Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Current issues

Omegatron

Omegatron undeleted HHO gas, an article to which he was a significant contributor, during deletion review; Omegatron rails on its deletion debate about repeated "disruptive" deletion nominations, but ignores the fact that all the previous deletion debates and reviews have ended in deletion. This is not acceptable behaviour. Guy (Help!) 07:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

a related message moved from WP:ANI:

An admin heavily involved in two articles ([1]-[2]) has undone its deletion.[3][4] while a DRV was under way. Could someone look into this and see if this is appropriate (I am not yet calling it the W-word). Can an admin unilaterally undo the deletion of "his" article if he disagrees? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I would note that, while the article was speedied/salted, the AfD never actually closed that I can tell. For several hours the AfD sat open with the Admin's rationale attached but template unremoved, and a DRV was open for eight hours in that time. Aside from any other problems (which I'm not stipulating are problems,) the speedy undelete did solve the problem of having an open and active DRV discussion while the AfD topic was still open and being commented upon. In fact, one user (apparently unrelated,) made a comment about a different DRV, then commented on the HHO DRV, then commented at the AfD in succession, leading me to believe that the open DRV led the user to the open AfD.

My opinion is that a) The DRV was premature, since the AfD hadn't closed, despite the deletion. b) Omegatron's actions, for whatever motivation, undid what was becoming a rapidly confusing situation. c) The AfD, in being permitted to continue, harmed nobody, where continuing the DRV in this state had potential for being harmful. No harm, no foul. LaughingVulcan 04:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we wait for the deletion debate to end, and just let things lie until then. If the AFD recommends it be deleted, the article being up for two or three more days won't kill anyone. Neil ╦ 10:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with the latter, except that this is over a year old. The HHO gas warring is ancient. In other words, the "harmless" recreation and persistence of it has been a forever presence. If AfD rules and DRV rules, then that's pretty much it for an article that isn't vastly rewritten. When the article concerns something that people are making money on, then that gets much worse. It is not a wheel war to re-delete it: delete is the status it has gotten from previous deliberations, and supporters of the article are the ones who should wait until reviews are done. It is a misuse of administrator's powers to undelete without process. Geogre 11:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You realize that the people who would make money off of this want the article deleted, right? They don't want their hoax to be debunked, and are trying to hide it.

And "ancient" edit warring is not even close to criteria for deletion. Should we delete Palestine Liberation Organization because it's prone to being edited? AfD is for articles we shouldn't have, in any form, or articles that are completely unsalvageable in their current form. These articles are neither. The last DRV explicitly said that the topic was notable enough to have an article and could be recreated. — Omegatron 17:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

My rationale:

It was speedy deleted for inapplicable reasons, despite the fact that a large AfD was in progress with no consensus for deletion.

The "Recreation of deleted material" criteria is irrelevant; the previous deletion was reviewed and closed specifically stating that a new article could be created with proper sourcing. Nominator is fully aware of this, and is only repeatedly nominating the article to be disruptive.

The "Blatant advertising" criteria is also irrelevant; the article clearly states that this is a hoax, and provides several criticisms from notable sources.

In the DRV, you'll also see complaints about Nescio's past nominations being improper ("the the last AfD skipped my attention because it wasnt delsorted and User:Nescio didnt notify anyone involved about the Afd"), and similar complaints in the current AfD for slipping Brown's gas into the discussion without most voters being aware of it. (You'll see several votes for deletion of "the article", as if there's only one article being considered, the box at the top right of the page only shows previous AfDs for HHO gas, but doesn't show the previous AfDs for Brown's gas.) One of the votes for deletion was apparently a mistake, etc. etc.

And, since everyone tends to assume things without actually doing any research, I am not a promoter of this "technology"; I think this stuff is completely bogus, but it's our duty to cover stuff like this in Wikipedia. Jimbo agrees. In the past AfDs, promoters actually voted for deletion, because they don't want their products debunked on Wikipedia. (To my knowledge, Nescio is not a promoter, but might as well be.) Please read both articles from top to bottom. — Omegatron 12:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you retract the NPA suggesting I am involved in promoting this material, and could you correct the false statement regarding the mistaken opinion voiced. AFAIK the commentator has not retracted his opinion. Your suggestion he did is highly inappropriate in light of your other behaviour in this AfD. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This article has been deleted three times now. Perhaps there is a glimmer of notability there, but if there is, it needs to be in an article called HHO gas hoax or something along those lines, because as proved over the course of the last year, a NPOV article called HHO gas appears to be impossible to write. Nevertheless, regardless of the validity of the G4 speedy, the last person to undelete this article should've been Omegatron who has a long edit history on the article. EliminatorJR ^Talk 12:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean "shouldn't have been Omegatron".  :-) And you're probably right. But everyone agrees the speedy was inappropriate, right? Speedy deletion is only for very uncontroversial cases. As John said, CSD doesn't stretch nearly this far. Assuming that the speedy is obviously improper, what should I do in a situation like this in the future?

I don't think a move to HHO gas hoax is appropriate (for the same reasons we don't have articles named "Water fuel cell hoax", "Allegations of Bigfoot", or "Supposed Loch Ness Monster sightings") but we can discuss it on the talk page if you want. No one but me and Nescio seem to be participating on the talk page at all at this point. Lots of criticism about the article's state, but no helping hands to fix it. I've listed a lot of things that need to be done or researched. — Omegatron 23:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I speedied the articles. I don't in general mind if people undo my admin actions, though not everyone feels that way and I think it is policy to talk to the admin first. The problem here is Omegatron using admin tools in a situation where he is involved as an editor, and a party to the discussion about deletion. Still, a one-time lapse in judgement should not be a big deal. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

While the personal involvement of the undeleting admin may be problematic, I agree G4/G11 were clearly not applicable and/or erroneously assumed, the speedy deletions were "out of process" and shouldn't have happened in the first place. Femto 17:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Man with two legs 00:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion review states, "If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), then an admin may choose to undelete it immediately." If the speedy deletion was unquestionably incorrect, any admin may restore it, even an involved one. --BigDT 00:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend not quoting out of context. The next two sentences after that one are: In such a case, the admin who deleted the page should be informed. If there is disagreement, or it is unclear whether it was out of process, it should be taken to deletion review. The determination of "unquestionably incorrect" does not equate to "I disagree with your action". -- JLaTondre 01:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, "should" does not equate to "must", but yes, next time there'd better be some notification. Looks like 17 minutes after the deletions were undone, the deleting admin was already aware of it anyway. [5] This is irrelevant to the validity of the undeletion itself however.

The context here is that the pages were incorrectly speedied, isn't it? By definition, you probably disagree with an action when you want to undo it. That's not what the policy means. "If there is disagreement" means that a case should be taken to deletion review 1. when you already know that people won't agree with your undeletion rationale, or 2. when it is not unreasonable to expect active opposition to an undeletion. None of this seems to have been the case here. Or does anybody still maintain that these pages can be properly deleted per G4/G11? Femto 15:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

My comment was generic and not specific to this situation. -- JLaTondre 20:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Notes to closing admin:

• I see a slight majority for keep (16:14?), but without a strong consensus for deletion, AfD defaults to keep, anyway.
• Note that several people who originally voted "delete" have since changed their minds. That counts for a lot.
• The discussions about specific editorial and neutrality issues will continue on the articles' talk pages, where they belong. AfD is not for editorial or inter-personal disputes. I've asked the other party to move the interpersonal stuff to an RfC anyway.

