lieu of software products such as those offered by [[:Blackboard Inc.|Blackboard]] and its competititors. I'm willing to [[:WP:AGF|assume it's been done in good faith]], but I really feel the whole thing needs to come to a grinding halt, and all the pages be deleted, the accounts blocked or renamed to something not proclaiming abusive use, etc. --[[User:Orangemike|Orange Mike]] | [[User talk:Orangemike|Talk]] 16:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Have we managed to get any comunication going with them to confirm what they are up to?[[User:Geni|Geni]] 16:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Nothing much yet. I just left them a note yesterday. This to me appears to closely resemble the [[WP:MMM|Murder, Madness, and Mayhem]] project. Groups assigned to learn about WP and then create articles. If this is the case they can only be an asset to us. If not, then we can deal with them. But to shut them down when we don't even know what is going on doesn't make sense to me. [[User:KnightLago|KnightLago]] ([[User talk:KnightLago|talk]]) 16:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Actually, we have. From the already-deleted [[User talk:Eml4500.f08.bottle.vitello/Lecture 3]]: ''"This page is part of an ongoing course assignment for the University of Florida's course on Finite Element Analysis. We are required by our professor, Loc Vu-Quoc, to maintain these pages throughout the current Fall semester. If you have any questions, his email address is"'' and the prof's e-mail. As I've said, we're being used as a webhost, and I think it really does need to be stopped. --[[User:Orangemike|Orange Mike]] | [[User talk:Orangemike|Talk]] 16:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::That is still not very clear to me. If they are just using us as a host, then I completely agree we should shut it down. But "we are required to maintain" doesn't really indicate what they are doing. Are they going to create articles? Some of their initial work, learning about redirects, linking, etc., doesn't seem like simple hosting. [[User:KnightLago|KnightLago]] ([[User talk:KnightLago|talk]]) 16:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::We should ask the instructors of these courses to look at [[Wikipedia:School and university projects]]. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 16:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::(ec) They seem to be using it as a host to me - as stated above, they're creating "team use" accounts (strictly prohibited by [[WP:U]]), various pages of links to class syllabus and other course resources, etc. I have no issues with the use of Wikipedia as a classroom tool, but they should not be using Wikipedia user space as a classroom communication/collaboration device. [[User:Shereth|Sher]][[User_talk:Shereth|eth]] 16:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::I think we're in the process of making a mistake here. According to the talk page of [[User talk:Eml4500.f08|Eml4500.f08]] "some goals related to wikipedia are (1) introduction to the use of wikipedia for learning and research, (2) to train future contributors to wikipedia, and (3) to create and develop open course contents for wiki sites such as wikiversity." That does ''not'' sound like they're using Wikipedia as a webhost. As long as they're willing to restrict themselves to one account per user, it sounds like exactly the sort of thing we should both allow and encourage. --[[User:Steven J. Anderson|Steven J. Anderson]] ([[User talk:Steven J. Anderson|talk]]) 17:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm inclined to agree, in lieu of more info. If the intent is to teach people to use wikipedia properly then it should be a net benefit, so long as they don't do the mess where the students all have to write their own articles which they try to keep separate from the rest of wikipedia. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 17:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::indeed there is the potential for this to go wrong which is why we really need a line of communication but for the time being this remains only a potential problem.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 17:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:I am working on trying to figure out the situation and have started communicating with somebody. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKnightLago&diff=235848378&oldid=235841926 here] and my reply [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IntaminAG&oldid=235858028 here]. [[User:KnightLago|KnightLago]] ([[User talk:KnightLago|talk]]) 17:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::Note that as users do their work, they may be able to contribute and improve wikipedia's existing articles, or that they would find certain topics that are not covered by wikipedia to create new wikipedia articles in the future. [[User:Eml4500.f08|Eml4500.f08]] ([[User talk:Eml4500.f08|talk]]) 18:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::The lecture notes and the HW are starting points for open course notes such as those in wikiversity. This point had been clearly explained in both courses. See also the points in the above paragraph regarding potential immediate short-term contributions to wikipedia by these users, in addition to the long-term goals mentioned in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eml4500.f08]. [[User:Eml4500.f08|Eml4500.f08]] ([[User talk:Eml4500.f08|talk]]) 18:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Even this discussion among wikipedia administrators would be already a good learning experience about the administrative structure and the working of wikipedia for these new users (the majority did not even know how to open a wikipedia account and had to be walked through step by step in class), in addition to getting new information through the above discussion. [[User:Eml4500.f08|Eml4500.f08]] ([[User talk:Eml4500.f08|talk]]) 18:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Yes but is this going to dirrectly result in new articles or improvment to existing articles. There are far better platforms around for other tasks.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 18:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::I am still not sure yet of the exact nature of the classes. If Eml4500.f08 could explain a little bit more it would be greatly appreciated. Are the students simply using Wikipedia to host their homework assignments? Are they going to do any actual work on creating or improving articles? Or are they just learning how Wikipedia works?

::::::My feeling is that if the students are being taught how to use Wikipedia, even if they don't actually contribute much to actual articles, then it is a net positive as a whole. Some of the students will undoubtedly stay and become contributors. But we shouldn't rush to judgment here and exclude a large number of potential editors. The accounts will obviously have to respect the [[WP:U|username policy]]. This means one account per person. Each person's account should be unique to them. No group or shared accounts. [[User:KnightLago|KnightLago]] ([[User talk:KnightLago|talk]]) 18:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::This sounds rather like the "Global Economics" affair, about the end of April, see [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Global Economics]] and its talk page, and a long thread on AN/I [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive412#Use of Wikipedia for class project|here]]. Two problems there were: (a) an expectation that students could "own" their articles and ask others not to edit, and (b) lack of understanding of the difference between a student essay (where original research and synthesis are the name of the game) and a Wikipedia article (where they are forbidden). [[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] ([[User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 19:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not simply a web site to post their HW reports, but rather a
medium for collaboration, not just among the students in a team,
but also a collaboration of the whole class (i.e., among the
different teams), and more than that, the work is a collaboration
between the professor and the whole class to develop online open
course material, as mentioned. Each student has an individual user
account, no share accounts, but they can edit in each other's user
namespace to collaborate on the lecture notes and HW problems in
a given HW report.

There are no team accounts; the account of the team leader serves as
a focal point for all team members to contribute their respective
part to the team's HW report, using their own individual account.
Each team member wants to use his/her individual account to edit so
that the history of a wiki HW report will be used to evaluate his/her
participation in the team to determine his/her final HW grade.
It is imperative that each user use his/her individual account so
to show his/her work.

The best HW report of the whole class (i.e., of all teams in the
class) would serve as the spring board for the next HW report, i.e.,
each team would use the best past HW report as a starting point
to construct their next HW report, instead of using only their
own work all the time. This way, weak teams will learn from the
strongest teams, and the whole class thus collaborates together.
(Without this measure, mediocre teams remain mediocre throughout
without having the opportunity to learn from the best to improve
themselves.) Since the team work starts with the professor's lecture
presentations and HW problem assignments, the work is actually a
collaboration between the professor and the whole class.

Finally, recall the long-term goals already mentioned. [[User:Eml4500.f08|Eml4500.f08]] ([[User talk:Eml4500.f08|talk]]) 19:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:What you have described would probably be far better met by a localised mediawiki instalation or on a free wiki host. Wikipedia is neither.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 19:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::It looks to me as if any benefit to Wikipedia would be entirely ancillary, and totally out of proportion to the resources used. Think of the floodgates this could open if this is allowed, and the additional burden on the servers. I'd say there's little indication that we need to wait for any more information, the course is not "How to Edit Wikipedia 101" -- this should be shut down. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald ''"unreachable by rational discourse"''''']]'''([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]])''' 19:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Indeed that does appear to be the case. However it would still be best to be diplomatic.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 19:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

: It seems the intent is to use Wikipedia to post team based homework; using the accounts system to allow lecturer to see who did what. I can't see anything in the aims that fits in with Wikipedia's core principles - the only collaboration mentioned is within the class. As geni says, far better on a localised wiki. Oh, and lecturer getting smacked with a cluebat. [[User:Minkythecat|Minkythecat]] ([[User talk:Minkythecat|talk]]) 20:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::Geni and Minky have said almost everything I wanted to say. We need to thank these folks politely, then gently but ruthlessly clean out '''''all''''' these accounts in their current forms and offer guidance on how to get your own wiki software. --[[User:Orangemike|Orange Mike]] | [[User talk:Orangemike|Talk]] 20:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Mediawiki can be downloaded through http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki but it would really be an issue for local it techs though.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 20:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:We have a long tradition of driving away editors from academe through over-zealous policy-wonkery. Thank god we aren't trying to do anything whatsoever that would benefit from having a bunch of intelligent, educated people around. That's called sarcasm for those of you having difficulty [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 20:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::It is extreamly well established that wikipedia is not a free webhost. If you think that is "over-zealous policy-wonkery" then your position is somewhat at odds with wikipedia norms. If they want to include editing wikipedia as part of their course we can provide plently of advice on how to do it but both the students and wikipedia will be better off if they use some other wiki (either localy hosted or on a free webhost) for what is appears they are currently proposeing to do.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 20:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::(ec)I am certainly profoundly at odds with the established Wikipedia norm of assuming bad-faith of new editors. I am at odds with the established norm of discouraging attempts to find new methods of collaborative working. I am at odds with the established Wikipedia norm of discouraging bright young people from learning how to contribute effectively to this ''soi-disant'' encyclopædia. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 20:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::there is no bad faith being assumed (although you do appear to be running rather close to the line) in fact there is pretty much nothing being assumed we have been very careful to find out what is being planned before doing anything. Teaching people how to contribute effectively to wikipedia is not even a side aim of the project and it's structure tends against that being atchived.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 21:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::The assumption that has been made about these accounts is that they will not contribute to the encyclopædia, and should therefor be blocked. That is as clear an assumption of bad-faith as it is possible to make. I think you have misinterpreted my comment about teaching people to contribute effectively - I meant that that is a responsibility of more experienced editors, and that in order to encourage effective contribution we should be more welcoming of new editors. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 21:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Hopefuly we can resolve the situation without resorting to blocking. We shall see.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 22:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:: I normally would agree with you about process-wonkery; however, what we have here is coursework relying upon in-team collaberation - would "outsiders" be allowed to correct any mistakes? Would that mess their course marking up? Anybody finding Wikipedia interesting and wanting to contribute naturally benefits all parties; the issue is however is such insular work the best way to achieve it? that's a realistic view for the one of you having difficulty [[User:Minkythecat|Minkythecat]] ([[User talk:Minkythecat|talk]]) 20:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe this kind of usage would be welcome over at wikiversity. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 20:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:Exactly. I don't think these guys will cause any huge messes, per se, it's more just a fundamental issue of using Wikipedia - and particularly the user space - in a manner that is not acceptable. [[User:Shereth|Sher]][[User_talk:Shereth|eth]] 20:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello all, I'm a student in one of these two courses and I seem to have quite the grasp as to what my professor is trying to achieve. If you have any further questions about this, shoot away. I'll start by saying that much of what you all (those opposed to allowing this endeavor to progress) have said is true. It would largely (perhaps entirely) be us students using our namespaces to communicate to each other and the professor and for the submission and evaluation of homework and notes. It was also communicated to me in class that we would ''not'' be advised to edit true Wikipedia articles in that in doing so we might attracts 'vandals' seeking to destroy our work.

Needless to say, although some users may stick around after the course, most of these names will probably be abandoned. Certainly, during the course, there will most likely be no contribution to WP articles--although the possibility of contributions upon course completion are entirely left up to the users themselves.

So in all, I believe this comes down to a rather interesting dilemma. As of now, you have at least 80 potential editors on your hands to further the cause of WP. But none of these people (under these class usernames, at least) will be doing anything to benefit WP itself during this ongoing semester. After the semester ends, however, there is the possibility that, since all these students were warmed up to the WP system over the past semester, many will stick around and choose to contribute--but this is only after the semester ends. Not to mention, throughout the entire semester, our user namespaces will be used for the sole purpose of class participation, and will not see the "outside world"--aka the rest of WP. Further still, and on the other hand, the information generated via these two classes may truly contribute to WP articles on similar subjects--especially once the course is over and students are free to use said usernames to integrate the course information into current and new WP articles.

The choice is yours, I hope I have explained things clearly. If you have any more questions, I'll be here. And this is my real WP username (one that I will use to contribute to WP), it has nothing to do with this course. Thanks. [[User:IntaminAG|IntaminAG]] ([[User talk:IntaminAG|talk]]) 23:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::thing is, this is an encyclopedia and class notes on a topic are not necessarily going to be good articles. You mentioned Wikiversity earlier, so you know about that project, and it sounds to me that this would be the place for what you are doing. We'd love new academic oriented editors in technology ,but do you all realize that based on past experience many of the topics may not be suitable for articles--and we have no mechanism to maintain them intact for you during the course if they get deleted. Nor can we restrict who might want to edit the articles. This sort of project needs considerable thought and planning. I or Ed would be very pleased to help your professor with it. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 23:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::wikiversity is looking to devolope course materials not carry out actual sources onsite.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 00:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:Getting warmed up to Wikipedia's software (since they won't be touching the processes) can, as we've said, be done via a local installation of the software that runs Wikipedia, [[MediaWiki]]. While new editors are appricated, such work on done on Wikipedia itself is not within the project scope, would create bad precidents, and would use resources allocated for running an encyclopedia. '''[[User:Firefoxman|ff]][[User talk:Firefoxman|m]]''' 00:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:::''Edit: At DGG.'' Thanks. ''I'' didn't mention Wikiversity, haha, I believe my professor did, though. So I'd imagine he has some sort of an idea of what that is about. I'm not aware as to what it is about however I'll look it up very soon, for sure. I totally get what you're saying, I am neutral either way, honestly. I just wanted to provide the information for you all. I do have a question, though. What do you mean when you say "we have no mechanism to maintain them intact for you during the course if they get deleted?" If what gets deleted, the information on our namespaces? Just curious as to what you meant by that. [[User:IntaminAG|IntaminAG]] ([[User talk:IntaminAG|talk]]) 00:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::hewas probably thinking about stuff in the article namespace but stuff in the namespace is also at a fair risk of being deleted if it is outside project scope and not put there by a regular user.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 00:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:Seeing as students are beginning to create a large number of homework pages, some are requesting unblock for username blocks, I really think someone needs to contact this professor directly and explain to him in detail about [[WP:NOT]], this is going to generate a large number of odd-looking userspaces, some of which are already at MfD. '''[[User:MBisanz|MBisanz]]''' [[User talk:MBisanz|talk]] 01:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::I've politely explained the situation to the professor and have given him some other alternatives at [[User_talk:Eml4500.f08#Class_project_on_Wikipedia]]. '''[[User:MBisanz|MBisanz]]''' [[User talk:MBisanz|talk]] 01:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your discussion, suggestions, and cooperation.
I just created the following pages in wikiversity:
[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Eml4500.f08 User:Eml4500.f08]
and
[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Eas4200c.f08 User:Eas4200c.f08].
It seems to work without having to create new user accounts; I used
the same user accounts under wikipedia.
Hence the wikipedia accounts that students already created
can be used under wikiversity; they can move their work to wikiversity.
Please keep these accounts, and give them some time to move the
content of their user namespaces to wikiversity.

For students who could not create their own account because the
operation was blocked, I'll ask them to create their accounts on
wikiversity.

There are only 3 weeks until the first exam; the class should focus
on the course material itself, instead of wikipedia matters; it was
a good learning experience though.

Is it possible for administrators to prevent the posting of
the current content of these user namespaces on wikiversity as
wikiversity's formal articles? The reason is to avoid potential
problems such as copyright violation, plagiarism, etc, without prior
checking and verification (even then, it may be difficult to detect
all possible violations; so another aspect of class collaboration is
that the class will scrutinize the best HW reports for any possible
violations). It would take a few "generations" of the same course
to bring the course material to a reasonable quality before making
it into formal wikiversity articles.
[[User:Eml4500.f08|Eml4500.f08]] ([[User talk:Eml4500.f08|talk]]) 06:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed what my student wrote above at ([[User:IntaminAG|IntaminAG]] ([[User talk:IntaminAG|talk]]) 23:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)), and want to make a clarification: While students were not allowed to use the "class" accounts to edit wikipedia articles, for the reason that [[User:IntaminAG|IntaminAG]] mentioned, they can edit any wikipedia articles they like, provided that they use their own personal wikipedia accounts, i.e., accounts that do not begin with eas4200c and eml4500. In fact, students should not use these "class" accounts to edit wikipedia articles at all, even after the semester is over, since the idea is for future students to use the same system and avoid vandals following the links to the course material. I will make a note to mention to the two classes about this point, even in wikiversity. The total number of students in both classes is close to 200; some students take both classes, so the number of actual individual accounts is less. In any case, I think we can do exactly what we set out to do in wikiversity. Thanks. [[User:Eml4500.f08|Eml4500.f08]] ([[User talk:Eml4500.f08|talk]]) 14:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

=== Response from Wikiversity ===

Someone asked Wikiversity to respond to this thread. In short, '''welcome'''. Experimental uses of Mediawiki, especially in the context of real world educational courses, are very welcome over at Wikiversity. If there are any issues about what can and cannot be done, I'll be happy to coordinate with the course facilitator and assist/advise as things go along. --[[User:McCormack|McCormack]] ([[User talk:McCormack|talk]]) 09:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:Thank you much. [[User:Eas4200c.f08|Eas4200c.f08]] ([[User talk:Eas4200c.f08|talk]]) 10:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:: So. The teacher is planning to move things over to Wikiversity and Wikiversity is welcoming them. Is there anything more to be done with this? Any cleanup here on WP? Or can this one be marked as Resolved? - [[User:TexasAndroid|TexasAndroid]] ([[User talk:TexasAndroid|talk]]) 14:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::[[v:Wikiversity:Colloquium#Wikipedia discussion|Discussion at Wikiversity]]. --[[User:JWSurf|JWSurf]] ([[User talk:JWSurf|talk]]) 15:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== Why was my edit to an article removed? ==

{{resolved|1=Just a hum-drum BLP violation, no reason to get excited... [[User:EVula|EVula]] // [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|☯]] // 15:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)}}

I just edited an article about Dave Gilbert (footballer) to state NEWS that he had recently been arreseted & charged with two counts of assault. This is the truth.. so why was it removed. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.8.38.134|86.8.38.134]] ([[User talk:86.8.38.134|talk]]) 23:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC) 
:Per our [[WP:BLP|policy on biographies of living people]], all unsourced, contentious material is to be removed. Since your edit was not accompanied by a reference to a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], it was removed. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 23:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah cause a reliable source isnt the person who he assaulted, you idiot. :/ —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.8.38.134|86.8.38.134]] ([[User talk:86.8.38.134|talk]]) 23:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC) 
:Please avoid [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] when replying to editors. A [[WP:RS|reliable source]] is something like the BBC, a quality newspaper, CNN or similar source. If you can find one, the information can be re-added (in a neutrally worded fashion) and a link to the source appended to the end of the section (the easiest way is to place the URL of the source between square brackets). Personal testimony from the alleged victim is [[WP:OR|original research]] and can't be used. [[User:Exxolon|Exxolon]] ([[User talk:Exxolon|talk]]) 23:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

:Nope, you aren't a reliable source. Certainly not in a contentious BLP. Calling me an idiot won't change Wikipedia policy. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 00:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::I agree with Resolute. Unreliable/no sources must be dealt with, so there's no reason for this case to be given any "special" treatment. Also, I have doubts regarding edits such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Gilbert_(footballer)&diff=next&oldid=235695435 these]. If you think you can get away with silly edits like that, ''think again''. [[User:Troy 07|~ Troy]] ([[User talk:Troy 07|talk]]) 00:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I have had a bit of a news trawl (I sometimes have access to extra resources of this sort), and I can't find any sources at all for this claim. [[User:Brilliantine|Brilliantine]] ([[User talk:Brilliantine|talk]]) 22:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode_32|Great conversation]] about content / copy editing, and how to help craft fantastic articles..... ==

There's some great advice, insight, and information in this podcast recorded by some of wiki's finest! - If you feel you're one of those admin.s who has been drawn away from contributing content, or has become a bit distanced from the 2 million (and some!) reasons wikipedia actually exists, I think this should be required listening! I feel smarter already, and I've only heard it once. :-) [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 01:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
* Some of Wikipedia's finest? I don't really think so. That would be people like Giano and Geogre. Interview them and I will listen. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 08:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:* I've been told that the above is less than helpful. Here, then, is the message I was trying to convey: please do be a good chap and not use the admin noticeboard to spam things not requiring administrator attention, and while you're about it the use of hyperbole is not really appropriate here as there are many very well written guidelines and essays on the subject of writing great articles which have much wider input and from editors with much more glorious editing histories than the few you chose; beware of [[Wikipedia:Recentism]]. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 18:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::Guy, didn't you once use this noticeboard to start a section regarding the Scots Wikipedia, merely because you found it amusing? Yes, you did. Not only was it an entirely frivolous post in need of no admin attention, it was also found to be "borderline offensive" by at least one user. [[Special:Contributions/86.44.23.226|86.44.23.226]] ([[User talk:86.44.23.226|talk]]) 23:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::: See [[WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS]]. Point is, this gets spammed every episode. But I believe that PM's friends are now counseling him on this, so I apologise to everyone for being snarky about it. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 08:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::For the record, I grumbled a bit at [[User:Lar|Lar]] privately, and he mentioned to me that [[WP:AN/I|AN/I]] isn't a good fit for notes like this, and I've no problem not posting such things there.. Guy's grumpy and not-so-accurate comments notwithstanding, folk should feel free to drop me a note if they feel posts like the above are distracting or annoying - I guess I'll just have to see Guy next tuesday... [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 10:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)now go listen folks! - I'm neither on this podcast, nor was I involved in making it, and I can honestly say it's much better than most of my driveling efforts :-)
(outdent) Although this falls slightly outside my purview as comentor, the general idea of Privatemusings taking an interest in content should be pleasant news to the admin community. I agree that the community portal would be a better place to take this because it would reach a wider audience. [[User:Durova|Durova]]''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]'' 10:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== Notes on WP:SOCK ==

''(Copied from the village pump)''

I am a bit afraid of the way the sockpuppet and multiple accounts policy might turn out. I see many users being blocked, not because they are using those alternate accounts to canvass, vote or vandalize, but because they just have multiple accounts. Take for example, there's a user, who wanted to change her username. She is a novice at Wikipedia and doesn't know about [[WP:CHU]], so she chooses to create a new account in ignorance. Satisfied with her new username, she wakes up the next day to find herself blocked. Rather then a complete block, a notice on her talk-page about ''just why did she create the new account'' will be more appropriate. Thus, further action will be taken after the rationale is found. (e.g. blocking, or advice)

Not only does this apply to the situation I described, but it applies to every situation where the user has multiple accounts. ''Should those multiple accounts be blatantly used for cavassing, voting or vandalizing or any disruptive behavior'', then no further questioning will be needed. However, should the user have multiple accounts for non-controversial and non-disruptive purposes, then those accounts should not be blocked. (e.g. accounts made for use in public areas and accounts made because of ignorant mistakes, such as the one I described above.) ''' [[User:Marlith|Marlith]][[User talk:Marlith| (Talk)]] ''' 04:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::such accounts if used over the same period should be declared, & I would would favor the rules to say so. Obviously we shouldnt block unless someone refuses to close them after advice to do so, or unless its clearly abusive. The best way of preventing abuse is to require declaration, except for right to vanish. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 09:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:::I think it should only matter if the accounts are being used in the same area of discussion, and not matter if they're being used in the same timeframe. I pretty much agree with what Marlith says here, and share his concern. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 06:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::We can add such a notice (about WP:CHU) to the create-an-account page. '''[[User:Firefoxman|ff]][[User talk:Firefoxman|m]]''' 20:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== Summer's over ==

Starting tomorrow, the U.S. public school year starts again. Within the next two weeks vandalism will go up. Just reminding everyone to be vigilant. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 04:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:In some jurisdictions, it's started already -- but you are correct, directly after [[Labor Day (US)]] is the traditional start of school. Such is the case here in NYC. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald ''"unreachable by rational discourse"''''']]'''([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]])''' 05:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
: For some of us, it [[Eternal September|never ended]] some time back :) - [[User:Alison|'''Alison''']] [[User talk:Alison|❤]] 05:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::Gee, I've been online since '85, and I've never heard that expression. Thanks! [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald ''"unreachable by rational discourse"''''']]'''([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]])''' 08:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
* Summer? What summer? The weather in .uk has been atrocious all year, and today was worse than ever. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 08:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:Here in NYC, it's already starting to feel a bit fallish, several weeks earlier than usual, and I've heard that the trees upstate are already starting to turn. Still, I had a very pleasant day at the beach today. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald ''"unreachable by rational discourse"''''']]'''([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]])''' 08:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::In the USA, some public schoools start in August, but they have ALL, AFAIK, start no later than the day after Labor Day. — [[User:Rlevse|'''''R''levse''']] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|Talk]] • 10:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Sometimes, for some reason, it'll be two days after Labor Day, not sure why. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald ''"unreachable by rational discourse"''''']]'''([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]])''' 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:::California used to not start the school year till the day after Admission Day, which is September 9, but it's been changed so that most schools start in August now. [[User:Corvus cornix|Corvus cornix]]''[[User talk:Corvus cornix|talk]]'' 02:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== [[Sarah Palin]] ==

Hi, all - I've spent a lot of time over the weekend on the above article. As I'm sure everyone knows, it's probably our highest-traffic article right now. Serious issues keep popping up there - everything from really bad BLP violations, to POV-pushers from both political sides, and lots and lots of good-faith people who don't have a good grasp of neutrality or sourcing or the Manual of Style. There aren't many uninvolved or neutral people helping right now, though there are a few - Jossi is one standout. Rootology was really helpful but I think gave up.

I really need to take a break from working there; I think I started out pretty neutral but I may be losing my objectivity, as some of the poison I've seen going into that article has given me a lot of sympathy for the Palin family, especially the children. Also, I've been getting a lot of accusations that I work for the McCain campaign, so maybe someone should check back over the work I've done. :) I would be very grateful if some neutral people would make an attempt to keep an eye on things on that and related articles, like [[Political positions of Sarah Palin]] and [[Todd Palin]]. It can be hard to keep up with due to the editing volume. Thanks, all. [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 06:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::I agree that we need someone with a neutral point of view watching over this article as those who have currently claimed ownership (not going to name names) have taken us down a slippery slope of partisanship.[[User:Zredsox|zredsox]] ([[User talk:Zredsox|talk]]) 01:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Kelly might be Republican. I'm a Democrat, and I'll be voting for the Obama ticket. This is a bi-partisan effort. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' 02:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Possibly tri-partisan - I'm libertarian. [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 02:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Are you sure that's not ''Palin''tarian? [[User:Zredsox|zredsox]] ([[User talk:Zredsox|talk]]) 02:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:<sigh>Just as an example, the beginning of [[Political positions of Sarah Palin]] is now once again pushing that she is a secessionist. This is a meme circulating in certain blogs. I'm too tired to deal with this anymore. There are many other of these issues that keep coming up over and over again and there aren't enough people helping. [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 06:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:The secessionist claims are now once again back in the main article, along with vague insinuations of some kind of prenatal wrongdoing for traveling before the birth of her youngest child, another blog meme. All this stuff has been exhaustively discussed on the talk page (which is now accumulating some kind of libel about her daughter's fiance being underage, another blog meme) but the previous discussions are disregarded and attempts to enforce policy are simply reverted. We're going to get a big black eye over these articles. [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 07:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

=== Palin Barnstars ===
Kelly, you and several other admins and senior editors deserve a special barnstar for having tirelessly shepherded the article through the mass waves of partisan POV pushing and rampant rumormongering that have assailed it all weekend.

THANK YOU. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 08:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::I agree. Two more barnstars for Kelly. I think the article is shaping up and the locking is an excellent idea. Many thanks for your calm, neutral sanity in a blizzard of vicious insanity. [[User:Freedom Fan|Freedom Fan]] ([[User talk:Freedom Fan|talk]]) 17:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

===Alaska Seccession edits===
Can we please get someone to step in on the repeated insertion that Palin supports the succession of Alaska from the United States and is a member of this party? We have one user repeatedly inserting this fringe belief. [[User:Kyaa the Catlord|Kyaa the Catlord]] ([[User talk:Kyaa the Catlord|talk]]) 09:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

* Hey, [[Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions|Sighted versions]], or some of the other associated proposals, would be real useful in a case like this.Just some random canvassing.--[[User:Bsnowball|Bsnowball]] ([[User_talk:Bsnowball|talk]]) 12:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::This is not the place to bring up a content worry, even more so when it looks like she has indeed belonged to at least one Alaskan ''secession'' group (which is hardly a [[WP:fringe|fringe]] "belief"), maybe two, reliable sources on this are likely to pop up sooner rather than later. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 12:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::: /me ponders who is next in succession to the throne of Alaska. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 18:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::: I would hope that people are checking out information before deciding its either true or a fringe belief. Part of the problem is that in the United States there are government admissions of manipulating the media for propaganda purposes.

::: For one example the accustions that the White House lied the United States into the war in Iraq with false claims of WMD's. This involved having pentagon spokespeople appear regularly on Fox News and other cable media to present government spin as news. It continued with Scooter Libby and the Plame affair and the use of guest commentators from think tanks. These are now counts of an indictment for impeachment presently in front of the judiciary committee.

::: For other examples we have the government and industry attempts to muddy the waters regarding Global Warming and peak Oil. In this sense Wikipedia is part of the media

::: As it happens there is a video of Sarah Palin addressing the [http://www.wikio.com/video/410439 American Independence Party] in which acting as governor of Alaska she officially addresses their convention, mentions that she considers them an important political influence, says she shares the parties vision of the constitution and otherwise which makes it clear she is more attracted to fringe groups than merely being a supporter of Pat Buchannan indicates... 18:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This stuff has gotten pretty well sourced, now. It doesn't rise to the level of BLP violation at all, and seeing as the AIP is Alaska's third largest party behind Republicans and Democrats in that order (about 2%, 2.5% of the population) it's not fringe locally there. Everywhere else, maybe, but relative to her bio, early history, and Alaska, it's totally notable. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 18:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:Da I don't know how things work in the US but in europe politicians frequenty have ah less mainstream political views in their youth.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 18:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::This wouldn't be her youth, if true. It would be when she was in her mid-late 30s and already in public service. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 18:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

*Update: User I originally complained about was blocked by Moreschi for 48 hours. This users disruption could have been resolved HOURS beforehand had anyone bothered to try. [[User:Kyaa the Catlord|Kyaa the Catlord]] ([[User talk:Kyaa the Catlord|talk]]) 08:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Truth be told, when you spelled it ''succession'', called it a "fringe belief" and gave neither any diffs nor a username I took it as a content dispute. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 08:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I typoed the second time, but didn't typo the level 3 header. *shrug* As Kelly requested, more eyes would have been helpful but it does not seem to be a high priority, ya'll would rather point and laugh at my spelling error. [[User:Kyaa the Catlord|Kyaa the Catlord]] ([[User talk:Kyaa the Catlord|talk]]) 09:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I didn't laugh. Please do provide a username and some diffs next time, you'll see a much quicker response (all the more on an article like [[Sarah Palin]] where changes sometimes blaze by at a few dozen each hour, making things much harder to dig through). [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 09:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

===[[Bristol Palin]]===

Anyone else think that the redirect from Bristol Palin ought to be pre-emptively protected? [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] ([[User talk:Dragons flight|talk]]) 12:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::Done. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 12:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

===Sarah Palin volume===
There are a few new users/SPAs here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&action=history] that are starting to get into edit war territory. Could a couple more people watchlist this? [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, this fellow's blown past 3rr despite a warning from me and shows no letting up.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=GreekParadise&namespace=0&year=&month=-1] [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 20:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:48 hours for him. Thanks, Root. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) 20:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::Ah damn. I tried to block him myself, Moreschi. Lightning fingers McGee I'll call you from now on....[[User:Keeper76|Keeper]] {{IPA|ǀ}} [[User talk:Keeper76|76]] 20:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

===Politics + Religion + Drama = Fail===
For those of us watching the Palin article, you'll want to keep an eye on [[Wasilla Assembly of God]] as well. I've stubbified the article from a lengthy list of controversial positions of its pastor ([[Ed Kalnins]], whose article is currently at AfD), but - given the attention that Gov. Palin's speech on the Iraq War is receiving, it's probably prudent to watch this article as well. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Claims]] ~ [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Evidence]] 12:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

===[[Bristol Palin Controversy]]===
This article was created yesterday, then later redirected to the [[Sarah Palin]] article. I've gone ahead and protected the redirect per BLP concerns, just as we've done with [[Bristol Palin]]. - [[User:AuburnPilot|auburnpilot]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|talk]] 14:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

===Pages worth watching===
It's worth periodically skimming the list of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Sarah_Palin&hidetrans=1&limit=1500 1000+ pages] linked to our [[Sarah Palin]] article, in particular checking the list of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Sarah_Palin&limit=500&namespace=0&hidetrans=1 several hundred] in our article space for new POV forks.

Here are some pages on that list that were of particular concern:
*[[Alaska Gas Pipeline]]
*[[Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal]]
*[[Andrew Halcro]]
*[[Andrew Sullivan]]
*[[Alaskan Independence Party]]
*[[Baby-gate]]
*[[Babygate]]
*[[Bristol (disambiguation)]]
*[[Bristol Palin]] (redirect page)
*[[Bristol Palin Controversy]] (redirect page)
*[[Bristol palin]] (redirect page)
*[[Campbell Brown]]
*[[:Category:Sarah Palin]]
*[[Constitution Party (United States)]]
*[[David Brickner]]
*[[Ed Kalnins]] -- currently [[WP:PROD|proposed for deletion]]
*[[Electoral history of Sarah Palin]]
*[[Feminists for Life]]
*[[Gov. Sarah Palin]] (redirect page)
*[[Governor of Alaska]]
*[[Gravina Island]]
*[[Gravina Island Bridge]]
*[[Knik Arm Bridge]]
*[[Larry Kroon]]
**[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Kroon]]
*[[Levi Johnston]] (redirect page)
*[[List of Assemblies of God people]]
*[[List of female United States presidential and vice-presidential candidates]]
*[[List of Governors of Alaska]]
*[[Lyda Green]]
*[[Mat-Su Regional Medical Center]]
*[[Miss Alaska]]
*[[Palin]]
*[[Piper Palin]] (redirect page)
*[[Political positions of Sarah Palin]]
*[[Republican Party (United States) vice presidential candidates, 2008]]
*[[Sara Palin]] (redirect page)
*[[Sara Pallin]] (redirect page)
*[[Sara palin]] (redirect page)
*[[Sara pallin]] (redirect page)
*[[Sarah Barracuda]] (redirect page)
*[[Sarah H. Palin]] (redirect page)
*[[Sarah Heath]] (redirect page)
*[[Sarah Heath Palin]] (redirect page)
*[[Sarah Louise Heath Palin]] (redirect page)
*[[Sarah Pallin]] (redirect page)
*[[Sarah Plain]] (redirect page)
*[[Sarah palin]] (redirect page)
*[[Track Palin]] (redirect page)
*[[TransCanada Corp.]]
*[[Trig]] (disambiguation page)
*[[Trig Palin]] (redirect page)
*[[Troopergate]] (disambiguation page)
*[[Wasilla]] (redirect page)
*[[Wasilla Assembly of God]] -- currently [[WP:PROD|proposed for deletion]]
*[[Wasilla Bible Church]]
*[[Wasilla High School]]
*[[Wasilla, Alaska]]
*[[Willow Palin]] (redirect page)
--[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]]) 21:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Add [[Milton Kapner]] to the mix as well. I also suggest that the activities of {{user|EricDiesel}} and {{user|Elan26}} be watched since both appear to be [[WP:COATRACK]]ing. --'''[[User:TheFarix|Farix]]''' ([[User talk:TheFarix|Talk]]) 22:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:Can anyone make any sense of this?[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMBisanz&diff=236130295&oldid=236128935] Best I can make of it is that {{user|EricDiesel}} is complaining about the application of [[WP:NOTE]] on the [[Wasilla Bible Church]] and [[Wasilla Assembly of God]] related articles and arguing that notability is inherited. --'''[[User:TheFarix|Farix]]''' ([[User talk:TheFarix|Talk]]) 23:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

[[Kingdom Now theology]]: several attempts to add Palin based on -- what else? -- a Kos diary. [[User:A.J.A.|A.J.A.]] ([[User talk:A.J.A.|talk]]) 19:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Marius Fekete ==

[[Marius Fekete]] is pure nonsense. First of all, I'm inclined to think the person doesn't even exist. Second, after translating the Romanian profanity in it, you get that his parents are named "Dick" and "Pussy" Fekete, that he was born in the small town of "Blowjob", and that his grandfather's name is "Sticky Ass". Furthermore, the second section provides information on how he had sexual relations with Romania's current prime minister (which I'm sure would have been a big news item here in Romania if it had really happened, or at least rumors of it). Google doesn't really turn up anything on this purported "Secretary of Foreign Affairs to the Prime Minister" (a position I'm not sure exists). The article seems like one big hoax. [[User:Rimush|Rimush]] ([[User talk:Rimush|talk]]) 09:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:Perhaps you should [[WP:DPR|nominate it for deletion]]. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 10:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::Speedied <s>G</s>A7. I will provide a copy to any editor wishing to provide [[WP:RS]], but my research tells me this should go. --[[User:Rodhullandemu|Rodhull]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|andemu]] 10:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::That's actually a rather clever piece of vandalism, if I may say so myself. To your average US Wikipedia user, it would look legit. [[User:Jtrainor|Jtrainor]] ([[User talk:Jtrainor|talk]]) 17:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== Clarified restrictions for Betacommand ==

{{discussion top}}'''Restrctions now in effect.''' '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|Ryan Postlethwaite]]See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]''' 22:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

[[User:CBM|CBM]], [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|Ryan Postlethwaite]] and I, as part of an ad hoc committee, proposed the following clarifications to the restrictions on {{user|Betacommand}}. As seen in [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents/I have blocked Betacommand#Ad hoc committee proposal|this discussion]], the proposal has been endorsed. The updated restrictions are:

:* Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on [[WP:VPR]] and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request ''before'' he may begin.

:* Betacommand must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.

:* Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.

:* Betacommand is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an ''uninvolved'' administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard ''prior'' to blocking. Blocks should be logged [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Log of blocks.2C bans.2C and restrictions|here]].

Regards, [[User:Jennavecia|Jennavecia]][[User talk:Jennavecia| (Talk)]] 17:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

* Before there's any dissent or opposition, Beta ''himself'' said he had no problem with these binding restrictions to Jenna in IRC. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 17:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
** Without commenting on the specific terms here, I think he should make that commitment on-wiki. [[User:Rx StrangeLove|RxS]] ([[User talk:Rx StrangeLove|talk]]) 17:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
*These look like excellent, well-worked proposals. The original restrictions were vague because they were intended to be, because I didn't expect everyone to suddenly adopt my wording! Point 2 is the crucial one, of course. [[User:Sam Korn|Sam Korn]] [[User talk:Sam Korn|(smoddy)]] 17:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:The first bullet may be naive and overly restrictive. Little goes through on VPR without some objections and the group rarely arrives at a well defined consensus on anything. (sideitem:)*Even currently approved tasks on other bots frequently come under heavy and unproductive criticism from a select minority (somehow silently absent when the task was approved)*. Without assigning blame to anyone, proposal by Beta would likely degenerate into a threaded unproductive shouting match. I propose changing the item to 'notifying at WP:AN/B; A consensus of posters there would decide if the task should go forward, procede to VPR, be revised/clarified/defined to a smaller subset, be tested, be canceled, or is WP:SNOW' --[[Special:Contributions/167.181.12.95|167.181.12.95]] ([[User talk:167.181.12.95|talk]]) 17:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::The Betacommand <s>complaint</s> notice board is more productive and less likely to become a shouting match than the Village Pump? I don't believe that. [[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']] 17:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::All notice boards should be exclusively used as notice boards. If they are being used as complaint boards by the community at large they should be shutdown and retooled. If a user specific notice board is being used as an attack board it should be blanked and protected; then an oversight investigation should be conducted. --[[Special:Contributions/167.181.12.95|167.181.12.95]] ([[User talk:167.181.12.95|talk]]) 18:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:The Second bullet should be dependent on the first. Should he gain approval for a task, he should conduct a test, review the results carefully, amend the results to the request and if no issues are found, he should precede to running the remainder of the approved subset. If he's given approval to run a task he does not need to carefully check every single edit on that task as it would be impractical. He should however review any reported issues, stop the task, correct the edit and the logic that caused it, all while interacting civilly. --[[Special:Contributions/167.181.12.95|167.181.12.95]] ([[User talk:167.181.12.95|talk]]) 18:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

* Lets see what people that are logged in on their accounts have to say. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 18:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::(ec)Could I suggest that this is likely to become a lengthy thread, and that everyone interested in Beta and his behavior is already going to follow the See Also link, so could someone move this announcement to [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand]] preemptively? '''[[User:MBisanz|MBisanz]]''' [[User talk:MBisanz|talk]] 18:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::* It was actually moved here to announce that there was consensus already and that Beta had agreed to the terms without a problem. Until the IP derailed it... [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 18:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Pesky 'anyone can edit' clause. Sorry to intrude on your 'private consensus' with my 'may be' suggestion. --[[Special:Contributions/167.181.12.95|167.181.12.95]] ([[User talk:167.181.12.95|talk]]) 19:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I agree all the way with the first two. I'd suggest rewording the third for clarity; how about ''Beta may make no more than 40 edits in any rolling 10-minute period''? I believe it achieves the same effect and removes the material about averages and single-minutes etc. The fourth point I make no comment on, as nothing will come of it... ╟─[[User:TreasuryTag|Treasury]]§[[User talk:TreasuryTag|Tag]]►[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|contribs]]─╢ 18:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:To help clarify an issue from the previous events (and thus prevent issues in future), do these restrict the use of semi-automated tools, such as Twinkle or the like? Yes, restricting edits to average 4 a minute will help make his edits not look like automated ones, but this doesn't mean he cannot use such tools if they are effective, and all the other points stated seem to suggest that such tools aren't a problem as long as they fall into the outlined steps. --[[User:Masem|MASEM]] 18:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::Probably just fine to leave as it is. If someone were a good enough programmer they could edit their hearts out and we'd never know. This is just a safety check as I read it. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 18:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

*TreasuryTag, that seems reasonable to me, if others agree it should be changed.
*These restrictions allow for the use of semi-automated tools, such as TW and AWB, however, Betacommand must check every edit to ensure it is not creating one problem while fixing another, for example. The restriction on edits per minute is to ensure he's taking the necessary time to check the edits. I also spoke with him in IRC, letting him know not to game the wording (i.e. making 40 edits in one minute and resting for nine); he agreed not to do so. He understands that the "in a 10 minute period of time" is simply some padding in case he should accidentally make 5 edits in one minute during a run where he otherwise remains in the restricted limits, for example. [[User:Jennavecia|Jennavecia]][[User talk:Jennavecia| (Talk)]] 18:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
*Good restrictions, well done.[[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|Talk]] 02:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
*I suppport this proposal, with the ferverent hope that it keeps betacommand, his supporters, and his detractors away from notice boards, irc, and such pages ... and focused on encyclopedic activities. --[[User:Rocksanddirt|Rocksanddirt]] ([[User talk:Rocksanddirt|talk]]) 16:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
*:Amen. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald ''"unreachable by rational discourse"''''']]'''([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]])''' 20:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
{{discussion bottom}}

== Still at it? ==

See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Blocked this discussion, above], regarding a user who was blocked for Incivility and wilful disruption, and then unblocked with a promise to behave. Several of his edits since the unblock have been problematic, as discussed above. The following series of edits are disturbing in that regard: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silvana_Franco&diff=next&oldid=235351324 August 31], adds ref to WP article. Another user leaves him a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndy_Bjornovich&diff=235564198&oldid=235560028 message on his talk page] explaining that Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources for other Wikipedia articles. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silvana_Franco&diff=next&oldid=235408090 Sep 1], restores removal of inappropriate source. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silvana_Franco&diff=next&oldid=235571276 Sep 1], restores again, with the edit summary "oh yes I can."