I hope everyone who has participated in this discussion will move to the article's talk page and help write a really high quality article. — Omegatron 19:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that the apparent change of heart was after this user aggressively pursued editors, voicing a delete opinion, to reconsider. Leading one party to withdraw all together and another to be incorrectly cited as having made the wrong comment. Although techniqually allowed I think that if we went after talk pages of all participants in AfD's, or other fora, this might be construed as at best an overly zealous persuasion technique. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• What "change of heart" are you talking about??
• Are you trying to say that it's against the rules to convince people to change their minds about their votes? Wikipedia is not a democracy; we make decisions based on consensus. It is based on a system of good reasons. Convincing other people to change their minds is the whole point. The fact that I was able to convince some people to retract their delete votes and others to change theirs to keep means that those keep votes count a lot more than a regular keep vote. Are you trying to say the the people who changed their minds are complete morons and only did it because I manipulated them? — Omegatron 23:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that it's against the rules to convince people to change their minds about their votes? No, but following people around instead of limiting discussing to the AfD page is debatable.

As to the people who changed their minds are complete morons and only did it because I manipulated them? You might say so, I could not possibly comment.

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm hereby registering my protest at the closure. It does not reflect consensus. If I counted correctly, 13 people recommended to delete, 20 to keep. Even considering the rough history of these articles, and allowing for individual judgement of the arguments, I fail to see how this can be justified as a community decision to delete per our deletion policy, not by a far shot. Femto 12:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if there were a slight majority for delete (which there wasn't), an admin following our deletion process would keep the articles:

• "If there is no consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate."
• "When in doubt, don't delete."
• {{Afd no consensus}}

— Omegatron 23:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

See also User talk:Omegatron#HHO/Brown's Gas for another opinion.

Again the articles have been deleted inappropriately. Lack of consensus for deletion defaults to keep. Even if there was consensus for deleting HHO gas (there wasn't), there definitely isn't consensus for deleting Brown's gas. Will someone please restore these? — Omegatron 12:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, this time it'll need a proper deletion review. (Which I guess everyone wants to avoid. But if it's going to be necessary, there remain valid concerns about the procedure of this AfD.) Let's wait and see what Kurykh has to say. Femto 15:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately you forget to mention the inappropriate recreation of the articles. Consensus after consensus to delete, and then, while provokingly ignoring the reasons for deletion, simply write a new article that still fails WP:SPAM, WP:RS and WP:NOR. This falls under the heading WP:POINT. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand, who exactly are you accusing of disruption to illustrate a point? Everyone who participated in editing these articles? Femto 16:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You're pretending to be unaware that the last DRV explicitly said that recreation was allowed. The current article was not even close to the same content as the deleted one, written again entirely from scratch, so recreation of deleted content doesn't apply at all. — Omegatron 23:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing as an uninvolved administrator, I find that the close failed to properly record differing community opinion for HHO gas and Brown's gas; I have restored Brown's gas as there was a consensus keep for that one and there's no proper question as to its historical, scientific or industrial notability and accuracy. I will not touch HHO gas with a 10-meter pole. Georgewilliamherbert 19:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion this was a questionable decision. But to delete it again would be rather silly and not getting us out of this mess. So for now I've undeleted the talk page too and added my comment there

Pjacobi 20:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As the closing admin, I shall allow the undeletion of Brown's gas, but will not assent, nor will ever assent, to the undeletion of HHO gas without a DRV. Omegatron really needs to learn to stop vote-counting and learn that consensus or majorities in either direction cannot trump policy, nor can it ever trump policy. WP:RS, as a corollary of WP:V and WP:NOR, both core editing policies of Wikipedia, was violated with seeming impunity in this article, and hence has been deleted. I don't see why you are arguing against the proper application of policy. Remember, AfD is not, and is never, a vote. —Kurykh 02:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Flameviper

Just thought I'd get some opinions on this. As outlined on my talk page, I have recently recieved a forwarded message from one of my adoptees, originally from Flameviper.

Quote from Flameviper's message: "Now, even though I'm banned, I'm not going to make an ass of myself. I hope that you can do better than I did when I was here. Perhaps you could even carry on my edits where I left off. But I'm sure you have better things to do that concern yourself with some crusty old vandal. I won't badger you if you don't want me around, but I would like to ask you one thing. Could you please ask someone to delete my user and talk pages? I really don't want those ominous, ill-concieved words to follow me everywhere I go. Ask Netsnipe, he'll understand." (This was to Two-Sixteen.)

I don't see any problem with acting on this request, but I'd like to get the views from more experienced admins before acting on anything, as the whole situation involved many users. Is there any reason why the pages still need to exist? Cheers- CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 08:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you get a message back ask him to log in and email me, to confirm it's from him (or to log in and drop a message and a {{db-user}} tag on his talk page)? Neil ╦ 10:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't generally care very much about block notices on userpages, so delete the main page and blank the talk page if you like. I don't see a real reason to delete the talk page, but protecting blank should be good enough. Kusma (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

True, generally we're not supposed to delete talk pages. I've requested the email address that he used to contact 2-16 so I can email him. If he replies to that- his talk page is protected- I'll unprotect the talk page to allow him to request his userpage deletion, confirm that it is him. If he replies, I'll blank the talk page. (I'll also direct him here in the message). Cheers- CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 11:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

He does have the Right to Vanish, which involves deleting one's talk page. This seems to be what he wants. Just ask him to log in and request deletion of his own talk page. Grandmasterka 19:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

He can request his talk page be deleted himself. No reason for us to do anything. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer the talk page not be deleted, but if the consensus is that it is appropriate in this case, then so be it. --Iamunknown 20:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, his talkpage is protected and has been for months, so he can't request deletion there. Upon receiving confirmation that this is Flameviper's request, I would delete both pages, with the caveat that if he is found engaging in future misconduct they would have to be restored. Newyorkbrad 00:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is going to get me shot, but would anyone support his unblocking? I'd like to work with him, be his mentor on the strict understanding that any future disruption results in re-blocking. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, the original post at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive74#User:Flameviper_needs_a_coach suggested just as much, but somehow it turned into an impromptu votes for banning thing, which is utterly ridiculous. So yeah, I would endorse an unblock. --Iamunknown 00:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with that. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 07:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for one final chance here, I always felt bad that a banning discussion would be headed under "needs a coach." However Ryan as his mentor you need to be absolutely clear that this is his final opportunity to come back with some maturity, Flameviper seems to have an expectation of an infinite amount of chances to redeem himself, as someone with six infinite bans in his block log, and now serving a 3 year ban at Uncyclopedia, he needs to realize that all patience has been exhausted. --MichaelLinnear 22:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