Now, while I ''think'' this user wants to contribute usefully, I also think that he's been given an awful lot of slack, and I'm wondering whether it may be time for another block. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 21:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:1 week block, and a suggestion they re-examine the way in which they are interacting with other contributors. As usual, I am not so wedded to my actions to need notifying that they may be overturned - but I would hope any unblocking admin ensures they understand that a resumption of the previous mannerisms will not be tolerated. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 22:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So the record's complete, we have two edits from this morning [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rh%C3%ADannon_Thomas&diff=235759808&oldid=235759663] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rh%C3%ADannon_Thomas&diff=235759933&oldid=235759808] illustrating a similar attitude. Specifically, after being asked not to, he's re-adding links to myspace and imdb that's the same ''name'' as the article's subject but different ''people'', and to a mirror page. [[User:Justinfr|justinfr]] ([[User talk:justinfr|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Justinfr|contribs]]) 22:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:Sometimes I think he is trying to contribute usefully and is simply incompetent; at other times I think he's being intentionally disruptive. His behavior at [[Rhíannon Thomas]] has been exceedingly bizarre from first to last—especially when he started readding the MySpace link after admitting in the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhíannon Thomas|AfD]] that he was mistaken in identifying the article's subject with two other women. And it's hard to know what to think about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gray_(horse)&diff=prev&oldid=235411365 this edit] (note the article's topic). [[User:Deor|Deor]] ([[User talk:Deor|talk]]) 04:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::Oh, and does anyone other than me find his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mr._IP&diff=prev&oldid=232873526 very first edit] (after some messing about in his user space) kind of suspicious? [[User:Deor|Deor]] ([[User talk:Deor|talk]]) 04:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

::Note his unblock request reason: "The reason I find it difficult to be civil is because of the fact I have aspergers. I recommend you read the article on it." This screams troll. As an aside, on his talk page he claims to occasionally use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/212.159.64.14 this ip], but he has only used it once, and not since the block. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find he's got a bunch of socks either. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 16:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

: Aspergers my Irish Ass!! Aspergers Syndrome is a high functioning form of Autism where the person who has it cannot understand word play, speak in literal terms only and usually are not capable of lying.
I'm thinking '''troll''' here.
[[User:KoshVorlon|'''KoshVorlon''']][[User talk:KoshVorlon|''' > rm -r WP:F.U.R ''']] 11:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Request to unblock another editor ==

''The following discussion has been moved from [[Wikipedia talk:Appealing a block]] - I would welcome any other admin's view on this''  — [[User:Tivedshambo|''' Tivedshambo ''']] ([[User Talk:Tivedshambo|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Tivedshambo|c]]) 22:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[[User:Jeremy Bolwell]] has been blocked by [[User:Tivedshambo]] for violation of [[WP:overlinking]]. The discussion is [[User talk:Jeremy Bolwell#Block notification|here]]. Although Jeremy Bolwell - who is a prolific editor and valued contributor to articles - has been guilty of overlinking and other stylistic transgressions in the past (a point raised by me and others on several occasions - see his talk page), he has now agreed to abide by guidelines, and punishment by a temporary block seems extremely harsh for what is, in essence, a difference over the interpretation of a stylistic guideline. Can someone please look at it with a view to overturning Tivedshambo's decision? [[User:Ghmyrtle|Ghmyrtle]] ([[User talk:Ghmyrtle|talk]]) 21:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:'''Comment:''' The decision to block Jeremy was not a decision I took lightly. I had hoped that it would not come to this, but Jeremy was warned, by another admin as well as myself [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeremy_Bolwell&diff=prev&oldid=235702475], that he would be blocked if he persisted in overlinking. This is in accordance with [[Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption]] - ''persistently violating other policies or guidelines, where there is a consensus among uninvolved users that the violation is disruptive''. Although I believe that Jeremy is acting in good faith, he persisted in making edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moss_Valley,_Wrexham&diff=prev&oldid=235873891], in which, while adding some good links, he also continued to add unneccesary links. I took the decision that another warning would not make any improvement, since he seems to think (incorrectly) I'm bullying him, so I took the decision to make a temporary block. I've also suggested that he looks at other ways he can improve Wikipedia when his block expires, rather than merely linking words, and have stated I will unblock him if he agrees to this. — [[User:Tivedshambo|''' Tivedshambo ''']] ([[User Talk:Tivedshambo|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Tivedshambo|c]]) 21:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::''"I will unblock him if he agrees to'' [do what I want]" sounds pretty close to bullying to me - or at least over-interpretation of an admin's proper role. Any cursory examination of Jeremy Bolwell's record would reveal that his contributions to articles (while sometimes misguided) have been far greater than simply adding square brackets to words. [[User:Ghmyrtle|Ghmyrtle]] ([[User talk:Ghmyrtle|talk]]) 21:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:Violation of [[WP:overlinking]]? This is taking the MoS way too far. Quote by the blocking admin prior to the block''You have already been warned about this, and if you continue to carry on, I will have to consider your actions as vandalism'' - Please read [[WP:VAND]] before making any more blocks. Not adhering to the MoS is explicitly stated in the "not vandalism" section. This is definitely excessive. [[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']] 22:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::''"I took the decision that another warning would not make any improvement, since he seems to think (incorrectly) I'm bullying him, so I took the decision to make a temporary block"'' - if you feel that a warning from you would be ignored because the editor in question feels that you are bullying him, then perhaps it would be better to leave any decision about a block to an uninvolved admin? [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 22:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::(e/c) Ok - I'll admit I shouldn't have used the word vandalism. But the block was not for vandalism, it was for violation of guidelines. I was extremely reluctant to do it, but eventually something has to be done beyond a sequence of repeated warnings. Be that as it may, if the general consensus of admins is that I was incorrect to make this block, feel free to overturn it (I'm going off-wiki for the night now), but I'd welcome suggestions of how I could have handled the situation better, whilst persuading Jeremy to conform with the MOS. — [[User:Tivedshambo|''' Tivedshambo ''']] ([[User Talk:Tivedshambo|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Tivedshambo|c]]) 22:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:::(e/c) I don't think Jeremy's edits were vandalism at all. He has many useful, constructive edits, but he does have a propensity for overlinking, apparently based on a philosophy about learning. I am a bit sad to see him blocked, but looking over his Sep 2 edits, some of them do seem to be overlinking despite his agreement to stop doing this. I count about 9 editors who've spoken with him about this via his user talk page, so the community clearly views it as disruptive. I might have blocked for a shorter period, given that it's his first block and that the guideline is somewhat open to interpretation, but it does seem a block was warranted; perhaps Jeremy should just avoid adding inline links for the time being, and perhaps Tivedshambo would consider shortening the block. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 22:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:: Just my two cents - that's not a good block. I looked at the version he created and it definetly not vandalism, it doesn't drag down the article, it's just links for pity sake. I really don't belive the block was warrented, but then again, that's just my two cents.
[[User:KoshVorlon|'''KoshVorlon''']][[User talk:KoshVorlon|''' > rm -r WP:F.U.R ''']] 14:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:::IMHO Jeremy's contribs were not vandalism, however his decision to go back and continue to overlink after agreeing to stop ''is'' [[WP:TE|tendentious]] and borders on being [[WP:DE|disruptive]]. But becuase the behaviour is borderline it might have been better to seek community consensus for sanctions rather than blocking unilaterally. A block for an MOS violation will always come up against the worthy counter-argument of WP:IAR--[[User:Cailil|'''Cailil''']] [[User_talk:Cailil|'''talk''']] 15:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== Weird hole in my experience ==

I have just discovered that, despite having been an admin for over a year, I have no idea how to do the technical part of closing a deletion discussion.

I've just given [[Caution dog]] a fairly obvious speedy deletion, but there's also [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caution dog]]. Digging around in the deletion process pages gives me a lot of advice on how to interpret the !votes made in such a discussion, but nothing about what code to put where. Some of it I could guess--I can see the templates other people are using--but I'm not sure if there's more to it than just archiving the discussion, or what.

Any advice? Also, is this process actually recorded anywhere? If so, we should link to it from more places, like [[WP:GD]] and [[WP:DGFA]]. --[[User:Masamage|Masamage]] [[User talk:Masamage|♫]] 22:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:I usually follow the process [[Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Articles_for_Deletion_page|here]], and keep a link handy in my userspace. --[[User:Rodhullandemu|Rodhull]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|andemu]] 22:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::Aha, there it is! Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks. :) --[[User:Masamage|Masamage]] [[User talk:Masamage|♫]] 22:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::For most of the more technical pages, like [[WP:3RR|3RR]], there is a small link in the upper right of the page with "Administrator Instructions." Took me a while to find it at first too :)
:::Is there an automated script for this, per chance? [[User:Seicer|seicer]] | [[User_talk:Seicer|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|contribs]] 04:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Yes. Sorry I can't be of more help. Look on [[User:Steve Crossin/monobook.js]] - I think there's something in there. --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[User_talk:mboverload|@]] 04:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::[[Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD]] (the extra tabs only show up in the edit mode) ˉˉ[[User:Anetode|'''anetode''']][[User_talk:Anetode|╦╩]] 07:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== High level / long term vandalism problem ==

{{resolved}}
There is a consitant high level of consistant vandalism on the [[Man]] article. Article was semi-portected once for 2 weeks but when semi-protection ends vandalism immediately starts again. The vanadalism is so bad on the article almost all edits to it are vandalism. As few non-users contribute to this article and 99% of those non-users who do are vandals I think an indefinate semi-protection is required such as that on the [[woman]] article. The nature of the subject of the article unfortunately gets the attention of a lot of kids/teenagers, people who just haven't grown up repeatedly vandalising the article. [[User:Usergreatpower|Usergreatpower]] ([[User talk:Usergreatpower|talk]]) 22:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:Semi-protected. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 22:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::From now on all vandalism to the [[Man]] shall be called '''Mandalism'''. It is here so decreed.--[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[User_talk:mboverload|@]] 04:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
[[Image:Cabal approved.svg|200px]] This decree has been approved by [[WP:ROUGE|the cabal]]. [[User:GlassCobra|Glass]]'''[[User talk:GlassCobra|Cobra]]''' 04:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:How do we call vandalism to [[Van]]? -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]] [[User talk:Lucasbfr|talk]] 09:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

::Van2dalism. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 09:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:::How are you admins going to handle vandalism to [[San]], considering [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sandalism this]? [[User:Iafrate|Iafrate]] ([[User talk:Iafrate|talk]]) 18:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::: You laugh at person who commits that. --'''[[User:Tone|Tone]]''' 21:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Charmed36]] - multiple concerns ==

{{resolved|Editor warned — [[User:Realist2|'''''Realist''''']][[User_talk:Realist2|'''''2''''']] 18:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)}}

I was going to warn the editor directly, but after reviewing Charmed36 talk page I realized that this editor pay's zero attention to warnings. I haven't done an extensive review of Charmed36's edits, the snappy edit summaries and talk page warning were enough to concern me. The issue that drew my attention to Charmed36 was a recent edit summary whereby Charmed36 reverted an IP with the edit summary "your just an IP". Just as concerning was the fact that the IP provided a source and Charmed36 reverted to the previous UNSOURCED version. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wind_It_Up_(Gwen_Stefani_song)&diff=235880508&oldid=235854681 this].

Charmed36's edits, use of edit summaries, elitism and general OWNERSHIP issue's should be punished. Charmed36 has control of a number of articles relating to varies singers and groups. This needs to be handled and Charmed36's recent contributions need an extensive review to find the true extent of potential damage. — [[User:Realist2|'''''Realist''''']][[User_talk:Realist2|'''''2''''']] 03:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:Wow, that isn't even an insult. That's is...pure, demeaning disrespect. If anyone ever told me that when I was starting I would never come back to Wikipedia. Wow. --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[User_talk:mboverload|@]] 04:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::Agree it is bad, first time I've seen that. Well, I'm sure an admin will read this post eventually....— [[User:Realist2|'''''Realist''''']][[User_talk:Realist2|'''''2''''']] 13:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I've placed a AGF level 3 warning template on their talkpage. If this is disregarded like everything else on that page I would consider a 2 day long block sufficient to get their attention. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 15:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm gonna keep a close eye on it for a few weeks, see what occurs. I'm shocked that Charmed36 hasn't been blocked since 2006. Charmed has been unduly lucky. — [[User:Realist2|'''''Realist''''']][[User_talk:Realist2|'''''2''''']] 15:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Libro0]] ==

[[User:Libro0]] has been constantly attacking me, telling lies, making sockpuppet allegations and deliberate attempts to drive me off of Wikipedia. He will not stop and needs to be dealt with. He has engaged in vandalism of several baseball card images, which I had to fix. He does not listen to others. He gives ultimatums and threats. He is a major problem. He needs to be dealt with now. [[User:Baseball Card Guy|Baseball Card Guy]] ([[User talk:Baseball Card Guy|talk]]) 05:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:A quick scan shows that you guys are clashing over some baseball card images, correct? Please provide some DIFFs for what you're talking aboout, right now this seems retaliatory over him telling you he would report you to [[WP:LTA]]. [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 05:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:You want DIFFs showing Libro0's bad behavior? Here are ''some'' of them. Think of it as a sampler.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baseball_Card_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=235967862]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1960s_Topps&diff=next&oldid=223092640]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1960s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=223186851]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1960s_Topps&diff=next&oldid=223335639]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1960s_Topps&diff=next&oldid=223351324]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1960s_Topps&diff=next&oldid=224408931]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1960s_Topps&diff=next&oldid=235123952]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=227256530]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=prev&oldid=225850359]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=226670427]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=228848401]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=229227529]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=230308118]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=230314708]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=230518845]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=230671318]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=231088982]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=231093595]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=233814026]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=233843266]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baseball_Card_Guy&diff=next&oldid=235635635]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Baseball_Card_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=226781021]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=227256530]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baseball_Card_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=210013326]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Baseball_Card_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=228663062]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Baseball_Card_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=228840778]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Enigmaman&diff=prev&oldid=231514380]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Baseball_Card_Guy_(2nd)&diff=prev&oldid=232042132]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Baseball_Card_Guy_(2nd)&diff=next&oldid=232044130]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Baseball_Card_Guy_(2nd)&diff=next&oldid=232114734]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=228867209]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Enigmaman&diff=prev&oldid=232043353]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&diff=prev&oldid=229261389]

:Of course there is more of Libro0's lies, disruptive behavior and other assorted nonsense. Finding it all would take a great deal of time. [[User:Baseball Card Guy|Baseball Card Guy]] ([[User talk:Baseball Card Guy|talk]]) 06:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Card Guys disruptive edits include but are not limited to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1970s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=209998624 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1960s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=209999425 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1970s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=209999500 3], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1980_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=209999582 4], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1981_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=209999650 5], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1982_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=209999952 6], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1992_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210004823 7], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1980_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210670607 8], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1990_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210670781 9], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1989_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210670906 10], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1988_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210670968 11], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1987_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210671025 12], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1986_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210671081 13], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1992_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210671150 14], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1991_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210671194 15], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1985_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210671251 16], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1984_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210671392 17], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1983_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210671463 18], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1982_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210671542 19], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1981_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210671582 20], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1970s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210731104 21], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1970_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210780708 22], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1971_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210780758 23], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1972_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210780805 24], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1973_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210780881 25], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1974_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210781088 26], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1975_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210781160 27], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1976_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210781266 28], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1977_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210781431 29], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1978_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210781542 30], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1979_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210781613 31], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1960s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=222965735 32], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1960s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=223750555 33], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1982_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=223750901 34], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1983_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=224921179 35], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1982_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=224922117 36], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1960s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227112268 37], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1950s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227112422 38], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1970s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227113228 39], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1986_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227117480 40], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1987_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227118716 41], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1984_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227118891 42], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1983_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227118976 43], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1982_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227119039 44], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1981_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227119120 45], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1980_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227119202 46], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Topps_Sports_Card_Products_By_Year&diff=prev&oldid=227119291 47],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1970_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227119424 48],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1971_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227119478 49],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1972_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227119526 50],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1973_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227119717 51],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1974_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227119812 52],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1975_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227119977 53],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1976_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227120076 54],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1977_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227120176 55],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1978_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227120335 56], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1979_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227120537 57], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=prev&oldid=232147603 58], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=prev&oldid=232148965 59], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1950s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=233737942 60], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1960s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=233738872 61], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1960s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=233800498 62], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1950s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=233800718 63], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Andy_Auld.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=233814681 64], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Auld&diff=prev&oldid=233815091 65], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=prev&oldid=233843266 66], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1960s_O-Pee-Chee&diff=prev&oldid=234067447 67], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=prev&oldid=234068021 68], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1950s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=234068094 69], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1960s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=234068228 70], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Auld&diff=prev&oldid=234069577 71], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Andy_Auld.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=234069959 72], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1960s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=235023418 73], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1950s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=235603756 74], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1960s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=235603860 75]. These are mostly unwarranted reverts, removal of verifiable info, inclusion of unverifiable info, foul language on user talk, etc. He also has a problem with discussing issues on the talk pages. Any attempt made to find resolution on content are met with pointless and argumentative comments as can be seen [[Talk:1960s Topps|here]] and [[Talk:1950s Topps|here]]. He is a convicted sock puppet as can be seen [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Baseball Card Guy (2nd)|here]]. Recently as of 03:54, 3 September 2008 to 04:12, 3 September 2008 he removed a number of "No source" tags from image pages without providing the proper information requested by the tags. [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] ([[User talk:Libro0|talk]]) 05:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I did say I would report him to [[Wikipedia:LTA|LTA]] on account he has been acting like a guard dog on the baseball card pages for quite a few months now. He has prevented me from adding any encyclopedic content yet has contributed nothing to the pages himself. [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] ([[User talk:Libro0|talk]]) 05:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:More lies. There was no sockpuppet proof and if anyone has been acting like a guard dog on the baseball card pages it is [[User:Libro0|Libro0]]. I have contributed images (which Libro0 claims are not sourced, yet a proper source is given) and organized the pages. All [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] has done is deliberately make edits to get me to revert them since he has provided strange sources.. Basically everything [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] says is a lie or is in some way to further his agenda. He is the one who is driving others away from the baseball card pages. He has a vendetta. He has an agenda. He is a problem that needs to be dealt with. He is the one that ignores other user's attempts to solve problems. He is the one who screams sockpuppet at those who disagree with him. He makes passive aggressive personal attacks. He is the one that is the instigator. He is the one wasting people's time by insisting on keeping this feud going. He needs to be stopped! [[User:Baseball Card Guy|Baseball Card Guy]] ([[User talk:Baseball Card Guy|talk]]) 06:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

[[User:Baseball Card Guy|Baseball Card Guy]] also has a tendency to blank his talk page of any warnings he has received by mediators or admins. He basically ignores any warnings given to him. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baseball_Card_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=229903201 A], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baseball_Card_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=235123574 B], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baseball_Card_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=235716589 C], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baseball_Card_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=229903243 D], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baseball_Card_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=233738124 E]. [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] ([[User talk:Libro0|talk]]) 06:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:They were all done by Libro0 and his allies. [[User:Baseball Card Guy|Baseball Card Guy]] ([[User talk:Baseball Card Guy|talk]]) 06:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:Both of you should read [[WP:TLDR]]. You've given far too many examples and absolutely no context to work with. I've clicked on 6-8 of each of your DIFFS, and I can't understand what you're trying to show the other editor is doing. My random sample just turns up discussions and reversions, with no context to explain why they violate wikipedia policies. My advice to you both, if you want to show the other editor is violating policy, give '''three''' DIFFs and explain specifically the problem with the edit. Show us very specifically what the problem is. [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 06:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will offer three particular situations that should be clear.
'''1.''' I remove the 1968 OPC CFL sets on account there is no verifiable proof that they belong on a Topps page.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1960s_Topps&diff=234911696&oldid=234911506 I]. I also changed an invalid citation about the type
of ink used and provided a valid reference for it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1960s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=234911506 II].
He then replaces the OPC CFL set without showing any source for its inclusion as well as replacing the ink statement with
the invalid citation. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1960s_Topps&diff=next&oldid=234913473 III].

'''2.''' I removed a needless Hockey section from both [[1982 Topps]] and [[1983 Topps]] since Topps did not produce Hockey cards in those years.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1982_Topps&diff=219852384&oldid=217257236 IV],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1983_Topps&diff=219852597&oldid=210671463 V]
He then replaces the sections.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1982_Topps&diff=223750901&oldid=219852384 VI],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1983_Topps&diff=next&oldid=222174435 VII]
In an attempt to accomodate him I decided to write the information in the sections instead.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1982_Topps&diff=next&oldid=223750901 VIII],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1983_Topps&diff=224216027&oldid=223750808 IX].
He again removed the information.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1982_Topps&diff=224922117&oldid=224215745 X],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1983_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=224921179 XI].
I finally decided to place the information on the talk pages instead.

'''3.''' With regard to his recent images problems: I placed some tags on images that did not properly state the source of the images or who made them, etc. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:1967_Topps_Chris_Zachary.jpg&diff=235729341&oldid=233802311 XII].
The info he has used is not valid. Nevertheless he removed the tags without supplying the info.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:1967_Topps_Chris_Zachary.jpg&diff=235962010&oldid=235729341 XIII]. There are,
of course numerous images with this problem.

These are just a sampling of the problems that I was trying to display. Another area that is troubling presents itself above with his DIFFs. I browsed though most of them and found mostly legitimate discussions that I had with him. Hardly bad behavior. [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] ([[User talk:Libro0|talk]]) 08:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
*Have you considered a [[WP:RFC|request for comments]] or other [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]]? [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 11:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC cannot be used since it requires two users to have tried to resolve a dispute. No one has been willing to offer any assistance. Yes, I have asked for assistance. Other DRs like Wikiquette alerts also went ignored as has this board. The only place that did anything was SSP, which blocked him for 24 hours. He has ignored everyone else and the discussion pages have proven pointless. [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] ([[User talk:Libro0|talk]]) 19:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

*As someone who has had problems with Libro0 after having him accuse me of being Baseball Card Guy's sockpuppet after trying to get the two of them to stop their schoolyard bickering, I have been watching these two. Their recent exchanges at [[Talk:1950s Topps]] and [[Talk:1960s Topps]] show that they both seem to have some ownership issues and the two of them can't seem to have a any sort of proper discussion. My attempts to contact both of them in the past were rebuffed in the case of Baseball Card Guy and resulted in attacks from Libro0 including two unproven sockpuppet allegations, with me keeping an eye on what he is doing to nip any further false allegations in the bud. This ultimatum/thinly veiled sockpuppet allegation [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=230314708] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=230518845] that Libro0 is a prime example of the bad faith on his part. On the other hand Baseball Card Guy is trying to bait Libro0 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baseball_Card_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=229274490] with a trap [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mercury_Theatre&diff=prev&oldid=232145424] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beulah_(series)&diff=prev&oldid=232145615] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Linn-Baker&diff=prev&oldid=232145967] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Askari_(ARL-30)&diff=prev&oldid=232146351] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Highway_401_(Ontario)&diff=prev&oldid=232150699] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_Granada_(North_America)&diff=prev&oldid=232150930] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mercury_Topaz&diff=prev&oldid=232151168] using [[Admiral Ackbar]] as the edit summary for all those.

I have held off doing any editing of the baseball card articles because of the antics of these two. I have wasted enough time energy and effort here dealing with the petty bickering between these two and have had enough of it. This is another escalation. How many others have they scared off into editing not wanting to get caught up in their little war?

The two of them will not listen to reason and I think that any attempts at a request for comments or mediation will fall on deaf ears from both parties, or at least lip service being paid to it.

Both users have made some good contributions, but that is really offset by this epic battle between the two. We would probably all be better of banning both Libro0 and Baseball Card Guy. They have wasted people's time with their bickering, allegations, playing of the system and other bad behavior. It would save everyone a great deal of time and effort just banning these two problem users! [[User:Your Radio Enemy|Your Radio Enemy]] ([[User talk:Your Radio Enemy|talk]]) 20:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:This is the reason I accused Your Radio Enemy of being a sockpuppet. I have provided evidence of Baseball Card Guy's disruptive behavior while he has provided no evidence that I am disruptive. For some reason YRE wants both of us banned. It looks suspicious. It looks to me like you are willing to lose a sock as long as I go down with it. Furthermore, how do you know that he was trying to bait me with a trap? I never even realized that was the case. I just thought he went on a crazed rampage. You seem to know precisely what his intentions were. Both of you contribute no content and are both resistant to my contributions. I explained three distinct situations above yet I have not seen you support me in any of those. Can you explain why? [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] ([[User talk:Libro0|talk]]) 21:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:: This is ridiculous. If you two can not work together leave Wikipedia. I don't care if I get in trouble for being uncivil. You two have finally pushed me to the edge and have become a huge nuisance. Your squabbling is disruptive and unproductive. You are running low on the communities Good Faith and again frankly I have none for you two. Quit, be blocked or not go near each other. Those are your options. [[User Talk:Rgoodermote|Rob]]Not an admin  23:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to provide DIFFs in context. I did so. It would be appreciated if that was acknowledged. If you have nothing constructive to add other than an emotional outburst then I suggest '''you''' leave Wikipedia. I fell off the edge long before you ever got there because it appears to me that policy and guidelines are just a bit of decor on this site. My faith in this place has diminished tremendously because people like Rob here want to take the easy way out. Just 'Quit'. Sorry Rob, but there are standards to upheld. On principle I refuse to simply just let people intimidate me. So don't come out here and pretend you are suffering and threaten to block. I am a part of this community and I am following the rules. I don't need you to tell me how ridiculous this situation is. I have had to watch the rules be ignored and watch this community ignore the rule breakers. If you are a real community then act like it. Get some focus and address the actual problems. Do not undermine the integrity of this encyclopedia or these notice boards by acting like you can just blow people off because you are annoyed. When you do this you are as much a nuisance as all the troublemakers out there. [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] ([[User talk:Libro0|talk]]) 06:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::You two have just been wasting the communities time and you have drained the community of it's Good Faith. A lot of us have tried to mediate me included. But those mediations fell on deaf ears and at times were taken out of context. You have done nothing but fight. I could go through the archives and pull up more stuff on you two than Grawp and that is saying something. You two only have 4 options on retrospect. Here are your options, Quit Wikipedia, Be Blocked for disruption and incivility (I can not block, but I bet there are a few admin out there debating), Just stay away from each other, or work together. I honestly do not want to see another report here or anywhere filed by one of you against the other. This is not what the noticeboard is about. This is for the community at whole to be informed of problems. Not for a couple of good editors to fight. We have lost a lot of good people because of issues like this. Do not become like them and choose the best option. The one that will help you two and the community at large. [[User:Rgoodermote|Rgood]][[User_Talk:Rgoodermote|erm]][[Special:contributions/Rgoodermote|ote]]  09:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

*Libro0, at first I did not support you because you were wrong. Then after your continuing false allegations, it would be impossible to support you. I tried offering an olive branch to both of you. Baseball Card Guy flat out rejected it. You on the other hand spun it off into a series of sockpuppet allegations filled passive aggressive attacks. You have done nothing but engender bad faith through your actions.

:You have intentionally engaged in actions that have egged Baseball Card Guy on and he has done the same to you in return. As for how I knew he was setting a trap for you I mentioned it above, but I take it you aren't a Star Wars fan or have no idea of the meme that is [[Admiral Ackbar]]. Basically it was said here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baseball_Card_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=229274490] and he used Admiral Ackbar as the edit summary for the edits I mention above. What is the relevance of Admiral Ackbar with regard to a trap? The character's most famous line in Return of the Jedi was "It's a trap!"

:We have progressed beyond a petty argument about baseball cards into two users who seem hellbent on fighting to the death. I spend most of my time on here now seeing if Libro0 has made another false sockpuppet allegation against me and seeing if Baseball Card Guy is out setting traps for Libro0 which will make me or someone else look like a sockpuppet. (Although thanks to this I found a couple of problems with some articles and was able to fix them, so at least some good has come out of this idiotic nonsense!) This has devolved into a Bugs Bunny vs. Daffy Duck cartoon - ''Duck Season. Rabbit Season. Duck Season.'' These two will never stop by themselves. ''Can we just ban these two and be done with this massive waste of everyone else's time?'' [[User:Your Radio Enemy|Your Radio Enemy]] ([[User talk:Your Radio Enemy|talk]]) 14:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I chose the best possible option which was to expand the base of editors for the baseball card pages. I have asked people to join in and lend their expertise. Several hundred at least. This community was lacking in knowledgeable people on this subject. [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] ([[User talk:Libro0|talk]]) 17:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:So the best possible option is to harass and falsely accuse others who contribute? That is what you did to me. You have driven me away from editing the baseball card pages with your childish behavior especially this ultimatum/thinly veiled sockpuppet allegation [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=230314708] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=230518845]. That was uncalled for. You state ''"You clearly want me to leave. I will, if you can complete one of the two following tasks in 24 hours of the posting of this message."'' Up to that point, I didn't want you to leave, I asked nicely for you ''and'' Baseball Card Guy to stop and take a time out and then you accuse me of being a sockpuppet. Neither of you listened and then you posted your ultimatum. You eventually said the following which basically accuses me of being a sockpuppet of Baseball Card Guy: ''"Given that you did not complete the tasks I suggest that you step aside and allow people who have the information to edit the page. Keep in mind that you have been warned about unwarranted reverts. Further disruption will result in a disciplinary report and any sock evidence will be posted."'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=230518845] You dragged me into this mess. Your opponent has dragged me deeper. I have had it with you two. Is it any wonder why I want '''both''' of you banned? The two of you have wasted my time, have wasted several other users time, several admins time with your back and forth wars. Libro0 keeps making these passive aggressive and somewhat pompous statements claiming that he is following guidelines and trying to work with the community, yet his behavior reveals the opposite. His opponent Baseball Card Guy seems to do the same thing, albeit on a less grander scale than Libro0. The two of them are dragging the community down. They are both instigators and are both trying to play the system to get what they want. They need to be stopped. I am sick and tired of defending myself against Libro0 and his accusations. ''The two of them need to be banned so the rest of us can stop wasting our time. It is in the best interests of everyone in the community!'' [[User:Your Radio Enemy|Your Radio Enemy]] ([[User talk:Your Radio Enemy|talk]]) 17:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why should I be banned? it is [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] who is doing all of this. I just want him to stop attacking me. I just use the same tactics [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] uses. [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] is the problem ban him. [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] says he is following policy and consensus when he is not he is a liar who just wants his way and acts like a big bully if he doesn't get what he wants. He needs to be banned. I am not some big sockpuppeter. [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] probably has been running sockpuppets to make it look like I am running sockpuppets. [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] seems to do anything and does things like a sneaky person. Ban [[User:Libro0|Libro0]]! [[User:Baseball Card Guy|Baseball Card Guy]] ([[User talk:Baseball Card Guy|talk]]) 22:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is insane. I'll block both of you if either of you whine about the other one again. We have an encyclopedia to write, and you two are getting in the way. Either take it to dispute resolution, or shut up; AN has no more it can do for you except remove you as annoyances. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 23:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

*[[User:Libro0|Libro0]] has already escalated things with this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=prev&oldid=236344465] and this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1950s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=236345054]. [[User:Baseball Card Guy|Baseball Card Guy]] ([[User talk:Baseball Card Guy|talk]]) 01:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
::That is called Dispute Resolution. Something I am very happy to see being done. [[User:Rgoodermote|Rgood]][[User_Talk:Rgoodermote|erm]][[Special:contributions/Rgoodermote|ote]]  02:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:::You know as well as I do that that is going to devolve into yet another shouting match like this wasting more people's time effort and energy. Libro0 has gone to [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]] to complain about the notice boards [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=prev&oldid=236301106], boards that that he himself has made use of several times. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=227154062] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=227256530] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=209646095] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=209727629] He seems to be playing the system wasting even more people's time complaining in his typical passive aggressive way [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=prev&oldid=236301106]. We have wasted enough time, energy and effort on these two and their petty bickering. It is time to say goodbye to both of them. Just ban them both since it is like dealing with the Israelis and Palestinians nobody is going to listen. [[User:Your Radio Enemy|Your Radio Enemy]] ([[User talk:Your Radio Enemy|talk]]) 04:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== [[Codename: Kids Next Door: the Movie (2009 film)]] ==

Is the subject of this single-editor article real or is it a hoax? --[[User:Túrelio|Túrelio]] ([[User talk:Túrelio|talk]]) 07:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:Uhh, the [[MS Paint]] quality of the movie poster title suggests that someone has an overactive imagination. And weak knowledge of which studio KND is produced by (that would be [[Warner Bros.]], not Universal). '''[[User:Mrschimpf|Nate]]''' • ''([[User_talk:Mrschimpf|chatter]])'' 07:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::Nuked from Orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Could be our least favorite vandal/hoaxer, but I think a CU would be declined for fishing. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 07:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Still need [[:Image:KND Movie 5.jpg]] taken out, which is a faked version of [[:Image:KND_Movie.jpg]]. I was unable to put a speedy tag on it because the page was never created in the database. '''[[User:Mrschimpf|Nate]]''' • ''([[User_talk:Mrschimpf|chatter]])'' 07:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Thanks. It will be nuked on Commons. --[[User:Túrelio|Túrelio]] ([[User talk:Túrelio|talk]]) 09:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::No way did that poster come from anything having to do with Universal or Warner, even as a leaked, quickly dashed off draft. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 07:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== IP adding frivolous talkpage banners ==

I've encountered an IP from the 88.105.X.X range adding a bunch of frivolous talkpage banners to a number of talkpages.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALolicon&diff=235852660&oldid=235763950][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALolicon&diff=235998051&oldid=235901106][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=235899529][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Thai_political_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=235996956][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Economic_crisis_of_2008&diff=prev&oldid=235997164][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Data_(Star_Trek)&diff=prev&oldid=236011333][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMaitreya&diff=232188010&oldid=222488039] I have reverted some of these edits, particularly on [[Talk:Lolicon]], as talkpage clutter and frivolous however the editor has restored the banners on a couple of articles. --'''[[User:TheFarix|Farix]]''' ([[User talk:TheFarix|Talk]]) 12:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:They all look at least potentially valid to me. Why not try discussing it first, instead of slapping a vandalism warning on the editor's talkpage? – [[User:Iridescent|iride]][[User_talk:Iridescent|scent]] 12:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::The [[Data (Star Trek)]] article already had a picture, and the tags over-wrote one of the project tags... The "heated debate" thing shouldn't really be added unless there's a history of heated debates (imo), but I haven't looked into that too much. The project tags could do with a banner shell. As for the economic crisis...not sure what photo could be found to represent that... –[[User:Xenocidic|'''xeno''']] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|talk]]) 12:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Ah oh, didn't realise the Data one already had a picture. (I can think of plenty of potential "economic crisis" photos – empty shelves, queues at soup kitchens/unemployment offices, hyperinflated banknotes with a string of zeroes...) – [[User:Iridescent|iride]][[User_talk:Iridescent|scent]] 13:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Well stop talking and [[commons:Main page|get searchin']] ! ;> –[[User:Xenocidic|'''xeno''']] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|talk]]) 13:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Looking... on reading that article, it's in a very dodgy and US-centric state – the highest profile casualty (at least, from where I'm sitting), [[Zoom Airlines]], was based in Canada, which isn't even ''mentioned''. (No, I don't intend adding it myself; I know nothing about Canada or airlines). – [[User:Iridescent|iride]][[User_talk:Iridescent|scent]] 13:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::bah...touche. –[[User:Xenocidic|'''xeno''']] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|talk]]) 13:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

::{{tl|talkheader}} shouldn't be randomly added to talkpages unless there is an preexisting issues that {{tl|talkheader}} address. That is part of {{tl|talkheader}} documentation. Also, one shouldn't random add {{tl|todo}} templates either unless one is going to create a todo list for the article. The same goes for {{tl|reqphoto}}, especially when the articles already have images on them, or including a image is like to result in POV pushing (ie Economic crisis of 2008) in an already bias and weaselly worded article. And the tmbox "notes" the editor leaves are entirely inappropriate and unnecessary. But the IP range needs to be watched since he or she has already ignored warnings about adding frivolous takpage banners twice. And for the record, while I did leave two of the three warnings the editor has received. Neither of my warnings were generated by a "warning template". I completely wrote them on my own. But the editor showed no interest in discussing the matter after my first warning. --'''[[User:TheFarix|Farix]]''' ([[User talk:TheFarix|Talk]]) 13:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== Long term, slow, BLP edit war on [[Mark Kimmitt]] ==

I'd previously notified [[WP:BLP/N]] of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=232953994 this issue], but didn't get much input. Two editors have been engaged in a ~1x/day revert war on this article for a couple of weeks. I tried to intervene as a 3O, but I did not seem to have any luck at coaxing the editors into modifying their ways. I have no doubt they could benefit from intervention from someone with the admin bit and a strong BLP background. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 15:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== RFC on Civility restrictions and other questions ==

I have started a RFC, available at [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Civility restriction RFC]], about the questions the community and the ArbComm has raised with regard to [[WP:Editing restrictions|civility restrictions]]. Comment is appreciated there. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 16:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== Estimating rangeblock collateral damage ==

So over at the Ref Desk we've got a fun fellow who drops by occasionally, usually to tell us the latest rumormongering to come out of Fox News (it's always on '''RIGHT NOW!''' if only we'll go and watch), and as such, I've come to think of him as the [[User:Lomn/FNG|Fox News Guy]]. For the desk itself, this isn't a big deal, but he's usually then off to add his random speculations to article space too (often interspersed with out-and-out vandalism), and that necessitates cleanup. He's acknowledged and then ignored warnings time and again, so I've concluded that, when I see him actively resume his nonsense, it's time to just block. So now the meat of the question:

He's in a couple of pretty tight IP ranges most of the time. Is there a way I can pull recent changes for a range in total to estimate what the collateral damage to helpful IP editors might be? Alternately, do I just need to be talked down from the ledge of precipitous action? — [[User talk:Lomn|Lomn]] 16:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
*I don't know, but you may want to change the [[FNG syndrome|sub-page name]] you are using. :) [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 16:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
*There is a tool [http://toolserver.org/~vvv/rangecontribs.php], but it's currently disabled for the English Wikipedia for performance reasons. However, a limited amount of collateral checking is something that [[WP:CHECK|CheckUser]] can do, so if you let me know the ranges, I can check them for you. [[User:Sam Korn|Sam Korn]] [[User talk:Sam Korn|(smoddy)]] 16:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
**[[User:Troy 07|Troy 07]] showed me this one that works via your monobook: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:X8&oldid=234682198] [[User:Caknuck|caknuck]] [[User talk:Caknuck|°]] is geared up for football season 21:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
***Or instead of importing the gadget into your monobook, you can just turn it on in preferences. [[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']] 21:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== [[WP:SSP]] backlog building up again ==

Every little bit helps. '''[[User:Enigmaman|Enigma]]''' ''[[User talk:Enigmaman|message]]'' 16:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:If you're looking for an easy one, [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Infocentral2000|the case I reported]] is nice and short ;) [[User:Justinfr|justinfr]] ([[User talk:justinfr|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Justinfr|contribs]]) 18:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== Insult ==

Hi. The [[User:Babakexorramdin]] who insists on adding non-official languages in front of the term official language [[Iran|in this article]], has started to insult me on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A#zabanha my talk page] for reverting this act with regard to what sources say.
Can anybody to something about these insults?--[[User:ماني|ماني]] ([[User talk:ماني|talk]]) 16:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)--[[User:ماني|a.k.a. [[User:Mani1]]]] ([[User talk:ماني|talk]]) 08:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:As far as insults go here, it seems fairly minor to me, however, you can always raise it at [[WP:WQA|Wikiquette Alerts]] if you wish. There seems to be no need for Admin intervention just yet. --[[User:Rodhullandemu|Rodhull]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|andemu]] 17:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::It is a clear example of personal attack. I'll surely raise it at Wikiquette Alerts. Thanks for your attention.--[[User:ماني|ماني]] ([[User talk:ماني|talk]]) 07:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)--[[User:ماني|a.k.a. [[User:Mani1]]]] ([[User talk:ماني|talk]]) 08:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::This is the text of my post on Wikiquette alert. I hope you admins here also do something about it: 
Hi. I posted this on admins board and they sent me here:
The [[User:Babakexorramdin]] who insists on adding non-official languages in front of the term official language [[Iran|in this article]], and states his reason for this as "not giving ammunition to the "separatists"" has started to insult me on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A#zabanha my talk page] just because I try to adjust the fact with regard to what sources say. He supposed that I come from Afganistan and a place called Tafresh and used those names as (in his clearly racist opinion) deragatory terms for humiliating me. And continued with "shut your big mouth" and called my corrections "vandalization". All because I asked him if he speaks Persian? In other wikipedias where I'm active such an insult surely is faced with banning for a long time. I ask you to do something about this personal attack. Not doing anything about this user has boldened him to chase me in another Wikipedias and blindly reverting my edits without any reason or discussion. This is a clear case of harrasment.--[[User:ماني|ماني]] ([[User talk:ماني|talk]]) 07:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)--[[User:ماني|a.k.a. [[User:Mani1]]]] ([[User talk:ماني|talk]]) 08:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Would this block be justified? (Rusty admin asks) ==

I am an admin, a long-time one, but inactive over the last little bit. My question: does [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dindo94&action=history this guy qualify for a block]? He's been uploading non-free images non-stop, and deleting the warnings against doing so, off his talk page. Obviously, he has too much time and no plans to stop. Block? -- [[User:Zanimum|Zanimum]] ([[User talk:Zanimum|talk]]) 17:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:Warn then block. You are correct. Be sure he knows that he has to justify why those non-free images are needed. See [[WP:FAIRUSE]] for the templates. —— '''[[user:nixeagle|nix]][[User talk:Nixeagle|eagle]]''' 17:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== schoolblock ==

{{Resolved|1=Schoolblock endorsed. –[[User:Xenocidic|'''xeno''']] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|talk]]) 19:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)}}
I've just blocked anon account [[user:66.210.75.2]], but am requesting input. The user is a persistent vandal who had received a final warning several edits before I blocked. The block history reveals that the ip has been blocked several times before, the last couple being schoolblocks, the most recent for 6 months. Based on the block history, I schoolblocked as well, for 7 months, and placed the schoolblock tag on the user talk page. I've never done a schoolblock before; is some sort of additional check needed, or is the previous block history sufficient? [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 18:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:As long as it was anon-only/account creation blocked, you're fine. For next time feel free to bump it up to 1 year if they've already served a 6 monther. You might want to pipe in a comment and add a signature, i.e. {{tlx|schoolblock|Blocked for 7 months}} <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> –[[User:Xenocidic|'''xeno''']] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|talk]]) 18:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::<s>Agree with a one year block in this case given the track record of abuse. '''[[User:Enigmaman|Enigma]]''' ''[[User talk:Enigmaman|message]]'' 18:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)</s>
:::I've updated the tag. Think I'll leave the block as it is -- 7 months is long enough that it's unlikely to be the same individual(s) using the ip next time, and it doesn't really seem worth unblocking and reblocking. to add a few more months. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 18:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Right, that's what I meant - no need to tweak this block, but for the next one, you can consider a year-long. –[[User:Xenocidic|'''xeno''']] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|talk]]) 18:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=236078432&oldid=236078127 Now you're making me look silly]. ;) '''[[User:Enigmaman|Enigma]]''' ''[[User talk:Enigmaman|message]]'' 18:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::lulz sorry about that, being all unclear and all =) –[[User:Xenocidic|'''xeno''']] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|talk]]) 19:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::Labor Day has passed and most US schools are back in session, so I expect that there will be more schoolblocks before the week is out. I’ve made two myself today. —[[User:TravisTX|Travis]][[User_talk:TravisTX|talk]] 19:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== changes to the templates for Birth/Date age ==