And the comment on his talk indicates some degree of self-awareness, so... why not, I guess. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I trust your judgement, Ryan; if you think you can talk some sense into him, by all means unblock, as long as you're equally willing to reblock in the (I'm sad to say, but entirely likely) event that he doesn't pick up the clue phone. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Unbanning is a bad idea. I remember dealing with this guy; he wasn't here to write the encyclopedia, just join an online community, participate in some web memes, etc. I don't see anything to be gained by unbanning him. He was very immature the last time he tried editing and not much time has passed in the intervening period, so it's very unlikely he's gotten any better. If you unblock, I predict more disruption and a not-so-distant re-banning. --Cyde Weys 15:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, a timescale would help here. You seem to suggest he might mature at some point, so you could suggest a time after which he would be allowed to show this new maturity. Or you could just say that when he gets a clue, create a new account. Carcharoth 15:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to be with Cyde on this one, I really can't see any good coming out of unblocking Flameviper. As pointed out above, a reblock is almost entirely going to happen. If he is unblocked there will have to be very strict restrictions set upon his editing and behaviour, with even a little deviation outside those restrictions resulting in a new block. – Chacor 01:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we actually have a way of controlling or influencing Flameviper? His previous history shows him rejecting well-intended attempts to get him back on the right path. Anyone who hopes to work with him again should read through the set of comments about him in Archive74 and see if they still have the same hopeful opinion. Unblocking is not just an administrative action, all the rest of us would have to put up with whatever he unleashes on us, and clean up the mess. If this were an an Arbcom ban, he could apply to be unblocked after one year, which would be February, 2008. I think we can afford to wait until then. EdJohnston 01:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with those opposing an unblock. I was one of the editors who dealt with him very frequently in his last months on Wikipedia (I was the one who imposed the 1 month block that was later extended to the indefinite block by Yanksox) and don't think this is a wise move. It's been four months since he was blocked. That is hardly enough time for him to mature out of that mindset he displayed on Wikipedia for a very long time (remember this wasn't his first issue, see User:Flameviper/socks). He never brought anything productive to this encyclopedia. It's not like he was a prolific editor who snapped occasionally. Metros 01:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see the new discussion posted on WP:CN. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirects to a protected page protected?

Michael Mullen has been semi-protected after he was nominated as the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Do redirect pages like Mike Mullen typically get protected, or is it even necessary? DarkAudit 18:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm not an admin, I do know the answer to this one: no, they're usually not protected unless they're being vandalized as much as the article. See WP:BEANS --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 18:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The motives behind vandalism of redirect pages are different than for those of their targets (hey, I should know). YechielMan 23:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael Mullen is not semi-protected and never has been. Should it be? If so, list it at WP:RFPP. Chick Bowen 02:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Curious. It was tagged with semi-protection at the time I created the redirect page (~18:30 UTC yesterday). Does that mean a page can be tagged as protected without actually being protected? DarkAudit 14:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The actual protection is independent of the templates. The tags are just used to inform people that the pages are currently protected (since as far as I know, people without the admin flag wouldn't be able to tell whether a page is semi-protected or not without them). Anyone could add the templates on a page, but it's usually disruptive if the page isn't actually protected. - Bobet 15:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Non admins can tell, it just requires a certain level of knowledge about Wikipedia. If you click "edit this page" on a protected page, some red text appears above the edit window informing you that the page is semi-protected. Also, it shows up in the page history and logs. But one usually has to know what they're looking for to notice those things. Natalie 06:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

suggest we unblock Oh yEs itS caRly

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

For the record coelacan restored everything and the user sebsequently made it clear she was sticking by the decision not to edit again. Her user/talk pages have been deleted (after her request by blanking them) and the images deleted too. Thanks/wangi 17:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Oh yEs itS caRly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely by Ryulong after creating an inappropriate username. This occurred after another user nominated many of her images for deletion. This was by no means an uncontroversial action, and while she may have overdone the images on her page, she was nevertheless an otherwise helpful contributor, whom I am now worried that we have driven away. I believe the username creation was a frustrated backlash, and certainly a personal attack, but an isolated incident. I would hope that the user can, if she chooses, return with some dignity without getting the "you are blocked" message in perpetuity, and other users have posted to her talk page asking her to come back, without realizing she currently cannot. She's now been blocked for about 91 hours. I would like to unblock now and let the block be "time served". Ryulong disagrees, so I'm posting here for discussion. ··coelacan 01:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The image deletions are spot on, the block is too long. But hey... I don't think it's that big a deal to unblock just now and then reblock if anything untoward happens... /wangi 01:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The image deletions by Ryulong went hand in hand with the indef-block; it doesn't make sense to keep images around for an indef blocked user. But if we unblock, I'd like to let the IFD discussions run the normal course; or perhaps relist them on today's IFD since there have been extenuating circumstances that may have affected the votes. I'll be content with any result from IFD. ··coelacan 02:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ifds for personal images usually only result in delete if the image is not used and is not going to be used. I would prefer they be undeleted and then wait and see if the editor comes back to use the images. --Iamunknown 02:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets not piss around and waste time. We're not here to host around 10 unused personal images. If the user wants to upload another and use it on their user page then fair go, but lets not waste effort in undeleting and redeleting images just do be policy kranks. Ta/wangi 02:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, well, the reason they're not used is because the user blanked her page in "I'm leaving!!!" mode. They were previously used. I think I am reading Martinp23's opinion correctly to summarize that the images should have been left in place; Moreschi seems to say the same below. I think I would agree. Perhaps it is best to simply undelete the images and close the IFDs. They're in the server anyway; we don't save any disc space by having them displayed or not. I think restoring her page would be the most likely way to invite her to return, if she ever looks here again. ··coelacan 02:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from... But personally I can't see the point. If the user returns then they may choose to resurrect their user page. If so we can undelete (a few!) or they can reupload - it's not a big deal. (I'm not really bothered if someone else undeletes them) /wangi 02:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want her to have to run through the steps of figuring out how to petition for undeletion, and I'm willing to go ahead and do the work now. Since there was initially substantial opinion that her userpage should never have been handled in this way, I'm going to bring it back to the pre-incident state and hope for the best. I will also leave a note for her asking that she not use Wikipedia for more personal uploads, and I'll point her to flickr for that. If that plays out well, it should be a happy balance. ··coelacan 02:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocks should not be used for punishment, so this is not only a controversial indefinite block, but now that it is not "indefinite" it should just be over. Are we afraid this user is going to continue creating inappropiate accounts? Seems highly unlikely to me, so the block should be lifted unless it is to be seen as punishment. -- Renesis (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree, indef is too long. Unblock now, seeing as how he or she has already been blocked for 91 hours, and block (not indef, plz) regularly for personal attacks, inappropriate usernames, etc. --Iamunknown 02:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, might not have been clear... But I've already unblocked. Ta/wangi 02:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Username issue

Hello, I'm Rahk EX, and would like to ask what should be done with the account AFYFAF. As I'm being nice, I will not say who changed the password of my AFYFAF account, but someone did, and rendered it useless. Does anyone have a suggestion of what should be done with it? I am thinking of soft redirecting the AFYFAF user page and talk page to Rahk EX's. Thanks - Rahk  E✘ [[ my disscussions | who am I ]] 13:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the user is going to edit with the compromised account? You can set a redirect if you want. You didn't set an email address on the first account so I'm not sure what we can do. Obviously if the account behaves in a disruptive manner it may be blocked. Otherwise always look after your password and make sure you don't use an easy to guess/crack one like a dictionary word. Secretlondon 21:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the person who changed the password changed it to some random gibberish, so it cannot be used anymore. My currant password is much more secure now, and I will trust it with no one. Thank you - Rahk  E✘ [[ my disscussions | who am I ]] 19:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Notorious sockpuppet User:BryanFromPalatine is back

ResolvedBlocked already. -- Gavia immer (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User:FreedomAintFree