Recently and editor named [[User:RockMFR|RockMFR]] deleted <nowiki>[[ and ]]</nowiki> for [[Template:Death date and age]] and [[Template:Birth date]] and now dates of birth and death appear unlinked - for example ''March 27, 1482 (aged 25)'' instead of ''[[March 27]], [[1482]] (aged 25)''. He did so citing [[WP:Dates]] and although in good faith I believe these edits to be in error. WP:Dates cites among other things that linking dates should be avoided unless there is a reason and I believe that this template qualifies. I would have reverted them myself but the templates are protected and although I requested to be an admin in the past, my request was DENIED and I do not have access. I recommend someone fix these date templates. --[[User:Kumioko|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:Kumioko|talk]]) 20:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:On a similar note, on [[Template talk:Birth date and age]] I have requested that the default setting for this template use the international date format rather than American date format. I can edit it as an admin, but don't know how to code it. Can someone help? Cheers, [[User:Number 57|пﮟოьεԻ]] [[User talk:Number 57|5]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|7]] 21:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::(edit conflict) - there would be a HUGE problem of going back and fixing items already entered under these templates if this switch were made since they have been around for sometime and 1000's of entries have already been made. If you wish to have the date come before the month all you have to do is add |df=y after the month. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]] | [[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 21:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::It already is a HUGE problem that thousands of non-American articles using the birth date template now appear as using the American dating format, as a lot of people didn't bother using df=yes when the dates were linked as it autoformatted. There should not be a presumption towards using a minority dating system. [[User:Number 57|пﮟოьεԻ]] [[User talk:Number 57|5]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|7]] 06:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Check the MOS. There has been a change in wording on linking of dates. One of the articles on my watchlist had almost 300 bytes of linked dates stripped out by a well-known and conscientious editor, and I was ready to squawk until I checked the link he provided in the edit summary. '''[[User:Horologium|Horologium]]''' [[User talk:Horologium|(talk)]] 21:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:Dates are no longer being linked, per [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date autoformatting]]. - [[User:AuburnPilot|auburnpilot]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|talk]] 21:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::Though I can't remember if linking birth and death dates is an exception to this? Probably not, but if anything was an exception, this would be one of them. We do have categories for birth and death years, so linking to the years seems wrong. Possibly the birth/death year produced by the template could be linked to the birth/death year categories, so people reading the infobox can click through to the category of, say, [[:Category:1833 deaths|1833 deaths]], instead of scrolling to the bottom to do that. On the other hand, the year articles do tend to contain sections with births and deaths (eg. [[1833]]), so linking from the pages of people who were born and died that year would be a legitimate way to bring traffic to the year pages. Delinking ''all'' the year links wasn't the intention, I don't think. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 22:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I see where the changes where made to the date text however I do not see any evidence that it was done based on a majority decision. Rather it looks as though 1 individual felt it wasn't right and made the change. I believe that a change of this magnitude should be presented to the mob and then a decision reached as to whether it should go forward.--[[User:Kumioko|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:Kumioko|talk]]) 00:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Additionally, there are several bots that do date changes as well as edits built into AWB. If the intent is that we will no longer link dates then we will need to remove all this logic and undo tens of thousands of linked dates.--[[User:Kumioko|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:Kumioko|talk]]) 00:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::<s>Speaking of the death date template, can someone please change the grammatically improper "aged" to "age"? Putting "(age 79)" after a death date is short-hand for "at the age of 79", while "(aged 79)" would be short for something like "having aged 79 years".</s> [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald ''"unreachable by rational discourse"''''']]'''([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]])''' 18:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Withdrawn, I appear to be wrong about this, and "aged" is the correct usage. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald ''"unreachable by rational discourse"''''']]'''([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]])''' 01:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== Copyright question ==

A question has come up related to copyright of an article that, on closer examination, could lead to the deletion of dozens of other articles. I had already asked for feedback at [[Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#list_of_top_singles]], but given its broad-reaching implications, would like to publicize that question ''here'' in the hopes of inviting knowledgeable participation ''there''. Feedback appreciated. :) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 22:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== Please help on [[Sarah Palin]] ==

Please, please, I'm begging - will someone help with the BLP-violators, POV-pushers, and edit-warriors on [[Sarah Palin]]? I can't even keep up with BLP violators, much less research diffs in hundreds of revisions per hour to report edit-warriors. Please help! [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 23:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:Or alternatively, could we have full protection for a while to calm things down? [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 23:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::I second this. Palin's and associated articles are under full onslaught by SPA's and POV pushers. Kelly and a couple of others can't watch the articles every second, 24-hours a day. Please provide full protection for a few days. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 23:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:(e/c)Admin only, unfortunately, until next Monday (sept 8). We all need a break, per Kelly's rationale. [[User:Keeper76|Keeper]] {{IPA|ǀ}} [[User talk:Keeper76|76]] 23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks so much! I think the article is relatively complete with the actual information we have so far, any major updates can be handled through edit requests. [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 23:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::And thanks for your edit summary. I love me too! [[User:Keeper76|Keeper]] {{IPA|ǀ}} [[User talk:Keeper76|76]] 23:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:(a few e/c) I've been watching the page ever since I first saw it at [[WP:ITN]], and I agree, there have been ''many'' POV pushers and [[WP:BLP]] violators to the article, and fully support the protection. There I noticed I managed to make the last [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=236127711&oldid=236127530 edit] to the article before Keeper [[WP:PROTECT#Full_protection|fully protected]] the article. :-) Just had to fix some reference placements... -- [[User:RyRy|RyRy]] ('''''[[User talk:RyRy|talk]]''''') 23:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:I also support full protection. There are a lot of things that need discussing and refining before they can be included, and there's no reason to let the article continually fall to The Wrong Version in the meantime. [[User:Celarnor|'''Celarnor''']] [[User_talk:Celarnor|Talk to me]] 23:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::Support, and also support keeping an eye on related articles, such as [[Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal]]... if those get hit too, we may want to protect them as well. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 23:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm sure administrators will [[WP:BE BOLD|be bold]] enough to do so if disruptive editing goes too far. I may as well start keeping an eye on such related articles too. Things should probably calm down when new-year comes along, assuming that the politics drama that hit Wikipedia would be over by then. -- [[User:RyRy|RyRy]] ('''''[[User talk:RyRy|talk]]''''') 00:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::"if disruptive editing goes too far"?!? That bridge was crossed a long time ago. As has been said elsewhere, the article is the first Google result for the name of the subject and we have clear responsibilities here. But, sadly, some seem to feel keeping the encyclopedia free for all to edit is more important than stopping casual libel slip through to a worldwide audience every few minutes. It's in situations like these where it is easy to realise how a project that initially offered so much promise can also be used for all the wrong reasons. Lock it - and lock every BLP while you're at it [[User:George The Dragon|George The Dragon]] ([[User talk:George The Dragon|talk]]) 00:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I agree with the protection but could you make the huge banner a bit smaller? I find it a bit distracting on such a high profile high visibilty article. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 00:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=236128486&oldid=236128046 This snuck in post-protection]. Just for The Wrong Version procedural grounds it should be reverted by GlassCobra, I left him a note. Kelly, good luck. I'm not touching this article for at least a week, its gotten far too annoying. I left him a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GlassCobra#FYI_-_content_edits_post-protection_like_this note]. He probably just missed the protection. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 00:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:I think you should [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] in this case and not ask for this to be reverted. It takes a bit of time to prepare an edit and they happened virtually at the same time AND it also had consensus that it's a borderline BLP vio/should not be in the article. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 00:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::That absolutely is good faith, I told him it was probably a mistake and asked him to revert. The protection policy doesn't allow people to make massive edits/reversions of contested content dispute material. What as bad faith about what I wrote? Admins simply can't do that except for really trivial stuff like bjweeks tweaking a citation format or removing "obvious" BLP violations. I'm just looking out for GlassCobra so no one tries to screw or politicize him for this. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 00:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Asking him to revert. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 00:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Please don't split up the conversation any further, we can discuss it here. It's not bad faith to ask him to revert to the wrong version. That's how our protection policy simply works. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 00:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Removing the lengthy diatribe about the AIP was good, as it's prejudicial and basically trying to prove a point of some kind. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' 00:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::(ec)Actually, don't think that edit should be reverted, the content is a borderline BLP vio. That secessionist-party meme has been heavily discussed on the article talk page and there really is no consensus for its inclusion (if anything, consensus is against). Should be discussed at the article talk page. [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 00:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Hey, if theres consensus to keep it out, cool beans. I just didn't want to see the crazies running around take it out on GC, he seemed to just honestly leap in there. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 01:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::OK then we all agree that it was an honest edit that didn't circumvent policy that was written to stop ''abuse'' of protected pages and there is no reason to ask for it to be reverted. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 01:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And support full protection, but till September 8th is a bit too long. 48 hours, maybe 72 max. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 00:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Good call on protecting. POV-pushers trying to cram every scandal they can come up with into the article. A feeding frenzy like I've never seen here. There's plenty of juicy stuff still in the article, but all or most of it is mainstream info. We do need some rest here. :) [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' 00:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:In addition to it being a high-importance article on a current event with partisan overtones, I think some of the problem was editing volume. It was the fastest editing environment I've seen here, hard to sort already-discussed proposals from bold edits, and simple mistakes from vandalism. The same edits and discussion topics came again and again - assuming they were mostly good faith it must have been from inexperienced editors or those who could not easily read the entire 350K talk page or edit-a-minute history before proposing the same bad idea that someone else had proposed hours before. I tried to help but most clean-ups of BLP and NPOV violations would only stick a few hours before they were back. I hope the cooling off period works by itself but if not, it might help to figure out a plan of getting from here to there in terms of a stable unprotected editing environment. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 00:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hell yes, '''support'''. I've never seen such a riot of BLP violations, SPAs, ''un''reliable sources, and general meanspiritedness on every side. A little break is what everyone needs to calm down and reason things out together. [[User:Coemgenus|Coemgenus]] 01:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:I second the call for a reduction in this page's protection. A cooling off period is fine and necessary, especially for all the editors doing their best to keep the POV pushing out, but new information covering the entire spectrum of her biography (including the future!) is appearing by the minute. I would hope that this could go back to semi-protection within 24 to 48 hours, which is where the Obama, Biden, and McCain articles now stand. [[User:Joshdboz|Joshdboz]] ([[User talk:Joshdboz|talk]]) 01:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::I would support, but please let's wait to see if the media frenzy dies down a little first. I really need a break. :) There is no sign of many other BLP-sensitive editors (in sufficient numbers to handle this article) coming out to help with things. I know I'm not doing it all, but I'm doing a lot, and few people are helping. [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 01:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Of course Rootology and Baseball Bugs are doing fantastic work too, and a couple others. :) [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 01:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I totally have to agree with the decision to lock it down. She's going to be speaking at the RNC in like an hour. God, I don't even want to imagine the hell that would break loose if we relax the protection. [[User:Thingg|Thingg]][[User talk:Thingg|⊕]][[Special:Contributions/Thingg|⊗]] 01:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::I have an idea. We can keep the mainspace version protected and create a sandbox version of the mainspace article for continued article development. [[User:QuackGuru|QuackGuru]] 01:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::I don't think that would be a good idea - the BLP violations will just show up somewhere else then. At this point I think we just need to get the editing volume down, get people consensus-ing on the talk page, and identifying the malefactors who have have been causing problems. Right now they're getting away with it because the volume is too high to ID them. [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 01:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::We could put it in a talk subpage with a {{tl|noindex}} tag to keep it off Google. Standard procedure with protections is to create a sandbox. Quackguru (if memory serves) has experience with these sandboxes. BLP violations might occur, but they won't fight so hard because it's not the "real" article. Users would nominate the posting of specific revised versions for consensus. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] ''[[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|Luke]]'' 01:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::::The talk page already has a list of 3 or 4 controversial points, and the discussion needs to be kept there for now, rather than allowing more edit wars to foment. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' 01:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::May I respectfully remind people that [[WP:BLP]] covers talk pages as well as article space. Thanks [[User:George The Dragon|George The Dragon]] ([[User talk:George The Dragon|talk]]) 01:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::The talk page and archives of that article are lousy with BLP violations now - I don't even know where to start on cleaning them up. [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 01:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'm tempted to suggest "oversight the entire lot," or at the least delete as I genuinely believe this issue is far more serious than some "ideal". [[User:George The Dragon|George The Dragon]] ([[User talk:George The Dragon|talk]]) 01:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::I know, but there are going to be talk space BLP violations unless we lock the whole thing down as well and spend the next few days scrubbing. I thought it might be useful to create a sandbox, but Baseball Bugs is probably right. No time for edit wars. Proposed edits will have to be insular, I guess. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] ''[[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|Luke]]'' 01:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::Most of the so-called BLP violations are reasonable questions that have been raised. It's not appropriate to be censoring the talk page unless somebody blatantly makes something up that's slanderous. For example, the ''Enquirer'' story is not appropriate for the article at present, but it has to be talked about, because it's out there. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' 02:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::I agree with Baseball Bugs. I have been through most of the current talk page and it's mostly innocent questions/people who don't understand Wikipedia. Comments that are violations of BLP are being reverted on sight already. --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[User_talk:mboverload|@]] 02:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:I certainly agree with the protection here. To pick a relevant example, the level of editing activity and problematic edits was a lot higher than that at [[John Edwards]] as the latest scandal was breaking. Indeed, so much was coming so fast that even the active editors were having trouble keeping track of what disputes were still disputes and what were settled. And we protected Sen. Edwards article for a week, unprotecting less than 24 hours after a clear and sticking talk page consensus was formed. I make no predictions as to whether we'll be able to form any consensus here - but hopefully with 5 days to work with editors will at least be able to sort out how many different issues they are dealing with.

:I'd also suggest that with the article protected would be a good time to review the histories to see if there are editors that need counsel, warnings, or other attention. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 02:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The problems here are exactly the kind of thing broad and sweeping sanctions are designed to handle. I propose that an uninvoled admin, at his or her discretion, may take any actions he/she feels neccesary to remove disruptive users/POV pushers/SSPs/vandals/etc from any page related to the 2008 election, until it's over. Let's face it, this kind of crap is not going to go away, and in fact, it's going to get worse. [[User:Jtrainor|Jtrainor]] ([[User talk:Jtrainor|talk]]) 03:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even notice this until after the protection was a ''fait accompli''. I'll record for the record my view that protecting this article at this time was a huge mistake. The serious problem here is the volume, as noted by Wikidemon. Perhaps we need to split the talk page into separate subpages to deal with the barrage of topics. I'm not sure how to deal with it but I don't see how protection will help, except by discouraging some people from contributing to the article at all. They'll go do other stuff and come back when the protection ends. We'll be right back where we were except for having spent a few days with this highly visible article protected at a crucial time (global black eye for Wikipedia). [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] [[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]] [[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]] 07:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:I suggested a sandbox for article development. Improvements can continue to be made while the article is protected with a sandbox version. [[User:QuackGuru|QuackGuru]] 07:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

*I think that full-protection for a week is too long for an article of this nature. I would of fully-protected it for 24 to 48 hours, I think a week is excessive, especially for those good-faith users (including myself), who are now unable to edit the contents of the page. [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] ([[User talk:D.M.N.|talk]]) 09:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:* Use {{tl|editprotected}}, anything that has obvious consensus will be in in no time. The sheer volume of egregious policy violations on this article makes full protection amply justified. Blame the idiots, not the admins. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 11:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

=== Protection downgraded ===
Article appears to have been downgraded to semi-protection by {{user|Jossi}}. [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] ([[User talk:D.M.N.|talk]]) 12:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

: I missed that above discussion, but after reading it, I still see no need for full protection, in particular on a current event high-traffic article. Semi should do. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]] 12:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:: Well I do trust the people that watch this page when they say they are overwhelmed and are unable to maintain the quality of the article. I would have preferred if you had erred on the side of caution and undone your change, but I won't join the wheel war. I have restored the move protection though. -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]] [[User talk:Lucasbfr|talk]] 12:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::: Erring on the side of caution is actually keeping the article uprotected. There are ongoing developments on the subject of the article, and material will continue to be added as it emerges. Granted, it would be a battle to keep the hordes at bay, but we cannot simply close the gates. Editing should continue despite the challenges. If a few admins are getting overwhelmed, they should take a wikibreak. Others will step in. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]] 12:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::: Though we really shouldn't be writing articles as news reports adding items as they are reported; instead, the most significant points should be brought in after time has been allowed to digest if news reports are truly significant and finding the best sources to reference those (in light of this being a BLP). If it was only IPs with the occasional SPA, semi would seem fine, but as I see it, there's a lot of signed-in users attacking the article. I've seen articles granted full protection for less on RFPP. --[[User:Masem|MASEM]] 13:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::::: Further, many of the SPAs that registered when the story first broke will no longer be barred by semi-protection. Users are autoconfirmed after 4 days, right? I don't have much experience in this area, but it seems to me that a flood of angry trolls is about to bust loose. Full protection seems warranted for the time being. [[User:Coemgenus|Coemgenus]] 14:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::: Simple, any accounts persiting with disruptive edits, we [[WP:BLOCK]]. Let other productive editors continue editing rather than shutting down the article. This is the most trafficked article in WP right now, and we need to show the project and the community can afford people the liberty of editing. This is WP and a wiki, after all. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]] 14:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::: I take your point, and while I don't disagree completely, I find the use of [[WP:IAR]] here to be quite unseemely. Maybe occasional blocks will be sufficient, but let's decide before we act. [[User:Coemgenus|Coemgenus]] 14:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::: See the comments above. The editing volume is too high to deal with BLP-violators, edi-warriors, and POV-pushers, and there aren't any admins helping with that article! [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 14:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

=== Protection removal was against consensus and needs restoring ===
Consensus should be honored and the protection restored; lone admins have no authority > consensus. If Jossi can't restore protection, can someone else? It would not be a wheel war situation as there is full support from the majority of the regular users there. I left Jossi an extra note. Since Jossi's move was against clear consensus I don't believe we'd need to wait for his OK, especially as Palin is a BLP. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 13:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Some edit warring has already resumed from this unprotection. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 13:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is insane to downgrade this article to semi-protection. There is no way editors can keep up with volume of POV and WP:BLP violating edits.--[[User:Paul.h|Paul]] ([[User talk:Paul.h|talk]]) 13:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please re-establish protection per consensus above. [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 13:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:There has been constant POV-pushing by muckrakers, and the issues remain unresolved. Un-protecting it was inappropriate. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' 13:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. A current event page as trafficked as it is should not be protected. This is one of the times in which I will [[WP:IAR]] and unprotect again. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]] 14:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:Shameful drama-inducing escalation. There's an extraordinarily clear consensus about this above. It's not "IAR", it's called "wheel-warring against consensus". --[[User:Barneca|barneca]] ([[User talk:Barneca|talk]]) 14:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::I agree with barneca. It should be an [[WP:IAR]] case to protect this page against what might seem like common sense (protecting a high traffic article), vs the protection of the subject of the article. Based on this discussion, there appears to be a quick consensus to protect, we do not have time to have a week long discussion in this case to discuss ad-nauseum. I strongly agree with protection and strongly disagree with jossi's actions. [[User:Chrislk02|'''Chris''']][[Special:Contributions/Chrislk02|'''lk02''']] [[User talk:Chrislk02|Chris Kreider]] 14:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::It's not just protection vs. unprotection; while I disagree with unprotecting, I can understand the theory. It's the blatant disregard for consensus, and playing chicken with the tools. At least 17 people voiced an opinion above, and 13-14 were in favor of full protection for 48 hours at least, with many supporting the full week. Dismissing this as "a short discussion" isn't just hyperbole, it's just 100% wrong. If I were someone else, I'd be tempted to nominate [[WP:CONSENSUS]] at MFD, to make my [[WP:POINT|point]], but instead I'll just point out this is ''textbook'' example of [[WP:WHEEL|wheel warring (read it!)]], and were I Jimbo or the ArbCom, and Jossi doesn't revert himself, I'd desysop him; that's how seriously I take it. If we're blowing off consensus and turning this into the Wild West, then we're screwed. Please revert yourself, Jossi, until there's a consensus favoring your point of view. --[[User:Barneca|barneca]] ([[User talk:Barneca|talk]]) 14:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

=== Protection restored ===
Restored protection. I am now off my wikibreak, and this is my first action - nice. I'll take it up with any admin who thinks I'm wrong, but both consensus and rationale are correct here. I'll go talk to jossi [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 13:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Erm. Welcome back? :) '''[[User:Synergy|Syn]]'''[[User_talk:Synergy|ergy]] 13:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Almost all edits since full protection was lifted have been constructive. Way to go. [[User:Joshdboz|Joshdboz]] ([[User talk:Joshdboz|talk]]) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Jossi has removed the protection. The rationale for removal is reasonable, and although I am uncomfortable with this due to the consensus above, I won't take any further action with this. [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 14:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Please stop the insanity and restore the protection. A single admin should not be ignoring the consensus. [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 14:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:The [[Sarah Palin]] article is not unprotected - it is still semiprotected. That seems reasonable to me. That's the protection level of [[George W. Bush]], for example. — Carl ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 14:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Carl, have you seen what has been going on with that article while it was semiprotected? Have you been helping to deal with it? [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 14:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::To kelly: I agree with your point of view, but I'm not going to wheel-war over it. [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 14:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I have stepped in to try and help. I am not very familiar with the topic and am fairly apathetic when it comes to politics. I do however recognize a reliable source from a non reliable one and POV pushing. I will try and keep an eye on it. I however feel it should be re-protected and that jossi should undo his wheel warring actions. [[User:Chrislk02|'''Chris''']][[Special:Contributions/Chrislk02|'''lk02''']] [[User talk:Chrislk02|Chris Kreider]] 14:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Re Kelly: I think there are more than enough people who know about the article to keep it well watched. We do need to be more proactive in using the blocking provision of WP:BLP. My philosophy is: one stern warning, then a short block (12-24 hours) with autoblock enabled. — Carl ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 15:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

'''Protection has been re-re-restored''', and I'm going to start handing out blocks to anyone who continues to war over this. You all know better. Establish a consensus, then take an action. The time for boldness is past. [[User:WilyD|Wily]][[User talk:WilyD|D]] 15:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Establish a consensus, sure. But the status qu of Wikipedia articles is that they are free to be edited, and not the other way around. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]] 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:The original protection came from some substantive discussion, now there's been a second and third. We all know better than to protection war over this; I haven't expressed an opinion on whether it should be full or semi, and don't plan to, but we shouldn't be playing tug-of-war. [[User:WilyD|Wily]][[User talk:WilyD|D]] 15:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

===[[WP:BLPBAN]]===
Under the [[WP:BLPBAN|special enforcement sanctions ruling]] for [[WP:BLP|biographies of living person]], I have placed [[Sarah Palin]] under full edit protection for a period of two weeks and noted it at the [[WP:BLPLOG#Log|special sanctions log]] and [[Talk:Sarah Palin|article talk]] page. '''[[User:MBisanz|MBisanz]]''' [[User talk:MBisanz|talk]] 15:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:A very bad idea. There's nothing here that can't be handled by blocking. This is the sort of article that we expect to have an editing frenzy for a while. — Carl ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 15:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::WP:BLPBAN is not an excuse for wheel warring. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]][[User_talk:Cenarium| '''Talk''']] 15:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Then establish a strong consensus to end full protection. That's needed ''anyways'', nevermind the special enforcement garbage. There has been a solid consensus to full protect, with only a couple dissenting voices, which frankly have been pretty meritless. Continued warring over it isn't going to be tolerated, regardless. [[User:WilyD|Wily]][[User talk:WilyD|D]] 15:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Note the wording of the ruling that requires discussion at WP:AE; a [[WP:AE#Sarah Palin|discussion thread]] there has commenced. [[User:Mike R|Mike R]] ([[User talk:Mike R|talk]]) 15:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, first i'd like to thank you for the protection as the article's edits were unbearably and icreasingly chaotic. Unfortunately it seems that as a consequence we now have BLP violations like poor citations, controversial materials and lots of bad editing on this very prominent BLP. I don't know the solution, I just wanted to point out the new problem that now we're stuck with a potentially libalous BLP. Thanks. --[[Special:Contributions/98.243.129.181|98.243.129.181]] ([[User talk:98.243.129.181|talk]]) 22:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

===Unprotection Wheel Warring on Sarah Palin and RFAR===
Any further admins that unprotect again are into total wheel war country against consensus and will be brought to RFAR. If you enjoy being an admin, respect the community consensus, please. This is ''shameful'' for a BLP. I'm as liberal of an American as they come, probably more than most of you, and '''I'M''' advocating protection on [[Sarah Palin]]. BLP and consensus > your wishes. And I just removed a vote that Jossi put up about BLP protection. We vote on a lot of stuff, but not that. Sorry.

Log so far: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sarah_Palin [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
: Please refrain from refactoring this page. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]] 15:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
: And that is not a !vote, but a way to assess what kind of consensus, if any emerges. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]] 15:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Please refrain from misuse of admin tools over BLPs, and obey consensus like all of us are required to. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 15:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::I'll have to agree. Wheel warring over protection is not the way to go about doing it, especially when you cite "IAR" and "consensus" for semi-protection, when I can't find consensus for that -- among others who agree. In addition, who "enjoys" being an admin? :) [[User:Seicer|seicer]] | [[User_talk:Seicer|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|contribs]] 15:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::Until the first flush of frenzy settles down, there won't be any happy way to handle this. I support semi-protection but do understand why some editors think full protection is more in keeping with [[WP:BLP]] for now. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 15:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The wheels on the war go round and round. MZMcbride just semi-ed it again. :P [[User:Kyaa the Catlord|Kyaa the Catlord]] ([[User talk:Kyaa the Catlord|talk]]) 17:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::At least two admins have [[Talk:Sarah_Palin#Protection_War|said]] they'd block any more admins who protection warred this page. What, if anything, should be done regarding this? [[User:Oren0|Oren0]] ([[User talk:Oren0|talk]]) 17:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:I've blocked him for three hours, and left a note on his talk page. [[User:WilyD|Wily]][[User talk:WilyD|D]] 17:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::Considering MZM was urged not to take this action by his peers on irc before he did it and was aware of the special circumstances and the discussion at AE, I would say this block was appropriate. [[User talk:Chillum|'''Chillum''']] 17:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I was about to assume good faith. Then I read the arbcom started on him. *sigh* Why can't we all get along? [[User:Kyaa the Catlord|Kyaa the Catlord]] ([[User talk:Kyaa the Catlord|talk]]) 17:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::::[[WP:RFAR#MZMcBride]] for reference. '''[[User:MBisanz|MBisanz]]''' [[User talk:MBisanz|talk]] 17:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Frankly, I posted warnings just about fuckin' everywhere to stop warring over the protection and have a god-damn discussion and it was fuckin' working and people were sitting down to discuss it like good colleages over tea and crumpets like we are all friends or coworkers or shit and rational fuckin' human beings and someone who already knows fuckin' better comes along and does some shit disturbing? Inexcusable. MZM knows better. Every admins knows better.
::::Sorry about my sailor talk but this all is a wee bit stressful. [[User:WilyD|Wily]][[User talk:WilyD|D]] 17:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Agreed. Wheel warring is NEVER appropriate. Wheel warring with as many "don't do it" red signs as are out there is unbelievable. [[User:Kyaa the Catlord|Kyaa the Catlord]] ([[User talk:Kyaa the Catlord|talk]]) 17:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::Without being so colorful myself, I will say that the discussion was pretty much settled at AE before this wheel warring happened, there was a developing agreement that the protection was good and that we should reconsider on Saturday. This latest action by MZM has only served to reduce productivity in this area. [[User talk:Chillum|'''Chillum''']] 17:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:Since I didn't think anyone would actually be so stupid as to wheel-war over the (appropriate) full protection, I didn't comment a few hours ago, when I last logged on. Since I was obviously wrong, and the Arbitration thread contains several claims that there is no consensus for full protection, please add me to the list of admins who '''support full protection'''. '''[[User:Horologium|Horologium]]''' [[User talk:Horologium|(talk)]] 18:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

* Oh bloody hell, what a mess. I really don't think that fighting out ideological differences with admin tools on a [[WP:BLP]] that has been subject to an absolute deluge of grossly defamatory edits will play terribly well with ArbCom. I would have thought that the est way to preserve Wikipedia's principles here would be to make absolutely sure that uncontentious edits are speedily agreed and implemented via {{tl|editprotected}} - I am minded of the way the railway companies handled the first Glastonbury Festival in about 1970; they were taken completely off guard by traffic to Glasto, but for the returns they pulled in every loco and carriage they could find, removed the station windows to make extra ticket counters, brought in everybody who was off duty, sent out a small army of clerks with every portable ticket machine they could pull in from around the network, and processed the massive crowds in something approaching order. To stretch that particular analogy somewhat, lifting protection is a more like removing all the barriers and gates and handing out first-aid kits to the station staff. Protection keeps the worst absurdities off the article and out of the headlines, and takes the patently acrimonious debates to the talk page which is slightly less high profile. That page can then be clerked to within an inch of its life and good suggestions moved into the article in an orderly manner well before the deadline. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 19:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

*Wow... after seeing the first few edit comments I assumed that there was a brief wheel war which was quickly ended, but this is train-wreck-tastic. Whatever the correct level of protection for the article is, the wheel-warring has to stop. If we can't agree on what that level is, that's all the more reason to discuss the matter here, rather than for individuals to unilaterally impose their own view. IAR is a wonderful thing, but we have to take extra care with it when we can't agree on which course of action constitutes "improving Wikipedia".sorry if this sound sanctimonious; trying to help [[User:SheffieldSteel|SHEFFIELDSTEEL]][[User_talk:SheffieldSteel|TALK]] 20:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
*Any wheel war is a trainwreck. Protection was implemented after days of dealing with an unprecedented volume of edits from POV vandals in a blp and nowhere near enough editorial help dedicated to keeping it compliant 24/7 as the frenzy continued to rage. Removing the protection without a realistic plan in place how to manage the page wasn't a helpful solution, and now editor resources are further compromised arguing about the justification for protection or its removal instead of producing workable solutions.[[User:Professor marginalia|Professor marginalia]] ([[User talk:Professor marginalia|talk]]) 21:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
* In fairness, I've never seen a topic with so many edits/hour over so many days, it's a cultural fluke beyond the bounds of what Wikipedia has been built up to smoothly handle (that's ok, this is going to happen now and then and editors do learn from it). Cheers to Kelly for all she's done throughout the trainwreck. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 21:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
**Ditto - Kelly deserves special praise for her strenuous efforts on behalf of that article. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 21:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' full protection for 24 or 48 hours. The BLP issues have gotten too far out of hand for now. If the article on 44 years or Sarah Palin's life is missing one or two days worth of material that is a small price to pay - if it is important the information will be available in any newspaper anyway. And invoking [[WP:IAR]] to ignore consensus and instead wheel war by unprotected a page in desparate need of protection is ludicrous. [[User:Rlendog|Rlendog]] ([[User talk:Rlendog|talk]]) 02:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

===modest proposal for [[Sarah Palin]]===
I think that the structure of the article, as a whole, is pretty stable right now. Therefore, my proposal is to leave the main article protected, but to break out most sections as semiprotected transcluded subpages (with their own faked-up "edit/view source" and "talk" buttons). This would untangle the edit history and talk pages of the separate sections. The scurrilous rumors would tend to be confined to certain sections, and defending, or, if necessary, protecting those sections would be much easier. If they showed up in inappropriate sections, they could be easily recognized and treated as vandalism. I think that this would help resolve this issue, and free up the article from a lockdown which I don't think is good for its quality.

I recognize that this proposal is unconventional, involves some degree of work, may have unanticipated consequences for some bots/spiders/whatever, and might be seen to set a precedent. However, in my opinion, it would be worth it, as it would be helpful for the article itself, which is my main concern here. [[User:Homunq|Homunq]] ([[User talk:Homunq|talk]]) 21:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:There's no mechanism in the MediaWiki software to support such an action, unless there are some extensions that I don't know about. [[User:Celarnor|'''Celarnor''']] [[User_talk:Celarnor|Talk to me]] 03:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
::Sure there is, you just create some subpages and transclude them into the main page. Where's the difficulty? --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 03:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Let's keep this simple. Just create only one subpage and editors can continue to update the article and when consensus is reached it can be placed in the real article. [[User:QuackGuru|QuackGuru]] 04:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== Images in [[George W. Bush]] article ==

I see that all the images in [[George W. Bush]] have suddenly gone red-linked. Could somebody experienced with images please take a look at what is happening? Thanks, [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 02:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Images look fine to me. Must have been a hiccup. - [[User:AuburnPilot|auburnpilot]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|talk]] 02:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::That is really strange. Must be a weird problem with my browser. When I use internet explorer, I still get red links for images and even a red message "Error: image is invalid or non-existent" displayed at the top of the page. But when I view the page using safari, the images are there and everything looks fine. Must be some strange bug in my internet explorer.... Sorry for the false alarm. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 02:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::They were redlinked, and now they're OK. Just one of those little techie mysteries. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' 02:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Nsk, in IE, hit Ctrl-F5 to purge your cache. I suspect the images will magically reappear. --[[User:Barneca|barneca]] ([[User talk:Barneca|talk]]) 02:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::There seems to have been a bit of a hiccup with images this morning. Ctrl-F5 should sort it all out. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 10:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
* This is an intermittent issue with Commons images at the moment, I think - some svgs from templates were red yesterday. PUrge the cache, that worked for me. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 11:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks! When I got up this morning, everything looked fine and I did not even have to purge the cache. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 12:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Cascade protection on [[Sarah Palin]] ==

''Cross-posting from [[Talk:Sarah Palin]]''

Just so everyone knows, I copy/pasted [[Sarah Palin]] to [[User:J.delanoy/Sarah Palin]] and cascade-protected that page until September 8. [[User:J.delanoy|J'''.'''delanoy]][[User Talk:J.delanoy|gabs]][[Special:Contributions/J.delanoy|adds]] 02:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Have there been problems with templates on Sarah Palin? [[User:Od Mishehu|עוד מישהו]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Od Mishehu]] 05:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
: Just to save me trawling through megabytres of talk pages, why have you made this fork? [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 11:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Not a fork, he is using it to protect the templates. [[User:Bjweeks|BJ]][[User talk:Bjweeks|Talk]] 11:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::: Hmm, yes, I see. The article itself is protected now, isn't it. Perhaps cascaded semiprotection when the full protection ends? [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::You cannot enable the cascading option with semi-protection. - [[User:Rjd0060|Rjd0060]] ([[User talk:Rjd0060|talk]]) 22:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Autoblock finder tool ==

Just so you guys know, I've finally got annoyed enough today to write a tool to find autoblocks. You can find it at http://toolserver.org/~eagle/autoblockfinder.php. Basically you give the tool the user's name and it will list any and all autoblocks that are on the user. The tool has been added to a few templates and mediawiki pages by Rjd0060 and Hersfold.

An example of the tool is for [[User:HappyRapids]] who was blocked. That user also triggered an autoblock, so any admin would have to also unblock the autoblock id as well. You can find this id by clicking http://toolserver.org/~eagle/autoblockfinder.php?user=HappyRapids.

Again this tool has been added to the standard {{t1|unblock}} template among others so that you can just click and see if there are autoblocks. —— '''[[user:nixeagle|nix]][[User talk:Nixeagle|eagle]]''' 03:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks Eagle. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has missed the old tool since it's been down. Much appreciated, [[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]] 03:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::PS. Your username is misspelled on the tool - it says "This tool is written by User:Nixagle"... [[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]] 03:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Wow, at least it links to the right talk page >.> I'll fix my typo later. —— '''[[user:nixeagle|nix]][[User talk:Nixeagle|eagle]]''' 12:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Image caption ==

Could an administrator please change an image caption on the protected page [[User talk:Jeffpw]]? The current right-hand image caption doesn't identify which one is Jeff, which is kind of a nice thing to have given the subject. Copy/pasting the caption on [[User talk:Jeffpw/Memoriam]] (identical photo) would be ideal. [[User:Orpheus|Orpheus]] ([[User talk:Orpheus|talk]]) 13:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:{{done}} --[[User:Rodhullandemu|Rodhull]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|andemu]] 14:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Unabated unWiki behavior continues ==

Wikipedia Administrators are requested to input views on the RFC on user Goingoveredge [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Goingoveredge HERE]. This user is still continuing choking other editors by deleting their views from Discussion Board of article [[Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity]] so that greater wikipedia does not read other editor's views and reads only his/her.--[[User:Roadahead|Roadahead]] ([[User talk:Roadahead|talk]]) 13:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Template vandalism on [[BP]]? ==

{{resolved|Figured it out and fixed it. [[User:Baccyak4H|Baccyak4H]] ([[User talk:Baccyak4H|Yak!]]) 14:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)}}
Could someone check out that page? I am pretty sure there is vandalism involving the infobox template, but am not myself familiar with their working intimately, certainly not of that particular one. Thanks. [[User:Baccyak4H|Baccyak4H]] ([[User talk:Baccyak4H|Yak!]]) 14:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:I don't know which template, but it's the Zodiac vandal. [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] ([[User talk:D.M.N.|talk]]) 14:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Ah, fixed. [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] ([[User talk:D.M.N.|talk]]) 14:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I figured it out and warned the IP. Don't know about this Zodiac thing, so maybe I shouldn't have. Oh well. [[User:Baccyak4H|Baccyak4H]] ([[User talk:Baccyak4H|Yak!]]) 14:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Need move-protect applying to 50+ articles ==

I would normally request articles to be move-protected at [[WP:RFPP]], however over 50-articles here need to be protected as Grawp appears to have struck at over 50 articles. Therefore, can someone '''move-protect all the following articles (and related talkpages) for an indefinite amount of time.''' I don't think any are likely to be moved in the future for legitimate purposes. Here goes:

{{hat|list of articles|(pagemoved by "Grawp")}}
*{{la|Mickey Mouse}}
*{{la|Donald Duck}}
*{{la|Nazi Germany}}
*{{la|Protist}}
*{{la|Fungi}}
*{{la|Fungus}}
*{{la|Amoeba}}
*{{la|Archaebacteria}}
*{{la|Talk:Archaea}}
*{{la|Abiogenesis}}
*{{la|Protocell}}
*{{la|Eubacteria}}
*{{la|Bacterium}}
*{{la|Worm}}
*{{la|Scorpion}}
*{{la|Annelida}}
*{{la|Annelid}}
*{{la|Lobster}}
*{{la|Shrimp}}
*{{la|Crab}}
*{{la|Parthia}}
*{{la|Iranian peoples}}
*{{la|Vinegar}}
*{{la|Echinodermata}}
*{{la|Crustacean}}
*{{la|Phylum}}
*{{la|Echinoderm}}
*{{la|Mollusca}}
*{{la|Mollusk}}
*{{la|Arthropoda}}
*{{la|Arthropod}}
*{{la|Primate}}
*{{la|Arachnid}}
*{{la|Yo-yo}}
*{{la|Punishment}}
*{{la|Bean bag}}
*{{la|Brontosaurus}}
*{{la|Apatosaurus}}
*{{la|Triceratops}}
*{{la|David}}
*{{la|Greek mythology}}
*{{la|Gasoline}}
{{hab}}

I apologise for making such a request here, but as a lot of articles need move-protecting, I didn't want to clog up RFPP by making a request for 50+ articles. Thanks, [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] ([[User talk:D.M.N.|talk]]) 14:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:Thank you for your efforts, but I think some IP blocks are better remedies here. Also, when I look at lists like [[Special:Contributions/Mister Fungus Amongus|this]] and [[Special:Contributions/Rotting Strip of Flesh|this]], I can't help to think that we should raise the number of edits required to move. Cheers, [[User:Face|Face]] 14:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::Grawp hops from IP to IP on a daily basis, causing mass-destruction to articles by moving them. He's been doing this for most of the year. The only suggestion I can think of is to make the "Move" tool available to admins and/or rollbackers. [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] ([[User talk:D.M.N.|talk]]) 14:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I was going to say something similar: perhaps "Move" needs to be granted only to trusted users. Whether it's bundled with rollback is a different question. As a not-developer, I don't know the costs of implementing such rights-control features. [[User:SheffieldSteel|SHEFFIELDSTEEL]][[User_talk:SheffieldSteel|TALK]] 14:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::If it is possible to set a very high edit threshold in order to be able to move articles, why not do that? The time it takes to accumulate that number of edits would be a disincentive to continuing this kind of vandalism, but the number would have to be high enough to prevent a would-be vandal from doing a lot of extremely minor edits just to reach the goal. Why not 500 edits, or a thousand? [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald ''"unreachable by rational discourse"''''']]'''([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]])''' 14:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::::I would strongly agree to a 1,000 edits. [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] ([[User talk:D.M.N.|talk]]) 14:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Silly way to go about this unless the same page is being targeted repeatedly, and even then the "indefinite" setting is a bad idea. Once the people doing this realize that indefinite move-protection is the knee-jerk response to a single instance of page-move vandalism they will probably [[WP:BEANS|start targeting pages which actually need to be moved]], causing pages containing a spelling/capitalization error, or needing to be disambiguated, etc. to be locked onto the wrong title. — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|CharlotteWebb]] 16:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:I've move protected a set of core biochemistry articles that are at their correct title, such as [[DNA]], [[enzyme]], [[photosynthesis]] or [[metabolism]]. There is essentially zero chance of these ever needing moved, indeed I can't even think of any reasonable alternatives for these titles. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 17:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Deoxyribonucleioc acid? Enzymatic proteins? Conversion of sunlight to energy? Biological energy flow? [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald ''"unreachable by rational discourse"''''']]'''([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]])''' 18:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Sunlight is energy, not all enzymes are proteins and metabolism is a larger subject than energy flow - it is the sum total of chemical reactions occurring in an organism (that title would a mouthful indeed!). The only possible move contender would be DNA, and the abbreviation has been chosen as the best title on the talkpage several times over the past few years, so that consensus seems very stable. Honestly, the chances of any of these articles needing moved is near zero. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 19:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Obviously something needs to be be done, look at the logs of ClueBot: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=500&user=ClueBot], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=20080614083014&limit=500&user=ClueBot] for a ''small'' sample. What can we done ? We have move-protection for articles with no need to be moved. Think of what is best for Wikipedia, and the subject of the articles, example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Heath_Ledger]. Our existing tools are not able to deal efficiently enough with this. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]][[User_talk:Cenarium| '''Talk''']] 18:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:RBI seems to be working just fine. ClueBot is catching it, what's the issue? We could give admin rights to ClueBot so it could delete the redirects and block the vandals, or we could get a consensus on installing the [[WP:Abuse filter|Abuse filter]] extension. Both of those would be far better than mass move-protection (since the vandal will just move on to other titles) or creating ridiculously high standards for allowing pagemoves. [[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']] 19:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Has the abuse filter still not been installed? [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 19:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Discussion kind of died around the end of July. [[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']] 19:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:We could try restricting moves of pages with more than 1000 revisions (or some other arbitrary number) to admins. Since we already have a limit for deleting pages it can't be too hard to implement, the high profile pages will tend to be those with lots of revisions and such pages should have some sort of discussion before a move anyway. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|Hut 8.5]]''''' 19:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::I doubt that's going to stop Grawp- he'll just find articles that have less than that, and move those instead. We have to limit moves entirely if we want to stop him. Or, we simply remove all rules against him. He's willing to play dirty, so maybe we have to fight back harder. Aggressively DMCA his host for anything we have a legitimate claim on on a certain other wiki he hangs out on. Or even start complaining to the host- they're a well known hosting firm, and I doubt they'd want to be associated with the scum we're talking about here. Publically speak out about the other wiki on any site you can. Checkuser and publically release the IP addresses of all his socks- there's got to be non-Tor IP's behind him or his imitators, and why are we providing any privacy to one of the worst vandals ever? No more abuse emails- have volunteers call the ISPs personally to report abuse. To hell with the privacy policy, and to hell with it all- revert, block, ignore is what he's counting on. Once we're done cleaning up the mess he makes, he makes another one, then gloats about it.[[User:Nwwaew|Nwwaew]] ([[User_Talk:Nwwaew|Talk Page]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Nwwaew|Contribs]]) ([[Special:Emailuser/Nwwaew|E-mail me]]) 00:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== ACC Backlogged ==

{{resolved|No longer backlogged —— [[User:RyanLupin|RyanLupin]] • [[User talk:RyanLupin|(talk)]] 21:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)}}
Any available admins want to tackle the backlogged requests over at [http://stable.toolserver.org/acc/acc.php ACC]? Would be appreciated, —— [[User:RyanLupin|RyanLupin]] • [[User talk:RyanLupin|(talk)]] 14:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:For some reason, it's not letting me (as an administrator) create the accounts, I get the "too similar" notice. [[User talk:John Reaves|John Reaves]] 19:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::There is a little checkbox at the bottom of the creation screen that says "Ignore spoofing checks" or something, you need to select that to create the name. '''[[User:MBisanz|MBisanz]]''' [[User talk:MBisanz|talk]] 19:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::...making sure of course that the accounts the desired name is too similar too are inactive... –[[User:Xenocidic|'''xeno''']] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|talk]]) 19:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I haven't been keeping up with the new features apparently. [[User talk:John Reaves|John Reaves]] 19:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Long-standing attack articles ==

*{{la|Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (commentator)}}
*{{la|Criticism of George W. Bush}}
*{{la|Criticism of Hugo Chávez}}
*{{la|Criticism of Noam Chomsky}}
*{{la|Criticism of Sylvia Browne}}
*{{la|Criticism of Tony Blair}}
*{{la|Criticism of Traian Băsescu}}
*{{la|Criticism of Vladimir Putin}}

Just pretend I'm stupid and explain to me really slowly why the articles listed above don't fall under criterion [[WP:CSD#G10|G10]] for speedy deletion. At first I thought, "Surely ''criticism'' is being used in the sense of ''analysis and commentary''". But no, these really are just lists of negative stuff that people have said about these people. Needless to say, there are no matching ''Praise for ...'' or ''Agreement with ...'' articles.

The only thing stopping me deleting these is that I have enough sense to know what a storm this would create but, after thinking about it for the past couple of weeks, this increasingly seems a cowardly excuse. [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 14:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:That's not a "cowardly excuse", it's a recognition of the nature of the project. If you did something that you '''''know''''' is going to be disruptive, without taking steps to minimize the disruption by obtaining a consensus for the action, that's tantamount to being disruptive yourself. I think you did the right thing by holding off and posting your request here. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald ''"unreachable by rational discourse"''''']]'''([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]])''' 14:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
*(ec)Because criticism of these figures in mainstream sources is widespread and of encyclopedic concern. Also, because treating that criticism appropriately requires (sometimes) that we split out a section from the main article. An "attack page" is a page that serves only to defame the subject. In this case, these pages serve to give a tertiary look at criticism which already exists. They do have the added unpleasant outcome of being harder to maintain NPOV than the main articles (partly because they don't see the same amount of traffic and partly because their "baseline" POV is a little slanted). But they should certainly not be speedied. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 14:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::I would be fine with, for example, [[Commentary on Tony Blair]] or somesuch. The trouble is that most of the above receive a good deal of equally verifiable praise in equally reliable sources yet this is barely represented - making our coverage of these people unbalanced. [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 14:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::The reason they are not called ''Commentary'' rather than criticism is that the NPOV tendency would be to "balance" the negative criticism with positive adulation... which is frequently even less analytically based than the negative stuff (and far less common, which ironically leads to a bias upon sources if they are presented "equally"). While positive criticism can be appropriately placed within an article with ''criticism'' in the title, the nature of the beast dictates that most content will be negative. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 15:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::We also have {{la|Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt}}, {{la|Criticism of Ellen White}}, {{la|Criticism of Jesus}} and {{la|Criticism of Muhammad}}. Criticism in a sense includes positive criticism, so it's possible to include them as well. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]][[User_talk:Cenarium| '''Talk''']] 15:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::I realize we also have those articles but I singled out the ones for living people, for obvious reasons. Also, you are correct that "Criticism" can include positive criticism - but in the articles in question it patently does not. For example, this is the lede for [[Criticism of Tony Blair]]:
::::::''Criticism of '''Tony Blair''' includes accusations of dishonesty, authoritarianism, and subservience in his relationship with U.S. President George W. Bush. Tony Blair has faced particularly severe condemnation for British involvement in the Iraq War, earning him the disparaging moniker of "Bush's Poodle."''
:::::[[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 16:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Preface the above with ''"Negative"'', and tag ''"Positive criticism includes..."'' with a couple of examples from the main body would result in a NPOV and comprehensive lede (why do we spell it like that?) Ho, you should have seen the barrage of negative criticism that socialist Prime Ministers used to get - often from fractions within their own party! [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 16:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::{Sidebar) The spelling "lede" for the leading sentence, paragraph or section is a journalistic invention designed to differentiate it from "lead", as in the hot lead used to make type. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald ''"unreachable by rational discourse"''''']]'''([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]])''' 18:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::These are all public figures. The normal BLP policies cover this. Public figures can't sue for slander. If the comments/criticisms are not original research, but are cited from reliable and verifiable sources, and there are no personal attacks, the articles should remain. We have to remember that criticisms of Bill Clinton and criticism of Barack Obama are fair game also. As long as we allow fair, cited, verifiable content for any public figure, regardless of their political affiliation, we are being Neutral. For instance the following would be allowable, "Bill Clinton was impeached by the Senate on December 19th, 1998 for among other things, perjuring himself when he denied having "sexual relations" with White House intern Monica Lewinsky." What should not be allowed would be things like "Bill Clinton Will Remain the Worst President Ever"[http://www.jwharrison.com/blog/2008/01/28/the-simpsons-%E2%80%93-bill-clinton-was-the-worst-president-ever/] Clearly no one like to hear people criticism a political figure that they have supported. But essential to the political process is free speech that allows our system to correct for problems. Political speech is the highest and most respected form of free speech. [[User:Atomaton|Atom]] ([[User talk:Atomaton|talk]]) 18:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::: Public figures can sue for defamation, and most of these are forks to deal with bloated criticism sections into which every single tine adverse comment is obsessively added by those who have an agenda against the subjects. [[WP:BLP]] does not get shelved for public figures. Having them renamed to "discussion" or some such title, which is less readily misunderstood by those who fail to see the difference between critique and censorious criticism, would be a good idea I feel. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 22:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::: Right, BLP does not get shelved, which is why I said the BLP has a policy for public figures. We should apply it, and adapt it as needed. I personally don't see the difference between calling the article "criticism of..." and "discussion of...". The content would be critical in nature, and allowed if it is cited, verifiable and from a reliable source, and not allowed otherwise. If it is criticism, let's call it that. By allowing people who are extremely critical to have a place to put it (but still following [[WP:RELIABLE]]), it gives a safety valve that should keep some of that out of the primary article. [[User:Atomaton|Atom]] ([[User talk:Atomaton|talk]]) 23:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Main page ==

The article on the main page has been vandalized! That's not why I'm here tho. :P There is currently a [[Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal|contest]] going on with proposals to update the main page. Although this isn't admin-related, wide community attention is needed on the contest. So please check out the page, look over the proposals and leave comments for the semi-finalists. Thanks, [[User:Jennavecia|Jennavecia]][[User talk:Jennavecia| (Talk)]] 15:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:erm...linky? Cheers, [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 15:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::I liked it to "contest", but here's the full link: [[Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal]]. [[User:Jennavecia|Jennavecia]][[User talk:Jennavecia| (Talk)]] 16:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User talk:Jeffpw/Memoriam]] ==

Possibly one of the worst AFD nominations I've ever seen. See [[Special:Contributions/KoshVorlon|the last few contributions for the nominator]]. [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] ([[User talk:D.M.N.|talk]]) 16:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Speedy closed. Not an article so shouldn't be at AfD. Also, I think the prohibition on memorials is about encyclopedic content not projectspace/userspace. [[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]] 17:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::One outstanding question: Should the AfD notices on the pages be simply deleted? I'm thinking that there's no point filling out the {{tl|oldafdfull}} notice. [[User:SheffieldSteel|SHEFFIELDSTEEL]][[User_talk:SheffieldSteel|TALK]] 17:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::The {{tl|oldafdfull}} is irrelevant in cases where the discussion was closed on procedural grounds (as the above was) since it is primarily a tool for judging "former" consensus in future deletion discussions. [[User:Shereth|Sher]][[User_talk:Shereth|eth]] 17:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::While I agree with keeping it, I think the rationale is slightly off. I fear the rationale utilized in WJB's comment above and in the AFD imply that people can come here and create memorials in their Talkpages. I do not believe this should be allowed and is the implication for not a memorial. That being said, there is a difference between coming to wikipedia with the intention of starting a memorial and memorializing an active contributor to the project. The former shouldn't be allowed, the later I have no problem with. The later kind of tells people why a colleague they may have worked with is no longer active.---'''[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|PoppaBalloon]]'' 17:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure, but you might be talking about my rationale, in which case, I may simply have worded it sloppily- I think a memorial for an active Wikipedian is useful, because his absence is noticed and affects the project. I ''don't'' necessarily think that my userspace would be a good place for me to create a memorial for my late grandfather. -[[User:FisherQueen|FisherQueen]] ([[User talk:FisherQueen|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/FisherQueen|contribs]]) 17:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::(ec)I agree with 100% wit this. I just wanted to make sure that we don't set a presidence that memorials are ok, if they are in people's userspace. I think by countering Jeff's memorial with it's not applicable to [[wp:NOTMEMORIAL]] because it's in the userspace, open's that door for others to say, "But my memorial is in my userspace."---'''[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|PoppaBalloon]]'' 17:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::"Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." The guideline is clearly focused on articles. We may still want to delete memorial pages outside of articles, but they should nominated at [[WP:MFD]] and there needs to be some argument beyond [[WP:NOTMEMORIAL]]. As ever, we are more relaxed about the userspace of good contributors. If a good contributor wants to use a subpage of their userspace to remember a deceased friend or relative, I suspect few will have a problem with it. If someone's sole purpose here is to create such a page, rather than to be involved in creating and maintaining an encyclopedia, I suspect opinion would be quite different. [[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]] 17:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::When you start making memorials in your userspace, I think you are starting to get into the realm of [[wp:NOTMYSPACE]]---'''[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|PoppaBalloon]]'' 17:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Indeed. And you are entitled to that opinion and would no doubt voice it were such a page to be nominated at [[WP:MFD]], which is where the matter will ultimately be settled. A speedy closed AfD of a non-article doesn't establish any precedent at all... [[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]] 17:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Agreed. In the end, this was a bad AFD and was correctly closed.---'''[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|PoppaBalloon]]'' 17:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::This is an editor (KoshVorlon) who routinely attempts to enforce his/her complete and utter misunderstanding of policy. KV has also nominated numerous articles ([[List of Jewish American_Musicians]], [[List of Jewish American musicians]], [[List of compositions by Franz Liszt (S.1 - S.350)]], [[List of hooligan firms]], [[List of cities by longitude]], and [[List of snowboard tricks]]) for deletion, simply because they are lists, claiming [[WP:NOT]] prohibits lists. I've never been a fan of the mentor/adopt a user program, but this editor could be the test case. - [[User:AuburnPilot|auburnpilot]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|talk]] 17:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This is looking very [[WP:POINT|POINTy]]. Several months ago, the same user tried nominating [[Deaths in 2008]] at AfD [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deaths_in_2008&diff=prev&oldid=203082576 using the same rationale]. [[User:Caknuck|caknuck]] [[User talk:Caknuck|°]] is geared up for football season 19:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::: NO, there's no attempt at WP:POINT. It's a memorial, and as I stated in the AFD, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL it's not permitted to have memorials in Wikipedia pages. BTW - if anything, the AN should be on the admin who closed the damn thing after 5 minutes and called it proper. However, like I said in the AFD, I expected to get hate thrown my way because of the two AFD's. 
BTW - comment on contribution not contributor please! [[User:KoshVorlon|'''KoshVorlon''']][[User talk:KoshVorlon|''' > rm -r WP:F.U.R ''']] 20:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)20:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:I'm not going to comment on whether these things should be deleted or not, but from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AuburnPilot&diff=prev&oldid=236301987 this edit] you still seem to think that [[Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians]] is an article. It's not - it's in the Wikipedia: space and therefore needs to be discussed at [[WP:MFD]]. As such, I fully endorse the procedural close of the '''A'''FD. –[[User:Xenocidic|'''xeno''']] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|talk]]) 20:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:(ec)First, [[Deaths in 2008]] is not a memorial; it is a collective list of notable people who have died, and links to their own articles - for which notability has already been established. It is also useful for generating new articles, even stubs, for these people. And the AfD, which was inappropriately so per procedure, was closed by a 'Crat, not an Admin. --[[User:Rodhullandemu|Rodhull]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|andemu]] 20:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::We can have a proper understanding of the policy, and no need for the assumed dichotomy; WP:NOTMEMORIAL specifically refers both to articles, and has language that refers to the creation of pages. The Jeffpw page is in userspace, and it '''''evolved''''' from an ordinary userpage - none of which is covered by the policy. I would also we had this same discussion around about the time when the page became what it is, and the consensus (you may be surprised to find we have a policy regarding that concept, but I assure you we do) was that it was to be kept. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 20:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if KoshVorlon follows proper procedure to nominate this as MfD, it just really stings as very poor taste, and insensitive in the extreme. The idea that Jeff, or for that matter, any Wikipedian including KoshVorlon or myself, could be so easily erased from the community because of policy is misguided. I don't know why Jeff's page, or any talk page expression of sorrow or grief would have to be deleted. This community is obviously made of editors. When one of them dies, it is a natural response for the community to react to the loss. We do not function as a community unless we allow ourselves (without going crazy myspace style) to communicate with each other. --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 20:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
*{{tl|courtesy blanked}} and full protected the AfD discussion. That was an embarrassment. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|Talk]] 01:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== Request block review ==

I've just blocked [[User:115.130.2.169]] for 24 hours for repeated, unrepentant edit warring on [[Homophobia]]. I hesitated to do it since I edit the article, but after 11+ reverts and no response on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:115.130.2.169_.28also_editing_as_User:115.130.14.75.29_reported_by_User:Exploding_Boy_.28Result:_.29 AN/3RR] he needed to be stopped. He was warned several times on his talk page, in edit summaries and on the article talk page. Requesting review. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 17:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Not commenting on your block, but you probably should have simply posted to [[WP:AN/I]] to avoid the potential conflict of interest as you are (admittedly) in the dispute. Its great you are asking it to be reviewed, but honestly when you are in a dispute, its best not to play admin and editor at the same times. —— '''[[user:nixeagle|nix]][[User talk:Nixeagle|eagle]]''' 17:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Good block. As clear-cut as it gets. Next time though you could post on AN/I to avoid any accusations of a conflict of interest. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 17:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I had also posted it on the 3RR noticeboard to avoid COI, but we're having trouble with this user coming back with a variety of ips and one sweet li'l sock. Could one of our tech-savvier friends take a look and see if a brief rangeblock would be helpful? It is getting just a teeny bit irritating. -[[User:FisherQueen|FisherQueen]] ([[User talk:FisherQueen|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/FisherQueen|contribs]]) 17:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::If you've got more IP addresses, we can check. I only see the two on 3RR, and that's not enough to justify a rangeblock. [[User:Hersfold|'''''Hersfold''''']] ([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]]) 17:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::There's a few more at [[:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of WesternPacific]]; just added another one a moment ago. But we can just keep up with [[WP:RBI]] if that is the better strategy. -[[User:FisherQueen|FisherQueen]] ([[User talk:FisherQueen|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/FisherQueen|contribs]]) 18:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::If it is a previously-blocked editor just block socks and IPs on sight. There is no need to go to a noticeboard if their edits are clearly recognisable. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 17:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I think that semi-protection of [[Homophobia]] should be considered, due to the high recent volume of inflammatory POV-pushing by IPs who do not wait to get consensus on the Talk page. The article was rather quiet until the last couple of days, so two weeks of semi might be sufficient. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 18:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Protection... why didn't I think of that? Yes, that would work just as well. -[[User:FisherQueen|FisherQueen]] ([[User talk:FisherQueen|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/FisherQueen|contribs]]) 18:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Good points. Wouldn't ordinarily have stepped in myself in that type of situatino, but it was getting ridiculous. As long as no-one objects to the block... [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 18:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Excellent block - firstly, this is a new ip picking up from where a same general range editor left off, and, secondly, this is very sophisticated POV emplacement (the distinction between "Fear" and "Disgust" responses reconciling an anti homosexual viewpoint was quite clever) that could easily be lost in a pre sanction discussion. Other than the pseudo technical language, it was also simple 3RR violation/gaming. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 23:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Multiple admins editing protected page ==

Could someone take a box of clue bats to the admins who have decided to continuing reverting each other after [[Sarah Palin]] was protected? I don't want to see more arbcom cases today. [[User talk:Chillum|'''Chillum''']] 19:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:Grr. I'll up the count of those I've notified about the first arbcomm case again. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 19:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:'''OH DEAR LAWD.''' Someone get Kelly to smack some sense into these people. Admins should not be editing the page - only on behalf of consensus reached by editors on the talk page. I am going to be pissed if this shows up on the 40+ papers that have had articles dedicated to the Wikipedia page itself. The second that happens I am going to come back here and trick someone into deleting the main page. --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[User_talk:mboverload|@]] 19:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::From [[Sarah Palin]] (cur) (last) 11:58, 4 September 2008 TimVickers (Talk | contribs) (73,362 bytes) (Blank edit - I'm going to block the next Admin that edits this article with no talkpage consensus.) --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[User_talk:mboverload|@]] 20:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Thank you Tim Vickers. [[User talk:John Reaves|John Reaves]] 20:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm very serious. Acting like that is completely unacceptable. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 20:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Thank you Tim. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sarah_Palin Protection status for the article has changed 10 times today] --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[User_talk:mboverload|@]] 20:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Additionally, I made this clear on the editnotice, [[MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-Sarah Palin]]. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]][[User_talk:Cenarium| '''Talk''']] 20:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Good idea, though the edit summary of the last admin to revert is fairly ironic: ''Protection Warring is not acceptable'' [[User:Rx StrangeLove|RxS]] ([[User talk:Rx StrangeLove|talk]]) 20:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::<s>Look, [[Barack Obama]], [[Joe Biden]] and [[John McCain]] are all full protected. [[Sarah Palin]] should remain full protected at least through November 4 as well.</s> —[[User:TravisTX|Travis]][[User_talk:TravisTX|talk]] 01:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::None of those pages is fully protected, and none has been fully protected for a some time. — Carl ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 01:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Ach! This is, I guess, the type of hurried editing I do after the wife announces that the bread pudding is ready to eat. My apologies. —[[User:TravisTX|Travis]][[User_talk:TravisTX|talk]] 01:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Oi vey. Sometimes passion gets the better of us. Let's start TALKING before doing stuff such as this. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']][[User talk:Woohookitty|Woohoo!]] 05:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== Stormfront ==

I found a link to the domain crusader.net which turns out to redirect to [[Stormfront (website)|Stormfront]]. I believe that this is not a wholly reliable source... More to the point, there are a few links in debates about the place and we might want to be on the lookout for this. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 21:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Good work. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 23:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Royce Mathew's Legal Threat ==

{{resolved|Mountains, mole hills, etc. Also [[WP:DFTT]]. —[[User:TravisTX|Travis]][[User_talk:TravisTX|talk]] 00:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)}}
An IP of the previous user [[User:Disneysuit|Disneysuit]], none other than [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Disneysuit Royce Mathew]. He has been giving legal threats (he has surely sent one to Wikimedia Foundation) against ''me'' for asking him to abide by policies, concocting false claims against me. He ''has'' been blocked, several times, but he ''won't stop.'' I don't want to lose my position at Wikipedia as an experienced editor; the only reason this is happening is because he is not willing to accept that he isn't following policies! A little help would be ''greatly'' appreciated. The link I gave you for "Royce Mathew" above has the IP address he is using. Here is what he has written, and what he will ''probably'' send to Wikimedia Foundation against me: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=236199806]. It ''has'' been deleted, but I'm not sure if he got the link the following commenter gave him ''against'' me. I don't mind a checking of my contributions, but I do ''not'' like it when someone is willing to take something so far as a legal threat and my possible blocking when all I've done is try to enforce the rules with both myself and others so as to make Wikipedia a better place! [[User:BlackPearl14|BlackPearl14]][[User talk:BlackPearl14|talkies!]]23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:I'm taking this back to BlackPearl14's talkpage. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 23:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::My message has been carried on to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert George's page]. [[User:BlackPearl14|BlackPearl14]][[User talk:BlackPearl14|talkies!]]23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== [[Vanceburg, Kentucky]] ==

Could an administrator please look at the article [[Vanceburg, Kentucky]]? It's showing a lot of activity lately regarding some police scandal, and there are some very questionable usernames editing the article. [[Special:Contributions/Reformcorruptrivercity]], [[Special:Contributions/Vanceburg]], [[Special:Contributions/ReformVanceburg]], [[Special:Contributions/ReformVanceburgNow]], [[Special:Contributions/Lewiscountyky]]. -- [[User:Plushpuffin|plushpuffin]] ([[User talk:Plushpuffin|talk]]) 23:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Should I bother to inform these users that I've posted this, or is it not worth it? -- [[User:Plushpuffin|plushpuffin]] ([[User talk:Plushpuffin|talk]]) 23:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, it's customary to do so. I've removed the section, as it was completely unsourced. [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 00:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I've notified the users. -- [[User:Plushpuffin|plushpuffin]] ([[User talk:Plushpuffin|talk]]) 00:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
::Hmmm... this hits very close to my hometown. I do recall the incidents being in the newspaper (the latter, about the officer) and the charges that were wiped under the rug, so to speak. I'll try to dig up some sources tonight or tomorrow and at least give some credibility to that. The former, about welfare and all that jazz is completely garbage. [[User:Seicer|seicer]] | [[User_talk:Seicer|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|contribs]] 00:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Indef'ed the socks: ReformVanceburg, ReformVanceburgNow, Reformcorruptrivercity. The main account appears to be Vanceburg, and if they wish to discuss the matter, they can use a single account. [[User:Seicer|seicer]] | [[User_talk:Seicer|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|contribs]] 00:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for the swift action. I wasn't sure if I should have posted on [[WP:SSP]]. It just seemed too ''obvious'' to be sock-puppetry. -- [[User:Plushpuffin|plushpuffin]] ([[User talk:Plushpuffin|talk]]) 01:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== Newyorkbrad checkuser access ==

Arbitrator {{user|Newyorkbrad}} has requested and been approved for Checkuser access. This is in order to allow him to more fully review Committee cases, and does not impact on the current Checkuser appointment process.

[[user:FT2|FT2]] ([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]]) 01:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== Temp unprotect a template please ==

Can an admin temporarily unprotect {{tl|ArticleHistory}} please? This is needed to fix a problem with the way Featured articles are counted at [[Wikipedia:Featured_topics/count]]. In a nutshell, some categories have incorrect page counts stored in the database so we need to temporarily depopulate them - this will force a recount. A little time will be needed to let the template update the various (130 or so) pages get through the job queue, then I can notify again once the category pagecounts are rebuilt.

For the ''longer'' story, see [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Looking_for_some_listing_tools|the initiating question]], the [[User_talk:Franamax#Re:Looking_for_some_listing_tools|current discussion]], test page showing the [[User:Franamax/Test11|problem]] and my [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Incorrect_counts_from_PAGESINCATEGORY_function|followup VPT question]]. Or just unprotect the damn page for a few hours :) Thanks! [[User:Franamax|Franamax]] ([[User talk:Franamax|talk]]) 02:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:The damn page has been unprotected. Please request protection here or at [[WP:RFPP]] when you are done.[[User:Gonzo_fan2007| « Gonzo fan2007]] ''([[User talk:Gonzo_fan2007|talk]] ♦ [[Special:Contributions/Gonzo_fan2007|contribs]]) @ '''' 02:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:: A little strange that the issues wasn't raised at the talk page of the template in question, where Gimmetrow would have dealt with it. I hope the edit doesn't break other pages. [[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 02:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Sorry for that Sandy, I'd been in discussion with some people who were chasing the problem and I just wanted the first available admin. In any case, the operation was a (partial) success and the patient is recovering nicely. I'll check around to be sure I didn't leave any swabs inside the incision. This was strictly about depopulating and repopulating some broken FT categories, you might want to read the threads I linked above - we're going to need lots of help to figure this out. (PS I asked for re-prot at RFPP) [[User:Franamax|Franamax]] ([[User talk:Franamax|talk]]) 05:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== Automatic AFD closing script ==

As I noted [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive166#AFD_backlog_2|here]], I've been working on an automatic AFD closer script. Instructions and usage notes are at [[User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD]]. Direct any bugs/feature requests/comments to my talk page. [[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']] 02:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:Yeays!! This ''rocks'' most seriously. Add a "relist" button and you have made me (and, I'm guessing a lot of other editors) happy! — [[User:Coren|Coren]] [[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]] 02:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:Wicked awesome. Once you get the relist function working I can start using it to clean up the notorious backlog. :) [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 03:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Devunia]] and [[User:Cicaneo]] ==

These two users appear to be using their userpages as some sort of chat system. While I assume this is some sort of violation of [[WP:NOT]], I'm not entirely sure what should be done. I have warned them on their talk pages, but they seem to have ignored it. [[User:Horselover Frost|Horselover Frost]] ([[User talk:Horselover Frost|talk]]) 02:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:Gone where the woodbine twineth. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] [[User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather|Have a gorilla]] 04:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== Please unblock [[User:85.214.74.80|85.214.74.80]]! ==

My bot ([[User:Numbo3-bot]]) runs on a Strato server, and it took me forever to find out why my bot seems blocked on en.wp!

I finally found out that [[User:Spellcast]] did uniformly block [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AIPBlockList&ip=85.214.00.00%2F16 the whole Strato IP range], what is pretty rude!

My bot was/is doing good work, so please unblock at least [[User:85.214.74.80]]! --- Best regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 05:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:I'm not sure whether that IP range should be blocked or not (that is, whether it qualifies as an [[WP:NOP|open proxy]]), and that can be discussed separately, but in any case I've made the bot IP-block exempt, so there shouldn't be a problem anymore. [[User:Chick Bowen|Chick Bowen]] 06:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
::Thank you very much :) --- Greetings, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 06:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

2008-09-05T05:25:41Z

Numbo3:

<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 400K
|counter = 166
|algo = old(48h)
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}

__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude>

== Imposter of Sceptre ==

Just come across [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kmweber&diff=235249939&oldid=234214340 this vandalism] to {{user|Kmweber}}'s userpage. Looking at [[Special:Contributions/Petulant_little_shit|the account contributions]], the strikes me out immediately as {{user|Sceptre}} (due to his past with Kmweber) under a new account. Although it's blocked indefinitely, this may need further looking into. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kmweber&action=history Kmweber's page history] recently shows that the Sceptre IP is the only person that has vandalised it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Civility&diff=235250005&oldid=234484097 This] also makes me think that it is Sceptre under the {{user|Petulant little shit}} name. Although Sceptre has "declared" he is retired, it may be worth checking this out, even though the "Petulant little shit" account is blocked indef. Thoughts? [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] ([[User talk:D.M.N.|talk]]) 21:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
:Most likely an imposter. '''[[User:Majorly|Majorly]]''' ''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' 21:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
::Given that both Petulant little shit's and Sceptre's IPs have triggered autoblocks in the same 10 minute period, they probably are not on the same IP, and not the same person. '''[[User:MBisanz|MBisanz]]''' [[User talk:MBisanz|talk]] 21:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
:::OK. Just double-checking in case Sceptre had created a new account. [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] ([[User talk:D.M.N.|talk]]) 21:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I was asked in IRC to check... It is {{unlikely}} these are related. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 21:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
*Yeah, not unless he grew wings and flew 3000 miles since his last edit. [[User talk:Thatcher|Thatcher]] 21:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

:Its not like Sceptre is the only person who dislikes Kmweber... [[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']] 22:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

:One of the internet connections I use living in California routine resolves to New Jersey when using geolocating packages. So anything is possible. That said, I have no reason to believe Sceptre is active in this case. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] ([[User talk:Dragons flight|talk]]) 01:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

::Good chance that 78.105.113.152, vandalizing Weber before Petulant_little_shit, is banned [[User:Fredrick day]], even though that isn't his primary IP range (87.112-87.115); he uses neighborhood wireless routers, and other means of alternate access, and this could be in his neighborhood. He's currently vandalizing from the 87.112-87.115 range; vandalizing Kmweber has been common for him, and, as I recall, Fredrick day has had an interest in [[Dr. Who]], hence the IP's edit to [[The Trial of a Time Lord]]. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 02:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

::Unlikely indeed, but it is certainly true that the trolling from [[Special:Contributions/207.112.43.3|207.112.43.3]] is the same as Petulant little shit, and has been blocked for a month. There are various other bits of trolling from the same user on that /24. [[User:Sam Korn|Sam Korn]] [[User talk:Sam Korn|(smoddy)]] 13:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

:::I have to defer to a checkuser. My comment referred, not to Petulant, but to the IP 78.105.113.152, which was acting in a similar manner to Petulant and the 207.112 IP. Hence I'd have some suspicion, still, that Fredrick day was using some kind of proxy (since Fredrick day is in London and 207.112.43.3 is in Canada); however, of course, Fredrick day is not the only highly knowledgeable and entrenched vandal, plus he has attracted some significant sympathy. We should be so lucky! --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 16:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Sorry, the "unlikely indeed" was a reference to Lar's comment. You will see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sceptre&oldid=235085599#Block here] a positive identification of those edits with Sceptre, which I absolutely confirm to be the case per lengthy CU inquiry prior to Sceptre's admission. This isn't Fredrick day, with whom I am, as you are aware, familiar. [[User:Sam Korn|Sam Korn]] [[User talk:Sam Korn|(smoddy)]] 16:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Thanks, Sam. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 02:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:: I'm not in london, no idea why you think that. --[[Special:Contributions/87.112.5.23|87.112.5.23]] ([[User talk:87.112.5.23|talk]]) 16:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Ah, Plus.net is in Sheffield. But I don't know what territory they cover. Why London? Possibly some other IPs used, maybe, or just bad memory. In any case, Fredrick day has indeed been active in the last week, as [[User:Procutus]]. [[Whack-a-mole]]. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 02:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Uhm, IP 87.112.*.* appears to be from the same range as many Fredrick day socks. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] [[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]] 02:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Right. And he's not in London, as he said. Speak of the devil. Procutus was revealed as Frecrick day because of his support for the IP above in an edit war. It's obvious that 87.112-87.115 is very convenient for him. He's frequently used other IP, and quite likely has multiple ISP access going at once. It's going to be tricky to find the true puppet master; for Fredrick day clearly isn't the original account, and he's claimed so a number of times; Fredric day was a bad hand account for.... for whom I either don't know or can't say yet, not enough proof. What I find fascinating is that Fredrick day gives voice to what some editors and administrators think, but don't usually say, because it would be uncivil. But his days are numbered. Or at least named. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 03:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::If you check edit histories carefully, you may find additional slip ups where the user forgets which account they are using, or is logged out, and connects two or more of their identities. Given the volume of editing, the evidence is probably there for the finding. If there is another master account, still active, it would be good to find it. But please, do not make any accusations until there is solid evidence, preferably reviewed by an uninvolved party to help avoid [[confirmation bias]]. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] [[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]] 03:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I know this is really isn't the thread to start such a discussion, but it seems I was out of town when the fun was happening.. Anyone else feel that Spectre's current block is a major over reaction? For someone who's never been blocked before (besides test blocks, which don't count), this is absurd. From what I've read, the only reason he was "indef" blocked was to get him to apologies, which he did, and then it could go to the community to decide if he should be blocked. Seems that didn't happen, and he retired instead. Regardless if someone has "retired" or not, I think that block discussion should still happen. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 03:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:He couldn't believe he was held to certain levels of decorum, which is why he overreacted from having any kind of block, and then claimed retirement in response.--[[User:Bedford|'''King Bedford I''']] [[User talk:Bedford|Seek his grace]] 04:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::Bedford, go troll somewhere else. A two month block for an editor who has never been blocked before is in very bad taste. I've probably done worse, and I've never been blocked that long. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 05:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::See --> [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sceptre_2]]. Cheers, [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 06:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I've already seen that, and it's not a blocking discussion. Two months is extreme over-kill, and is nothing more than a form of punishment, rather than a realistic attempt to protect the Wiki from harm. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 04:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Well, the block length is academic now as he has retired. I suspect had the discussion on mentorship proceeded then a comback would have been negotiated fairly readily. Cheers, [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 05:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::I disagree. I think he retired out of frustration over the block itself, so had he not been blocked he likely would not have "retired". I think we owe it to him to say "if you want to come back, you can do so in less than two months". I would even go so far as to say that no block is needed at this point, at least according to our blocking policy. Having a block discussion even after a user has "retired" is important. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 05:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(<--) A reminder in relation to comments further up this thread: Geolocation in the UK is virtually meaningless. ISPs generally serve the whole country. It is however extremely uncommon (but not impossible) for the same person to have two different broadband ISPs at home. </stating the obvious> [[User:Brilliantine|Brilliantine]] ([[User talk:Brilliantine|talk]]) 04:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

hahahahahahahaha so far you've spent 2 pages talking about a 2-edit account and congratulating each other for the great job you're doing. Sam Korn likes to publish the IPs of random accounts with no contributions, and hand out punishment like candy. Are the checkuser rules supposed to be a bad joke? Do you have any standards at all? {{unsigned|207.112.39.99}}

I'd like to suggest, not for the first time, that you stop treating all new users like shit, as a strategy for reducing vandalism. {{unsigned|207.112.39.99}}
:We don't treat new users like "shit", however if new users vandalise, that's a completely different kettle of fish. [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] ([[User talk:D.M.N.|talk]]) 19:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== warning template for Hurricane Gustav ==

During Hurricane Katrina, Wikipedia had this warning template on the top of the page

<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': ''Residents of areas affected by Hurricane Katrina are advised to seek advice and information from local authorities through television and radio. Information on Wikipedia may not be current or applicable to your area. '''Do not decide whether to leave your house, shelter, or vehicle based on Wikipedia information.'''
</div>

I placed one on the page for [[Hurricane Gustav]] but someone removed it. I think it should be there and want an admin's opinion on the issue. It may be against the rules but I think the rules should be allowed to be bent in an emergency situation. The page on Katrina had the warning up for days with no objections. One can see so in the edit history--[[User:Ted-m|Ted-m]] ([[User talk:Ted-m|talk]]) 03:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:Wikipedia isn't the place for medical advice, and I think in the same vein we shouldn't serve as a PSA system. [[User:David Fuchs|Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs]] <nowiki>(</nowiki>[[User talk:David Fuchs|talk]]<nowiki>)</nowiki> 03:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::(ec) I agree. But that's ''the whole point of the template.'' So what's the objection?[[User:Basil "Basil" Fawlty|Basil "Basil" Fawlty]] ([[User talk:Basil "Basil" Fawlty|talk]]) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Then how come it was allowed during Katrina?--[[User:Ted-m|Ted-m]] ([[User talk:Ted-m|talk]]) 03:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

:Cause we made a mistake in allowing it. We have this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 03:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:And this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Risk_disclaimer [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::I think it should be up there. [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
(copied from [[User_talk:CrazyC83]], who just reverted my re-addition of the box....)
:::On principle? How about the one that your opinion isn't the only one that matters Lar? I especially like your comment on my talk page. - [[User:AuburnPilot|auburnpilot]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|talk]] 05:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't revert you, Crazy.. but I do think that it's worth having that box up there for a while. I certainly wouldn't worry about the Manual of Style in this context, because I think it's appropriate to bend the rules a little once in a while for strong reasons.... and our article is the second result in Google, so could well get quite a lot of traffic. Follow your conscience... :-) [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 03:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)this has been mentioned on [[WP:AN]] too, so I'll copy this note across there as well....
::: :o) I think it should ''not'' be up there. :) :) Speaking of which, we have an applicable content guideline... [[WP:NDA|over here]]! :) [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 03:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:Um, no. I see it now:

<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': "Those contemplating [[Liposuction]] are advised to seek advice and information from true medical professionals through their websites and in-person visists. Information on Wikipedia may not be current or applicable to your procedure. '''Do not decide whether or not to get liposuction or other cosmetic surgeries based on Wikipedia Information".
</div>
:Yeah, let's not. - [[User:AuburnPilot|auburnpilot]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|talk]] 03:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::um.. Auburn... you're comparing a liposuction disclaimer with a note about a very dangerous Hurricane. I see a difference. [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 03:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::PrivateMusens, you are ignoring the content guideline I cited above. [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 03:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Lipo is a very dangerous elective surgery (1 death per 5000?). [http://www.surgerywatch.com/Death-due-to-Liposuction.php][http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/liposuction/risks.html] In all seriousness, it was just an example of what some may see as equally valid, but most will see as showing how equally unnecessary such warnings are. - [[User:AuburnPilot|auburnpilot]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|talk]] 03:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I agree; part of the point of removing these things is that even at the most narrow scope there's a lot of articles that can be argued to be life or death.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 10:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Or worse:
<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': "Those considering a conversion to [[Catholicism]] are advised to seek advice and information from a trusted spiritual adviser. Information on Wikipedia may not be current or applicable to your personal circumstances. '''Do not decide whether or not to change your religion based on Wikipedia Information".
</div>
::: -- [[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']] 03:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) How about a reminder of/reference to the disclaimers added to {{tl|HurricaneWarning}}? [[User:WODUP|'''WODUP''']] 03:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:That still seems pretty ridiculous, I am sure that those affected are ''very aware'' of the storms in this date and age. - [[User:Caribbean H.Q.|Caribbean~H.Q.]] 03:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::Well I'll be... the risk disclaimer is already linked from {{tl|HurricaneWarning}}. [[User:WODUP|'''WODUP''']] 04:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And another...