This user is a almost surely a sockpuppet of banned multiple puppet and puppet master User:BryanFromPalatine permabanned during the Free Republic case. His first edit was to Free Republic and within minutes he was editing Democratic Underground. Both these articles are on probation. He already 'knows' WP, all the issues and long-time editors. Just like socks Bryan and Dino Hinnen, he claims heclaims to have been 'lurking' and studying up on WP. Highly doubtful. Please investigate.64.145.158.163 22:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Next time please don't spam this in 10 different places. --MichaelLinnear 22:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Improper review of 3RR and tag-team editing

An edit war involving myself, several other editors and the admin Raul654 has been going on at House demolition. Today, User:Raul654 violated 3RR on that page, and was reported by me. The reviewing admin, User:Tariqabjotu improperly closed the report with the incorrect claim that there are only 3 reverts, even though 4 reverts are very clearly listed. He then proceeded to protect the page, but User:Raul654, in an abuse of his admin tools, continues to edit the page, alleging his edits are non-controversial. Isarig 23:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to respond to this again; Isarig contacted on my talk page about this and I just gave a response to most of this. The allegations of tag-team editing are common and usually unfounded (as is the case here). In addition, the last sentence in Isarig's statement is an exaggeration. -- tariqabjotu 00:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

How is it an exaggeration ? has he not edited the page after it was protected by you, with an edit he has not discussed on talk? If you really want to dispel suspicions of tag-team editing, the proper response would be for you to caution Raul654 about this practice. Isarig 00:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You make it sound as if Raul has been making multiple edits to the page (...alleging his edits...). If you see Raul's edit (singular) as controversial and related to the dispute, perhaps you should explain why you think that way on the talk page for the article (or else it would not be an abuse of his admin tools). As for dispelling suspicions of tag-team editing, I don't feel the need to do that; you are the only one who has them and I don't give into extortion on days that end with y. You seem more interested in getting me (or someone else) to give Raul some sort of reprimand than simply halt the conflict; that is not what blocks are for. -- tariqabjotu 00:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You have the process ass-backward. It is not up to me (or anyone) to explain why an edit made after a page has been protected is improper - anyone wishing to make edits there after th epage was protected must first, at a minimum , describe what he wants to do on the Talk page, and if it is truly non-controversial, have a non-involved admin make them. For him, as an active participant in the edit-war, to edit the page after it was protected, for ANY reason, is a gross abuse of his admin tools. The way it was done - with Raul violating 3RR, then you improperly closing the 3RR, then you protecting the page, then him editing the page after it was protected, and then you teaming up with him again, making excuses for his behavior here and inviting him come here and voice baseless accusations at me stinks. You should really review your conduct here, as you are out of line. Isarig 04:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Isarig is POV pushing on that article, and his behavior in general is quite irksome. Almost every word he writes is either a misrepresentation or an outright falsehood. I'd appreciate an admin taking a clue-stick to him. Raul654 00:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You have been POV pushing on that page AND violated 3RR there AND proceeded to edit the page after it was protected. It takes some gall to make the accusations you have made here, especially the request that someone take a "clue-stick" to me, which sounds like a threat. This is disgraceful behavior from a policy flouting admin. You've been blocked for this kind of behavior before, and should be once again. Isarig 00:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you guys are looking for dispute resolution. If Raul were to abuse the tools by making edits related to the dispute or any controversial edits, then there's something administrative that needs to be done ... but until then? There is nothing anyone can do other than mediation. --BigDT 05:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. WP:PROTECT explicitly says "Admins should not edit pages that are protected due to a content dispute, unless there is consensus for the change, or the change is unrelated to the dispute. However, this should only be done with great caution, and administrators doing so should indicate this on the article's talk page." Raul654 did not do so. A note of some kind from an uninvolved admin pointing him to proper procedure is in order. Isarig 17:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot and Fair use

When starting the current Fair use tagging I planned 3 phases, but since Phase 1 has caused so much grief, I'm going to break Phase 2 into three parts. Also Im going to explain all the parts and my current time table.

Phase 1

• identify and tag all images with less than 20 characters, excluding templates, and skipping pages that have the non-free rationale template.
• this will re-start July 1^st, 2007 and should last no more than five days to tag the remaining 5478 images that meet that criteria.
  • this uses {{missing rationale}}, {{missing rationale2}} and {{dfu}} /or {{nrd}} depending on the upload date.

Phase 2

• check the image description page text for the title of at least one pages where the image is used. tag the image and notify users (per policy you have to state where you need it and why. and this only tags images with zero valid fair use rationales.)
• this will start on July 15, 2007 or when the image backlog from phase 1 is under 1000 images (which ever is longer).
  • I would like input for templates to use for this section. Im thinking the same templates as Phase 1.

Phase 3

• repeat phase 2 for every image use.
• this will start on either August 1^st, 2007 or August 15, depending on the number of images Phase 2 encountered. again this will also follow the 1000 image, or date (which ever is longer) method.
  • I would like input for templates to use for this section.

Phase 4

• have a bot remove images instead of tag images that fail Phase 3.
• this will start no less than 30 days or 1000 images (which ever is longer) from the completion date of Phase 3.
  • I would like input for templates to use for this section.

Suggestions and advice are welcome, personal attacks and complaints can be filed at /dev/null Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to take a large step towards being closer to being legal with our FU images. ^(H) 01:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too - I'd also just like to thank you for all the hard work you've done on this project; I know you got a lot of grief for it, but it's worth it. --Haemo 03:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest looking for the phrase "fair use rationale" as a section heading. There are many people (including me) who do not like to use any template to say that the image has a fair use rationale but rather specify the page layout by hand. --soum ^talk 07:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Or anywhere in the page, not just as a heading. Obvious variants "fair use reasons", "fair use justifications" and so on.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Searching the entire page for the etxt has some obvious disadvantages. If something like "I will not provide a fair use rationale" is written, then also it will pass the analysis. Thats why I suggested leaving entire sentences out of it. Or may be ignore all instances of "fair use rationale" and variants and still some substantial (50+ characters) text should remain. --soum ^talk 10:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

what im looking for in phase 2 & 3 is if Image:foo.jpg is used on page Bar, Does the text of page Image:foo.jpg contain the word bar. so it shouldnt matter what templates are used. But I would like help creating templates to notify users of the improper fair use rationales. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 12:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If an image includes a rationale, but does not say "Fair use rationale for article X" or "This rationale applies to article X" or whatever, but is used only in article X, we can assume good faith and conclude that the rationale was meant for that article only, and that the user inaverdently overlooked the fact. Rather than assuming the user does not understand fair use, or is trying to get us sued or whatever. In that case, what about using the bot to add the reference to the article? --soum ^talk 13:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

the issue is does that rationale cover said image use? its too difficult for a bot to judge the validity and what text makes up a valid rationale as there can be many permutations of the same idea phrased 1000 different ways. But one key to a valid rationale is saying where you claim the rationale is for. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you clarify phase 4 for me.What do you mean by "have a bot remove images" ? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If [:Image:foo.jpg]] is used on page Bar and blah, Does the text of page Image:foo.jpg contain the word bar and blah. If it only finds blah the bot would remove it from Bar but leave it on Bar Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 12:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I presume it means he will orphan the images from articles where the article name isn't mentioned on the image description page. -N 08:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In substantial discussion at WT:FAIR#Way forward, there is broad support for throttling to bot to 300-500 images or image-uses per day, a proposal put up by User:Eagle_101. This is a reasonable amount for third parties to be able to look at, and to add rationales for, when fair use is appropriate; rather than creating another impossible tag mountain that is more than can be humanly processed in 7 days or 10 days from tagging.

Note also broad consensus there to suspend CSD I6 until July 1, to give time to process the existing tag mountain without unnecessary collateral damage; and to rewrite I6 when not suspended to be 7 (or 10) days from tagging rather than from upload.

It would be a mistake to tag images so quickly that I6 had to be suspended again. Jheald 09:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Im doing a dry run now to get an Idea of how many images would be caught in each phase right now. when thats done Ill post the preliminary counts. But at last count phase 1 had ~5k images. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 12:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

300 images a day is way too low. As Cyde said, at that rate it's going to take forever to tag all the said inappropriate images. -Pilotguy hold short 13:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand said there were around 5K images. So @300 per day, it wont take more than 3 weeks, which should be acceptible, IMO. Remember tagging is not the goal, purging the offenders is. Thats not bots who will enforce it, its humans. And deleting images take a lot more effort than anything else. --soum ^talk 13:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No reason to go at a snails pace, not unless it is making mistakes. At least 1000 a day, bots do work like that all the time. ^(H) 13:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Bots might, but people are another story. Mister.Manticore 15:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You must be mistaking in what you remember Betacommand saying, because we are dealing with a lot more than just 5,000 images. At the snail's pace of 300 a day it will take way too long. The answer is to increase human participation, not throttle down the bot. A single person can easily handle 100 images in a day. It's not much work, just a lot of deletion. The directions for how to handle these tagged images should be presented in a very clear manner and advertised widely on such places as this board. --Cyde Weys 15:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but I think the idea is to give people time to write fair-use rationales. It is possible that among the huge piles of tagged images, there are some that could have genuine fair-use rationales. I'm all for getting bots to do the work, but is it not possible to rig up a bot to post notifications on the pages of all the uploaders and/or the talk pages of the articles using the images? On the other hand (my view), just announce in various prominent places that a large number of fair-use images without rationales have been tagged for deletion, then, after a set period of time, get a team of humans to delete them and replace the red-links with a placeholder image (straight removal of red-links might pass unoticed), and then allow a longer amnesty period of a month or so, in which people can request undeletion to add a fair-use rationale. That way, those image that are genuinely required will probably be rescued, those that weren't won't be, and in any case, most fair-use pictures should be obtainable again if really needed, and a fair use rationale added to the new upload. Carcharoth 15:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth the bot notifies all users in the file history of an image,(except for a few users that I have on an ignore list), it also tags the image, and it leaves a note on the talk page of all the pages that use the image. Oh and to boot im currently working on a wikiproject notification opt-in option for the next round of images. and the 5,000 article count is to finish phase 1. phase 2&3 will generate a lot more images. that 5k count is the remainder of the original tag run that netted over 25,000 images. phase 1 is the loosest phase and should catch the fewest images. I expect phase 2 & 3 combined to identify 60,000+ images that need fixed. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the time to write fair use rationals is now, or even yesterday. The images are still left with the tag for a week. If we lose any fair use pictures they can just be re-uploaded. ^(H) 15:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I quite agree that fair use images, if genuinely fair use, are probably widely available and can easily be reuploaded. So why not just delete all the fair use stuff now? Carcharoth 16:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Or, for that matter, they can very easily be undeleted. I've caught a couple of images on my watchlisted articles that got shuffled off the wiki coil because they didn't have rationales. Just undelete and provide a rationale. Voila, problem(s) solved. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That requires a list of admins willing to carry out undeletions on request from non-admins. Carcharoth 16:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Or, even simpler, non-admins can create/re-create the talk page, and use {{editprotected}} to request admin assistance for the undeletion. Or would that be technically an incorrect use of that template? I would suggest that the rationale be provided before undeletion takes place, and that talk pages be restored along with the image (is that the default setting?). Carcharoth 16:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's remember (Cyde and H n.b.) that this is not about deletion, for deletion's sake.

Our objective here is the Foundation's requirement on us to achieve full compliance on image rationales by April 2008, and our obligation to wikiusers to manage this process with as little collateral damage, and as little undue bruising as possible. We should all keep in mind one of the fundamental injunctions of the project: Don't be a dick.

From what I have seen of BCbot's taggings, the clear majority of the images do have an acceptable fair use on the project. What they don't have is a rationale. There are people now gearing up to supply as many of those rationales as possible. It is reasonable to try to accomodate them.

BC reckons that there will be about 60,000 usages that will require rationales. At 500 taggings a day, that works out at 120 days - so about 4 months, well within the April 2008 deadline. And it may actually turn out to be fewer usages in the event, if BC can circulate his draft list to projects and other interested parties ahead of time -- so we may get there even sooner.

This is not about how much we can delete. It is about how with least upset we can get compliant. Jheald 23:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

One comment from a non-admin who is working in an area (numismatics) where many images have unknown copyright and thus must be considered to be fair use. I have been reading everything I can find about writing a fair use rationale. I have asked questions at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. I have tried to supply a valid fair use rationale on all images I uploaded. I assume I'm doing something wrong though, since I've used the exact same text for multiple images, which I'd like to replace with a template, but templates are supposedly not okay for fair use rationales. I have read many other users questioning why templates are not okay, or how to write a fair use rationale, and not getting sufficient answers. I certainly do not feel confident that I am doing things right, and do not know how to help fix the currency images that are currently not correctly tagged. So, until the guidelines are more clear, I can't see that it's time to tag more images. If it's so easy to write fair use rationales, can User:Betacommand or someone else tell me if Image:East Africa 1 cent (KM22).jpg has a valid rationale? Can you explain why I can't use a template for this and all the other coin images I've uploaded for the same page? If I and some other editors can get a little more help now, I think the bot will need to tag a lot fewer images as we go through and clean up. Ingrid 02:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

that is a red link image and Im not an admin, so I cant tell you either way, But see WP:FURG for a guideline on writing rationales. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot the ":Image". I fixed the link above. I've read WP:FURG, and followed it as best I can. But I ended up with what should be a template which makes me think it wouldn't be accepted. Ingrid 02:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

and you would be correct. you need to state why you need Image:East Africa 1 cent (KM22).jpg in that specific article. why must that page have Image:East Africa 1 cent (KM22).jpg on it? why cant we just delete the image? why must East African shilling have an image of the coin? see where my questions are going? if you can say that the page doesnt require the image then the image use is not compliant with fair use. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Now I'm stuck wondering who gets to decide if the page needs an image. I feel that it does, since the coin is described thoroughly, but a text description simply can't convey everything about it. But would a table of each type of coin produced with an image (where available) for each one be considered a gallery? I know I can convince the bot (at this point anyway), but I don't want to make any more effort to improve the article (in my view) if it will simply be deleted later. Ingrid 17:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is an idea, you are correct that table is basically a gallery. Instead of using a table why not have a section on the page about each coin? (I havent read the article but let me shoot a few ideas out) in that section have a history of the coin, has there been changes in the design? where did the design come from? what is the symbolism behind the markings/words? when was it first

minted? how long has it been in production? those are a few ideas. But if you get the idea behind those questions and similar ideas and put it in a section about a coin and use the image there, there will not be a problem with the usage of the image, and then make sure that the rationale on the image clearly states the need for the image on that page and there should not be any problems. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jheald, I love any opportunity anyone gives me to bring this one out: Don't be a fucking douchebag. --Cyde Weys 02:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't me that titled that essay. I'm just saying it is something we should all bear in mind here. If the essay had been titled "Have a sense of balance and be excellent to one another", I would have linked to it as "Have a sense of balance and be excellent to one another". It's the content of the essay that's relevant here. (Read it, it preaches good sense). My apologies, I am sorry, if you identified the title with yourself personally. Jheald 08:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

just a heads up my old numbers are way off, here are my current numbers and Ive only checked up to the images starting with C (I'm somewhere in that letter). Phase 1: 47 || Phase 2: 27046 || Phase 3: 25712 || Total: 52805 those are the images that are not compliant. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Valid criticisms