<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': "Those considering a [[smoking cessation]] are advised to seek advice and information from a licensed practioner. Statistics on Wikipedia may not be current. '''Do not decide whether or not to change your smoking habits based on Wikipedia Information".
</div>
[[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 03:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:Not weighing in on the opinion at hand, but I think the main concern is that a [http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS275&=&q=Hurricane+Gustav&btnG=Google+Search Goggle search string for "Hurricane Gustav"] shows it's Wikipedia page as the 3rd result. It seems that users are just concerned that someone may stumble upon the article and may take the information as fact, which could be true or false. I have a feeling that the concerned users are just wanting to make sure that the poor souls who are having to leave their homes, their jobs, their lives, and who could possibly get injured or killed understand that we are not a reporting service and that our content should not be mistaken for advice. This is an extraordinary case that is not easily comparable to other issues, beliefs, or surgeries. I respectfully ask that editors stop making parody templates of the above template and please be respectful so as to not mock the original poster of the template. Obviously s/he had the best of intentions and the joking and comedy over a very serious matter is of very poor taste. Can we please get to the issue at hand and seriously discuss whether the template should be placed or not? Thank you.[[User:Gonzo_fan2007| « Gonzo fan2007]] ''([[User talk:Gonzo_fan2007|talk]] ♦ [[Special:Contributions/Gonzo_fan2007|contribs]]) @ '''' 03:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::Nobody is making light of "the poor souls who are having to leave their homes...". The template should not exist, and we've shown why through the use of examples. - [[User:AuburnPilot|auburnpilot]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|talk]] 04:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::It is not parody. It is contrast and comparison. Additionally, I don't think anyone will decide evacuation on this article, the PSA/EAS is the responsibility of local city/state and federal authority. ''We'' are building an encyclopedia, let us not lose sight of that. [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 04:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::In any case, why add it it now? Gustav already hit Cuba quite hard and no one seemed to care. Because its entering the United States? What about [[WP:UNDUE]]? Its clear that all the commotion its because of the actual state that its going to hit, because I don't see such a haste when they go over Florida. Some users are being influenced by memories of Hurricane Katrina's destructive pass. Sorry it that seems harsh, but I call a spade a spade. - [[User:Caribbean H.Q.|Caribbean~H.Q.]] 04:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::(ecX3) Guys! All I am asking is that you just talk about it without being [[WP:DICK|dicks]] and take the request made by the original poster as a serious request. Just be respectful of the situation. All I am asking is for comments like Caribbean's, which address the issue at hand without mocking the template.[[User:Gonzo_fan2007| « Gonzo fan2007]] ''([[User talk:Gonzo_fan2007|talk]] ♦ [[Special:Contributions/Gonzo_fan2007|contribs]]) @ '''' 04:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::[[WP:DOUCHE|Don't be a fucking douchebag]]. - [[User:AuburnPilot|auburnpilot]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|talk]] 04:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Thiz iz seriouz buzinnezz. [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 04:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::(e/c)And why only hurricanes? Do we do this for other events? Floods, tornadoes, blizzards, forest fires, riots, wars, chemical spills? At what point is a disaster significant enough to merit a warning? [[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']] 04:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Off topic: Am I the only one irritated by edit conflicts? The software really should resolve this automagically. :) [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 04:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::(ec)In any case, I personally do not believe the template should belong. I understand the reasons for adding it, but making this a special case just doesn't make sense to me. I have a feeling that the template would just be an eye-sore, and it could be argued that this is just systematic bias. Why don't we add templates like this to every big event? I think that the encyclopedia is fine with just reporting the information in an encyclopedic manner, and we should just let our disclaimers do the disclaiming. And yes I am hating the conflicts (especially the one I just had with your comment ;)[[User:Gonzo_fan2007| « Gonzo fan2007]] ''([[User talk:Gonzo_fan2007|talk]] ♦ [[Special:Contributions/Gonzo_fan2007|contribs]]) @ '''' 04:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not use one of our other "current" templates, that already warn of such things? -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 04:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:Because we have [[WP:NDA|content guidelines]] that should generally be used. [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 04:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::You seem to be confused. The current templates are article issue templates, not disclaimer templates. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 04:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Oh no, I am very clear. I am very clear that the pink boxes in this section of AN are in fact... ''disclaimers''. Even if in the loosest form, they intend to warn and caveat. Don't [[WP:NPA|call me confused please]]. [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 04:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Just to be crystal clear, I think Ned is referring to the {{tl|current}} templates. - [[User:AuburnPilot|auburnpilot]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|talk]] 04:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Oops. [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 04:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': ''Editors of articles such as [[Hurricane Gustav]] are advised to seek advice and information from ArbCom before placing a template such as this. Information in Wikipedia: space may not be current or applicable to your ArbCom's current mood. '''Do not decide whether to place a template on the article based on Wikipedia policies.'''
</div>
[[Image:718smiley.svg|20px]] --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 04:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': There are hundreds of stupid arguments on AIV, and this is one of them.'''
</div>
Word. --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[User_talk:mboverload|@]] 04:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
: LOL. Particularly when this was the shape of {{tl|HurricaneWarning}}, a template that survived TFD several times, until [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Current_tropical_cyclone&oldid=155328072 September 2007]. [[User:Titoxd|Titoxd]]([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]]) 04:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Since we're churning out silly disclaimer templates, how about one for [[Wikipedia]]:
<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': Those considering using Wikipedia are advised to seek advice and information from a trusted reliable source. Information on Wikipedia may not be current or applicable to your personal circumstances. '''Do not decide whether or not to use Wikipedia based on Wikipedia information.'''
</div>
It just had to be said. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 10:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:Perhaps it would be easier for Wikipedia to consider a help page about its own articles and making decisions based on one's trust in their accuracy. That's a question for the offices, most likely.[[User:Miquonranger03|Miquonranger03]] ([[User talk:Miquonranger03|talk]]) 07:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
===prelude to edit war===
You lot are debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and thus miss the actual point. The style guide matters not, the general principle against disclaimers matters not. They're good ideas, but blanket prohibitions are bad. This is a situation where we may well be getting a large influx of readers who have no idea what WP really is about, and haven't the time or energy to go to the bottom of a page, and then realise they should read a general disclaimer to see if maybe there is something there they ought to read. IAR and add the damn warning template, and stop standing on formality about whether it's in accordance with general principles about not having disclaimers. Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 05:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
: What he said. [[User:Titoxd|Titoxd]]([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]]) 05:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:IAR only works when it improves the pedia. I would posit that it does not, so IAR is not applicable. [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 05:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::[[WP:IAR]]: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." So, how does this help improve or maintain Wikipedia? It doesn't. We don't add such templates to articles, and this doesn't deserve an exception. - [[User:AuburnPilot|auburnpilot]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|talk]] 05:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Don't be ridiculous. Don't stand on rules. And don't revert me for the sake of some principle. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 05:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::echo Lar. [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 05:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::I don't particularly like the idea of it being there, either, but I think this is one of the cases where we can and should ignore the rules. People have the capacity for '''incredible''' stupidity. While I'm generally against the idea of keeping this like this around, not everyone is intelligent enough to realize that at any given point in time, Wikipedia could be hosting information that could result in some bad things if people were dumb enough to use it as a guide for emergency procedures, and that's really not something I want to think about. Remember that Wikipedia does exist in the real world. [[User:Celarnor|'''Celarnor''']] [[User_talk:Celarnor|Talk to me]] 05:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::: I would posit that it does improve the pedia, by sending away the users who really need the info to the proper place, hence making us be a more reliable source of info. That said, please don't edit war over this. This is an extremely unstable article, and hence protections are inappropriate here; I'll be handing out blocks instead of simply elevating the protection level of the page. [[User:Titoxd|Titoxd]]([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]]) 05:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::echo Lar. [[WP:IAR]]. Do what you feel is right. --[[User talk:Duk|Duk]] 05:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Indeed, Lar makes an excellent point above. Putting that up there, is simply the right thing to do. [[User:SQL|SQL]][[User talk:SQL|Query me!]] 07:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

: So you're worried about people who run around the Internet randomly trusting sites, and you think they should be warned away from Wikipedia so they find some blog to trust? You can't honestly say that you're helping people who can't be trusted to use the Internet wisely by warning them away from an updated fairly reliable source.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 11:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

:Just so we note, this box violates some of our principles, UNDUE and NPOV. Also, the guideline is a good guideline, this is not what we do (PSA/EAS). [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 05:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::A guiding principle is "do no harm" and people relying on this article for decisions on evacuation can clearly lead to real harm. The disclaimer should be on the page. Apparently it is presently unprotected so that IP editors and newbies can have their way with it. An Ip editor changed the windspeed in the info box from the correct 115 mph to 390 mph, and it stayed that way for 26 minutes until I restored the correct information. The disclaimer should remain on the article. It is about a pending natural disaster affecting millions of people and tens of billions of dollars property damage, and if a vandal can introduce incorrect information, or if stale or incorrect information is in the article, it could lead people to take actions affecting their safety adversely. And the article should once again be semiprotected, because sufficient established and registered users are working on it that newbies and IP editors are not needed to keep it up to date while the storm is a few hours from landfall. Let the IPs back in when it is a historical matter in a day or so. [[User:Edison2|Edison2]] ([[User talk:Edison2|talk]]) 05:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::: I have repeatedly stated on that talk page that protection would be extremely inappropriate in this case, but like I said above, I agree with the inclusion of the box. [[User:Titoxd|Titoxd]]([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]]) 05:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::: Well I semi'ed it but feel free to undo that, I won't consider that any sort of wheeling. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 05:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::We have principles, we strive to be an accurate academic institution. This type of thing should no go into our articles, for neutrality, and other reasons as echoed by me above. Incidentally, why are anons not permitted to edit that article? Please undo the prot. [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 05:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Question, how does this violate undue or npov? I don't see it but I might be missing something ;) [[User:Rx StrangeLove|RxS]] ([[User talk:Rx StrangeLove|talk]]) 05:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=235517445 As above]. [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 05:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::As I said, the only reason that all this argument is going on its because Gustav will hit New Orleans, which received a lot of destruction with Katrina. The decision to add it is directly influenced by the psychological effect of the horrible events seen three years ago. If that wasn't the case a template would have been added when it passed over Cuba, which by the way has also been heavily affected by tropical cyclones in the last years. - [[User:Caribbean H.Q.|Caribbean~H.Q.]] 05:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Perhaps you're right. And perhaps it should have been added earlier. Better late than never. (and I'll say that I don't necessarily have a lot of confidence in the governments of the area and their ability to have learned from Katrina, but I digress). ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 06:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::So we if we didn't do something in the past (rightly or wrongly), we can't do it going forward? I know that's not what you're saying but that's the practical effect. Shouldn't we decide if something's a good idea and then work out the application afterwards? Anyway, it seems like a good application of IAR, and it's been worked out so it's all good. [[User:Rx StrangeLove|RxS]] ([[User talk:Rx StrangeLove|talk]]) 06:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
It's a good principle. But sometimes exceptions are needed. This is one of those times. The harm to the encyclopedia from having this disclaimer for a day or 3 is slight. The harm if someone got hurt and it got into the media is immense. No brainer. All principles have exceptions. That's the real world. Deal. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 05:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:I'll compromise here. Lets make sure the template goes away after the disaster subsides. [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 05:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:: Back when it used to be a proper template, that was always the case. [[User:Titoxd|Titoxd]]([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]]) 05:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::NVS, 4 days from now (or whatever the right time is, it should be short, I agree) I'll baleet it out of there myself... This is a temporary thing only. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 05:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:The other option would be not to pretend to be posting "Current storm information" as if Wiki was providing the latest and greatest. Maybe Wiki shouldn't be a newspaper or public notice system? --[[User:Pnoble805|Pat]] ([[User talk:Pnoble805|talk]]) 05:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:: Which is not going to happen unless you intend to kill [[WP:WPTC]] and break [[WP:RAUL|my third law]]. Wikipedia has been ''lauded'' previously over our hurricane coverage, and even cited in government tropical cyclone coverage, so I don't think we're interested in changing that any time soon. [[User:Titoxd|Titoxd]]([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]]) 05:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I myself find it interesting that there has only been interest in putting up this template as the storm hits the United States. I guess the human beings in Cuba, Haiti, Dominican, etc. just aren't as important? Perhaps the current hurricane template should have a link to the risk disclaimer, but putting up this red template only when a disaster happens to the USA looks very unpretty. —[[User:Elipongo|Elipongo]] ([[User talk:Elipongo|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Elipongo|contribs]]) 06:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::: Well, there is the perhaps relevant fact that Cuba, the Dominican Republic etc. are Spanish -speaking countries, Haiti is French-speaking, and we are the English Wikipedia. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald ''"unreachable by rational discourse"''''']]'''([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]])''' 06:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::But Jamaica and the Caymans are English-speaking. Eleven deaths have been reported so far in Jamaica. -- [[User:Avenue|Avenue]] ([[User talk:Avenue|talk]]) 11:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Quite true. Perhaps the notice should be affixed to the article on Hanna now, as it seems to be aimed at the Bahamas. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald ''"unreachable by rational discourse"''''']]'''([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]])''' 19:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::: There's no ulterior motives here. We used to have it last year; only this year it got edited/redirected to the bland current version (which was being used, by the way), {{tl|current tropical cyclone}} due to the ambox change. As people remembered Katrina, they remembered how the red box, and asked for it back. [[User:Titoxd|Titoxd]]([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]]) 06:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps {{tl|current tropical cyclone}} should itself have a link to the risk disclaimer- maybe even highlighted in red. That way anybody in the path of a storm would be warned not to use Wikipedia for life-safety decisions and we wouldn't be in the position of having to judge when the people affected are "important" enough to warrant a red warning banner.—[[User:Elipongo|Elipongo]] ([[User talk:Elipongo|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Elipongo|contribs]]) 06:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::That box does include such a link, but we Americans are now in danger so it much be enormous and clearly visible. - [[User:AuburnPilot|auburnpilot]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|talk]] 06:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::So... by that interpretation you're saying that we Americans are too dumb to heed the regular disclaimer used for the rest of the world? —[[User:Elipongo|Elipongo]] ([[User talk:Elipongo|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Elipongo|contribs]]) 06:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Not to be making light of things, but speaking as an American myself, I'd say better safe than sorry to your question. That can be read many ways, I know. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 06:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::I do feel it's important for people to be reminded not to base life-safety decisions on our data, however things should be the same if the disaster hits Mexico or New Zealand as if it hits the United States. This red banner is a [[WP:NDT|bad idea]], the proper course is to make the standard current disaster template a bit clearer about our standard disclaimers. —[[User:Elipongo|Elipongo]] ([[User talk:Elipongo|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Elipongo|contribs]]) 06:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::I agree, I'm not opposing this because of any guidelines, I'm opposing it because of the precedent it sets. Nobody bothered to respond to my question above, so I'll ask it again down here. And why only hurricanes? Do we do this for other events? Floods, tornadoes, blizzards, forest fires, riots, wars, chemical spills? At what point is a disaster significant enough to merit a warning? Do we put one up after an earthquake warning people there might be a tsunami? Why wait until there's a tornado warning, by then it may be too late, do we put up a warning for every severe thunderstorm watch? What strength of hurricane warrants a template? Do we put one up for a Category 1? A tropical depression? I normally agree with Lar, but I'm disappointed to see him simply dismissing all the opposition as based on formalities. [[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']] 14:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)... I'm sorry if it seems like I was simply dismissing opposition, if I acted brusquely and more forcefully than I normally would. But I came to this discussion and what I saw was a lot of ''tomfoolery''. Sorry, but that's what it looked like to me, despite those pointing out that the stuff being shown was shown to bring forth counterexamples... sure, maybe they were, but they were also ''funny''. That to me suggests this matter wasn't being taken seriously. So I acted. That's what we are supposed to do, after all. Know when deliberation is needed, and know when quick action is needed, and know how to tell the difference. The subsequent discussion seems to show that the consensus, or at least a majority of voices, was in the end, OK with this temporary measure. (and it should be temporary!)

Now, I think our general rule against specific disclaimers is good. But I think maybe for anything that is worthy of a "current event" tagging, we need a more '''bold''' pointer to that disclaimer, right at the top of the article, where it is seen by everyone visiting, rather than buried in fine print towards the bottom (It is on the very bottom line of the page, in small print, after other stirring reads like the Privacy Policy and the About Wikipedia prose... how many people coming to a site when they're in a hurry are going to read that??? NOT MANY.) So I think after this tempest in a teacup about this specific box blows over (sorry!), we need to revisit the design of the current events box. Even if it just points to our general disclaimer, it's good to have that pointer ''at the top'' for current events. Tornadoes, fires, bridge collapses, earthquakes, hurricanes, wars, you name it. Anyone using Wikipedia for their first source for advice about hangnail cures is a fool. And the buried disclaimer is fine for them, they have time to regret their foolishness. But people in emergency situations, with not much time? They need a more clear reminder NOT TO TRUST this source for life and death info. What if the vandal who set the speed to 300+ mph for 20 min last night had set it to 15 mph and people made decisions based on that? Do you all standing on policy actually want that on your conscience? I don't. So let's work together to get that box changed while still hewing to our spirit.

I apologise to anyone I gave offense to last night. It was not my intent, and I'm sorry. But I felt this was important enough to override some of the norms I usually go by. Heck I even reverted something... once. That's pretty shocking behaviour for me! ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 17:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

===Actual disaster warning box===
<-- Whats the actual "live disaster" template? I didn't know we had one? [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 06:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:{{tl|Current disaster}}—[[User:Elipongo|Elipongo]] ([[User talk:Elipongo|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Elipongo|contribs]]) 07:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::Heck, this is all silly then. Just to mock it up quick I flipped that to be the speedy type graphically instead of the notice type, and changed the image, to make this:

<center>{{Current disaster}}
 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Current_disaster&oldid=235540763 visible on this diff]</center>
::Isn't that better? [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 07:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Much better, thank you. Anyone object to its use on the article now? —[[User:Elipongo|Elipongo]] ([[User talk:Elipongo|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Elipongo|contribs]]) 07:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': ''Editors considering [[WP:BEANS|sticking beans up their nose]] are advised to seek advice and information from medical professionals and/or horticulturalists prior to attempting to do so. Information on Wikipedia may not be applicable to your nostrils or the type of beans you may have in your pantry. '''Do not decide whether or not to shove foodstuffs in your bodily orifices based on Wikipedia information.''' ''
</div>
Had to be said... [[User:Caknuck|caknuck]] [[User talk:Caknuck|°]] is geared up for football season 08:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:Now you tell me... [[User:Kevin|Kevin]] ([[User talk:Kevin|talk]]) 08:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::Um... you may wish to link [[pantry]], unless you enjoy resolving [[pulse (legume)]]/[[lingerie]] issues (I know I do!) [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 10:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Current_tropical_cyclone&oldid=236230043 {{Current disaster|name={{{1}}}|event={{{2|tropical cyclone}}}|notes={{red|'''Do not decide whether to leave your house, shelter, or vehicle based on Wikipedia information.'''}}|red=yes}}
--[[User talk:Random832|Random832]] ([[special:contributions/Random832|contribs]]) 13:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Dan Schneider ==

Just to note that I am revisiting [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive470#Dan Schneider (writer)]] now the dust has settled a bit - there is an issue of [[WP:VSCA|vanispamcruftisement]] to sort out and also some [[WP:BLP]] issues with the sockfarm on the other side of the debate.

[[WP:SPA]]'s listed in that report as promoting Schneider and spamming his site:
* {{userlinks|Cop 666}}
* {{userlinks|Theovetes}}
* {{userlinks|Lazarus86}}
* {{userlinks|Mathemaxi}}
* {{userlinks|Ingupper}}
* {{userlinks|Athenosia}}
* {{userlinks|Filialprojector}}
* {{userlinks|Fordhawk}}
* {{userlinks|Vandenflexor}}
* {{userlinks|Wallaby Jones}}
* {{userlinks|Stratuspower88}}
* {{userlinks|Mondocanetoomer}}
* {{userlinks|Rebeccamack}}
* {{userlinks|SouthernLights}}
* {{userlinks|Verbaleaux}}
* {{userlinks|Verdipun}}
* {{userlinks|Sunstruckglass}}
* {{userlinks|Alfonsogloriano}}
* {{userlinks|Ambersoniata}}
* {{userlinks|UmaPa}}
* {{userlinks|Deadsandsflashing}}
* {{userlinks|Anatolikarpantov}}
* {{userlinks|Corinthiani}}
* {{userlinks|Chasfagan}}
* {{userlinks|Lyledag}}
* {{userlinks|Timesawaste}}
* {{userlinks|Slopack}}
* {{userlinks|Tallulahdor}}
* {{userlinks|Nathanor}}
* {{userlinks|Landoloch}}
* {{userlinks|Good Shoestore}}
That's more than enough for a cross-wiki spam search, which turns up more links but I've not yet found if they were added by the same IP range. {{userlinks|Mathemaxi}} is a good example; note the way good and bad are intermingled and sometimes two links are added at once, one of which is to one of Schneider's reviews. Oh, and "correcting" to US spelling in articles about British and Aussie subjects gets up my nose a bit :-) Example of the kind of thing: inserts link to a review, www.theyshootpictures.com/review_seventhseal.htm, which is now 404 but the goo 'ol wayback machine reveals was a review written by (surprise, surprise) Dan Schneider. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 21:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

* I've found a couple of articles with a dozen or more cites to a single interview with Schneider, all the content and cites added by one of the sockfarm. Feel free to look over my edit and block logs and review. I'm leaving a standard message to choose one account and request unblock. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 22:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well its good to know that my tracking down wasn't ignored - I feared all the silliness on the discussion page might have just made both sides look as bad as eachother and nothing would be done. I know its unproven, but just have a look at the discussion and then at one of the articles. I think the similarity in style is too close to be looked over. Also, what is up with that Ovenknob guy? He seems to be so over-the-top I wouldn't be surprised if its just another sockpuppet designed to make me and other editors look unreasonable. [[User:Tmwns|Tmwns]] ([[User talk:Tmwns|talk]]) 17:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And:
* {{userlinks|Crayonedcat}}
* {{userlinks|Veraciter}}
* {{userlinks|Blanton84}}
* {{userlinks|Bekaymecca}}
* {{userlinks|Shelfgoddess}}
* {{userlinks|Nugluts}}
* {{userlinks|Picacipa}}
* {{userlinks|Tedlam1972}}
Plus {{userlinks|NormalGoddess}} is a possible. How best to identify this sockfarm and tie them together, without violating [[WP:BLP]]? [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 21:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is another one * {{userlinks|Harikawa}} It looks like the only editors arguing for DS's notability are socks of DS. I have seen other editors community banned for less then what this prolific sockpuppeteer has done to self promote on wikipedia. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]] | [[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 21:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

* This game of whack-a-mole is getting a bit tiresome, are there any Checkusers who wouldn't mind looking over this one and perhaps helping with other sleepers or a rangeblock? [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 10:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== It's that time of year again, more college classes to keep an eye on... ==

{{resolved|Transwiki-ed to Wikiversity. Thanks for the help everyone. '''[[User:MBisanz|MBisanz]]''' [[User talk:MBisanz|talk]] 14:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)}}
Just noticed a couple users and after a closer look found what appears to be two college classes, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=50&username=Eas4200 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=Eml4500&group=&limit=50 here]. Not sure yet what their goal or focus is on. Just an FYI. [[User:KnightLago|KnightLago]] ([[User talk:KnightLago|talk]]) 23:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:I left notes on what looks to be the main accounts asking what they were doing and offering any help. [[User:KnightLago|KnightLago]] ([[User talk:KnightLago|talk]]) 23:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::A couple of those accounts have been blocked for username violations--looks innocent though. See [[User talk:Eas4200c.f08.vandal.a]]. [[User:Chick Bowen|Chick Bowen]] 05:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::As far as I can tell, the courses are both at the University of Florida and are [http://clesm.mae.ufl.edu/~vql/courses/aero1/2008.fall/ EGM 4200C Aerospace Structures] & [http://apollo.mae.ufl.edu/~vql/courses/fead/2008.fall/ EML 4500 Finite Element Analysis and Design]. Both are being taught by the same person. Personally, given the nature of the courses, I'd be surprised if they did any damage to speak of, but it is certainly worth watching. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 05:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::They've created over forty accounts so far that we can trace: one for each student, plus professorial accounts, class accounts, "team" accounts, etc. The clear intent is to [[:WP:NOT#WEBHOST|use us as their webhost]], in lieu of software products such as those offered by [[:Blackboard Inc.|Blackboard]] and its competititors. I'm willing to [[:WP:AGF|assume it's been done in good faith]], but I really feel the whole thing needs to come to a grinding halt, and all the pages be deleted, the accounts blocked or renamed to something not proclaiming abusive use, etc. --[[User:Orangemike|Orange Mike]] | [[User talk:Orangemike|Talk]] 16:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Have we managed to get any comunication going with them to confirm what they are up to?[[User:Geni|Geni]] 16:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Nothing much yet. I just left them a note yesterday. This to me appears to closely resemble the [[WP:MMM|Murder, Madness, and Mayhem]] project. Groups assigned to learn about WP and then create articles. If this is the case they can only be an asset to us. If not, then we can deal with them. But to shut them down when we don't even know what is going on doesn't make sense to me. [[User:KnightLago|KnightLago]] ([[User talk:KnightLago|talk]]) 16:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Actually, we have. From the already-deleted [[User talk:Eml4500.f08.bottle.vitello/Lecture 3]]: ''"This page is part of an ongoing course assignment for the University of Florida's course on Finite Element Analysis. We are required by our professor, Loc Vu-Quoc, to maintain these pages throughout the current Fall semester. If you have any questions, his email address is"'' and the prof's e-mail. As I've said, we're being used as a webhost, and I think it really does need to be stopped. --[[User:Orangemike|Orange Mike]] | [[User talk:Orangemike|Talk]] 16:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::That is still not very clear to me. If they are just using us as a host, then I completely agree we should shut it down. But "we are required to maintain" doesn't really indicate what they are doing. Are they going to create articles? Some of their initial work, learning about redirects, linking, etc., doesn't seem like simple hosting. [[User:KnightLago|KnightLago]] ([[User talk:KnightLago|talk]]) 16:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::We should ask the instructors of these courses to look at [[Wikipedia:School and university projects]]. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 16:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::(ec) They seem to be using it as a host to me - as stated above, they're creating "team use" accounts (strictly prohibited by [[WP:U]]), various pages of links to class syllabus and other course resources, etc. I have no issues with the use of Wikipedia as a classroom tool, but they should not be using Wikipedia user space as a classroom communication/collaboration device. [[User:Shereth|Sher]][[User_talk:Shereth|eth]] 16:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::I think we're in the process of making a mistake here. According to the talk page of [[User talk:Eml4500.f08|Eml4500.f08]] "some goals related to wikipedia are (1) introduction to the use of wikipedia for learning and research, (2) to train future contributors to wikipedia, and (3) to create and develop open course contents for wiki sites such as wikiversity." That does ''not'' sound like they're using Wikipedia as a webhost. As long as they're willing to restrict themselves to one account per user, it sounds like exactly the sort of thing we should both allow and encourage. --[[User:Steven J. Anderson|Steven J. Anderson]] ([[User talk:Steven J. Anderson|talk]]) 17:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm inclined to agree, in lieu of more info. If the intent is to teach people to use wikipedia properly then it should be a net benefit, so long as they don't do the mess where the students all have to write their own articles which they try to keep separate from the rest of wikipedia. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 17:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::indeed there is the potential for this to go wrong which is why we really need a line of communication but for the time being this remains only a potential problem.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 17:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:I am working on trying to figure out the situation and have started communicating with somebody. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKnightLago&diff=235848378&oldid=235841926 here] and my reply [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IntaminAG&oldid=235858028 here]. [[User:KnightLago|KnightLago]] ([[User talk:KnightLago|talk]]) 17:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::Note that as users do their work, they may be able to contribute and improve wikipedia's existing articles, or that they would find certain topics that are not covered by wikipedia to create new wikipedia articles in the future. [[User:Eml4500.f08|Eml4500.f08]] ([[User talk:Eml4500.f08|talk]]) 18:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::The lecture notes and the HW are starting points for open course notes such as those in wikiversity. This point had been clearly explained in both courses. See also the points in the above paragraph regarding potential immediate short-term contributions to wikipedia by these users, in addition to the long-term goals mentioned in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eml4500.f08]. [[User:Eml4500.f08|Eml4500.f08]] ([[User talk:Eml4500.f08|talk]]) 18:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Even this discussion among wikipedia administrators would be already a good learning experience about the administrative structure and the working of wikipedia for these new users (the majority did not even know how to open a wikipedia account and had to be walked through step by step in class), in addition to getting new information through the above discussion. [[User:Eml4500.f08|Eml4500.f08]] ([[User talk:Eml4500.f08|talk]]) 18:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Yes but is this going to dirrectly result in new articles or improvment to existing articles. There are far better platforms around for other tasks.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 18:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::I am still not sure yet of the exact nature of the classes. If Eml4500.f08 could explain a little bit more it would be greatly appreciated. Are the students simply using Wikipedia to host their homework assignments? Are they going to do any actual work on creating or improving articles? Or are they just learning how Wikipedia works?

::::::My feeling is that if the students are being taught how to use Wikipedia, even if they don't actually contribute much to actual articles, then it is a net positive as a whole. Some of the students will undoubtedly stay and become contributors. But we shouldn't rush to judgment here and exclude a large number of potential editors. The accounts will obviously have to respect the [[WP:U|username policy]]. This means one account per person. Each person's account should be unique to them. No group or shared accounts. [[User:KnightLago|KnightLago]] ([[User talk:KnightLago|talk]]) 18:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::This sounds rather like the "Global Economics" affair, about the end of April, see [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Global Economics]] and its talk page, and a long thread on AN/I [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive412#Use of Wikipedia for class project|here]]. Two problems there were: (a) an expectation that students could "own" their articles and ask others not to edit, and (b) lack of understanding of the difference between a student essay (where original research and synthesis are the name of the game) and a Wikipedia article (where they are forbidden). [[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] ([[User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 19:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not simply a web site to post their HW reports, but rather a
medium for collaboration, not just among the students in a team,
but also a collaboration of the whole class (i.e., among the
different teams), and more than that, the work is a collaboration
between the professor and the whole class to develop online open
course material, as mentioned. Each student has an individual user
account, no share accounts, but they can edit in each other's user
namespace to collaborate on the lecture notes and HW problems in
a given HW report.

There are no team accounts; the account of the team leader serves as
a focal point for all team members to contribute their respective
part to the team's HW report, using their own individual account.
Each team member wants to use his/her individual account to edit so
that the history of a wiki HW report will be used to evaluate his/her
participation in the team to determine his/her final HW grade.
It is imperative that each user use his/her individual account so
to show his/her work.

The best HW report of the whole class (i.e., of all teams in the
class) would serve as the spring board for the next HW report, i.e.,
each team would use the best past HW report as a starting point
to construct their next HW report, instead of using only their
own work all the time. This way, weak teams will learn from the
strongest teams, and the whole class thus collaborates together.
(Without this measure, mediocre teams remain mediocre throughout
without having the opportunity to learn from the best to improve
themselves.) Since the team work starts with the professor's lecture
presentations and HW problem assignments, the work is actually a
collaboration between the professor and the whole class.

Finally, recall the long-term goals already mentioned. [[User:Eml4500.f08|Eml4500.f08]] ([[User talk:Eml4500.f08|talk]]) 19:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:What you have described would probably be far better met by a localised mediawiki instalation or on a free wiki host. Wikipedia is neither.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 19:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::It looks to me as if any benefit to Wikipedia would be entirely ancillary, and totally out of proportion to the resources used. Think of the floodgates this could open if this is allowed, and the additional burden on the servers. I'd say there's little indication that we need to wait for any more information, the course is not "How to Edit Wikipedia 101" -- this should be shut down. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald ''"unreachable by rational discourse"''''']]'''([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]])''' 19:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Indeed that does appear to be the case. However it would still be best to be diplomatic.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 19:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

: It seems the intent is to use Wikipedia to post team based homework; using the accounts system to allow lecturer to see who did what. I can't see anything in the aims that fits in with Wikipedia's core principles - the only collaboration mentioned is within the class. As geni says, far better on a localised wiki. Oh, and lecturer getting smacked with a cluebat. [[User:Minkythecat|Minkythecat]] ([[User talk:Minkythecat|talk]]) 20:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::Geni and Minky have said almost everything I wanted to say. We need to thank these folks politely, then gently but ruthlessly clean out '''''all''''' these accounts in their current forms and offer guidance on how to get your own wiki software. --[[User:Orangemike|Orange Mike]] | [[User talk:Orangemike|Talk]] 20:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Mediawiki can be downloaded through http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki but it would really be an issue for local it techs though.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 20:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:We have a long tradition of driving away editors from academe through over-zealous policy-wonkery. Thank god we aren't trying to do anything whatsoever that would benefit from having a bunch of intelligent, educated people around. That's called sarcasm for those of you having difficulty [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 20:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::It is extreamly well established that wikipedia is not a free webhost. If you think that is "over-zealous policy-wonkery" then your position is somewhat at odds with wikipedia norms. If they want to include editing wikipedia as part of their course we can provide plently of advice on how to do it but both the students and wikipedia will be better off if they use some other wiki (either localy hosted or on a free webhost) for what is appears they are currently proposeing to do.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 20:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::(ec)I am certainly profoundly at odds with the established Wikipedia norm of assuming bad-faith of new editors. I am at odds with the established norm of discouraging attempts to find new methods of collaborative working. I am at odds with the established Wikipedia norm of discouraging bright young people from learning how to contribute effectively to this ''soi-disant'' encyclopædia. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 20:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::there is no bad faith being assumed (although you do appear to be running rather close to the line) in fact there is pretty much nothing being assumed we have been very careful to find out what is being planned before doing anything. Teaching people how to contribute effectively to wikipedia is not even a side aim of the project and it's structure tends against that being atchived.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 21:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::The assumption that has been made about these accounts is that they will not contribute to the encyclopædia, and should therefor be blocked. That is as clear an assumption of bad-faith as it is possible to make. I think you have misinterpreted my comment about teaching people to contribute effectively - I meant that that is a responsibility of more experienced editors, and that in order to encourage effective contribution we should be more welcoming of new editors. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 21:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Hopefuly we can resolve the situation without resorting to blocking. We shall see.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 22:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:: I normally would agree with you about process-wonkery; however, what we have here is coursework relying upon in-team collaberation - would "outsiders" be allowed to correct any mistakes? Would that mess their course marking up? Anybody finding Wikipedia interesting and wanting to contribute naturally benefits all parties; the issue is however is such insular work the best way to achieve it? that's a realistic view for the one of you having difficulty [[User:Minkythecat|Minkythecat]] ([[User talk:Minkythecat|talk]]) 20:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe this kind of usage would be welcome over at wikiversity. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 20:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:Exactly. I don't think these guys will cause any huge messes, per se, it's more just a fundamental issue of using Wikipedia - and particularly the user space - in a manner that is not acceptable. [[User:Shereth|Sher]][[User_talk:Shereth|eth]] 20:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello all, I'm a student in one of these two courses and I seem to have quite the grasp as to what my professor is trying to achieve. If you have any further questions about this, shoot away. I'll start by saying that much of what you all (those opposed to allowing this endeavor to progress) have said is true. It would largely (perhaps entirely) be us students using our namespaces to communicate to each other and the professor and for the submission and evaluation of homework and notes. It was also communicated to me in class that we would ''not'' be advised to edit true Wikipedia articles in that in doing so we might attracts 'vandals' seeking to destroy our work.

Needless to say, although some users may stick around after the course, most of these names will probably be abandoned. Certainly, during the course, there will most likely be no contribution to WP articles--although the possibility of contributions upon course completion are entirely left up to the users themselves.

So in all, I believe this comes down to a rather interesting dilemma. As of now, you have at least 80 potential editors on your hands to further the cause of WP. But none of these people (under these class usernames, at least) will be doing anything to benefit WP itself during this ongoing semester. After the semester ends, however, there is the possibility that, since all these students were warmed up to the WP system over the past semester, many will stick around and choose to contribute--but this is only after the semester ends. Not to mention, throughout the entire semester, our user namespaces will be used for the sole purpose of class participation, and will not see the "outside world"--aka the rest of WP. Further still, and on the other hand, the information generated via these two classes may truly contribute to WP articles on similar subjects--especially once the course is over and students are free to use said usernames to integrate the course information into current and new WP articles.

The choice is yours, I hope I have explained things clearly. If you have any more questions, I'll be here. And this is my real WP username (one that I will use to contribute to WP), it has nothing to do with this course. Thanks. [[User:IntaminAG|IntaminAG]] ([[User talk:IntaminAG|talk]]) 23:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::thing is, this is an encyclopedia and class notes on a topic are not necessarily going to be good articles. You mentioned Wikiversity earlier, so you know about that project, and it sounds to me that this would be the place for what you are doing. We'd love new academic oriented editors in technology ,but do you all realize that based on past experience many of the topics may not be suitable for articles--and we have no mechanism to maintain them intact for you during the course if they get deleted. Nor can we restrict who might want to edit the articles. This sort of project needs considerable thought and planning. I or Ed would be very pleased to help your professor with it. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 23:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::wikiversity is looking to devolope course materials not carry out actual sources onsite.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 00:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:Getting warmed up to Wikipedia's software (since they won't be touching the processes) can, as we've said, be done via a local installation of the software that runs Wikipedia, [[MediaWiki]]. While new editors are appricated, such work on done on Wikipedia itself is not within the project scope, would create bad precidents, and would use resources allocated for running an encyclopedia. '''[[User:Firefoxman|ff]][[User talk:Firefoxman|m]]''' 00:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:::''Edit: At DGG.'' Thanks. ''I'' didn't mention Wikiversity, haha, I believe my professor did, though. So I'd imagine he has some sort of an idea of what that is about. I'm not aware as to what it is about however I'll look it up very soon, for sure. I totally get what you're saying, I am neutral either way, honestly. I just wanted to provide the information for you all. I do have a question, though. What do you mean when you say "we have no mechanism to maintain them intact for you during the course if they get deleted?" If what gets deleted, the information on our namespaces? Just curious as to what you meant by that. [[User:IntaminAG|IntaminAG]] ([[User talk:IntaminAG|talk]]) 00:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::hewas probably thinking about stuff in the article namespace but stuff in the namespace is also at a fair risk of being deleted if it is outside project scope and not put there by a regular user.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 00:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:Seeing as students are beginning to create a large number of homework pages, some are requesting unblock for username blocks, I really think someone needs to contact this professor directly and explain to him in detail about [[WP:NOT]], this is going to generate a large number of odd-looking userspaces, some of which are already at MfD. '''[[User:MBisanz|MBisanz]]''' [[User talk:MBisanz|talk]] 01:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::I've politely explained the situation to the professor and have given him some other alternatives at [[User_talk:Eml4500.f08#Class_project_on_Wikipedia]]. '''[[User:MBisanz|MBisanz]]''' [[User talk:MBisanz|talk]] 01:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your discussion, suggestions, and cooperation.
I just created the following pages in wikiversity:
[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Eml4500.f08 User:Eml4500.f08]
and
[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Eas4200c.f08 User:Eas4200c.f08].
It seems to work without having to create new user accounts; I used
the same user accounts under wikipedia.
Hence the wikipedia accounts that students already created
can be used under wikiversity; they can move their work to wikiversity.
Please keep these accounts, and give them some time to move the
content of their user namespaces to wikiversity.

For students who could not create their own account because the
operation was blocked, I'll ask them to create their accounts on
wikiversity.

There are only 3 weeks until the first exam; the class should focus
on the course material itself, instead of wikipedia matters; it was
a good learning experience though.

Is it possible for administrators to prevent the posting of
the current content of these user namespaces on wikiversity as
wikiversity's formal articles? The reason is to avoid potential
problems such as copyright violation, plagiarism, etc, without prior
checking and verification (even then, it may be difficult to detect
all possible violations; so another aspect of class collaboration is
that the class will scrutinize the best HW reports for any possible
violations). It would take a few "generations" of the same course
to bring the course material to a reasonable quality before making
it into formal wikiversity articles.
[[User:Eml4500.f08|Eml4500.f08]] ([[User talk:Eml4500.f08|talk]]) 06:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed what my student wrote above at ([[User:IntaminAG|IntaminAG]] ([[User talk:IntaminAG|talk]]) 23:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)), and want to make a clarification: While students were not allowed to use the "class" accounts to edit wikipedia articles, for the reason that [[User:IntaminAG|IntaminAG]] mentioned, they can edit any wikipedia articles they like, provided that they use their own personal wikipedia accounts, i.e., accounts that do not begin with eas4200c and eml4500. In fact, students should not use these "class" accounts to edit wikipedia articles at all, even after the semester is over, since the idea is for future students to use the same system and avoid vandals following the links to the course material. I will make a note to mention to the two classes about this point, even in wikiversity. The total number of students in both classes is close to 200; some students take both classes, so the number of actual individual accounts is less. In any case, I think we can do exactly what we set out to do in wikiversity. Thanks. [[User:Eml4500.f08|Eml4500.f08]] ([[User talk:Eml4500.f08|talk]]) 14:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

=== Response from Wikiversity ===

Someone asked Wikiversity to respond to this thread. In short, '''welcome'''. Experimental uses of Mediawiki, especially in the context of real world educational courses, are very welcome over at Wikiversity. If there are any issues about what can and cannot be done, I'll be happy to coordinate with the course facilitator and assist/advise as things go along. --[[User:McCormack|McCormack]] ([[User talk:McCormack|talk]]) 09:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:Thank you much. [[User:Eas4200c.f08|Eas4200c.f08]] ([[User talk:Eas4200c.f08|talk]]) 10:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:: So. The teacher is planning to move things over to Wikiversity and Wikiversity is welcoming them. Is there anything more to be done with this? Any cleanup here on WP? Or can this one be marked as Resolved? - [[User:TexasAndroid|TexasAndroid]] ([[User talk:TexasAndroid|talk]]) 14:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::[[v:Wikiversity:Colloquium#Wikipedia discussion|Discussion at Wikiversity]]. --[[User:JWSurf|JWSurf]] ([[User talk:JWSurf|talk]]) 15:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== Why was my edit to an article removed? ==

{{resolved|1=Just a hum-drum BLP violation, no reason to get excited... [[User:EVula|EVula]] // [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|☯]] // 15:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)}}

I just edited an article about Dave Gilbert (footballer) to state NEWS that he had recently been arreseted & charged with two counts of assault. This is the truth.. so why was it removed. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.8.38.134|86.8.38.134]] ([[User talk:86.8.38.134|talk]]) 23:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC) 
:Per our [[WP:BLP|policy on biographies of living people]], all unsourced, contentious material is to be removed. Since your edit was not accompanied by a reference to a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], it was removed. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 23:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah cause a reliable source isnt the person who he assaulted, you idiot. :/ —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.8.38.134|86.8.38.134]] ([[User talk:86.8.38.134|talk]]) 23:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC) 
:Please avoid [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] when replying to editors. A [[WP:RS|reliable source]] is something like the BBC, a quality newspaper, CNN or similar source. If you can find one, the information can be re-added (in a neutrally worded fashion) and a link to the source appended to the end of the section (the easiest way is to place the URL of the source between square brackets). Personal testimony from the alleged victim is [[WP:OR|original research]] and can't be used. [[User:Exxolon|Exxolon]] ([[User talk:Exxolon|talk]]) 23:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

:Nope, you aren't a reliable source. Certainly not in a contentious BLP. Calling me an idiot won't change Wikipedia policy. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 00:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::I agree with Resolute. Unreliable/no sources must be dealt with, so there's no reason for this case to be given any "special" treatment. Also, I have doubts regarding edits such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Gilbert_(footballer)&diff=next&oldid=235695435 these]. If you think you can get away with silly edits like that, ''think again''. [[User:Troy 07|~ Troy]] ([[User talk:Troy 07|talk]]) 00:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I have had a bit of a news trawl (I sometimes have access to extra resources of this sort), and I can't find any sources at all for this claim. [[User:Brilliantine|Brilliantine]] ([[User talk:Brilliantine|talk]]) 22:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode_32|Great conversation]] about content / copy editing, and how to help craft fantastic articles..... ==

There's some great advice, insight, and information in this podcast recorded by some of wiki's finest! - If you feel you're one of those admin.s who has been drawn away from contributing content, or has become a bit distanced from the 2 million (and some!) reasons wikipedia actually exists, I think this should be required listening! I feel smarter already, and I've only heard it once. :-) [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 01:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
* Some of Wikipedia's finest? I don't really think so. That would be people like Giano and Geogre. Interview them and I will listen. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 08:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:* I've been told that the above is less than helpful. Here, then, is the message I was trying to convey: please do be a good chap and not use the admin noticeboard to spam things not requiring administrator attention, and while you're about it the use of hyperbole is not really appropriate here as there are many very well written guidelines and essays on the subject of writing great articles which have much wider input and from editors with much more glorious editing histories than the few you chose; beware of [[Wikipedia:Recentism]]. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 18:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::Guy, didn't you once use this noticeboard to start a section regarding the Scots Wikipedia, merely because you found it amusing? Yes, you did. Not only was it an entirely frivolous post in need of no admin attention, it was also found to be "borderline offensive" by at least one user. [[Special:Contributions/86.44.23.226|86.44.23.226]] ([[User talk:86.44.23.226|talk]]) 23:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::: See [[WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS]]. Point is, this gets spammed every episode. But I believe that PM's friends are now counseling him on this, so I apologise to everyone for being snarky about it. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 08:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::For the record, I grumbled a bit at [[User:Lar|Lar]] privately, and he mentioned to me that [[WP:AN/I|AN/I]] isn't a good fit for notes like this, and I've no problem not posting such things there.. Guy's grumpy and not-so-accurate comments notwithstanding, folk should feel free to drop me a note if they feel posts like the above are distracting or annoying - I guess I'll just have to see Guy next tuesday... [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 10:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)now go listen folks! - I'm neither on this podcast, nor was I involved in making it, and I can honestly say it's much better than most of my driveling efforts :-)
(outdent) Although this falls slightly outside my purview as comentor, the general idea of Privatemusings taking an interest in content should be pleasant news to the admin community. I agree that the community portal would be a better place to take this because it would reach a wider audience. [[User:Durova|Durova]]''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]'' 10:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== Notes on WP:SOCK ==

''(Copied from the village pump)''

I am a bit afraid of the way the sockpuppet and multiple accounts policy might turn out. I see many users being blocked, not because they are using those alternate accounts to canvass, vote or vandalize, but because they just have multiple accounts. Take for example, there's a user, who wanted to change her username. She is a novice at Wikipedia and doesn't know about [[WP:CHU]], so she chooses to create a new account in ignorance. Satisfied with her new username, she wakes up the next day to find herself blocked. Rather then a complete block, a notice on her talk-page about ''just why did she create the new account'' will be more appropriate. Thus, further action will be taken after the rationale is found. (e.g. blocking, or advice)

Not only does this apply to the situation I described, but it applies to every situation where the user has multiple accounts. ''Should those multiple accounts be blatantly used for cavassing, voting or vandalizing or any disruptive behavior'', then no further questioning will be needed. However, should the user have multiple accounts for non-controversial and non-disruptive purposes, then those accounts should not be blocked. (e.g. accounts made for use in public areas and accounts made because of ignorant mistakes, such as the one I described above.) ''' [[User:Marlith|Marlith]][[User talk:Marlith| (Talk)]] ''' 04:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::such accounts if used over the same period should be declared, & I would would favor the rules to say so. Obviously we shouldnt block unless someone refuses to close them after advice to do so, or unless its clearly abusive. The best way of preventing abuse is to require declaration, except for right to vanish. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 09:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:::I think it should only matter if the accounts are being used in the same area of discussion, and not matter if they're being used in the same timeframe. I pretty much agree with what Marlith says here, and share his concern. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 06:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::We can add such a notice (about WP:CHU) to the create-an-account page. '''[[User:Firefoxman|ff]][[User talk:Firefoxman|m]]''' 20:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== Summer's over ==

Starting tomorrow, the U.S. public school year starts again. Within the next two weeks vandalism will go up. Just reminding everyone to be vigilant. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 04:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:In some jurisdictions, it's started already -- but you are correct, directly after [[Labor Day (US)]] is the traditional start of school. Such is the case here in NYC. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald ''"unreachable by rational discourse"''''']]'''([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]])''' 05:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
: For some of us, it [[Eternal September|never ended]] some time back :) - [[User:Alison|'''Alison''']] [[User talk:Alison|❤]] 05:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::Gee, I've been online since '85, and I've never heard that expression. Thanks! [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald ''"unreachable by rational discourse"''''']]'''([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]])''' 08:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
* Summer? What summer? The weather in .uk has been atrocious all year, and today was worse than ever. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 08:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:Here in NYC, it's already starting to feel a bit fallish, several weeks earlier than usual, and I've heard that the trees upstate are already starting to turn. Still, I had a very pleasant day at the beach today. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald ''"unreachable by rational discourse"''''']]'''([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]])''' 08:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::In the USA, some public schoools start in August, but they have ALL, AFAIK, start no later than the day after Labor Day. — [[User:Rlevse|'''''R''levse''']] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|Talk]] • 10:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Sometimes, for some reason, it'll be two days after Labor Day, not sure why. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald ''"unreachable by rational discourse"''''']]'''([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]])''' 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:::California used to not start the school year till the day after Admission Day, which is September 9, but it's been changed so that most schools start in August now. [[User:Corvus cornix|Corvus cornix]]''[[User talk:Corvus cornix|talk]]'' 02:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== [[Sarah Palin]] ==

Hi, all - I've spent a lot of time over the weekend on the above article. As I'm sure everyone knows, it's probably our highest-traffic article right now. Serious issues keep popping up there - everything from really bad BLP violations, to POV-pushers from both political sides, and lots and lots of good-faith people who don't have a good grasp of neutrality or sourcing or the Manual of Style. There aren't many uninvolved or neutral people helping right now, though there are a few - Jossi is one standout. Rootology was really helpful but I think gave up.