I have just been catching up on wiki-news, and through the Signpost I read about Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes, and have read the resulting pages of discussion. What I was wondering was whether the point about valid criticism and useful material (ie. not attack material) on dedicated Wikipedia criticism sites could be secondarily linked to? ie. Could a Wikipedia user post a statement elsewhere on the internet (eg. a personal blog site like those run by, among others, David Gerard and Kelly Martin) discussing and linking to the valid criticism at the controversial site, and then link to that blog post from a Wikipedia talk page? Would this 'distancing' of the controversial link, making it a click-read-click step away, help at all? This wouldn't of course help in the case of reliable parts of a site (well-written, sourced articles) that also has controverial parts (eg. an online forum) being used as a reliable source for a Wikipedia article, but that is a different issue, so I will leave that aside for now. The main question here is, would indirect linking help resolve the problem of not shutting out valid criticism? Carcharoth 12:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally, linking to a site that has attacks (even if it's via a chain) is a violation of WP:NPA. If my userpage has a link to my normal blog, which itself links to my "Carcharoth is a complete Douchebag" blog, and I say "Hey - check out my normal blog - and click the link at the top" - that's a personal attack. If the New York Times runs a letter to the editor complaining that Jimbo has a terrible haircut ---- we're not going to delink all the references to the New York Times (well, most of us won't). It's a common sense application, of course. The end result is that you shouldn't link to anything that'd be inappropriate to just post. WilyD 15:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy speedy deletion

It came to my attention that more and more newbie admins delete "speedy" or "prod" tagged pages without waiting the necessary time. PLEASE DON'T. `'юзырь:mikka 16:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Pages marked for speedy deletion can, with very few exceptions, be deleted at any time. Where's the problem there? Anything else, and you'll need to provide some diffs before I'd see it as a potential problem. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] There is no time limit for speedy deletion, something can have been tagged for very little time or no time at all, the point is that the articles are not valid, full stop. As for the prod situation, can you be more specific? Give some examples? J Milburn 16:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; speedies are no problem, but carrying out a PROD too early is a bad idea. --Masamage ♫ 18:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless the prodded article also fails a speedy criterion, in which case it can be speedied as normal. That might be what's happening here, but without specifics, there's really nothing anyone can do. Mikkalai, can you point us to any specific instances where you believe a deletion was done improperly? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of our speedy deletion criteria do require a given amount of time however i.e. those for images. It is important that the required time after the uploader is notified of the tagging has actually elapsed before these images are deleted. WjBscribe 20:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Some articles are tagged within minutes or seconds of their creation, even when the author is clearly intending to improve it and is just engaging in progressive saves. However, this is not an issue for admins — or even newbie admins — but a failing on the part of RC patrollers. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad image list

Can someone sort out the images on genital wart for the MediaWiki:Bad image list please? (originally raised on the help desk). --h2g2bob (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done - ewwww! - Alison ☺ 18:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"Self-block"

Resolved

 – Monobook.css file fixed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have accidentally added this to my monobook.css page, and now cannot view Wikipedia any more. I disabled the autologin feature of my browser and created this emergency account. My question is: how can I remove this line from my monobook.css page? The page only seems to be editable by the user it belongs to. Could any admin assist me in this. Cheers, Emergencyaccount 19:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC) (Salaskan)
Oh, by the way, once it's fixed, this account can be indefblocked. Emergencyaccount 19:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed your monobook. I'm afraid user requested self-blocks are not typically done. --Deskana (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? No, that's not what I meant, I meant that I practically blocked myself when I accidentally put that line in my monobook. Emergencyaccount 19:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• What Deskana was trying to say is that the indef block of the "emergency account" will not be done due to a risk of collateral damage amongst other things. GDonato (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD in limbo

This is a bit of a weird situation. There might be a better place for discussing this, but if there is, I couldn't find it and appreciate any references.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonian Age of Awakening is now in limbo. The original nominator, Ghirlandajo, has expressed intent to withdraw the nomination, but subsequently crossed this expression out and finally "left in disgust", apparently abandoning the whole affair. The current consensus is an overwhelming 'keep'; the only 'delete' recommendation is by the original nominator.

Can an administrator look into the situation and decide if a speedy close is appropriate? Digwuren 20:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I closed it as speedy keep as the nominator has withdrawn the nom, then seemingly abandoned both the nom and the withdrawal of the nom(!?). Nobody else supports the deletion. ^(H) 20:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

IFDs in limbo

Can someone please look at (at least) Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 21 through Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 25? There are only a few images left, but those that are left were commented on by the IFD regulars (i.e. Howcheng). I'd say delete for all of them, but I'm not an admin.

There are many others (the 27th on), but if we could at least get those five done, it would be much less backlogged. --Iamunknown 21:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Plagerism, what to do?

A few weeks ago, I read that wikipedia articles plagerize copyrighted articles much more often than any reasonable editor would like.

I just found an instance where several paragraph are plagerized. See the article for internationally acclaimed architect, I. M. Pei.

This is our (wikipedia article):
before moving to the United States to study architecture at the age of 18. He started at the University of Pennsylvania before going on to receive his Bachelor of Architecture degree from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1940. That same year, he was awarded the Alpha Rho Chi Medal, the MIT Traveling Fellowship, and the AIA Gold Medal. He enrolled at the Harvard Graduate School of Design two years later; shortly thereafter, he served at the National Defense Research Committee in Princeton, New Jersey.

In 1944 he returned to Harvard, received his master degree in Architecture in 1946 and stayed at Harvard as an assistant professor. He received the Wheelwright Traveling Fellowship in 1951 and became a naturalized citizen of the United States in 1954.

This is http://www.netglimse.com/celebs/pages/i_m_pei/index.shtml which says this at the bottom: Copyright © 2001-2004 NetGlimse.com. Privacy PolicyAll Rights Reserved.

before moving to the United States to study architecture at the age of 18. He started at the University of Pennsylvania before going on to receive his Bachelor of Architecture degree from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1940. That same year, he was awarded the Alpha Rho Chi Medal, the MIT Travelling Fellowship, and the AIA Gold Medal. He enrolled at the Harvard Graduate School of Design two years later; shortly thereafter, he served at the National Defense Research Committee in Princeton, New Jersey. In 1944 he returned to Harvard, received his master degree in Architecture in 1946 and stayed at Harvard as an assistant professor. He received the Wheelwright Traveling Fellowship in 1951 and became a naturalized citizen of the United States in 1954.

Aside from the list of his projects, this plagerized part is over half of the article.

It is interesting to note that the above source has wrong information which was copied to the wikipedia article. I have corrected it. The original name of I. M. Pei's firm was I. M. Pei and Associates and was changed to ....and Partners several years later.

The question posed is what should editors do about plagerized materials? I believe the correct action is deletion, even though it may seem painful. I will rewrite it. VK35 21:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Its only deleted if the whole thing is plagiarized from the beginning. Otherwise, remove the copied parts, revert to the last non-plagiarized version, or (best solution) rewrite it. Also, for established articles, there is the chance that the other website copied our article and tried to pass it off as their own. There are hundreds of sites that mirror Wikipedia and use Wikipedia's content, with varying levels of GFDL compliance. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In this particular case, I suspect the plagiarism went the other way. See this version and the previous versions which clearly show the development of the version now at http://www.netglimse.com/celebs/pages/i_m_pei/index.shtml. As far as what to do, in this case I think the GFDL non-compliance process at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks is the appropriate action. What to do about problems going the other way is listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the theory that the other site may have plagerized it from wikipedia is that wikipedia's policy is not to have original research. The content in question had only 1 citation and that citation did not provide quite a few details that was in the wikipedia article. So the wikipedia content was either uncited or original research. Another possibility is that the editor had contact with the Pei family. But then, that would be original research.

Regarding Rick Block's comments, he may be correct. On the other hand, there was some discussion about Mr. Pei's birthplace which was then corrected.

Even if the other site copied it from us, this serves as a warning that we as wikipedia editors should uphold the highest ethical and professional standards.VK35 21:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The article's edit history clearly shows that NetGlimse has plagiarised Wikipedia. So while it would be nice of User:VK35 to rewrite the article in order to improve it, there is no legal need to do so. It makes no difference whether the article is incorrect, uncited or whatever. NetGlimse still shouldn't have copied it without following the GFDL rules. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Tanya Kach

Why is Tanya Kach a fully-protected redirect to Kidnapping? Where in the Kidnapping is there a mention of this person, and how does the redirect serve the community? Corvus cornix 21:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried asking JzG, who protected the page? - auburnpilot talk 21:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Second the asking the person responsible as opposed to asking us, who can only guess. As my guess, however, I consider this version before redirect and protection a major BLP-related concern, especially considering that it was not well-referenced. Also, seeing as how she seems only notable for one event (the kidnapping), I don't think it is appropriate. But that is my opinion. --Iamunknown 22:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Then shouldn't it be salted, instead of being a nonsense redirect? You're right, I should have talked to Guy first, I'll do that now. Corvus cornix 22:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• It was redirected in response to well-founded concerns, and WP:NOT a newspaper, and this [6] atrocious version was posted instead, so I protected it as a redirect. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanya Kach (second nomination). Guy (Help!) 22:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Why not just salt and protect? Corvus cornix 22:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ask Doc, I guess. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall inserting a reference to this kidnap victim, appropriate to context and weighting, into Kidnapping. It is possible that it was removed, again on grounds of undue weight. I think it would probably be better as a salted deletion, really. --Tony Sidaway 22:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah no, here it still is:

Kidnapping frequently excites keen press coverage.

I wanted to say "lurid", but thought that would be too weaselly. --Tony Sidaway 22:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The DRV happened here which resulted in overturn, with a strong suggestion of changing from a biography to an account of the events. The AFD (as linked above) was speedily closed and deleted, given the absolute enforcement of the DRV closure over the Allison Stokke article, I'm surprised that the DRV outcome in this case was not respected. It was then restored after some rightful prodding. The page was then redirected to Kidnapping without discussion which I thought was rather poor (I would not mention Tanya Kach in the Kidnapping article). It would have been a lot more beneficial to have just overturned the deletion, restored the original content and then chop out the shit like "Hose also gained some unexpected celebrity due to his uncanny resemblance to Saturday Night Live actor Kevin Nealon.", moving the article if needs be. It certainly beats the "atrocious" version that JzG links to. - hahnchen 23:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

EverybodyHatesChris (talk · contribs) possible trolling?

The above editor, who earlier raised a complaint against me at WP:AN/I#User:LessHeard vanU has assumed bad faith and lied that I have trolled, continues to use another editors, User:Migospia, talkpage to conduct an argument with a third party, User:Danielfolsom, (first example and second example) and I commented, in passing that EverybodyHatesChris (EHC) was causing trouble. This earned me this rebuke, later modified, before EHC returned to his comments about Danielfolsom here and here. In the meantime EHC also had contacted me to note he was complaining about my comments.

I would comment that EHC had previously come into dispute with both Migospia, Danielfolsom and myself a few days ago on the Coral Smith talkpage which resulted in my blocking him for three hours. My involvement ended with the block, but I note he continued to engage with Danielfolsom over another article where their relationship veered between friendliness and rank incivility. It also appears that Migospia was interacting with Danielfolsom at that time.

Could another admin look into this and confirm that EHC is, if not trolling, acting outside the norms of civility and good faith by using a dispute between two other editors to cause further ill-feeling against the absent party? With the history I have difficulty assuming good faith on behalf of this editor, especially considering that EHC's Contribution history shows that there has only been interaction recently with the aforementioned editors and User:Rockpocket, Danielfolsom's mentor and also the subject of an EHC complaint. Since I am already involved in this I would like an opinion on my actions so far, and suggestions on a course to proceed upon.

Whoever takes a peek, I would caution a careful tread and a thick skin! Thanks. LessHeard vanU 22:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add my support to the suggestion that someone take a look at EHC's editing techniques. I was the subject of a similar complaint a few days back (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive256#Issues w/ Administrator Rockpocket). There appears to be a pattern forming, that would be best nipped in the bud. Rockpocket 01:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I see 200 or so edits that don't build an encyclopedia in the past few days. His last article edit was 5 days ago. He's not here to help us, anymore. I've blocked him indef for now. His choices have been ridiculous.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Indef seemse harsh. Perhaps a week to see if this gets him to behave? Neil ╦ 08:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Another editor advised him on how to get unblocked and he has indicated he is retiring from the project [7]. Rockpocket 08:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I would reduce the block anyway, and allow him to choose to return if he wants to. Neil ╦ 09:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I would support a shorter block, and try to get him/her back to editing articles. When editing article space he is an okay editor. LessHeard vanU 12:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:JoJ

Resolved

 – Issue resolved, apparently. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This user keeps posting ridiculously long edit summaries which annoys me because it shows up on the recent changes pages as long lines. What is the user trying to do? Trying to get our attention or just having fun? --_Hdt83 ^Chat 23:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean JoJ (talk · contribs)? If so, he only has one edit, and that was to post an unblock request...has someone deleted his edits? hbdragon88 23:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That was fast. An admin deleted the user talk page and then redirected it to the user page, where it shows that it's a WoW sockpuppet. hbdragon88 23:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Request unblock for Anupamsr

Resolved

 – User unblocked. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Could an admin unblock Anupamsr (talk · contribs) - this is was a legal secondary account of Scheibenzahl (talk · contribs) blocked in a mis-interpretation of WP:SOCK by User:Rama's Arrow. Since then Rama's Arrow has apologized to him and unblocked his other account, but this block is still in place for some reason. As the user is not banned, and as there have never been any arbitration nor community enforced restrictions on his accounts, this block should not be in place. People would argue that he's left Wikipedia, but I know plenty of people (myself included) who leave Wikipedia after something like this only to come back later - and when he does it is best that there is no confusion on his banned/not-banned status (as there was with me). I would ask Rama's Arrow myself but he is in a rather tight spot in his arbitration and it's best for me to not talk to him.--Konstable 02:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to second this, there is no reason for this block to remain in place. --MichaelLinnear 02:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. (aeropagitica) 04:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Bad Faith Account