I really need to take a break from working there; I think I started out pretty neutral but I may be losing my objectivity, as some of the poison I've seen going into that article has given me a lot of sympathy for the Palin family, especially the children. Also, I've been getting a lot of accusations that I work for the McCain campaign, so maybe someone should check back over the work I've done. :) I would be very grateful if some neutral people would make an attempt to keep an eye on things on that and related articles, like [[Political positions of Sarah Palin]] and [[Todd Palin]]. It can be hard to keep up with due to the editing volume. Thanks, all. [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 06:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::I agree that we need someone with a neutral point of view watching over this article as those who have currently claimed ownership (not going to name names) have taken us down a slippery slope of partisanship.[[User:Zredsox|zredsox]] ([[User talk:Zredsox|talk]]) 01:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Kelly might be Republican. I'm a Democrat, and I'll be voting for the Obama ticket. This is a bi-partisan effort. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' 02:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Possibly tri-partisan - I'm libertarian. [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 02:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Are you sure that's not ''Palin''tarian? [[User:Zredsox|zredsox]] ([[User talk:Zredsox|talk]]) 02:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:<sigh>Just as an example, the beginning of [[Political positions of Sarah Palin]] is now once again pushing that she is a secessionist. This is a meme circulating in certain blogs. I'm too tired to deal with this anymore. There are many other of these issues that keep coming up over and over again and there aren't enough people helping. [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 06:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:The secessionist claims are now once again back in the main article, along with vague insinuations of some kind of prenatal wrongdoing for traveling before the birth of her youngest child, another blog meme. All this stuff has been exhaustively discussed on the talk page (which is now accumulating some kind of libel about her daughter's fiance being underage, another blog meme) but the previous discussions are disregarded and attempts to enforce policy are simply reverted. We're going to get a big black eye over these articles. [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 07:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

=== Palin Barnstars ===
Kelly, you and several other admins and senior editors deserve a special barnstar for having tirelessly shepherded the article through the mass waves of partisan POV pushing and rampant rumormongering that have assailed it all weekend.

THANK YOU. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 08:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::I agree. Two more barnstars for Kelly. I think the article is shaping up and the locking is an excellent idea. Many thanks for your calm, neutral sanity in a blizzard of vicious insanity. [[User:Freedom Fan|Freedom Fan]] ([[User talk:Freedom Fan|talk]]) 17:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

===Alaska Seccession edits===
Can we please get someone to step in on the repeated insertion that Palin supports the succession of Alaska from the United States and is a member of this party? We have one user repeatedly inserting this fringe belief. [[User:Kyaa the Catlord|Kyaa the Catlord]] ([[User talk:Kyaa the Catlord|talk]]) 09:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

* Hey, [[Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions|Sighted versions]], or some of the other associated proposals, would be real useful in a case like this.Just some random canvassing.--[[User:Bsnowball|Bsnowball]] ([[User_talk:Bsnowball|talk]]) 12:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::This is not the place to bring up a content worry, even more so when it looks like she has indeed belonged to at least one Alaskan ''secession'' group (which is hardly a [[WP:fringe|fringe]] "belief"), maybe two, reliable sources on this are likely to pop up sooner rather than later. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 12:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::: /me ponders who is next in succession to the throne of Alaska. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 18:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::: I would hope that people are checking out information before deciding its either true or a fringe belief. Part of the problem is that in the United States there are government admissions of manipulating the media for propaganda purposes.

::: For one example the accustions that the White House lied the United States into the war in Iraq with false claims of WMD's. This involved having pentagon spokespeople appear regularly on Fox News and other cable media to present government spin as news. It continued with Scooter Libby and the Plame affair and the use of guest commentators from think tanks. These are now counts of an indictment for impeachment presently in front of the judiciary committee.

::: For other examples we have the government and industry attempts to muddy the waters regarding Global Warming and peak Oil. In this sense Wikipedia is part of the media

::: As it happens there is a video of Sarah Palin addressing the [http://www.wikio.com/video/410439 American Independence Party] in which acting as governor of Alaska she officially addresses their convention, mentions that she considers them an important political influence, says she shares the parties vision of the constitution and otherwise which makes it clear she is more attracted to fringe groups than merely being a supporter of Pat Buchannan indicates... 18:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This stuff has gotten pretty well sourced, now. It doesn't rise to the level of BLP violation at all, and seeing as the AIP is Alaska's third largest party behind Republicans and Democrats in that order (about 2%, 2.5% of the population) it's not fringe locally there. Everywhere else, maybe, but relative to her bio, early history, and Alaska, it's totally notable. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 18:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:Da I don't know how things work in the US but in europe politicians frequenty have ah less mainstream political views in their youth.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 18:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::This wouldn't be her youth, if true. It would be when she was in her mid-late 30s and already in public service. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 18:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

*Update: User I originally complained about was blocked by Moreschi for 48 hours. This users disruption could have been resolved HOURS beforehand had anyone bothered to try. [[User:Kyaa the Catlord|Kyaa the Catlord]] ([[User talk:Kyaa the Catlord|talk]]) 08:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Truth be told, when you spelled it ''succession'', called it a "fringe belief" and gave neither any diffs nor a username I took it as a content dispute. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 08:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I typoed the second time, but didn't typo the level 3 header. *shrug* As Kelly requested, more eyes would have been helpful but it does not seem to be a high priority, ya'll would rather point and laugh at my spelling error. [[User:Kyaa the Catlord|Kyaa the Catlord]] ([[User talk:Kyaa the Catlord|talk]]) 09:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I didn't laugh. Please do provide a username and some diffs next time, you'll see a much quicker response (all the more on an article like [[Sarah Palin]] where changes sometimes blaze by at a few dozen each hour, making things much harder to dig through). [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 09:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

===[[Bristol Palin]]===

Anyone else think that the redirect from Bristol Palin ought to be pre-emptively protected? [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] ([[User talk:Dragons flight|talk]]) 12:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::Done. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 12:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

===Sarah Palin volume===
There are a few new users/SPAs here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&action=history] that are starting to get into edit war territory. Could a couple more people watchlist this? [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, this fellow's blown past 3rr despite a warning from me and shows no letting up.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=GreekParadise&namespace=0&year=&month=-1] [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 20:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:48 hours for him. Thanks, Root. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) 20:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::Ah damn. I tried to block him myself, Moreschi. Lightning fingers McGee I'll call you from now on....[[User:Keeper76|Keeper]] {{IPA|ǀ}} [[User talk:Keeper76|76]] 20:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

===Politics + Religion + Drama = Fail===
For those of us watching the Palin article, you'll want to keep an eye on [[Wasilla Assembly of God]] as well. I've stubbified the article from a lengthy list of controversial positions of its pastor ([[Ed Kalnins]], whose article is currently at AfD), but - given the attention that Gov. Palin's speech on the Iraq War is receiving, it's probably prudent to watch this article as well. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Claims]] ~ [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Evidence]] 12:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

===[[Bristol Palin Controversy]]===
This article was created yesterday, then later redirected to the [[Sarah Palin]] article. I've gone ahead and protected the redirect per BLP concerns, just as we've done with [[Bristol Palin]]. - [[User:AuburnPilot|auburnpilot]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|talk]] 14:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

===Pages worth watching===
It's worth periodically skimming the list of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Sarah_Palin&hidetrans=1&limit=1500 1000+ pages] linked to our [[Sarah Palin]] article, in particular checking the list of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Sarah_Palin&limit=500&namespace=0&hidetrans=1 several hundred] in our article space for new POV forks.

Here are some pages on that list that were of particular concern:
*[[Alaska Gas Pipeline]]
*[[Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal]]
*[[Andrew Halcro]]
*[[Andrew Sullivan]]
*[[Alaskan Independence Party]]
*[[Baby-gate]]
*[[Babygate]]
*[[Bristol (disambiguation)]]
*[[Bristol Palin]] (redirect page)
*[[Bristol Palin Controversy]] (redirect page)
*[[Bristol palin]] (redirect page)
*[[Campbell Brown]]
*[[:Category:Sarah Palin]]
*[[Constitution Party (United States)]]
*[[David Brickner]]
*[[Ed Kalnins]] -- currently [[WP:PROD|proposed for deletion]]
*[[Electoral history of Sarah Palin]]
*[[Feminists for Life]]
*[[Gov. Sarah Palin]] (redirect page)
*[[Governor of Alaska]]
*[[Gravina Island]]
*[[Gravina Island Bridge]]
*[[Knik Arm Bridge]]
*[[Larry Kroon]]
**[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Kroon]]
*[[Levi Johnston]] (redirect page)
*[[List of Assemblies of God people]]
*[[List of female United States presidential and vice-presidential candidates]]
*[[List of Governors of Alaska]]
*[[Lyda Green]]
*[[Mat-Su Regional Medical Center]]
*[[Miss Alaska]]
*[[Palin]]
*[[Piper Palin]] (redirect page)
*[[Political positions of Sarah Palin]]
*[[Republican Party (United States) vice presidential candidates, 2008]]
*[[Sara Palin]] (redirect page)
*[[Sara Pallin]] (redirect page)
*[[Sara palin]] (redirect page)
*[[Sara pallin]] (redirect page)
*[[Sarah Barracuda]] (redirect page)
*[[Sarah H. Palin]] (redirect page)
*[[Sarah Heath]] (redirect page)
*[[Sarah Heath Palin]] (redirect page)
*[[Sarah Louise Heath Palin]] (redirect page)
*[[Sarah Pallin]] (redirect page)
*[[Sarah Plain]] (redirect page)
*[[Sarah palin]] (redirect page)
*[[Track Palin]] (redirect page)
*[[TransCanada Corp.]]
*[[Trig]] (disambiguation page)
*[[Trig Palin]] (redirect page)
*[[Troopergate]] (disambiguation page)
*[[Wasilla]] (redirect page)
*[[Wasilla Assembly of God]] -- currently [[WP:PROD|proposed for deletion]]
*[[Wasilla Bible Church]]
*[[Wasilla High School]]
*[[Wasilla, Alaska]]
*[[Willow Palin]] (redirect page)
--[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] ([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]]) 21:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Add [[Milton Kapner]] to the mix as well. I also suggest that the activities of {{user|EricDiesel}} and {{user|Elan26}} be watched since both appear to be [[WP:COATRACK]]ing. --'''[[User:TheFarix|Farix]]''' ([[User talk:TheFarix|Talk]]) 22:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:Can anyone make any sense of this?[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMBisanz&diff=236130295&oldid=236128935] Best I can make of it is that {{user|EricDiesel}} is complaining about the application of [[WP:NOTE]] on the [[Wasilla Bible Church]] and [[Wasilla Assembly of God]] related articles and arguing that notability is inherited. --'''[[User:TheFarix|Farix]]''' ([[User talk:TheFarix|Talk]]) 23:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

[[Kingdom Now theology]]: several attempts to add Palin based on -- what else? -- a Kos diary. [[User:A.J.A.|A.J.A.]] ([[User talk:A.J.A.|talk]]) 19:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Marius Fekete ==

[[Marius Fekete]] is pure nonsense. First of all, I'm inclined to think the person doesn't even exist. Second, after translating the Romanian profanity in it, you get that his parents are named "Dick" and "Pussy" Fekete, that he was born in the small town of "Blowjob", and that his grandfather's name is "Sticky Ass". Furthermore, the second section provides information on how he had sexual relations with Romania's current prime minister (which I'm sure would have been a big news item here in Romania if it had really happened, or at least rumors of it). Google doesn't really turn up anything on this purported "Secretary of Foreign Affairs to the Prime Minister" (a position I'm not sure exists). The article seems like one big hoax. [[User:Rimush|Rimush]] ([[User talk:Rimush|talk]]) 09:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:Perhaps you should [[WP:DPR|nominate it for deletion]]. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 10:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::Speedied <s>G</s>A7. I will provide a copy to any editor wishing to provide [[WP:RS]], but my research tells me this should go. --[[User:Rodhullandemu|Rodhull]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|andemu]] 10:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::That's actually a rather clever piece of vandalism, if I may say so myself. To your average US Wikipedia user, it would look legit. [[User:Jtrainor|Jtrainor]] ([[User talk:Jtrainor|talk]]) 17:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== Clarified restrictions for Betacommand ==

{{discussion top}}'''Restrctions now in effect.''' '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|Ryan Postlethwaite]]See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]''' 22:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

[[User:CBM|CBM]], [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|Ryan Postlethwaite]] and I, as part of an ad hoc committee, proposed the following clarifications to the restrictions on {{user|Betacommand}}. As seen in [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents/I have blocked Betacommand#Ad hoc committee proposal|this discussion]], the proposal has been endorsed. The updated restrictions are:

:* Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on [[WP:VPR]] and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request ''before'' he may begin.

:* Betacommand must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.

:* Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.

:* Betacommand is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an ''uninvolved'' administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard ''prior'' to blocking. Blocks should be logged [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Log of blocks.2C bans.2C and restrictions|here]].

Regards, [[User:Jennavecia|Jennavecia]][[User talk:Jennavecia| (Talk)]] 17:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

* Before there's any dissent or opposition, Beta ''himself'' said he had no problem with these binding restrictions to Jenna in IRC. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 17:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
** Without commenting on the specific terms here, I think he should make that commitment on-wiki. [[User:Rx StrangeLove|RxS]] ([[User talk:Rx StrangeLove|talk]]) 17:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
*These look like excellent, well-worked proposals. The original restrictions were vague because they were intended to be, because I didn't expect everyone to suddenly adopt my wording! Point 2 is the crucial one, of course. [[User:Sam Korn|Sam Korn]] [[User talk:Sam Korn|(smoddy)]] 17:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:The first bullet may be naive and overly restrictive. Little goes through on VPR without some objections and the group rarely arrives at a well defined consensus on anything. (sideitem:)*Even currently approved tasks on other bots frequently come under heavy and unproductive criticism from a select minority (somehow silently absent when the task was approved)*. Without assigning blame to anyone, proposal by Beta would likely degenerate into a threaded unproductive shouting match. I propose changing the item to 'notifying at WP:AN/B; A consensus of posters there would decide if the task should go forward, procede to VPR, be revised/clarified/defined to a smaller subset, be tested, be canceled, or is WP:SNOW' --[[Special:Contributions/167.181.12.95|167.181.12.95]] ([[User talk:167.181.12.95|talk]]) 17:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::The Betacommand <s>complaint</s> notice board is more productive and less likely to become a shouting match than the Village Pump? I don't believe that. [[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']] 17:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::All notice boards should be exclusively used as notice boards. If they are being used as complaint boards by the community at large they should be shutdown and retooled. If a user specific notice board is being used as an attack board it should be blanked and protected; then an oversight investigation should be conducted. --[[Special:Contributions/167.181.12.95|167.181.12.95]] ([[User talk:167.181.12.95|talk]]) 18:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:The Second bullet should be dependent on the first. Should he gain approval for a task, he should conduct a test, review the results carefully, amend the results to the request and if no issues are found, he should precede to running the remainder of the approved subset. If he's given approval to run a task he does not need to carefully check every single edit on that task as it would be impractical. He should however review any reported issues, stop the task, correct the edit and the logic that caused it, all while interacting civilly. --[[Special:Contributions/167.181.12.95|167.181.12.95]] ([[User talk:167.181.12.95|talk]]) 18:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

* Lets see what people that are logged in on their accounts have to say. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 18:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::(ec)Could I suggest that this is likely to become a lengthy thread, and that everyone interested in Beta and his behavior is already going to follow the See Also link, so could someone move this announcement to [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand]] preemptively? '''[[User:MBisanz|MBisanz]]''' [[User talk:MBisanz|talk]] 18:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::* It was actually moved here to announce that there was consensus already and that Beta had agreed to the terms without a problem. Until the IP derailed it... [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 18:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Pesky 'anyone can edit' clause. Sorry to intrude on your 'private consensus' with my 'may be' suggestion. --[[Special:Contributions/167.181.12.95|167.181.12.95]] ([[User talk:167.181.12.95|talk]]) 19:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I agree all the way with the first two. I'd suggest rewording the third for clarity; how about ''Beta may make no more than 40 edits in any rolling 10-minute period''? I believe it achieves the same effect and removes the material about averages and single-minutes etc. The fourth point I make no comment on, as nothing will come of it... ╟─[[User:TreasuryTag|Treasury]]§[[User talk:TreasuryTag|Tag]]►[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|contribs]]─╢ 18:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:To help clarify an issue from the previous events (and thus prevent issues in future), do these restrict the use of semi-automated tools, such as Twinkle or the like? Yes, restricting edits to average 4 a minute will help make his edits not look like automated ones, but this doesn't mean he cannot use such tools if they are effective, and all the other points stated seem to suggest that such tools aren't a problem as long as they fall into the outlined steps. --[[User:Masem|MASEM]] 18:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::Probably just fine to leave as it is. If someone were a good enough programmer they could edit their hearts out and we'd never know. This is just a safety check as I read it. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 18:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

*TreasuryTag, that seems reasonable to me, if others agree it should be changed.
*These restrictions allow for the use of semi-automated tools, such as TW and AWB, however, Betacommand must check every edit to ensure it is not creating one problem while fixing another, for example. The restriction on edits per minute is to ensure he's taking the necessary time to check the edits. I also spoke with him in IRC, letting him know not to game the wording (i.e. making 40 edits in one minute and resting for nine); he agreed not to do so. He understands that the "in a 10 minute period of time" is simply some padding in case he should accidentally make 5 edits in one minute during a run where he otherwise remains in the restricted limits, for example. [[User:Jennavecia|Jennavecia]][[User talk:Jennavecia| (Talk)]] 18:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
*Good restrictions, well done.[[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|Talk]] 02:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
*I suppport this proposal, with the ferverent hope that it keeps betacommand, his supporters, and his detractors away from notice boards, irc, and such pages ... and focused on encyclopedic activities. --[[User:Rocksanddirt|Rocksanddirt]] ([[User talk:Rocksanddirt|talk]]) 16:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
*:Amen. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald ''"unreachable by rational discourse"''''']]'''([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]])''' 20:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
{{discussion bottom}}

== Still at it? ==

See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Blocked this discussion, above], regarding a user who was blocked for Incivility and wilful disruption, and then unblocked with a promise to behave. Several of his edits since the unblock have been problematic, as discussed above. The following series of edits are disturbing in that regard: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silvana_Franco&diff=next&oldid=235351324 August 31], adds ref to WP article. Another user leaves him a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndy_Bjornovich&diff=235564198&oldid=235560028 message on his talk page] explaining that Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources for other Wikipedia articles. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silvana_Franco&diff=next&oldid=235408090 Sep 1], restores removal of inappropriate source. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silvana_Franco&diff=next&oldid=235571276 Sep 1], restores again, with the edit summary "oh yes I can."

Now, while I ''think'' this user wants to contribute usefully, I also think that he's been given an awful lot of slack, and I'm wondering whether it may be time for another block. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 21:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:1 week block, and a suggestion they re-examine the way in which they are interacting with other contributors. As usual, I am not so wedded to my actions to need notifying that they may be overturned - but I would hope any unblocking admin ensures they understand that a resumption of the previous mannerisms will not be tolerated. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 22:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So the record's complete, we have two edits from this morning [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rh%C3%ADannon_Thomas&diff=235759808&oldid=235759663] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rh%C3%ADannon_Thomas&diff=235759933&oldid=235759808] illustrating a similar attitude. Specifically, after being asked not to, he's re-adding links to myspace and imdb that's the same ''name'' as the article's subject but different ''people'', and to a mirror page. [[User:Justinfr|justinfr]] ([[User talk:justinfr|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Justinfr|contribs]]) 22:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:Sometimes I think he is trying to contribute usefully and is simply incompetent; at other times I think he's being intentionally disruptive. His behavior at [[Rhíannon Thomas]] has been exceedingly bizarre from first to last—especially when he started readding the MySpace link after admitting in the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhíannon Thomas|AfD]] that he was mistaken in identifying the article's subject with two other women. And it's hard to know what to think about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gray_(horse)&diff=prev&oldid=235411365 this edit] (note the article's topic). [[User:Deor|Deor]] ([[User talk:Deor|talk]]) 04:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::Oh, and does anyone other than me find his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mr._IP&diff=prev&oldid=232873526 very first edit] (after some messing about in his user space) kind of suspicious? [[User:Deor|Deor]] ([[User talk:Deor|talk]]) 04:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

::Note his unblock request reason: "The reason I find it difficult to be civil is because of the fact I have aspergers. I recommend you read the article on it." This screams troll. As an aside, on his talk page he claims to occasionally use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/212.159.64.14 this ip], but he has only used it once, and not since the block. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find he's got a bunch of socks either. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 16:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

: Aspergers my Irish Ass!! Aspergers Syndrome is a high functioning form of Autism where the person who has it cannot understand word play, speak in literal terms only and usually are not capable of lying.
I'm thinking '''troll''' here.
[[User:KoshVorlon|'''KoshVorlon''']][[User talk:KoshVorlon|''' > rm -r WP:F.U.R ''']] 11:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Request to unblock another editor ==

''The following discussion has been moved from [[Wikipedia talk:Appealing a block]] - I would welcome any other admin's view on this''  — [[User:Tivedshambo|''' Tivedshambo ''']] ([[User Talk:Tivedshambo|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Tivedshambo|c]]) 22:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[[User:Jeremy Bolwell]] has been blocked by [[User:Tivedshambo]] for violation of [[WP:overlinking]]. The discussion is [[User talk:Jeremy Bolwell#Block notification|here]]. Although Jeremy Bolwell - who is a prolific editor and valued contributor to articles - has been guilty of overlinking and other stylistic transgressions in the past (a point raised by me and others on several occasions - see his talk page), he has now agreed to abide by guidelines, and punishment by a temporary block seems extremely harsh for what is, in essence, a difference over the interpretation of a stylistic guideline. Can someone please look at it with a view to overturning Tivedshambo's decision? [[User:Ghmyrtle|Ghmyrtle]] ([[User talk:Ghmyrtle|talk]]) 21:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:'''Comment:''' The decision to block Jeremy was not a decision I took lightly. I had hoped that it would not come to this, but Jeremy was warned, by another admin as well as myself [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeremy_Bolwell&diff=prev&oldid=235702475], that he would be blocked if he persisted in overlinking. This is in accordance with [[Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption]] - ''persistently violating other policies or guidelines, where there is a consensus among uninvolved users that the violation is disruptive''. Although I believe that Jeremy is acting in good faith, he persisted in making edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moss_Valley,_Wrexham&diff=prev&oldid=235873891], in which, while adding some good links, he also continued to add unneccesary links. I took the decision that another warning would not make any improvement, since he seems to think (incorrectly) I'm bullying him, so I took the decision to make a temporary block. I've also suggested that he looks at other ways he can improve Wikipedia when his block expires, rather than merely linking words, and have stated I will unblock him if he agrees to this. — [[User:Tivedshambo|''' Tivedshambo ''']] ([[User Talk:Tivedshambo|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Tivedshambo|c]]) 21:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::''"I will unblock him if he agrees to'' [do what I want]" sounds pretty close to bullying to me - or at least over-interpretation of an admin's proper role. Any cursory examination of Jeremy Bolwell's record would reveal that his contributions to articles (while sometimes misguided) have been far greater than simply adding square brackets to words. [[User:Ghmyrtle|Ghmyrtle]] ([[User talk:Ghmyrtle|talk]]) 21:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:Violation of [[WP:overlinking]]? This is taking the MoS way too far. Quote by the blocking admin prior to the block''You have already been warned about this, and if you continue to carry on, I will have to consider your actions as vandalism'' - Please read [[WP:VAND]] before making any more blocks. Not adhering to the MoS is explicitly stated in the "not vandalism" section. This is definitely excessive. [[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']] 22:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::''"I took the decision that another warning would not make any improvement, since he seems to think (incorrectly) I'm bullying him, so I took the decision to make a temporary block"'' - if you feel that a warning from you would be ignored because the editor in question feels that you are bullying him, then perhaps it would be better to leave any decision about a block to an uninvolved admin? [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 22:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::(e/c) Ok - I'll admit I shouldn't have used the word vandalism. But the block was not for vandalism, it was for violation of guidelines. I was extremely reluctant to do it, but eventually something has to be done beyond a sequence of repeated warnings. Be that as it may, if the general consensus of admins is that I was incorrect to make this block, feel free to overturn it (I'm going off-wiki for the night now), but I'd welcome suggestions of how I could have handled the situation better, whilst persuading Jeremy to conform with the MOS. — [[User:Tivedshambo|''' Tivedshambo ''']] ([[User Talk:Tivedshambo|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Tivedshambo|c]]) 22:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:::(e/c) I don't think Jeremy's edits were vandalism at all. He has many useful, constructive edits, but he does have a propensity for overlinking, apparently based on a philosophy about learning. I am a bit sad to see him blocked, but looking over his Sep 2 edits, some of them do seem to be overlinking despite his agreement to stop doing this. I count about 9 editors who've spoken with him about this via his user talk page, so the community clearly views it as disruptive. I might have blocked for a shorter period, given that it's his first block and that the guideline is somewhat open to interpretation, but it does seem a block was warranted; perhaps Jeremy should just avoid adding inline links for the time being, and perhaps Tivedshambo would consider shortening the block. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 22:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:: Just my two cents - that's not a good block. I looked at the version he created and it definetly not vandalism, it doesn't drag down the article, it's just links for pity sake. I really don't belive the block was warrented, but then again, that's just my two cents.
[[User:KoshVorlon|'''KoshVorlon''']][[User talk:KoshVorlon|''' > rm -r WP:F.U.R ''']] 14:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:::IMHO Jeremy's contribs were not vandalism, however his decision to go back and continue to overlink after agreeing to stop ''is'' [[WP:TE|tendentious]] and borders on being [[WP:DE|disruptive]]. But becuase the behaviour is borderline it might have been better to seek community consensus for sanctions rather than blocking unilaterally. A block for an MOS violation will always come up against the worthy counter-argument of WP:IAR--[[User:Cailil|'''Cailil''']] [[User_talk:Cailil|'''talk''']] 15:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== Weird hole in my experience ==

I have just discovered that, despite having been an admin for over a year, I have no idea how to do the technical part of closing a deletion discussion.

I've just given [[Caution dog]] a fairly obvious speedy deletion, but there's also [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caution dog]]. Digging around in the deletion process pages gives me a lot of advice on how to interpret the !votes made in such a discussion, but nothing about what code to put where. Some of it I could guess--I can see the templates other people are using--but I'm not sure if there's more to it than just archiving the discussion, or what.

Any advice? Also, is this process actually recorded anywhere? If so, we should link to it from more places, like [[WP:GD]] and [[WP:DGFA]]. --[[User:Masamage|Masamage]] [[User talk:Masamage|♫]] 22:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:I usually follow the process [[Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Articles_for_Deletion_page|here]], and keep a link handy in my userspace. --[[User:Rodhullandemu|Rodhull]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|andemu]] 22:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::Aha, there it is! Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks. :) --[[User:Masamage|Masamage]] [[User talk:Masamage|♫]] 22:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::For most of the more technical pages, like [[WP:3RR|3RR]], there is a small link in the upper right of the page with "Administrator Instructions." Took me a while to find it at first too :)
:::Is there an automated script for this, per chance? [[User:Seicer|seicer]] | [[User_talk:Seicer|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|contribs]] 04:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Yes. Sorry I can't be of more help. Look on [[User:Steve Crossin/monobook.js]] - I think there's something in there. --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[User_talk:mboverload|@]] 04:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::[[Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD]] (the extra tabs only show up in the edit mode) ˉˉ[[User:Anetode|'''anetode''']][[User_talk:Anetode|╦╩]] 07:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== High level / long term vandalism problem ==

{{resolved}}
There is a consitant high level of consistant vandalism on the [[Man]] article. Article was semi-portected once for 2 weeks but when semi-protection ends vandalism immediately starts again. The vanadalism is so bad on the article almost all edits to it are vandalism. As few non-users contribute to this article and 99% of those non-users who do are vandals I think an indefinate semi-protection is required such as that on the [[woman]] article. The nature of the subject of the article unfortunately gets the attention of a lot of kids/teenagers, people who just haven't grown up repeatedly vandalising the article. [[User:Usergreatpower|Usergreatpower]] ([[User talk:Usergreatpower|talk]]) 22:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:Semi-protected. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 22:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::From now on all vandalism to the [[Man]] shall be called '''Mandalism'''. It is here so decreed.--[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[User_talk:mboverload|@]] 04:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
[[Image:Cabal approved.svg|200px]] This decree has been approved by [[WP:ROUGE|the cabal]]. [[User:GlassCobra|Glass]]'''[[User talk:GlassCobra|Cobra]]''' 04:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:How do we call vandalism to [[Van]]? -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]] [[User talk:Lucasbfr|talk]] 09:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

::Van2dalism. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 09:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:::How are you admins going to handle vandalism to [[San]], considering [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sandalism this]? [[User:Iafrate|Iafrate]] ([[User talk:Iafrate|talk]]) 18:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::: You laugh at person who commits that. --'''[[User:Tone|Tone]]''' 21:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Charmed36]] - multiple concerns ==

{{resolved|Editor warned — [[User:Realist2|'''''Realist''''']][[User_talk:Realist2|'''''2''''']] 18:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)}}

I was going to warn the editor directly, but after reviewing Charmed36 talk page I realized that this editor pay's zero attention to warnings. I haven't done an extensive review of Charmed36's edits, the snappy edit summaries and talk page warning were enough to concern me. The issue that drew my attention to Charmed36 was a recent edit summary whereby Charmed36 reverted an IP with the edit summary "your just an IP". Just as concerning was the fact that the IP provided a source and Charmed36 reverted to the previous UNSOURCED version. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wind_It_Up_(Gwen_Stefani_song)&diff=235880508&oldid=235854681 this].

Charmed36's edits, use of edit summaries, elitism and general OWNERSHIP issue's should be punished. Charmed36 has control of a number of articles relating to varies singers and groups. This needs to be handled and Charmed36's recent contributions need an extensive review to find the true extent of potential damage. — [[User:Realist2|'''''Realist''''']][[User_talk:Realist2|'''''2''''']] 03:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:Wow, that isn't even an insult. That's is...pure, demeaning disrespect. If anyone ever told me that when I was starting I would never come back to Wikipedia. Wow. --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[User_talk:mboverload|@]] 04:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::Agree it is bad, first time I've seen that. Well, I'm sure an admin will read this post eventually....— [[User:Realist2|'''''Realist''''']][[User_talk:Realist2|'''''2''''']] 13:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I've placed a AGF level 3 warning template on their talkpage. If this is disregarded like everything else on that page I would consider a 2 day long block sufficient to get their attention. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 15:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm gonna keep a close eye on it for a few weeks, see what occurs. I'm shocked that Charmed36 hasn't been blocked since 2006. Charmed has been unduly lucky. — [[User:Realist2|'''''Realist''''']][[User_talk:Realist2|'''''2''''']] 15:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Libro0]] ==

[[User:Libro0]] has been constantly attacking me, telling lies, making sockpuppet allegations and deliberate attempts to drive me off of Wikipedia. He will not stop and needs to be dealt with. He has engaged in vandalism of several baseball card images, which I had to fix. He does not listen to others. He gives ultimatums and threats. He is a major problem. He needs to be dealt with now. [[User:Baseball Card Guy|Baseball Card Guy]] ([[User talk:Baseball Card Guy|talk]]) 05:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:A quick scan shows that you guys are clashing over some baseball card images, correct? Please provide some DIFFs for what you're talking aboout, right now this seems retaliatory over him telling you he would report you to [[WP:LTA]]. [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 05:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:You want DIFFs showing Libro0's bad behavior? Here are ''some'' of them. Think of it as a sampler.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baseball_Card_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=235967862]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1960s_Topps&diff=next&oldid=223092640]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1960s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=223186851]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1960s_Topps&diff=next&oldid=223335639]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1960s_Topps&diff=next&oldid=223351324]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1960s_Topps&diff=next&oldid=224408931]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1960s_Topps&diff=next&oldid=235123952]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=227256530]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=prev&oldid=225850359]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=226670427]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=228848401]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=229227529]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=230308118]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=230314708]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=230518845]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=230671318]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=231088982]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=231093595]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=233814026]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=233843266]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baseball_Card_Guy&diff=next&oldid=235635635]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Baseball_Card_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=226781021]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=227256530]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baseball_Card_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=210013326]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Baseball_Card_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=228663062]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Baseball_Card_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=228840778]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Enigmaman&diff=prev&oldid=231514380]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Baseball_Card_Guy_(2nd)&diff=prev&oldid=232042132]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Baseball_Card_Guy_(2nd)&diff=next&oldid=232044130]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Baseball_Card_Guy_(2nd)&diff=next&oldid=232114734]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=228867209]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Enigmaman&diff=prev&oldid=232043353]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&diff=prev&oldid=229261389]

:Of course there is more of Libro0's lies, disruptive behavior and other assorted nonsense. Finding it all would take a great deal of time. [[User:Baseball Card Guy|Baseball Card Guy]] ([[User talk:Baseball Card Guy|talk]]) 06:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Card Guys disruptive edits include but are not limited to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1970s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=209998624 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1960s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=209999425 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1970s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=209999500 3], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1980_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=209999582 4], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1981_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=209999650 5], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1982_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=209999952 6], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1992_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210004823 7], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1980_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210670607 8], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1990_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210670781 9], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1989_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210670906 10], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1988_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210670968 11], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1987_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210671025 12], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1986_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210671081 13], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1992_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210671150 14], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1991_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210671194 15], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1985_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210671251 16], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1984_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210671392 17], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1983_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210671463 18], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1982_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210671542 19], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1981_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210671582 20], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1970s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210731104 21], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1970_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210780708 22], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1971_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210780758 23], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1972_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210780805 24], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1973_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210780881 25], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1974_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210781088 26], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1975_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210781160 27], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1976_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210781266 28], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1977_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210781431 29], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1978_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210781542 30], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1979_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=210781613 31], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1960s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=222965735 32], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1960s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=223750555 33], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1982_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=223750901 34], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1983_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=224921179 35], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1982_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=224922117 36], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1960s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227112268 37], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1950s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227112422 38], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1970s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227113228 39], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1986_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227117480 40], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1987_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227118716 41], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1984_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227118891 42], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1983_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227118976 43], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1982_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227119039 44], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1981_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227119120 45], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1980_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227119202 46], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Topps_Sports_Card_Products_By_Year&diff=prev&oldid=227119291 47],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1970_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227119424 48],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1971_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227119478 49],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1972_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227119526 50],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1973_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227119717 51],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1974_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227119812 52],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1975_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227119977 53],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1976_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227120076 54],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1977_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227120176 55],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1978_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227120335 56], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1979_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=227120537 57], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=prev&oldid=232147603 58], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=prev&oldid=232148965 59], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1950s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=233737942 60], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1960s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=233738872 61], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1960s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=233800498 62], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1950s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=233800718 63], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Andy_Auld.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=233814681 64], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Auld&diff=prev&oldid=233815091 65], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=prev&oldid=233843266 66], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1960s_O-Pee-Chee&diff=prev&oldid=234067447 67], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=prev&oldid=234068021 68], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1950s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=234068094 69], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1960s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=234068228 70], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Auld&diff=prev&oldid=234069577 71], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Andy_Auld.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=234069959 72], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1960s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=235023418 73], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1950s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=235603756 74], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1960s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=235603860 75]. These are mostly unwarranted reverts, removal of verifiable info, inclusion of unverifiable info, foul language on user talk, etc. He also has a problem with discussing issues on the talk pages. Any attempt made to find resolution on content are met with pointless and argumentative comments as can be seen [[Talk:1960s Topps|here]] and [[Talk:1950s Topps|here]]. He is a convicted sock puppet as can be seen [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Baseball Card Guy (2nd)|here]]. Recently as of 03:54, 3 September 2008 to 04:12, 3 September 2008 he removed a number of "No source" tags from image pages without providing the proper information requested by the tags. [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] ([[User talk:Libro0|talk]]) 05:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I did say I would report him to [[Wikipedia:LTA|LTA]] on account he has been acting like a guard dog on the baseball card pages for quite a few months now. He has prevented me from adding any encyclopedic content yet has contributed nothing to the pages himself. [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] ([[User talk:Libro0|talk]]) 05:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:More lies. There was no sockpuppet proof and if anyone has been acting like a guard dog on the baseball card pages it is [[User:Libro0|Libro0]]. I have contributed images (which Libro0 claims are not sourced, yet a proper source is given) and organized the pages. All [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] has done is deliberately make edits to get me to revert them since he has provided strange sources.. Basically everything [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] says is a lie or is in some way to further his agenda. He is the one who is driving others away from the baseball card pages. He has a vendetta. He has an agenda. He is a problem that needs to be dealt with. He is the one that ignores other user's attempts to solve problems. He is the one who screams sockpuppet at those who disagree with him. He makes passive aggressive personal attacks. He is the one that is the instigator. He is the one wasting people's time by insisting on keeping this feud going. He needs to be stopped! [[User:Baseball Card Guy|Baseball Card Guy]] ([[User talk:Baseball Card Guy|talk]]) 06:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

[[User:Baseball Card Guy|Baseball Card Guy]] also has a tendency to blank his talk page of any warnings he has received by mediators or admins. He basically ignores any warnings given to him. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baseball_Card_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=229903201 A], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baseball_Card_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=235123574 B], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baseball_Card_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=235716589 C], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baseball_Card_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=229903243 D], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baseball_Card_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=233738124 E]. [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] ([[User talk:Libro0|talk]]) 06:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:They were all done by Libro0 and his allies. [[User:Baseball Card Guy|Baseball Card Guy]] ([[User talk:Baseball Card Guy|talk]]) 06:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:Both of you should read [[WP:TLDR]]. You've given far too many examples and absolutely no context to work with. I've clicked on 6-8 of each of your DIFFS, and I can't understand what you're trying to show the other editor is doing. My random sample just turns up discussions and reversions, with no context to explain why they violate wikipedia policies. My advice to you both, if you want to show the other editor is violating policy, give '''three''' DIFFs and explain specifically the problem with the edit. Show us very specifically what the problem is. [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 06:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will offer three particular situations that should be clear.
'''1.''' I remove the 1968 OPC CFL sets on account there is no verifiable proof that they belong on a Topps page.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1960s_Topps&diff=234911696&oldid=234911506 I]. I also changed an invalid citation about the type
of ink used and provided a valid reference for it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1960s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=234911506 II].
He then replaces the OPC CFL set without showing any source for its inclusion as well as replacing the ink statement with
the invalid citation. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1960s_Topps&diff=next&oldid=234913473 III].

'''2.''' I removed a needless Hockey section from both [[1982 Topps]] and [[1983 Topps]] since Topps did not produce Hockey cards in those years.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1982_Topps&diff=219852384&oldid=217257236 IV],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1983_Topps&diff=219852597&oldid=210671463 V]
He then replaces the sections.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1982_Topps&diff=223750901&oldid=219852384 VI],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1983_Topps&diff=next&oldid=222174435 VII]
In an attempt to accomodate him I decided to write the information in the sections instead.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1982_Topps&diff=next&oldid=223750901 VIII],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1983_Topps&diff=224216027&oldid=223750808 IX].
He again removed the information.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1982_Topps&diff=224922117&oldid=224215745 X],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1983_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=224921179 XI].
I finally decided to place the information on the talk pages instead.

'''3.''' With regard to his recent images problems: I placed some tags on images that did not properly state the source of the images or who made them, etc. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:1967_Topps_Chris_Zachary.jpg&diff=235729341&oldid=233802311 XII].
The info he has used is not valid. Nevertheless he removed the tags without supplying the info.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:1967_Topps_Chris_Zachary.jpg&diff=235962010&oldid=235729341 XIII]. There are,
of course numerous images with this problem.

These are just a sampling of the problems that I was trying to display. Another area that is troubling presents itself above with his DIFFs. I browsed though most of them and found mostly legitimate discussions that I had with him. Hardly bad behavior. [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] ([[User talk:Libro0|talk]]) 08:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
*Have you considered a [[WP:RFC|request for comments]] or other [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]]? [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 11:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC cannot be used since it requires two users to have tried to resolve a dispute. No one has been willing to offer any assistance. Yes, I have asked for assistance. Other DRs like Wikiquette alerts also went ignored as has this board. The only place that did anything was SSP, which blocked him for 24 hours. He has ignored everyone else and the discussion pages have proven pointless. [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] ([[User talk:Libro0|talk]]) 19:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

*As someone who has had problems with Libro0 after having him accuse me of being Baseball Card Guy's sockpuppet after trying to get the two of them to stop their schoolyard bickering, I have been watching these two. Their recent exchanges at [[Talk:1950s Topps]] and [[Talk:1960s Topps]] show that they both seem to have some ownership issues and the two of them can't seem to have a any sort of proper discussion. My attempts to contact both of them in the past were rebuffed in the case of Baseball Card Guy and resulted in attacks from Libro0 including two unproven sockpuppet allegations, with me keeping an eye on what he is doing to nip any further false allegations in the bud. This ultimatum/thinly veiled sockpuppet allegation [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=230314708] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=230518845] that Libro0 is a prime example of the bad faith on his part. On the other hand Baseball Card Guy is trying to bait Libro0 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baseball_Card_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=229274490] with a trap [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mercury_Theatre&diff=prev&oldid=232145424] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beulah_(series)&diff=prev&oldid=232145615] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Linn-Baker&diff=prev&oldid=232145967] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Askari_(ARL-30)&diff=prev&oldid=232146351] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Highway_401_(Ontario)&diff=prev&oldid=232150699] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_Granada_(North_America)&diff=prev&oldid=232150930] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mercury_Topaz&diff=prev&oldid=232151168] using [[Admiral Ackbar]] as the edit summary for all those.

I have held off doing any editing of the baseball card articles because of the antics of these two. I have wasted enough time energy and effort here dealing with the petty bickering between these two and have had enough of it. This is another escalation. How many others have they scared off into editing not wanting to get caught up in their little war?

The two of them will not listen to reason and I think that any attempts at a request for comments or mediation will fall on deaf ears from both parties, or at least lip service being paid to it.

Both users have made some good contributions, but that is really offset by this epic battle between the two. We would probably all be better of banning both Libro0 and Baseball Card Guy. They have wasted people's time with their bickering, allegations, playing of the system and other bad behavior. It would save everyone a great deal of time and effort just banning these two problem users! [[User:Your Radio Enemy|Your Radio Enemy]] ([[User talk:Your Radio Enemy|talk]]) 20:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:This is the reason I accused Your Radio Enemy of being a sockpuppet. I have provided evidence of Baseball Card Guy's disruptive behavior while he has provided no evidence that I am disruptive. For some reason YRE wants both of us banned. It looks suspicious. It looks to me like you are willing to lose a sock as long as I go down with it. Furthermore, how do you know that he was trying to bait me with a trap? I never even realized that was the case. I just thought he went on a crazed rampage. You seem to know precisely what his intentions were. Both of you contribute no content and are both resistant to my contributions. I explained three distinct situations above yet I have not seen you support me in any of those. Can you explain why? [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] ([[User talk:Libro0|talk]]) 21:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:: This is ridiculous. If you two can not work together leave Wikipedia. I don't care if I get in trouble for being uncivil. You two have finally pushed me to the edge and have become a huge nuisance. Your squabbling is disruptive and unproductive. You are running low on the communities Good Faith and again frankly I have none for you two. Quit, be blocked or not go near each other. Those are your options. [[User Talk:Rgoodermote|Rob]]Not an admin  23:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to provide DIFFs in context. I did so. It would be appreciated if that was acknowledged. If you have nothing constructive to add other than an emotional outburst then I suggest '''you''' leave Wikipedia. I fell off the edge long before you ever got there because it appears to me that policy and guidelines are just a bit of decor on this site. My faith in this place has diminished tremendously because people like Rob here want to take the easy way out. Just 'Quit'. Sorry Rob, but there are standards to upheld. On principle I refuse to simply just let people intimidate me. So don't come out here and pretend you are suffering and threaten to block. I am a part of this community and I am following the rules. I don't need you to tell me how ridiculous this situation is. I have had to watch the rules be ignored and watch this community ignore the rule breakers. If you are a real community then act like it. Get some focus and address the actual problems. Do not undermine the integrity of this encyclopedia or these notice boards by acting like you can just blow people off because you are annoyed. When you do this you are as much a nuisance as all the troublemakers out there. [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] ([[User talk:Libro0|talk]]) 06:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::You two have just been wasting the communities time and you have drained the community of it's Good Faith. A lot of us have tried to mediate me included. But those mediations fell on deaf ears and at times were taken out of context. You have done nothing but fight. I could go through the archives and pull up more stuff on you two than Grawp and that is saying something. You two only have 4 options on retrospect. Here are your options, Quit Wikipedia, Be Blocked for disruption and incivility (I can not block, but I bet there are a few admin out there debating), Just stay away from each other, or work together. I honestly do not want to see another report here or anywhere filed by one of you against the other. This is not what the noticeboard is about. This is for the community at whole to be informed of problems. Not for a couple of good editors to fight. We have lost a lot of good people because of issues like this. Do not become like them and choose the best option. The one that will help you two and the community at large. [[User:Rgoodermote|Rgood]][[User_Talk:Rgoodermote|erm]][[Special:contributions/Rgoodermote|ote]]  09:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

*Libro0, at first I did not support you because you were wrong. Then after your continuing false allegations, it would be impossible to support you. I tried offering an olive branch to both of you. Baseball Card Guy flat out rejected it. You on the other hand spun it off into a series of sockpuppet allegations filled passive aggressive attacks. You have done nothing but engender bad faith through your actions.

:You have intentionally engaged in actions that have egged Baseball Card Guy on and he has done the same to you in return. As for how I knew he was setting a trap for you I mentioned it above, but I take it you aren't a Star Wars fan or have no idea of the meme that is [[Admiral Ackbar]]. Basically it was said here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baseball_Card_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=229274490] and he used Admiral Ackbar as the edit summary for the edits I mention above. What is the relevance of Admiral Ackbar with regard to a trap? The character's most famous line in Return of the Jedi was "It's a trap!"

:We have progressed beyond a petty argument about baseball cards into two users who seem hellbent on fighting to the death. I spend most of my time on here now seeing if Libro0 has made another false sockpuppet allegation against me and seeing if Baseball Card Guy is out setting traps for Libro0 which will make me or someone else look like a sockpuppet. (Although thanks to this I found a couple of problems with some articles and was able to fix them, so at least some good has come out of this idiotic nonsense!) This has devolved into a Bugs Bunny vs. Daffy Duck cartoon - ''Duck Season. Rabbit Season. Duck Season.'' These two will never stop by themselves. ''Can we just ban these two and be done with this massive waste of everyone else's time?'' [[User:Your Radio Enemy|Your Radio Enemy]] ([[User talk:Your Radio Enemy|talk]]) 14:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I chose the best possible option which was to expand the base of editors for the baseball card pages. I have asked people to join in and lend their expertise. Several hundred at least. This community was lacking in knowledgeable people on this subject. [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] ([[User talk:Libro0|talk]]) 17:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:So the best possible option is to harass and falsely accuse others who contribute? That is what you did to me. You have driven me away from editing the baseball card pages with your childish behavior especially this ultimatum/thinly veiled sockpuppet allegation [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=230314708] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=230518845]. That was uncalled for. You state ''"You clearly want me to leave. I will, if you can complete one of the two following tasks in 24 hours of the posting of this message."'' Up to that point, I didn't want you to leave, I asked nicely for you ''and'' Baseball Card Guy to stop and take a time out and then you accuse me of being a sockpuppet. Neither of you listened and then you posted your ultimatum. You eventually said the following which basically accuses me of being a sockpuppet of Baseball Card Guy: ''"Given that you did not complete the tasks I suggest that you step aside and allow people who have the information to edit the page. Keep in mind that you have been warned about unwarranted reverts. Further disruption will result in a disciplinary report and any sock evidence will be posted."'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libro0&diff=next&oldid=230518845] You dragged me into this mess. Your opponent has dragged me deeper. I have had it with you two. Is it any wonder why I want '''both''' of you banned? The two of you have wasted my time, have wasted several other users time, several admins time with your back and forth wars. Libro0 keeps making these passive aggressive and somewhat pompous statements claiming that he is following guidelines and trying to work with the community, yet his behavior reveals the opposite. His opponent Baseball Card Guy seems to do the same thing, albeit on a less grander scale than Libro0. The two of them are dragging the community down. They are both instigators and are both trying to play the system to get what they want. They need to be stopped. I am sick and tired of defending myself against Libro0 and his accusations. ''The two of them need to be banned so the rest of us can stop wasting our time. It is in the best interests of everyone in the community!'' [[User:Your Radio Enemy|Your Radio Enemy]] ([[User talk:Your Radio Enemy|talk]]) 17:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why should I be banned? it is [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] who is doing all of this. I just want him to stop attacking me. I just use the same tactics [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] uses. [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] is the problem ban him. [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] says he is following policy and consensus when he is not he is a liar who just wants his way and acts like a big bully if he doesn't get what he wants. He needs to be banned. I am not some big sockpuppeter. [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] probably has been running sockpuppets to make it look like I am running sockpuppets. [[User:Libro0|Libro0]] seems to do anything and does things like a sneaky person. Ban [[User:Libro0|Libro0]]! [[User:Baseball Card Guy|Baseball Card Guy]] ([[User talk:Baseball Card Guy|talk]]) 22:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is insane. I'll block both of you if either of you whine about the other one again. We have an encyclopedia to write, and you two are getting in the way. Either take it to dispute resolution, or shut up; AN has no more it can do for you except remove you as annoyances. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 23:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

*[[User:Libro0|Libro0]] has already escalated things with this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=prev&oldid=236344465] and this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1950s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=236345054]. [[User:Baseball Card Guy|Baseball Card Guy]] ([[User talk:Baseball Card Guy|talk]]) 01:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
::That is called Dispute Resolution. Something I am very happy to see being done. [[User:Rgoodermote|Rgood]][[User_Talk:Rgoodermote|erm]][[Special:contributions/Rgoodermote|ote]]  02:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:::You know as well as I do that that is going to devolve into yet another shouting match like this wasting more people's time effort and energy. Libro0 has gone to [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]] to complain about the notice boards [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=prev&oldid=236301106], boards that that he himself has made use of several times. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=227154062] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=227256530] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=209646095] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=209727629] He seems to be playing the system wasting even more people's time complaining in his typical passive aggressive way [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=prev&oldid=236301106]. We have wasted enough time, energy and effort on these two and their petty bickering. It is time to say goodbye to both of them. Just ban them both since it is like dealing with the Israelis and Palestinians nobody is going to listen. [[User:Your Radio Enemy|Your Radio Enemy]] ([[User talk:Your Radio Enemy|talk]]) 04:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== [[Codename: Kids Next Door: the Movie (2009 film)]] ==

Is the subject of this single-editor article real or is it a hoax? --[[User:Túrelio|Túrelio]] ([[User talk:Túrelio|talk]]) 07:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:Uhh, the [[MS Paint]] quality of the movie poster title suggests that someone has an overactive imagination. And weak knowledge of which studio KND is produced by (that would be [[Warner Bros.]], not Universal). '''[[User:Mrschimpf|Nate]]''' • ''([[User_talk:Mrschimpf|chatter]])'' 07:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::Nuked from Orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Could be our least favorite vandal/hoaxer, but I think a CU would be declined for fishing. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 07:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Still need [[:Image:KND Movie 5.jpg]] taken out, which is a faked version of [[:Image:KND_Movie.jpg]]. I was unable to put a speedy tag on it because the page was never created in the database. '''[[User:Mrschimpf|Nate]]''' • ''([[User_talk:Mrschimpf|chatter]])'' 07:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Thanks. It will be nuked on Commons. --[[User:Túrelio|Túrelio]] ([[User talk:Túrelio|talk]]) 09:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::No way did that poster come from anything having to do with Universal or Warner, even as a leaked, quickly dashed off draft. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 07:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== IP adding frivolous talkpage banners ==

I've encountered an IP from the 88.105.X.X range adding a bunch of frivolous talkpage banners to a number of talkpages.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALolicon&diff=235852660&oldid=235763950][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALolicon&diff=235998051&oldid=235901106][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=235899529][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Thai_political_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=235996956][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Economic_crisis_of_2008&diff=prev&oldid=235997164][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Data_(Star_Trek)&diff=prev&oldid=236011333][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMaitreya&diff=232188010&oldid=222488039] I have reverted some of these edits, particularly on [[Talk:Lolicon]], as talkpage clutter and frivolous however the editor has restored the banners on a couple of articles. --'''[[User:TheFarix|Farix]]''' ([[User talk:TheFarix|Talk]]) 12:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:They all look at least potentially valid to me. Why not try discussing it first, instead of slapping a vandalism warning on the editor's talkpage? – [[User:Iridescent|iride]][[User_talk:Iridescent|scent]] 12:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::The [[Data (Star Trek)]] article already had a picture, and the tags over-wrote one of the project tags... The "heated debate" thing shouldn't really be added unless there's a history of heated debates (imo), but I haven't looked into that too much. The project tags could do with a banner shell. As for the economic crisis...not sure what photo could be found to represent that... –[[User:Xenocidic|'''xeno''']] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|talk]]) 12:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Ah oh, didn't realise the Data one already had a picture. (I can think of plenty of potential "economic crisis" photos – empty shelves, queues at soup kitchens/unemployment offices, hyperinflated banknotes with a string of zeroes...) – [[User:Iridescent|iride]][[User_talk:Iridescent|scent]] 13:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Well stop talking and [[commons:Main page|get searchin']] ! ;> –[[User:Xenocidic|'''xeno''']] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|talk]]) 13:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Looking... on reading that article, it's in a very dodgy and US-centric state – the highest profile casualty (at least, from where I'm sitting), [[Zoom Airlines]], was based in Canada, which isn't even ''mentioned''. (No, I don't intend adding it myself; I know nothing about Canada or airlines). – [[User:Iridescent|iride]][[User_talk:Iridescent|scent]] 13:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::bah...touche. –[[User:Xenocidic|'''xeno''']] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|talk]]) 13:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

::{{tl|talkheader}} shouldn't be randomly added to talkpages unless there is an preexisting issues that {{tl|talkheader}} address. That is part of {{tl|talkheader}} documentation. Also, one shouldn't random add {{tl|todo}} templates either unless one is going to create a todo list for the article. The same goes for {{tl|reqphoto}}, especially when the articles already have images on them, or including a image is like to result in POV pushing (ie Economic crisis of 2008) in an already bias and weaselly worded article. And the tmbox "notes" the editor leaves are entirely inappropriate and unnecessary. But the IP range needs to be watched since he or she has already ignored warnings about adding frivolous takpage banners twice. And for the record, while I did leave two of the three warnings the editor has received. Neither of my warnings were generated by a "warning template". I completely wrote them on my own. But the editor showed no interest in discussing the matter after my first warning. --'''[[User:TheFarix|Farix]]''' ([[User talk:TheFarix|Talk]]) 13:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== Long term, slow, BLP edit war on [[Mark Kimmitt]] ==

I'd previously notified [[WP:BLP/N]] of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=232953994 this issue], but didn't get much input. Two editors have been engaged in a ~1x/day revert war on this article for a couple of weeks. I tried to intervene as a 3O, but I did not seem to have any luck at coaxing the editors into modifying their ways. I have no doubt they could benefit from intervention from someone with the admin bit and a strong BLP background. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 15:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== RFC on Civility restrictions and other questions ==

I have started a RFC, available at [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Civility restriction RFC]], about the questions the community and the ArbComm has raised with regard to [[WP:Editing restrictions|civility restrictions]]. Comment is appreciated there. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 16:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== Estimating rangeblock collateral damage ==

So over at the Ref Desk we've got a fun fellow who drops by occasionally, usually to tell us the latest rumormongering to come out of Fox News (it's always on '''RIGHT NOW!''' if only we'll go and watch), and as such, I've come to think of him as the [[User:Lomn/FNG|Fox News Guy]]. For the desk itself, this isn't a big deal, but he's usually then off to add his random speculations to article space too (often interspersed with out-and-out vandalism), and that necessitates cleanup. He's acknowledged and then ignored warnings time and again, so I've concluded that, when I see him actively resume his nonsense, it's time to just block. So now the meat of the question:

He's in a couple of pretty tight IP ranges most of the time. Is there a way I can pull recent changes for a range in total to estimate what the collateral damage to helpful IP editors might be? Alternately, do I just need to be talked down from the ledge of precipitous action? — [[User talk:Lomn|Lomn]] 16:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
*I don't know, but you may want to change the [[FNG syndrome|sub-page name]] you are using. :) [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 16:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
*There is a tool [http://toolserver.org/~vvv/rangecontribs.php], but it's currently disabled for the English Wikipedia for performance reasons. However, a limited amount of collateral checking is something that [[WP:CHECK|CheckUser]] can do, so if you let me know the ranges, I can check them for you. [[User:Sam Korn|Sam Korn]] [[User talk:Sam Korn|(smoddy)]] 16:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
**[[User:Troy 07|Troy 07]] showed me this one that works via your monobook: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:X8&oldid=234682198] [[User:Caknuck|caknuck]] [[User talk:Caknuck|°]] is geared up for football season 21:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
***Or instead of importing the gadget into your monobook, you can just turn it on in preferences. [[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']] 21:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== [[WP:SSP]] backlog building up again ==

Every little bit helps. '''[[User:Enigmaman|Enigma]]''' ''[[User talk:Enigmaman|message]]'' 16:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:If you're looking for an easy one, [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Infocentral2000|the case I reported]] is nice and short ;) [[User:Justinfr|justinfr]] ([[User talk:justinfr|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Justinfr|contribs]]) 18:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== Insult ==

Hi. The [[User:Babakexorramdin]] who insists on adding non-official languages in front of the term official language [[Iran|in this article]], has started to insult me on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A#zabanha my talk page] for reverting this act with regard to what sources say.
Can anybody to something about these insults?--[[User:ماني|ماني]] ([[User talk:ماني|talk]]) 16:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)--[[User:ماني|a.k.a. [[User:Mani1]]]] ([[User talk:ماني|talk]]) 08:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:As far as insults go here, it seems fairly minor to me, however, you can always raise it at [[WP:WQA|Wikiquette Alerts]] if you wish. There seems to be no need for Admin intervention just yet. --[[User:Rodhullandemu|Rodhull]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|andemu]] 17:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::It is a clear example of personal attack. I'll surely raise it at Wikiquette Alerts. Thanks for your attention.--[[User:ماني|ماني]] ([[User talk:ماني|talk]]) 07:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)--[[User:ماني|a.k.a. [[User:Mani1]]]] ([[User talk:ماني|talk]]) 08:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::This is the text of my post on Wikiquette alert. I hope you admins here also do something about it: 
Hi. I posted this on admins board and they sent me here:
The [[User:Babakexorramdin]] who insists on adding non-official languages in front of the term official language [[Iran|in this article]], and states his reason for this as "not giving ammunition to the "separatists"" has started to insult me on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A#zabanha my talk page] just because I try to adjust the fact with regard to what sources say. He supposed that I come from Afganistan and a place called Tafresh and used those names as (in his clearly racist opinion) deragatory terms for humiliating me. And continued with "shut your big mouth" and called my corrections "vandalization". All because I asked him if he speaks Persian? In other wikipedias where I'm active such an insult surely is faced with banning for a long time. I ask you to do something about this personal attack. Not doing anything about this user has boldened him to chase me in another Wikipedias and blindly reverting my edits without any reason or discussion. This is a clear case of harrasment.--[[User:ماني|ماني]] ([[User talk:ماني|talk]]) 07:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)--[[User:ماني|a.k.a. [[User:Mani1]]]] ([[User talk:ماني|talk]]) 08:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Would this block be justified? (Rusty admin asks) ==

I am an admin, a long-time one, but inactive over the last little bit. My question: does [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dindo94&action=history this guy qualify for a block]? He's been uploading non-free images non-stop, and deleting the warnings against doing so, off his talk page. Obviously, he has too much time and no plans to stop. Block? -- [[User:Zanimum|Zanimum]] ([[User talk:Zanimum|talk]]) 17:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:Warn then block. You are correct. Be sure he knows that he has to justify why those non-free images are needed. See [[WP:FAIRUSE]] for the templates. —— '''[[user:nixeagle|nix]][[User talk:Nixeagle|eagle]]''' 17:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== schoolblock ==

{{Resolved|1=Schoolblock endorsed. –[[User:Xenocidic|'''xeno''']] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|talk]]) 19:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)}}
I've just blocked anon account [[user:66.210.75.2]], but am requesting input. The user is a persistent vandal who had received a final warning several edits before I blocked. The block history reveals that the ip has been blocked several times before, the last couple being schoolblocks, the most recent for 6 months. Based on the block history, I schoolblocked as well, for 7 months, and placed the schoolblock tag on the user talk page. I've never done a schoolblock before; is some sort of additional check needed, or is the previous block history sufficient? [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 18:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:As long as it was anon-only/account creation blocked, you're fine. For next time feel free to bump it up to 1 year if they've already served a 6 monther. You might want to pipe in a comment and add a signature, i.e. {{tlx|schoolblock|Blocked for 7 months}} <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> –[[User:Xenocidic|'''xeno''']] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|talk]]) 18:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::<s>Agree with a one year block in this case given the track record of abuse. '''[[User:Enigmaman|Enigma]]''' ''[[User talk:Enigmaman|message]]'' 18:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)</s>
:::I've updated the tag. Think I'll leave the block as it is -- 7 months is long enough that it's unlikely to be the same individual(s) using the ip next time, and it doesn't really seem worth unblocking and reblocking. to add a few more months. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 18:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Right, that's what I meant - no need to tweak this block, but for the next one, you can consider a year-long. –[[User:Xenocidic|'''xeno''']] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|talk]]) 18:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=236078432&oldid=236078127 Now you're making me look silly]. ;) '''[[User:Enigmaman|Enigma]]''' ''[[User talk:Enigmaman|message]]'' 18:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::lulz sorry about that, being all unclear and all =) –[[User:Xenocidic|'''xeno''']] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|talk]]) 19:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::Labor Day has passed and most US schools are back in session, so I expect that there will be more schoolblocks before the week is out. I’ve made two myself today. —[[User:TravisTX|Travis]][[User_talk:TravisTX|talk]] 19:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== changes to the templates for Birth/Date age ==

Recently and editor named [[User:RockMFR|RockMFR]] deleted <nowiki>[[ and ]]</nowiki> for [[Template:Death date and age]] and [[Template:Birth date]] and now dates of birth and death appear unlinked - for example ''March 27, 1482 (aged 25)'' instead of ''[[March 27]], [[1482]] (aged 25)''. He did so citing [[WP:Dates]] and although in good faith I believe these edits to be in error. WP:Dates cites among other things that linking dates should be avoided unless there is a reason and I believe that this template qualifies. I would have reverted them myself but the templates are protected and although I requested to be an admin in the past, my request was DENIED and I do not have access. I recommend someone fix these date templates. --[[User:Kumioko|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:Kumioko|talk]]) 20:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:On a similar note, on [[Template talk:Birth date and age]] I have requested that the default setting for this template use the international date format rather than American date format. I can edit it as an admin, but don't know how to code it. Can someone help? Cheers, [[User:Number 57|пﮟოьεԻ]] [[User talk:Number 57|5]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|7]] 21:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::(edit conflict) - there would be a HUGE problem of going back and fixing items already entered under these templates if this switch were made since they have been around for sometime and 1000's of entries have already been made. If you wish to have the date come before the month all you have to do is add |df=y after the month. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]] | [[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 21:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::It already is a HUGE problem that thousands of non-American articles using the birth date template now appear as using the American dating format, as a lot of people didn't bother using df=yes when the dates were linked as it autoformatted. There should not be a presumption towards using a minority dating system. [[User:Number 57|пﮟოьεԻ]] [[User talk:Number 57|5]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|7]] 06:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Check the MOS. There has been a change in wording on linking of dates. One of the articles on my watchlist had almost 300 bytes of linked dates stripped out by a well-known and conscientious editor, and I was ready to squawk until I checked the link he provided in the edit summary. '''[[User:Horologium|Horologium]]''' [[User talk:Horologium|(talk)]] 21:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:Dates are no longer being linked, per [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date autoformatting]]. - [[User:AuburnPilot|auburnpilot]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|talk]] 21:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::Though I can't remember if linking birth and death dates is an exception to this? Probably not, but if anything was an exception, this would be one of them. We do have categories for birth and death years, so linking to the years seems wrong. Possibly the birth/death year produced by the template could be linked to the birth/death year categories, so people reading the infobox can click through to the category of, say, [[:Category:1833 deaths|1833 deaths]], instead of scrolling to the bottom to do that. On the other hand, the year articles do tend to contain sections with births and deaths (eg. [[1833]]), so linking from the pages of people who were born and died that year would be a legitimate way to bring traffic to the year pages. Delinking ''all'' the year links wasn't the intention, I don't think. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 22:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I see where the changes where made to the date text however I do not see any evidence that it was done based on a majority decision. Rather it looks as though 1 individual felt it wasn't right and made the change. I believe that a change of this magnitude should be presented to the mob and then a decision reached as to whether it should go forward.--[[User:Kumioko|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:Kumioko|talk]]) 00:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Additionally, there are several bots that do date changes as well as edits built into AWB. If the intent is that we will no longer link dates then we will need to remove all this logic and undo tens of thousands of linked dates.--[[User:Kumioko|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:Kumioko|talk]]) 00:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::<s>Speaking of the death date template, can someone please change the grammatically improper "aged" to "age"? Putting "(age 79)" after a death date is short-hand for "at the age of 79", while "(aged 79)" would be short for something like "having aged 79 years".</s> [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald ''"unreachable by rational discourse"''''']]'''([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]])''' 18:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Withdrawn, I appear to be wrong about this, and "aged" is the correct usage. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald ''"unreachable by rational discourse"''''']]'''([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]])''' 01:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== Copyright question ==

A question has come up related to copyright of an article that, on closer examination, could lead to the deletion of dozens of other articles. I had already asked for feedback at [[Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#list_of_top_singles]], but given its broad-reaching implications, would like to publicize that question ''here'' in the hopes of inviting knowledgeable participation ''there''. Feedback appreciated. :) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 22:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== Please help on [[Sarah Palin]] ==

Please, please, I'm begging - will someone help with the BLP-violators, POV-pushers, and edit-warriors on [[Sarah Palin]]? I can't even keep up with BLP violators, much less research diffs in hundreds of revisions per hour to report edit-warriors. Please help! [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 23:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:Or alternatively, could we have full protection for a while to calm things down? [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 23:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::I second this. Palin's and associated articles are under full onslaught by SPA's and POV pushers. Kelly and a couple of others can't watch the articles every second, 24-hours a day. Please provide full protection for a few days. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 23:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:(e/c)Admin only, unfortunately, until next Monday (sept 8). We all need a break, per Kelly's rationale. [[User:Keeper76|Keeper]] {{IPA|ǀ}} [[User talk:Keeper76|76]] 23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks so much! I think the article is relatively complete with the actual information we have so far, any major updates can be handled through edit requests. [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 23:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::And thanks for your edit summary. I love me too! [[User:Keeper76|Keeper]] {{IPA|ǀ}} [[User talk:Keeper76|76]] 23:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:(a few e/c) I've been watching the page ever since I first saw it at [[WP:ITN]], and I agree, there have been ''many'' POV pushers and [[WP:BLP]] violators to the article, and fully support the protection. There I noticed I managed to make the last [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=236127711&oldid=236127530 edit] to the article before Keeper [[WP:PROTECT#Full_protection|fully protected]] the article. :-) Just had to fix some reference placements... -- [[User:RyRy|RyRy]] ('''''[[User talk:RyRy|talk]]''''') 23:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:I also support full protection. There are a lot of things that need discussing and refining before they can be included, and there's no reason to let the article continually fall to The Wrong Version in the meantime. [[User:Celarnor|'''Celarnor''']] [[User_talk:Celarnor|Talk to me]] 23:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::Support, and also support keeping an eye on related articles, such as [[Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal]]... if those get hit too, we may want to protect them as well. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 23:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm sure administrators will [[WP:BE BOLD|be bold]] enough to do so if disruptive editing goes too far. I may as well start keeping an eye on such related articles too. Things should probably calm down when new-year comes along, assuming that the politics drama that hit Wikipedia would be over by then. -- [[User:RyRy|RyRy]] ('''''[[User talk:RyRy|talk]]''''') 00:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::"if disruptive editing goes too far"?!? That bridge was crossed a long time ago. As has been said elsewhere, the article is the first Google result for the name of the subject and we have clear responsibilities here. But, sadly, some seem to feel keeping the encyclopedia free for all to edit is more important than stopping casual libel slip through to a worldwide audience every few minutes. It's in situations like these where it is easy to realise how a project that initially offered so much promise can also be used for all the wrong reasons. Lock it - and lock every BLP while you're at it [[User:George The Dragon|George The Dragon]] ([[User talk:George The Dragon|talk]]) 00:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I agree with the protection but could you make the huge banner a bit smaller? I find it a bit distracting on such a high profile high visibilty article. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 00:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=236128486&oldid=236128046 This snuck in post-protection]. Just for The Wrong Version procedural grounds it should be reverted by GlassCobra, I left him a note. Kelly, good luck. I'm not touching this article for at least a week, its gotten far too annoying. I left him a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GlassCobra#FYI_-_content_edits_post-protection_like_this note]. He probably just missed the protection. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 00:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:I think you should [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] in this case and not ask for this to be reverted. It takes a bit of time to prepare an edit and they happened virtually at the same time AND it also had consensus that it's a borderline BLP vio/should not be in the article. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 00:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::That absolutely is good faith, I told him it was probably a mistake and asked him to revert. The protection policy doesn't allow people to make massive edits/reversions of contested content dispute material. What as bad faith about what I wrote? Admins simply can't do that except for really trivial stuff like bjweeks tweaking a citation format or removing "obvious" BLP violations. I'm just looking out for GlassCobra so no one tries to screw or politicize him for this. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 00:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Asking him to revert. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 00:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Please don't split up the conversation any further, we can discuss it here. It's not bad faith to ask him to revert to the wrong version. That's how our protection policy simply works. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 00:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Removing the lengthy diatribe about the AIP was good, as it's prejudicial and basically trying to prove a point of some kind. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' 00:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::(ec)Actually, don't think that edit should be reverted, the content is a borderline BLP vio. That secessionist-party meme has been heavily discussed on the article talk page and there really is no consensus for its inclusion (if anything, consensus is against). Should be discussed at the article talk page. [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 00:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Hey, if theres consensus to keep it out, cool beans. I just didn't want to see the crazies running around take it out on GC, he seemed to just honestly leap in there. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 01:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::OK then we all agree that it was an honest edit that didn't circumvent policy that was written to stop ''abuse'' of protected pages and there is no reason to ask for it to be reverted. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 01:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And support full protection, but till September 8th is a bit too long. 48 hours, maybe 72 max. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 00:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Good call on protecting. POV-pushers trying to cram every scandal they can come up with into the article. A feeding frenzy like I've never seen here. There's plenty of juicy stuff still in the article, but all or most of it is mainstream info. We do need some rest here. :) [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' 00:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:In addition to it being a high-importance article on a current event with partisan overtones, I think some of the problem was editing volume. It was the fastest editing environment I've seen here, hard to sort already-discussed proposals from bold edits, and simple mistakes from vandalism. The same edits and discussion topics came again and again - assuming they were mostly good faith it must have been from inexperienced editors or those who could not easily read the entire 350K talk page or edit-a-minute history before proposing the same bad idea that someone else had proposed hours before. I tried to help but most clean-ups of BLP and NPOV violations would only stick a few hours before they were back. I hope the cooling off period works by itself but if not, it might help to figure out a plan of getting from here to there in terms of a stable unprotected editing environment. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 00:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hell yes, '''support'''. I've never seen such a riot of BLP violations, SPAs, ''un''reliable sources, and general meanspiritedness on every side. A little break is what everyone needs to calm down and reason things out together. [[User:Coemgenus|Coemgenus]] 01:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:I second the call for a reduction in this page's protection. A cooling off period is fine and necessary, especially for all the editors doing their best to keep the POV pushing out, but new information covering the entire spectrum of her biography (including the future!) is appearing by the minute. I would hope that this could go back to semi-protection within 24 to 48 hours, which is where the Obama, Biden, and McCain articles now stand. [[User:Joshdboz|Joshdboz]] ([[User talk:Joshdboz|talk]]) 01:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::I would support, but please let's wait to see if the media frenzy dies down a little first. I really need a break. :) There is no sign of many other BLP-sensitive editors (in sufficient numbers to handle this article) coming out to help with things. I know I'm not doing it all, but I'm doing a lot, and few people are helping. [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 01:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Of course Rootology and Baseball Bugs are doing fantastic work too, and a couple others. :) [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 01:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I totally have to agree with the decision to lock it down. She's going to be speaking at the RNC in like an hour. God, I don't even want to imagine the hell that would break loose if we relax the protection. [[User:Thingg|Thingg]][[User talk:Thingg|⊕]][[Special:Contributions/Thingg|⊗]] 01:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::I have an idea. We can keep the mainspace version protected and create a sandbox version of the mainspace article for continued article development. [[User:QuackGuru|QuackGuru]] 01:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::I don't think that would be a good idea - the BLP violations will just show up somewhere else then. At this point I think we just need to get the editing volume down, get people consensus-ing on the talk page, and identifying the malefactors who have have been causing problems. Right now they're getting away with it because the volume is too high to ID them. [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 01:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::We could put it in a talk subpage with a {{tl|noindex}} tag to keep it off Google. Standard procedure with protections is to create a sandbox. Quackguru (if memory serves) has experience with these sandboxes. BLP violations might occur, but they won't fight so hard because it's not the "real" article. Users would nominate the posting of specific revised versions for consensus. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] ''[[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|Luke]]'' 01:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::::The talk page already has a list of 3 or 4 controversial points, and the discussion needs to be kept there for now, rather than allowing more edit wars to foment. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' 01:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::May I respectfully remind people that [[WP:BLP]] covers talk pages as well as article space. Thanks [[User:George The Dragon|George The Dragon]] ([[User talk:George The Dragon|talk]]) 01:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::The talk page and archives of that article are lousy with BLP violations now - I don't even know where to start on cleaning them up. [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 01:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'm tempted to suggest "oversight the entire lot," or at the least delete as I genuinely believe this issue is far more serious than some "ideal". [[User:George The Dragon|George The Dragon]] ([[User talk:George The Dragon|talk]]) 01:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::I know, but there are going to be talk space BLP violations unless we lock the whole thing down as well and spend the next few days scrubbing. I thought it might be useful to create a sandbox, but Baseball Bugs is probably right. No time for edit wars. Proposed edits will have to be insular, I guess. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] ''[[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|Luke]]'' 01:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::Most of the so-called BLP violations are reasonable questions that have been raised. It's not appropriate to be censoring the talk page unless somebody blatantly makes something up that's slanderous. For example, the ''Enquirer'' story is not appropriate for the article at present, but it has to be talked about, because it's out there. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' 02:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::I agree with Baseball Bugs. I have been through most of the current talk page and it's mostly innocent questions/people who don't understand Wikipedia. Comments that are violations of BLP are being reverted on sight already. --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[User_talk:mboverload|@]] 02:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:I certainly agree with the protection here. To pick a relevant example, the level of editing activity and problematic edits was a lot higher than that at [[John Edwards]] as the latest scandal was breaking. Indeed, so much was coming so fast that even the active editors were having trouble keeping track of what disputes were still disputes and what were settled. And we protected Sen. Edwards article for a week, unprotecting less than 24 hours after a clear and sticking talk page consensus was formed. I make no predictions as to whether we'll be able to form any consensus here - but hopefully with 5 days to work with editors will at least be able to sort out how many different issues they are dealing with.

:I'd also suggest that with the article protected would be a good time to review the histories to see if there are editors that need counsel, warnings, or other attention. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 02:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The problems here are exactly the kind of thing broad and sweeping sanctions are designed to handle. I propose that an uninvoled admin, at his or her discretion, may take any actions he/she feels neccesary to remove disruptive users/POV pushers/SSPs/vandals/etc from any page related to the 2008 election, until it's over. Let's face it, this kind of crap is not going to go away, and in fact, it's going to get worse. [[User:Jtrainor|Jtrainor]] ([[User talk:Jtrainor|talk]]) 03:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even notice this until after the protection was a ''fait accompli''. I'll record for the record my view that protecting this article at this time was a huge mistake. The serious problem here is the volume, as noted by Wikidemon. Perhaps we need to split the talk page into separate subpages to deal with the barrage of topics. I'm not sure how to deal with it but I don't see how protection will help, except by discouraging some people from contributing to the article at all. They'll go do other stuff and come back when the protection ends. We'll be right back where we were except for having spent a few days with this highly visible article protected at a crucial time (global black eye for Wikipedia). [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] [[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]] [[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]] 07:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:I suggested a sandbox for article development. Improvements can continue to be made while the article is protected with a sandbox version. [[User:QuackGuru|QuackGuru]] 07:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

*I think that full-protection for a week is too long for an article of this nature. I would of fully-protected it for 24 to 48 hours, I think a week is excessive, especially for those good-faith users (including myself), who are now unable to edit the contents of the page. [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] ([[User talk:D.M.N.|talk]]) 09:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:* Use {{tl|editprotected}}, anything that has obvious consensus will be in in no time. The sheer volume of egregious policy violations on this article makes full protection amply justified. Blame the idiots, not the admins. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 11:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

=== Protection downgraded ===
Article appears to have been downgraded to semi-protection by {{user|Jossi}}. [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] ([[User talk:D.M.N.|talk]]) 12:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

: I missed that above discussion, but after reading it, I still see no need for full protection, in particular on a current event high-traffic article. Semi should do. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]] 12:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:: Well I do trust the people that watch this page when they say they are overwhelmed and are unable to maintain the quality of the article. I would have preferred if you had erred on the side of caution and undone your change, but I won't join the wheel war. I have restored the move protection though. -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]] [[User talk:Lucasbfr|talk]] 12:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::: Erring on the side of caution is actually keeping the article uprotected. There are ongoing developments on the subject of the article, and material will continue to be added as it emerges. Granted, it would be a battle to keep the hordes at bay, but we cannot simply close the gates. Editing should continue despite the challenges. If a few admins are getting overwhelmed, they should take a wikibreak. Others will step in. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]] 12:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::: Though we really shouldn't be writing articles as news reports adding items as they are reported; instead, the most significant points should be brought in after time has been allowed to digest if news reports are truly significant and finding the best sources to reference those (in light of this being a BLP). If it was only IPs with the occasional SPA, semi would seem fine, but as I see it, there's a lot of signed-in users attacking the article. I've seen articles granted full protection for less on RFPP. --[[User:Masem|MASEM]] 13:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::::: Further, many of the SPAs that registered when the story first broke will no longer be barred by semi-protection. Users are autoconfirmed after 4 days, right? I don't have much experience in this area, but it seems to me that a flood of angry trolls is about to bust loose. Full protection seems warranted for the time being. [[User:Coemgenus|Coemgenus]] 14:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::: Simple, any accounts persiting with disruptive edits, we [[WP:BLOCK]]. Let other productive editors continue editing rather than shutting down the article. This is the most trafficked article in WP right now, and we need to show the project and the community can afford people the liberty of editing. This is WP and a wiki, after all. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]] 14:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::: I take your point, and while I don't disagree completely, I find the use of [[WP:IAR]] here to be quite unseemely. Maybe occasional blocks will be sufficient, but let's decide before we act. [[User:Coemgenus|Coemgenus]] 14:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::: See the comments above. The editing volume is too high to deal with BLP-violators, edi-warriors, and POV-pushers, and there aren't any admins helping with that article! [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 14:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

=== Protection removal was against consensus and needs restoring ===
Consensus should be honored and the protection restored; lone admins have no authority > consensus. If Jossi can't restore protection, can someone else? It would not be a wheel war situation as there is full support from the majority of the regular users there. I left Jossi an extra note. Since Jossi's move was against clear consensus I don't believe we'd need to wait for his OK, especially as Palin is a BLP. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 13:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Some edit warring has already resumed from this unprotection. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 13:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is insane to downgrade this article to semi-protection. There is no way editors can keep up with volume of POV and WP:BLP violating edits.--[[User:Paul.h|Paul]] ([[User talk:Paul.h|talk]]) 13:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please re-establish protection per consensus above. [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 13:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:There has been constant POV-pushing by muckrakers, and the issues remain unresolved. Un-protecting it was inappropriate. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' 13:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. A current event page as trafficked as it is should not be protected. This is one of the times in which I will [[WP:IAR]] and unprotect again. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]] 14:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:Shameful drama-inducing escalation. There's an extraordinarily clear consensus about this above. It's not "IAR", it's called "wheel-warring against consensus". --[[User:Barneca|barneca]] ([[User talk:Barneca|talk]]) 14:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::I agree with barneca. It should be an [[WP:IAR]] case to protect this page against what might seem like common sense (protecting a high traffic article), vs the protection of the subject of the article. Based on this discussion, there appears to be a quick consensus to protect, we do not have time to have a week long discussion in this case to discuss ad-nauseum. I strongly agree with protection and strongly disagree with jossi's actions. [[User:Chrislk02|'''Chris''']][[Special:Contributions/Chrislk02|'''lk02''']] [[User talk:Chrislk02|Chris Kreider]] 14:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::It's not just protection vs. unprotection; while I disagree with unprotecting, I can understand the theory. It's the blatant disregard for consensus, and playing chicken with the tools. At least 17 people voiced an opinion above, and 13-14 were in favor of full protection for 48 hours at least, with many supporting the full week. Dismissing this as "a short discussion" isn't just hyperbole, it's just 100% wrong. If I were someone else, I'd be tempted to nominate [[WP:CONSENSUS]] at MFD, to make my [[WP:POINT|point]], but instead I'll just point out this is ''textbook'' example of [[WP:WHEEL|wheel warring (read it!)]], and were I Jimbo or the ArbCom, and Jossi doesn't revert himself, I'd desysop him; that's how seriously I take it. If we're blowing off consensus and turning this into the Wild West, then we're screwed. Please revert yourself, Jossi, until there's a consensus favoring your point of view. --[[User:Barneca|barneca]] ([[User talk:Barneca|talk]]) 14:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

=== Protection restored ===
Restored protection. I am now off my wikibreak, and this is my first action - nice. I'll take it up with any admin who thinks I'm wrong, but both consensus and rationale are correct here. I'll go talk to jossi [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 13:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Erm. Welcome back? :) '''[[User:Synergy|Syn]]'''[[User_talk:Synergy|ergy]] 13:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Almost all edits since full protection was lifted have been constructive. Way to go. [[User:Joshdboz|Joshdboz]] ([[User talk:Joshdboz|talk]]) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Jossi has removed the protection. The rationale for removal is reasonable, and although I am uncomfortable with this due to the consensus above, I won't take any further action with this. [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 14:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Please stop the insanity and restore the protection. A single admin should not be ignoring the consensus. [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 14:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:The [[Sarah Palin]] article is not unprotected - it is still semiprotected. That seems reasonable to me. That's the protection level of [[George W. Bush]], for example. — Carl ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 14:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Carl, have you seen what has been going on with that article while it was semiprotected? Have you been helping to deal with it? [[User:Kelly|'''Kelly''']] [[User talk:Kelly|hi!]] 14:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::To kelly: I agree with your point of view, but I'm not going to wheel-war over it. [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 14:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I have stepped in to try and help. I am not very familiar with the topic and am fairly apathetic when it comes to politics. I do however recognize a reliable source from a non reliable one and POV pushing. I will try and keep an eye on it. I however feel it should be re-protected and that jossi should undo his wheel warring actions. [[User:Chrislk02|'''Chris''']][[Special:Contributions/Chrislk02|'''lk02''']] [[User talk:Chrislk02|Chris Kreider]] 14:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Re Kelly: I think there are more than enough people who know about the article to keep it well watched. We do need to be more proactive in using the blocking provision of WP:BLP. My philosophy is: one stern warning, then a short block (12-24 hours) with autoblock enabled. — Carl ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 15:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

'''Protection has been re-re-restored''', and I'm going to start handing out blocks to anyone who continues to war over this. You all know better. Establish a consensus, then take an action. The time for boldness is past. [[User:WilyD|Wily]][[User talk:WilyD|D]] 15:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Establish a consensus, sure. But the status qu of Wikipedia articles is that they are free to be edited, and not the other way around. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]] 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:The original protection came from some substantive discussion, now there's been a second and third. We all know better than to protection war over this; I haven't expressed an opinion on whether it should be full or semi, and don't plan to, but we shouldn't be playing tug-of-war. [[User:WilyD|Wily]][[User talk:WilyD|D]] 15:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

===[[WP:BLPBAN]]===
Under the [[WP:BLPBAN|special enforcement sanctions ruling]] for [[WP:BLP|biographies of living person]], I have placed [[Sarah Palin]] under full edit protection for a period of two weeks and noted it at the [[WP:BLPLOG#Log|special sanctions log]] and [[Talk:Sarah Palin|article talk]] page. '''[[User:MBisanz|MBisanz]]''' [[User talk:MBisanz|talk]] 15:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:A very bad idea. There's nothing here that can't be handled by blocking. This is the sort of article that we expect to have an editing frenzy for a while. — Carl ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 15:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::WP:BLPBAN is not an excuse for wheel warring. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]][[User_talk:Cenarium| '''Talk''']] 15:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Then establish a strong consensus to end full protection. That's needed ''anyways'', nevermind the special enforcement garbage. There has been a solid consensus to full protect, with only a couple dissenting voices, which frankly have been pretty meritless. Continued warring over it isn't going to be tolerated, regardless. [[User:WilyD|Wily]][[User talk:WilyD|D]] 15:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Note the wording of the ruling that requires discussion at WP:AE; a [[WP:AE#Sarah Palin|discussion thread]] there has commenced. [[User:Mike R|Mike R]] ([[User talk:Mike R|talk]]) 15:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, first i'd like to thank you for the protection as the article's edits were unbearably and icreasingly chaotic. Unfortunately it seems that as a consequence we now have BLP violations like poor citations, controversial materials and lots of bad editing on this very prominent BLP. I don't know the solution, I just wanted to point out the new problem that now we're stuck with a potentially libalous BLP. Thanks. --[[Special:Contributions/98.243.129.181|98.243.129.181]] ([[User talk:98.243.129.181|talk]]) 22:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

===Unprotection Wheel Warring on Sarah Palin and RFAR===
Any further admins that unprotect again are into total wheel war country against consensus and will be brought to RFAR. If you enjoy being an admin, respect the community consensus, please. This is ''shameful'' for a BLP. I'm as liberal of an American as they come, probably more than most of you, and '''I'M''' advocating protection on [[Sarah Palin]]. BLP and consensus > your wishes. And I just removed a vote that Jossi put up about BLP protection. We vote on a lot of stuff, but not that. Sorry.

Log so far: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sarah_Palin [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
: Please refrain from refactoring this page. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]] 15:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
: And that is not a !vote, but a way to assess what kind of consensus, if any emerges. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]] 15:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Please refrain from misuse of admin tools over BLPs, and obey consensus like all of us are required to. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]])([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 15:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::I'll have to agree. Wheel warring over protection is not the way to go about doing it, especially when you cite "IAR" and "consensus" for semi-protection, when I can't find consensus for that -- among others who agree. In addition, who "enjoys" being an admin? :) [[User:Seicer|seicer]] | [[User_talk:Seicer|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|contribs]] 15:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::Until the first flush of frenzy settles down, there won't be any happy way to handle this. I support semi-protection but do understand why some editors think full protection is more in keeping with [[WP:BLP]] for now. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 15:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The wheels on the war go round and round. MZMcbride just semi-ed it again. :P [[User:Kyaa the Catlord|Kyaa the Catlord]] ([[User talk:Kyaa the Catlord|talk]]) 17:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::At least two admins have [[Talk:Sarah_Palin#Protection_War|said]] they'd block any more admins who protection warred this page. What, if anything, should be done regarding this? [[User:Oren0|Oren0]] ([[User talk:Oren0|talk]]) 17:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:I've blocked him for three hours, and left a note on his talk page. [[User:WilyD|Wily]][[User talk:WilyD|D]] 17:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::Considering MZM was urged not to take this action by his peers on irc before he did it and was aware of the special circumstances and the discussion at AE, I would say this block was appropriate. [[User talk:Chillum|'''Chillum''']] 17:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I was about to assume good faith. Then I read the arbcom started on him. *sigh* Why can't we all get along? [[User:Kyaa the Catlord|Kyaa the Catlord]] ([[User talk:Kyaa the Catlord|talk]]) 17:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::::[[WP:RFAR#MZMcBride]] for reference. '''[[User:MBisanz|MBisanz]]''' [[User talk:MBisanz|talk]] 17:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Frankly, I posted warnings just about fuckin' everywhere to stop warring over the protection and have a god-damn discussion and it was fuckin' working and people were sitting down to discuss it like good colleages over tea and crumpets like we are all friends or coworkers or shit and rational fuckin' human beings and someone who already knows fuckin' better comes along and does some shit disturbing? Inexcusable. MZM knows better. Every admins knows better.
::::Sorry about my sailor talk but this all is a wee bit stressful. [[User:WilyD|Wily]][[User talk:WilyD|D]] 17:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Agreed. Wheel warring is NEVER appropriate. Wheel warring with as many "don't do it" red signs as are out there is unbelievable. [[User:Kyaa the Catlord|Kyaa the Catlord]] ([[User talk:Kyaa the Catlord|talk]]) 17:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::Without being so colorful myself, I will say that the discussion was pretty much settled at AE before this wheel warring happened, there was a developing agreement that the protection was good and that we should reconsider on Saturday. This latest action by MZM has only served to reduce productivity in this area. [[User talk:Chillum|'''Chillum''']] 17:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:Since I didn't think anyone would actually be so stupid as to wheel-war over the (appropriate) full protection, I didn't comment a few hours ago, when I last logged on. Since I was obviously wrong, and the Arbitration thread contains several claims that there is no consensus for full protection, please add me to the list of admins who '''support full protection'''. '''[[User:Horologium|Horologium]]''' [[User talk:Horologium|(talk)]] 18:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

* Oh bloody hell, what a mess. I really don't think that fighting out ideological differences with admin tools on a [[WP:BLP]] that has been subject to an absolute deluge of grossly defamatory edits will play terribly well with ArbCom. I would have thought that the est way to preserve Wikipedia's principles here would be to make absolutely sure that uncontentious edits are speedily agreed and implemented via {{tl|editprotected}} - I am minded of the way the railway companies handled the first Glastonbury Festival in about 1970; they were taken completely off guard by traffic to Glasto, but for the returns they pulled in every loco and carriage they could find, removed the station windows to make extra ticket counters, brought in everybody who was off duty, sent out a small army of clerks with every portable ticket machine they could pull in from around the network, and processed the massive crowds in something approaching order. To stretch that particular analogy somewhat, lifting protection is a more like removing all the barriers and gates and handing out first-aid kits to the station staff. Protection keeps the worst absurdities off the article and out of the headlines, and takes the patently acrimonious debates to the talk page which is slightly less high profile. That page can then be clerked to within an inch of its life and good suggestions moved into the article in an orderly manner well before the deadline. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 19:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

*Wow... after seeing the first few edit comments I assumed that there was a brief wheel war which was quickly ended, but this is train-wreck-tastic. Whatever the correct level of protection for the article is, the wheel-warring has to stop. If we can't agree on what that level is, that's all the more reason to discuss the matter here, rather than for individuals to unilaterally impose their own view. IAR is a wonderful thing, but we have to take extra care with it when we can't agree on which course of action constitutes "improving Wikipedia".sorry if this sound sanctimonious; trying to help [[User:SheffieldSteel|SHEFFIELDSTEEL]][[User_talk:SheffieldSteel|TALK]] 20:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
*Any wheel war is a trainwreck. Protection was implemented after days of dealing with an unprecedented volume of edits from POV vandals in a blp and nowhere near enough editorial help dedicated to keeping it compliant 24/7 as the frenzy continued to rage. Removing the protection without a realistic plan in place how to manage the page wasn't a helpful solution, and now editor resources are further compromised arguing about the justification for protection or its removal instead of producing workable solutions.[[User:Professor marginalia|Professor marginalia]] ([[User talk:Professor marginalia|talk]]) 21:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
* In fairness, I've never seen a topic with so many edits/hour over so many days, it's a cultural fluke beyond the bounds of what Wikipedia has been built up to smoothly handle (that's ok, this is going to happen now and then and editors do learn from it). Cheers to Kelly for all she's done throughout the trainwreck. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 21:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
**Ditto - Kelly deserves special praise for her strenuous efforts on behalf of that article. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 21:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' full protection for 24 or 48 hours. The BLP issues have gotten too far out of hand for now. If the article on 44 years or Sarah Palin's life is missing one or two days worth of material that is a small price to pay - if it is important the information will be available in any newspaper anyway. And invoking [[WP:IAR]] to ignore consensus and instead wheel war by unprotected a page in desparate need of protection is ludicrous. [[User:Rlendog|Rlendog]] ([[User talk:Rlendog|talk]]) 02:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

===modest proposal for [[Sarah Palin]]===
I think that the structure of the article, as a whole, is pretty stable right now. Therefore, my proposal is to leave the main article protected, but to break out most sections as semiprotected transcluded subpages (with their own faked-up "edit/view source" and "talk" buttons). This would untangle the edit history and talk pages of the separate sections. The scurrilous rumors would tend to be confined to certain sections, and defending, or, if necessary, protecting those sections would be much easier. If they showed up in inappropriate sections, they could be easily recognized and treated as vandalism. I think that this would help resolve this issue, and free up the article from a lockdown which I don't think is good for its quality.

I recognize that this proposal is unconventional, involves some degree of work, may have unanticipated consequences for some bots/spiders/whatever, and might be seen to set a precedent. However, in my opinion, it would be worth it, as it would be helpful for the article itself, which is my main concern here. [[User:Homunq|Homunq]] ([[User talk:Homunq|talk]]) 21:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:There's no mechanism in the MediaWiki software to support such an action, unless there are some extensions that I don't know about. [[User:Celarnor|'''Celarnor''']] [[User_talk:Celarnor|Talk to me]] 03:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
::Sure there is, you just create some subpages and transclude them into the main page. Where's the difficulty? --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 03:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Let's keep this simple. Just create only one subpage and editors can continue to update the article and when consensus is reached it can be placed in the real article. [[User:QuackGuru|QuackGuru]] 04:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== Images in [[George W. Bush]] article ==

I see that all the images in [[George W. Bush]] have suddenly gone red-linked. Could somebody experienced with images please take a look at what is happening? Thanks, [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 02:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Images look fine to me. Must have been a hiccup. - [[User:AuburnPilot|auburnpilot]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|talk]] 02:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::That is really strange. Must be a weird problem with my browser. When I use internet explorer, I still get red links for images and even a red message "Error: image is invalid or non-existent" displayed at the top of the page. But when I view the page using safari, the images are there and everything looks fine. Must be some strange bug in my internet explorer.... Sorry for the false alarm. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 02:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::They were redlinked, and now they're OK. Just one of those little techie mysteries. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' 02:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Nsk, in IE, hit Ctrl-F5 to purge your cache. I suspect the images will magically reappear. --[[User:Barneca|barneca]] ([[User talk:Barneca|talk]]) 02:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::There seems to have been a bit of a hiccup with images this morning. Ctrl-F5 should sort it all out. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 10:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
* This is an intermittent issue with Commons images at the moment, I think - some svgs from templates were red yesterday. PUrge the cache, that worked for me. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 11:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks! When I got up this morning, everything looked fine and I did not even have to purge the cache. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 12:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Cascade protection on [[Sarah Palin]] ==

''Cross-posting from [[Talk:Sarah Palin]]''

Just so everyone knows, I copy/pasted [[Sarah Palin]] to [[User:J.delanoy/Sarah Palin]] and cascade-protected that page until September 8. [[User:J.delanoy|J'''.'''delanoy]][[User Talk:J.delanoy|gabs]][[Special:Contributions/J.delanoy|adds]] 02:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Have there been problems with templates on Sarah Palin? [[User:Od Mishehu|עוד מישהו]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Od Mishehu]] 05:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
: Just to save me trawling through megabytres of talk pages, why have you made this fork? [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 11:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Not a fork, he is using it to protect the templates. [[User:Bjweeks|BJ]][[User talk:Bjweeks|Talk]] 11:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::: Hmm, yes, I see. The article itself is protected now, isn't it. Perhaps cascaded semiprotection when the full protection ends? [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::You cannot enable the cascading option with semi-protection. - [[User:Rjd0060|Rjd0060]] ([[User talk:Rjd0060|talk]]) 22:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Autoblock finder tool ==

Just so you guys know, I've finally got annoyed enough today to write a tool to find autoblocks. You can find it at http://toolserver.org/~eagle/autoblockfinder.php. Basically you give the tool the user's name and it will list any and all autoblocks that are on the user. The tool has been added to a few templates and mediawiki pages by Rjd0060 and Hersfold.

An example of the tool is for [[User:HappyRapids]] who was blocked. That user also triggered an autoblock, so any admin would have to also unblock the autoblock id as well. You can find this id by clicking http://toolserver.org/~eagle/autoblockfinder.php?user=HappyRapids.

Again this tool has been added to the standard {{t1|unblock}} template among others so that you can just click and see if there are autoblocks. —— '''[[user:nixeagle|nix]][[User talk:Nixeagle|eagle]]''' 03:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks Eagle. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has missed the old tool since it's been down. Much appreciated, [[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]] 03:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::PS. Your username is misspelled on the tool - it says "This tool is written by User:Nixagle"... [[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]] 03:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Wow, at least it links to the right talk page >.> I'll fix my typo later. —— '''[[user:nixeagle|nix]][[User talk:Nixeagle|eagle]]''' 12:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Image caption ==

Could an administrator please change an image caption on the protected page [[User talk:Jeffpw]]? The current right-hand image caption doesn't identify which one is Jeff, which is kind of a nice thing to have given the subject. Copy/pasting the caption on [[User talk:Jeffpw/Memoriam]] (identical photo) would be ideal. [[User:Orpheus|Orpheus]] ([[User talk:Orpheus|talk]]) 13:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:{{done}} --[[User:Rodhullandemu|Rodhull]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|andemu]] 14:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Unabated unWiki behavior continues ==

Wikipedia Administrators are requested to input views on the RFC on user Goingoveredge [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Goingoveredge HERE]. This user is still continuing choking other editors by deleting their views from Discussion Board of article [[Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity]] so that greater wikipedia does not read other editor's views and reads only his/her.--[[User:Roadahead|Roadahead]] ([[User talk:Roadahead|talk]]) 13:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Template vandalism on [[BP]]? ==

{{resolved|Figured it out and fixed it. [[User:Baccyak4H|Baccyak4H]] ([[User talk:Baccyak4H|Yak!]]) 14:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)}}
Could someone check out that page? I am pretty sure there is vandalism involving the infobox template, but am not myself familiar with their working intimately, certainly not of that particular one. Thanks. [[User:Baccyak4H|Baccyak4H]] ([[User talk:Baccyak4H|Yak!]]) 14:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:I don't know which template, but it's the Zodiac vandal. [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] ([[User talk:D.M.N.|talk]]) 14:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Ah, fixed. [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] ([[User talk:D.M.N.|talk]]) 14:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I figured it out and warned the IP. Don't know about this Zodiac thing, so maybe I shouldn't have. Oh well. [[User:Baccyak4H|Baccyak4H]] ([[User talk:Baccyak4H|Yak!]]) 14:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Need move-protect applying to 50+ articles ==

I would normally request articles to be move-protected at [[WP:RFPP]], however over 50-articles here need to be protected as Grawp appears to have struck at over 50 articles. Therefore, can someone '''move-protect all the following articles (and related talkpages) for an indefinite amount of time.''' I don't think any are likely to be moved in the future for legitimate purposes. Here goes:

{{hat|list of articles|(pagemoved by "Grawp")}}
*{{la|Mickey Mouse}}
*{{la|Donald Duck}}
*{{la|Nazi Germany}}
*{{la|Protist}}
*{{la|Fungi}}
*{{la|Fungus}}
*{{la|Amoeba}}
*{{la|Archaebacteria}}
*{{la|Talk:Archaea}}
*{{la|Abiogenesis}}
*{{la|Protocell}}
*{{la|Eubacteria}}
*{{la|Bacterium}}
*{{la|Worm}}
*{{la|Scorpion}}
*{{la|Annelida}}
*{{la|Annelid}}
*{{la|Lobster}}
*{{la|Shrimp}}
*{{la|Crab}}
*{{la|Parthia}}
*{{la|Iranian peoples}}
*{{la|Vinegar}}
*{{la|Echinodermata}}
*{{la|Crustacean}}
*{{la|Phylum}}
*{{la|Echinoderm}}
*{{la|Mollusca}}
*{{la|Mollusk}}
*{{la|Arthropoda}}
*{{la|Arthropod}}
*{{la|Primate}}
*{{la|Arachnid}}
*{{la|Yo-yo}}
*{{la|Punishment}}
*{{la|Bean bag}}
*{{la|Brontosaurus}}
*{{la|Apatosaurus}}
*{{la|Triceratops}}
*{{la|David}}
*{{la|Greek mythology}}
*{{la|Gasoline}}
{{hab}}

I apologise for making such a request here, but as a lot of articles need move-protecting, I didn't want to clog up RFPP by making a request for 50+ articles. Thanks, [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] ([[User talk:D.M.N.|talk]]) 14:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:Thank you for your efforts, but I think some IP blocks are better remedies here. Also, when I look at lists like [[Special:Contributions/Mister Fungus Amongus|this]] and [[Special:Contributions/Rotting Strip of Flesh|this]], I can't help to think that we should raise the number of edits required to move. Cheers, [[User:Face|Face]] 14:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::Grawp hops from IP to IP on a daily basis, causing mass-destruction to articles by moving them. He's been doing this for most of the year. The only suggestion I can think of is to make the "Move" tool available to admins and/or rollbackers. [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] ([[User talk:D.M.N.|talk]]) 14:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I was going to say something similar: perhaps "Move" needs to be granted only to trusted users. Whether it's bundled with rollback is a different question. As a not-developer, I don't know the costs of implementing such rights-control features. [[User:SheffieldSteel|SHEFFIELDSTEEL]][[User_talk:SheffieldSteel|TALK]] 14:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::If it is possible to set a very high edit threshold in order to be able to move articles, why not do that? The time it takes to accumulate that number of edits would be a disincentive to continuing this kind of vandalism, but the number would have to be high enough to prevent a would-be vandal from doing a lot of extremely minor edits just to reach the goal. Why not 500 edits, or a thousand? [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald ''"unreachable by rational discourse"''''']]'''([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]])''' 14:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::::I would strongly agree to a 1,000 edits. [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] ([[User talk:D.M.N.|talk]]) 14:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Silly way to go about this unless the same page is being targeted repeatedly, and even then the "indefinite" setting is a bad idea. Once the people doing this realize that indefinite move-protection is the knee-jerk response to a single instance of page-move vandalism they will probably [[WP:BEANS|start targeting pages which actually need to be moved]], causing pages containing a spelling/capitalization error, or needing to be disambiguated, etc. to be locked onto the wrong title. — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|CharlotteWebb]] 16:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:I've move protected a set of core biochemistry articles that are at their correct title, such as [[DNA]], [[enzyme]], [[photosynthesis]] or [[metabolism]]. There is essentially zero chance of these ever needing moved, indeed I can't even think of any reasonable alternatives for these titles. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 17:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Deoxyribonucleioc acid? Enzymatic proteins? Conversion of sunlight to energy? Biological energy flow? [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald ''"unreachable by rational discourse"''''']]'''([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]])''' 18:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Sunlight is energy, not all enzymes are proteins and metabolism is a larger subject than energy flow - it is the sum total of chemical reactions occurring in an organism (that title would a mouthful indeed!). The only possible move contender would be DNA, and the abbreviation has been chosen as the best title on the talkpage several times over the past few years, so that consensus seems very stable. Honestly, the chances of any of these articles needing moved is near zero. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 19:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Obviously something needs to be be done, look at the logs of ClueBot: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=500&user=ClueBot], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=20080614083014&limit=500&user=ClueBot] for a ''small'' sample. What can we done ? We have move-protection for articles with no need to be moved. Think of what is best for Wikipedia, and the subject of the articles, example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Heath_Ledger]. Our existing tools are not able to deal efficiently enough with this. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]][[User_talk:Cenarium| '''Talk''']] 18:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:RBI seems to be working just fine. ClueBot is catching it, what's the issue? We could give admin rights to ClueBot so it could delete the redirects and block the vandals, or we could get a consensus on installing the [[WP:Abuse filter|Abuse filter]] extension. Both of those would be far better than mass move-protection (since the vandal will just move on to other titles) or creating ridiculously high standards for allowing pagemoves. [[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']] 19:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Has the abuse filter still not been installed? [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 19:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Discussion kind of died around the end of July. [[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']] 19:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:We could try restricting moves of pages with more than 1000 revisions (or some other arbitrary number) to admins. Since we already have a limit for deleting pages it can't be too hard to implement, the high profile pages will tend to be those with lots of revisions and such pages should have some sort of discussion before a move anyway. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|Hut 8.5]]''''' 19:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::I doubt that's going to stop Grawp- he'll just find articles that have less than that, and move those instead. We have to limit moves entirely if we want to stop him. Or, we simply remove all rules against him. He's willing to play dirty, so maybe we have to fight back harder. Aggressively DMCA his host for anything we have a legitimate claim on on a certain other wiki he hangs out on. Or even start complaining to the host- they're a well known hosting firm, and I doubt they'd want to be associated with the scum we're talking about here. Publically speak out about the other wiki on any site you can. Checkuser and publically release the IP addresses of all his socks- there's got to be non-Tor IP's behind him or his imitators, and why are we providing any privacy to one of the worst vandals ever? No more abuse emails- have volunteers call the ISPs personally to report abuse. To hell with the privacy policy, and to hell with it all- revert, block, ignore is what he's counting on. Once we're done cleaning up the mess he makes, he makes another one, then gloats about it.[[User:Nwwaew|Nwwaew]] ([[User_Talk:Nwwaew|Talk Page]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Nwwaew|Contribs]]) ([[Special:Emailuser/Nwwaew|E-mail me]]) 00:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== ACC Backlogged ==

{{resolved|No longer backlogged —— [[User:RyanLupin|RyanLupin]] • [[User talk:RyanLupin|(talk)]] 21:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)}}
Any available admins want to tackle the backlogged requests over at [http://stable.toolserver.org/acc/acc.php ACC]? Would be appreciated, —— [[User:RyanLupin|RyanLupin]] • [[User talk:RyanLupin|(talk)]] 14:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:For some reason, it's not letting me (as an administrator) create the accounts, I get the "too similar" notice. [[User talk:John Reaves|John Reaves]] 19:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::There is a little checkbox at the bottom of the creation screen that says "Ignore spoofing checks" or something, you need to select that to create the name. '''[[User:MBisanz|MBisanz]]''' [[User talk:MBisanz|talk]] 19:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::...making sure of course that the accounts the desired name is too similar too are inactive... –[[User:Xenocidic|'''xeno''']] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|talk]]) 19:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I haven't been keeping up with the new features apparently. [[User talk:John Reaves|John Reaves]] 19:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Long-standing attack articles ==

*{{la|Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (commentator)}}
*{{la|Criticism of George W. Bush}}
*{{la|Criticism of Hugo Chávez}}
*{{la|Criticism of Noam Chomsky}}
*{{la|Criticism of Sylvia Browne}}
*{{la|Criticism of Tony Blair}}
*{{la|Criticism of Traian Băsescu}}
*{{la|Criticism of Vladimir Putin}}

Just pretend I'm stupid and explain to me really slowly why the articles listed above don't fall under criterion [[WP:CSD#G10|G10]] for speedy deletion. At first I thought, "Surely ''criticism'' is being used in the sense of ''analysis and commentary''". But no, these really are just lists of negative stuff that people have said about these people. Needless to say, there are no matching ''Praise for ...'' or ''Agreement with ...'' articles.

The only thing stopping me deleting these is that I have enough sense to know what a storm this would create but, after thinking about it for the past couple of weeks, this increasingly seems a cowardly excuse. [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 14:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:That's not a "cowardly excuse", it's a recognition of the nature of the project. If you did something that you '''''know''''' is going to be disruptive, without taking steps to minimize the disruption by obtaining a consensus for the action, that's tantamount to being disruptive yourself. I think you did the right thing by holding off and posting your request here. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald ''"unreachable by rational discourse"''''']]'''([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]])''' 14:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
*(ec)Because criticism of these figures in mainstream sources is widespread and of encyclopedic concern. Also, because treating that criticism appropriately requires (sometimes) that we split out a section from the main article. An "attack page" is a page that serves only to defame the subject. In this case, these pages serve to give a tertiary look at criticism which already exists. They do have the added unpleasant outcome of being harder to maintain NPOV than the main articles (partly because they don't see the same amount of traffic and partly because their "baseline" POV is a little slanted). But they should certainly not be speedied. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 14:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::I would be fine with, for example, [[Commentary on Tony Blair]] or somesuch. The trouble is that most of the above receive a good deal of equally verifiable praise in equally reliable sources yet this is barely represented - making our coverage of these people unbalanced. [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 14:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::The reason they are not called ''Commentary'' rather than criticism is that the NPOV tendency would be to "balance" the negative criticism with positive adulation... which is frequently even less analytically based than the negative stuff (and far less common, which ironically leads to a bias upon sources if they are presented "equally"). While positive criticism can be appropriately placed within an article with ''criticism'' in the title, the nature of the beast dictates that most content will be negative. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 15:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::We also have {{la|Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt}}, {{la|Criticism of Ellen White}}, {{la|Criticism of Jesus}} and {{la|Criticism of Muhammad}}. Criticism in a sense includes positive criticism, so it's possible to include them as well. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]][[User_talk:Cenarium| '''Talk''']] 15:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::I realize we also have those articles but I singled out the ones for living people, for obvious reasons. Also, you are correct that "Criticism" can include positive criticism - but in the articles in question it patently does not. For example, this is the lede for [[Criticism of Tony Blair]]:
::::::''Criticism of '''Tony Blair''' includes accusations of dishonesty, authoritarianism, and subservience in his relationship with U.S. President George W. Bush. Tony Blair has faced particularly severe condemnation for British involvement in the Iraq War, earning him the disparaging moniker of "Bush's Poodle."''
:::::[[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 16:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Preface the above with ''"Negative"'', and tag ''"Positive criticism includes..."'' with a couple of examples from the main body would result in a NPOV and comprehensive lede (why do we spell it like that?) Ho, you should have seen the barrage of negative criticism that socialist Prime Ministers used to get - often from fractions within their own party! [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 16:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::{Sidebar) The spelling "lede" for the leading sentence, paragraph or section is a journalistic invention designed to differentiate it from "lead", as in the hot lead used to make type. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald ''"unreachable by rational discourse"''''']]'''([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]])''' 18:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::These are all public figures. The normal BLP policies cover this. Public figures can't sue for slander. If the comments/criticisms are not original research, but are cited from reliable and verifiable sources, and there are no personal attacks, the articles should remain. We have to remember that criticisms of Bill Clinton and criticism of Barack Obama are fair game also. As long as we allow fair, cited, verifiable content for any public figure, regardless of their political affiliation, we are being Neutral. For instance the following would be allowable, "Bill Clinton was impeached by the Senate on December 19th, 1998 for among other things, perjuring himself when he denied having "sexual relations" with White House intern Monica Lewinsky." What should not be allowed would be things like "Bill Clinton Will Remain the Worst President Ever"[http://www.jwharrison.com/blog/2008/01/28/the-simpsons-%E2%80%93-bill-clinton-was-the-worst-president-ever/] Clearly no one like to hear people criticism a political figure that they have supported. But essential to the political process is free speech that allows our system to correct for problems. Political speech is the highest and most respected form of free speech. [[User:Atomaton|Atom]] ([[User talk:Atomaton|talk]]) 18:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::: Public figures can sue for defamation, and most of these are forks to deal with bloated criticism sections into which every single tine adverse comment is obsessively added by those who have an agenda against the subjects. [[WP:BLP]] does not get shelved for public figures. Having them renamed to "discussion" or some such title, which is less readily misunderstood by those who fail to see the difference between critique and censorious criticism, would be a good idea I feel. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 22:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::: Right, BLP does not get shelved, which is why I said the BLP has a policy for public figures. We should apply it, and adapt it as needed. I personally don't see the difference between calling the article "criticism of..." and "discussion of...". The content would be critical in nature, and allowed if it is cited, verifiable and from a reliable source, and not allowed otherwise. If it is criticism, let's call it that. By allowing people who are extremely critical to have a place to put it (but still following [[WP:RELIABLE]]), it gives a safety valve that should keep some of that out of the primary article. [[User:Atomaton|Atom]] ([[User talk:Atomaton|talk]]) 23:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Main page ==

The article on the main page has been vandalized! That's not why I'm here tho. :P There is currently a [[Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal|contest]] going on with proposals to update the main page. Although this isn't admin-related, wide community attention is needed on the contest. So please check out the page, look over the proposals and leave comments for the semi-finalists. Thanks, [[User:Jennavecia|Jennavecia]][[User talk:Jennavecia| (Talk)]] 15:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:erm...linky? Cheers, [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 15:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::I liked it to "contest", but here's the full link: [[Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal]]. [[User:Jennavecia|Jennavecia]][[User talk:Jennavecia| (Talk)]] 16:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User talk:Jeffpw/Memoriam]] ==

Possibly one of the worst AFD nominations I've ever seen. See [[Special:Contributions/KoshVorlon|the last few contributions for the nominator]]. [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] ([[User talk:D.M.N.|talk]]) 16:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Speedy closed. Not an article so shouldn't be at AfD. Also, I think the prohibition on memorials is about encyclopedic content not projectspace/userspace. [[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]] 17:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::One outstanding question: Should the AfD notices on the pages be simply deleted? I'm thinking that there's no point filling out the {{tl|oldafdfull}} notice. [[User:SheffieldSteel|SHEFFIELDSTEEL]][[User_talk:SheffieldSteel|TALK]] 17:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::The {{tl|oldafdfull}} is irrelevant in cases where the discussion was closed on procedural grounds (as the above was) since it is primarily a tool for judging "former" consensus in future deletion discussions. [[User:Shereth|Sher]][[User_talk:Shereth|eth]] 17:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::While I agree with keeping it, I think the rationale is slightly off. I fear the rationale utilized in WJB's comment above and in the AFD imply that people can come here and create memorials in their Talkpages. I do not believe this should be allowed and is the implication for not a memorial. That being said, there is a difference between coming to wikipedia with the intention of starting a memorial and memorializing an active contributor to the project. The former shouldn't be allowed, the later I have no problem with. The later kind of tells people why a colleague they may have worked with is no longer active.---'''[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|PoppaBalloon]]'' 17:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure, but you might be talking about my rationale, in which case, I may simply have worded it sloppily- I think a memorial for an active Wikipedian is useful, because his absence is noticed and affects the project. I ''don't'' necessarily think that my userspace would be a good place for me to create a memorial for my late grandfather. -[[User:FisherQueen|FisherQueen]] ([[User talk:FisherQueen|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/FisherQueen|contribs]]) 17:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::(ec)I agree with 100% wit this. I just wanted to make sure that we don't set a presidence that memorials are ok, if they are in people's userspace. I think by countering Jeff's memorial with it's not applicable to [[wp:NOTMEMORIAL]] because it's in the userspace, open's that door for others to say, "But my memorial is in my userspace."---'''[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|PoppaBalloon]]'' 17:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::"Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." The guideline is clearly focused on articles. We may still want to delete memorial pages outside of articles, but they should nominated at [[WP:MFD]] and there needs to be some argument beyond [[WP:NOTMEMORIAL]]. As ever, we are more relaxed about the userspace of good contributors. If a good contributor wants to use a subpage of their userspace to remember a deceased friend or relative, I suspect few will have a problem with it. If someone's sole purpose here is to create such a page, rather than to be involved in creating and maintaining an encyclopedia, I suspect opinion would be quite different. [[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]] 17:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::When you start making memorials in your userspace, I think you are starting to get into the realm of [[wp:NOTMYSPACE]]---'''[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|PoppaBalloon]]'' 17:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Indeed. And you are entitled to that opinion and would no doubt voice it were such a page to be nominated at [[WP:MFD]], which is where the matter will ultimately be settled. A speedy closed AfD of a non-article doesn't establish any precedent at all... [[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]] 17:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Agreed. In the end, this was a bad AFD and was correctly closed.---'''[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|PoppaBalloon]]'' 17:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::This is an editor (KoshVorlon) who routinely attempts to enforce his/her complete and utter misunderstanding of policy. KV has also nominated numerous articles ([[List of Jewish American_Musicians]], [[List of Jewish American musicians]], [[List of compositions by Franz Liszt (S.1 - S.350)]], [[List of hooligan firms]], [[List of cities by longitude]], and [[List of snowboard tricks]]) for deletion, simply because they are lists, claiming [[WP:NOT]] prohibits lists. I've never been a fan of the mentor/adopt a user program, but this editor could be the test case. - [[User:AuburnPilot|auburnpilot]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|talk]] 17:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This is looking very [[WP:POINT|POINTy]]. Several months ago, the same user tried nominating [[Deaths in 2008]] at AfD [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deaths_in_2008&diff=prev&oldid=203082576 using the same rationale]. [[User:Caknuck|caknuck]] [[User talk:Caknuck|°]] is geared up for football season 19:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::: NO, there's no attempt at WP:POINT. It's a memorial, and as I stated in the AFD, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL it's not permitted to have memorials in Wikipedia pages. BTW - if anything, the AN should be on the admin who closed the damn thing after 5 minutes and called it proper. However, like I said in the AFD, I expected to get hate thrown my way because of the two AFD's. 
BTW - comment on contribution not contributor please! [[User:KoshVorlon|'''KoshVorlon''']][[User talk:KoshVorlon|''' > rm -r WP:F.U.R ''']] 20:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)20:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:I'm not going to comment on whether these things should be deleted or not, but from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AuburnPilot&diff=prev&oldid=236301987 this edit] you still seem to think that [[Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians]] is an article. It's not - it's in the Wikipedia: space and therefore needs to be discussed at [[WP:MFD]]. As such, I fully endorse the procedural close of the '''A'''FD. –[[User:Xenocidic|'''xeno''']] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|talk]]) 20:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:(ec)First, [[Deaths in 2008]] is not a memorial; it is a collective list of notable people who have died, and links to their own articles - for which notability has already been established. It is also useful for generating new articles, even stubs, for these people. And the AfD, which was inappropriately so per procedure, was closed by a 'Crat, not an Admin. --[[User:Rodhullandemu|Rodhull]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|andemu]] 20:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::We can have a proper understanding of the policy, and no need for the assumed dichotomy; WP:NOTMEMORIAL specifically refers both to articles, and has language that refers to the creation of pages. The Jeffpw page is in userspace, and it '''''evolved''''' from an ordinary userpage - none of which is covered by the policy. I would also we had this same discussion around about the time when the page became what it is, and the consensus (you may be surprised to find we have a policy regarding that concept, but I assure you we do) was that it was to be kept. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 20:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if KoshVorlon follows proper procedure to nominate this as MfD, it just really stings as very poor taste, and insensitive in the extreme. The idea that Jeff, or for that matter, any Wikipedian including KoshVorlon or myself, could be so easily erased from the community because of policy is misguided. I don't know why Jeff's page, or any talk page expression of sorrow or grief would have to be deleted. This community is obviously made of editors. When one of them dies, it is a natural response for the community to react to the loss. We do not function as a community unless we allow ourselves (without going crazy myspace style) to communicate with each other. --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 20:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
*{{tl|courtesy blanked}} and full protected the AfD discussion. That was an embarrassment. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|Talk]] 01:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== Request block review ==

I've just blocked [[User:115.130.2.169]] for 24 hours for repeated, unrepentant edit warring on [[Homophobia]]. I hesitated to do it since I edit the article, but after 11+ reverts and no response on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:115.130.2.169_.28also_editing_as_User:115.130.14.75.29_reported_by_User:Exploding_Boy_.28Result:_.29 AN/3RR] he needed to be stopped. He was warned several times on his talk page, in edit summaries and on the article talk page. Requesting review. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 17:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Not commenting on your block, but you probably should have simply posted to [[WP:AN/I]] to avoid the potential conflict of interest as you are (admittedly) in the dispute. Its great you are asking it to be reviewed, but honestly when you are in a dispute, its best not to play admin and editor at the same times. —— '''[[user:nixeagle|nix]][[User talk:Nixeagle|eagle]]''' 17:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Good block. As clear-cut as it gets. Next time though you could post on AN/I to avoid any accusations of a conflict of interest. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 17:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I had also posted it on the 3RR noticeboard to avoid COI, but we're having trouble with this user coming back with a variety of ips and one sweet li'l sock. Could one of our tech-savvier friends take a look and see if a brief rangeblock would be helpful? It is getting just a teeny bit irritating. -[[User:FisherQueen|FisherQueen]] ([[User talk:FisherQueen|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/FisherQueen|contribs]]) 17:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::If you've got more IP addresses, we can check. I only see the two on 3RR, and that's not enough to justify a rangeblock. [[User:Hersfold|'''''Hersfold''''']] ([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]]) 17:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::There's a few more at [[:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of WesternPacific]]; just added another one a moment ago. But we can just keep up with [[WP:RBI]] if that is the better strategy. -[[User:FisherQueen|FisherQueen]] ([[User talk:FisherQueen|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/FisherQueen|contribs]]) 18:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::If it is a previously-blocked editor just block socks and IPs on sight. There is no need to go to a noticeboard if their edits are clearly recognisable. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 17:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I think that semi-protection of [[Homophobia]] should be considered, due to the high recent volume of inflammatory POV-pushing by IPs who do not wait to get consensus on the Talk page. The article was rather quiet until the last couple of days, so two weeks of semi might be sufficient. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 18:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Protection... why didn't I think of that? Yes, that would work just as well. -[[User:FisherQueen|FisherQueen]] ([[User talk:FisherQueen|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/FisherQueen|contribs]]) 18:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Good points. Wouldn't ordinarily have stepped in myself in that type of situatino, but it was getting ridiculous. As long as no-one objects to the block... [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 18:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Excellent block - firstly, this is a new ip picking up from where a same general range editor left off, and, secondly, this is very sophisticated POV emplacement (the distinction between "Fear" and "Disgust" responses reconciling an anti homosexual viewpoint was quite clever) that could easily be lost in a pre sanction discussion. Other than the pseudo technical language, it was also simple 3RR violation/gaming. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 23:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Multiple admins editing protected page ==

Could someone take a box of clue bats to the admins who have decided to continuing reverting each other after [[Sarah Palin]] was protected? I don't want to see more arbcom cases today. [[User talk:Chillum|'''Chillum''']] 19:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:Grr. I'll up the count of those I've notified about the first arbcomm case again. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 19:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:'''OH DEAR LAWD.''' Someone get Kelly to smack some sense into these people. Admins should not be editing the page - only on behalf of consensus reached by editors on the talk page. I am going to be pissed if this shows up on the 40+ papers that have had articles dedicated to the Wikipedia page itself. The second that happens I am going to come back here and trick someone into deleting the main page. --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[User_talk:mboverload|@]] 19:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::From [[Sarah Palin]] (cur) (last) 11:58, 4 September 2008 TimVickers (Talk | contribs) (73,362 bytes) (Blank edit - I'm going to block the next Admin that edits this article with no talkpage consensus.) --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[User_talk:mboverload|@]] 20:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Thank you Tim Vickers. [[User talk:John Reaves|John Reaves]] 20:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm very serious. Acting like that is completely unacceptable. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 20:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Thank you Tim. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sarah_Palin Protection status for the article has changed 10 times today] --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[User_talk:mboverload|@]] 20:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Additionally, I made this clear on the editnotice, [[MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-Sarah Palin]]. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]][[User_talk:Cenarium| '''Talk''']] 20:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Good idea, though the edit summary of the last admin to revert is fairly ironic: ''Protection Warring is not acceptable'' [[User:Rx StrangeLove|RxS]] ([[User talk:Rx StrangeLove|talk]]) 20:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::<s>Look, [[Barack Obama]], [[Joe Biden]] and [[John McCain]] are all full protected. [[Sarah Palin]] should remain full protected at least through November 4 as well.</s> —[[User:TravisTX|Travis]][[User_talk:TravisTX|talk]] 01:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::None of those pages is fully protected, and none has been fully protected for a some time. — Carl ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 01:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Ach! This is, I guess, the type of hurried editing I do after the wife announces that the bread pudding is ready to eat. My apologies. —[[User:TravisTX|Travis]][[User_talk:TravisTX|talk]] 01:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== Stormfront ==

I found a link to the domain crusader.net which turns out to redirect to [[Stormfront (website)|Stormfront]]. I believe that this is not a wholly reliable source... More to the point, there are a few links in debates about the place and we might want to be on the lookout for this. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 21:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Good work. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 23:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Royce Mathew's Legal Threat ==

{{resolved|Mountains, mole hills, etc. Also [[WP:DFTT]]. —[[User:TravisTX|Travis]][[User_talk:TravisTX|talk]] 00:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)}}
An IP of the previous user [[User:Disneysuit|Disneysuit]], none other than [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Disneysuit Royce Mathew]. He has been giving legal threats (he has surely sent one to Wikimedia Foundation) against ''me'' for asking him to abide by policies, concocting false claims against me. He ''has'' been blocked, several times, but he ''won't stop.'' I don't want to lose my position at Wikipedia as an experienced editor; the only reason this is happening is because he is not willing to accept that he isn't following policies! A little help would be ''greatly'' appreciated. The link I gave you for "Royce Mathew" above has the IP address he is using. Here is what he has written, and what he will ''probably'' send to Wikimedia Foundation against me: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=236199806]. It ''has'' been deleted, but I'm not sure if he got the link the following commenter gave him ''against'' me. I don't mind a checking of my contributions, but I do ''not'' like it when someone is willing to take something so far as a legal threat and my possible blocking when all I've done is try to enforce the rules with both myself and others so as to make Wikipedia a better place! [[User:BlackPearl14|BlackPearl14]][[User talk:BlackPearl14|talkies!]]23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:I'm taking this back to BlackPearl14's talkpage. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 23:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::My message has been carried on to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert George's page]. [[User:BlackPearl14|BlackPearl14]][[User talk:BlackPearl14|talkies!]]23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== [[Vanceburg, Kentucky]] ==

Could an administrator please look at the article [[Vanceburg, Kentucky]]? It's showing a lot of activity lately regarding some police scandal, and there are some very questionable usernames editing the article. [[Special:Contributions/Reformcorruptrivercity]], [[Special:Contributions/Vanceburg]], [[Special:Contributions/ReformVanceburg]], [[Special:Contributions/ReformVanceburgNow]], [[Special:Contributions/Lewiscountyky]]. -- [[User:Plushpuffin|plushpuffin]] ([[User talk:Plushpuffin|talk]]) 23:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Should I bother to inform these users that I've posted this, or is it not worth it? -- [[User:Plushpuffin|plushpuffin]] ([[User talk:Plushpuffin|talk]]) 23:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, it's customary to do so. I've removed the section, as it was completely unsourced. [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 00:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I've notified the users. -- [[User:Plushpuffin|plushpuffin]] ([[User talk:Plushpuffin|talk]]) 00:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
::Hmmm... this hits very close to my hometown. I do recall the incidents being in the newspaper (the latter, about the officer) and the charges that were wiped under the rug, so to speak. I'll try to dig up some sources tonight or tomorrow and at least give some credibility to that. The former, about welfare and all that jazz is completely garbage. [[User:Seicer|seicer]] | [[User_talk:Seicer|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|contribs]] 00:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Indef'ed the socks: ReformVanceburg, ReformVanceburgNow, Reformcorruptrivercity. The main account appears to be Vanceburg, and if they wish to discuss the matter, they can use a single account. [[User:Seicer|seicer]] | [[User_talk:Seicer|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|contribs]] 00:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for the swift action. I wasn't sure if I should have posted on [[WP:SSP]]. It just seemed too ''obvious'' to be sock-puppetry. -- [[User:Plushpuffin|plushpuffin]] ([[User talk:Plushpuffin|talk]]) 01:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== Newyorkbrad checkuser access ==

Arbitrator {{user|Newyorkbrad}} has requested and been approved for Checkuser access. This is in order to allow him to more fully review Committee cases, and does not impact on the current Checkuser appointment process.

[[user:FT2|FT2]] ([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]]) 01:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== Temp unprotect a template please ==

Can an admin temporarily unprotect {{tl|ArticleHistory}} please? This is needed to fix a problem with the way Featured articles are counted at [[Wikipedia:Featured_topics/count]]. In a nutshell, some categories have incorrect page counts stored in the database so we need to temporarily depopulate them - this will force a recount. A little time will be needed to let the template update the various (130 or so) pages get through the job queue, then I can notify again once the category pagecounts are rebuilt.

For the ''longer'' story, see [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Looking_for_some_listing_tools|the initiating question]], the [[User_talk:Franamax#Re:Looking_for_some_listing_tools|current discussion]], test page showing the [[User:Franamax/Test11|problem]] and my [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Incorrect_counts_from_PAGESINCATEGORY_function|followup VPT question]]. Or just unprotect the damn page for a few hours :) Thanks! [[User:Franamax|Franamax]] ([[User talk:Franamax|talk]]) 02:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:The damn page has been unprotected. Please request protection here or at [[WP:RFPP]] when you are done.[[User:Gonzo_fan2007| « Gonzo fan2007]] ''([[User talk:Gonzo_fan2007|talk]] ♦ [[Special:Contributions/Gonzo_fan2007|contribs]]) @ '''' 02:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:: A little strange that the issues wasn't raised at the talk page of the template in question, where Gimmetrow would have dealt with it. I hope the edit doesn't break other pages. [[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 02:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Sorry for that Sandy, I'd been in discussion with some people who were chasing the problem and I just wanted the first available admin. In any case, the operation was a (partial) success and the patient is recovering nicely. I'll check around to be sure I didn't leave any swabs inside the incision. This was strictly about depopulating and repopulating some broken FT categories, you might want to read the threads I linked above - we're going to need lots of help to figure this out. (PS I asked for re-prot at RFPP) [[User:Franamax|Franamax]] ([[User talk:Franamax|talk]]) 05:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== Automatic AFD closing script ==

As I noted [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive166#AFD_backlog_2|here]], I've been working on an automatic AFD closer script. Instructions and usage notes are at [[User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD]]. Direct any bugs/feature requests/comments to my talk page. [[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']] 02:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:Yeays!! This ''rocks'' most seriously. Add a "relist" button and you have made me (and, I'm guessing a lot of other editors) happy! — [[User:Coren|Coren]] [[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]] 02:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:Wicked awesome. Once you get the relist function working I can start using it to clean up the notorious backlog. :) [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 03:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Devunia]] and [[User:Cicaneo]] ==

These two users appear to be using their userpages as some sort of chat system. While I assume this is some sort of violation of [[WP:NOT]], I'm not entirely sure what should be done. I have warned them on their talk pages, but they seem to have ignored it. [[User:Horselover Frost|Horselover Frost]] ([[User talk:Horselover Frost|talk]]) 02:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:Gone where the woodbine twineth. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] [[User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather|Have a gorilla]] 04:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== Please unblock [[User:85.214.74.80|85.214.74.80]]! ==

My bot ([[User:Numbo3-bot]]) runs on a Strato server, and it took me forever to find out why my bot seems blocked on en.wp!

I finally found out that [[User:Spellcast]] did uniformly block [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AIPBlockList&ip=85.214.00.00%2F16 the whole Strato IP range], what is pretty rude!

My bot was/is doing good work, so please unblock at least [[User:85.214.74.80]]! --- Best regards, [[User:Numbo3|Numbo3]] ([[User talk:Numbo3|talk]]) 05:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:85.214.74.80

2008-09-05T05:22:18Z

Numbo3: ← Redirected page to User talk:Numbo3-bot

#REDIRECT [[User_talk:Numbo3-bot]]

User:85.214.74.80

2008-09-05T05:21:50Z

Numbo3: ← Redirected page to User:Numbo3-bot

#REDIRECT [[User:Numbo3-bot]]