Could an administrator please delete the account User:CamelCommodore. I posted a message on the user page a few days ago explaining the situation. An investigation revealed that this was an account created for the sole purpose of causing trouble in an arbitration case and casting a shadow of suspicion on another user. Maintaining this account on Wikipedia serves no useful purpose as it is a reminder of a very heated and sensitive situation which all parties have since tried to move past. -195.229.236.213 05:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, at most, it can be indefinitely blocked, rather than be deleted. However, if you'd like it to be blocked, you'd better pony up some diffs. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that it has already been blocked. Would like to see it removed from the site if that is possible for a variety of reasons, most of them off-wiki ones. -195.229.236.213 05:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not generally possible, for attribution reasons -- but see the Oversight noticeboard at the top if you have serious libel concerns. --Haemo 05:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not at the top; it's here Wikipedia:Oversight --Haemo 05:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That is very helpful. -195.229.236.213 05:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't think the account should be deleted - unless the user himself is willing to log in and request this under m:Right to vanish. Neil ╦ 15:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Accounts can not be deleted. The contributions might be removed by requests for oversight, but it is unlikely. The account could be renamed to something obscure, like user:Former user x0121. The account holder will have to log in and request a name change at WP:CHU. Thatcher131 15:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you everyone above for the good information. I doubt the person who created that account could ever be talked into logging in like you suggest nor is the existence of that account serious enough to actually cause harm to the person it was meant to discredit. I suppose its fine the way it is with the statement on there about the suspected bad faith creation. Thank you again for the polite responses, even from those who thought they might have been dealing with someone that they once had problems with. Matter resolved. -38.119.112.187 04:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Glaring abuse of Admin Powers by User:Ryulong and unjustified blocking activity

I had to walk across town to use another computer in order to post this message, which I feel needs to be posted. The original inquiry was a legitimate concern and I approached the Admin Noticeboard in good faith and got what I thought was a good answer. However, within hours of my post, my ip address was blocked for an invalid reason and, quite frankly, what seems like someone with a grudge. Requests to get unblocked have gone unanswered and I am hoping that I am not breaking a rule by using another computer to post, but it seems to be the only way I can get on Wikipedia now. My formal complaint is as follows:

I was shocked that within a few hours of this exchange, User:Ryulong proceeded to block the ip address as a “banned account” in accordance with Husnock’s arbitration case. This was a completely invalid reason to block the ip address for the glaring fact that Husnock’s account, or any account associated with him, was never banned. I reviewed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock and there was absolutely no mention about a ban on this user. I then used a VPN (under a different ip address) to approach the blocking user in order to politely explain the situation and state that a mistake had been made [8]. Ryulong then blocked the VPN even after being told that Husnock was never banned and that the block was unfair and reverted the original inquiry from his talkpage without discussion (as if it were vandlism) [9]. So, I have to ask, why were these accounts blocked? As for any of these accounts actually being Husnock, bear in mind that the point of an anonymous account is that it is anonymous. There is no Wikipedia regulation which states that an anon ip account must identify itself and I will not confirm or deny that I am Husnock or any other user. And regardless of who is “behind the keyboard” in this case, the original concern was very valid which is why I came here in the first place. A member of an IT staff showed extensive knowledge about the Husnock Arbitration case and then admitted to creating the CamelCommodore account. He had knowledge of the account’s password and its edits and was, at one point, a subordinate of Husnock in the military unit which had used the computer facilities from where these accounts originated. I thank the users above for providing the information about the oversight, but ask the other users who launched into this “let’s get Husnock” campaign to step back and think about what you’re doing. I truly feel this was for personal feelings rather than any violation of Wikipedia policy. Finally, I ask that certain people get off this horse that Husnock is some evil user who should be blocked on sight. The arbitration case is over and Husnock hasn’t edited disruptively since last year. In fact, over the last year he has served his country's military in the Middle East. Yet, whenever any account appears which is perhaps in any way associated with him, it is attacked, harassed, and now apparently blocked without cause. This even being the case when ip addresses are spread throughout the world, from different countries, editing within minutes of each other. If Husnock were to return to this site tomorrow, and started editing again under his old account, would he be welcomed back and assisted to rejoin the community? A question to ask oneself, I feel.

Thank you for letting me vent this, it was just very disturbing. I again hope that I not breaking any rule or regulation by posting this. It simply seemed like an admin blocked these ip addresses without any cause, justification, or reason other than a personal dislike for Husnock. This is something that should be brought to other's attention. -213.42.2.22 15:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The IP addresss should not have been blocked. I will raise it with Ryulong. Neil ╦ 15:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No response, so unblocked. Neil ╦ 19:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems like the right course of action, to me. I'm assuming Ryulong has a good explanation for his actions; he's generally pretty reasonable. --Masamage ♫ 19:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Procedure for multiple recreation of spam page?

Resolved

 – Or seems to be, for now. Feel free to remove this template if something new crops up. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Stumbled across The New Release today. Apparently the page has been speedy-deleted twice as spam, but is now recreated with the same content, by the same user. What's standard procedure here? --Alvestrand 06:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Tag it again. If it's recreated a lot in a short span of time, an admin may salt the earth. Natalie 07:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Dishonorable behavior

Last week I was blocked 48 hours for 3RR violation. I already discussed at length on my talk page the mitigating circumstances in that case, which prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I should not have been blocked at all. Of course, I should not have needed to bother with such lengthy statements, as my note on the 3RR report itself was certainly enough, and in any case the record itself speaks the same ideas. Nonetheless, as a result of the contemptible behavior of the admins reviewing my block (with one exception whom I will not name for his protection), I am compelled to come here to seek satisfaction.

The lies and dishonesty used against me must in justice be called lies and dishonesty. Implying that 3RR is always enforced strictly with no discretion, as did Yamla in particular; use of the pejorative term 'wikilawyering' and falsely claiming that I was warned before violation, as did JzG; implying that I was not engaged in a civil discussion, as did the blocking admin; the block summary, calling my actions 'a repeated pattern', as well as falsely calling them 'edit warring' as did several parties; and lastly, ignoring my arguments - as did the blocking admin, all the reviewing admins, and arguably Viridae - could itself be termed dishonest, as there could be no conclusion reached by an examination of them other than that the block was unjust.

In addition to properly vindicating my personal honor, it is necessary to expose this to the entire community in order save my reputation from being ruined by this block. I am not a problem editor in any way and my edit history certainly bears that out - although I do use reverting perhaps more than normal, I am not regularly tendentious, uncivil, ignorant, or biased on any topic. In addition I have a rule, which I have mentioned before, of never reverting more than once without some kind of explanation except in cases of vandalism. The way, the truth, and the light 08:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring is not acceptable behaviour. Continuing to edit war whilst engaging in discussion is still edit warring. In future, please do not continue to revert other editors - instead, wait until consensus is reached via discussion before making further changes to the article. In order to give other editors a chance to contribute, it's prudent to wait at least 24 hours and sometimes up to a week before taking any action. Therefore there is no excuse for making 3 or more reverts within 24 hours. Waggers 09:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is there for anyone to see - if you dispute my characterizations, look at the record for yourself rather than repeating the lies. There is no doubt that the words 'edit warring', as well as 'continued reverting', simply do not apply. Also, the history of that article, List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, shows that no one was more diligent (perhaps equally, but not more) than I was at the time. The way, the truth, and the light 02:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• That you're reverting to different versions is not a mitigating circumstance. That you believe FeloniousMonk to misunderstand something is not a mitigating circumstance either. That you believe to be in dispute with Jayjg is grounds for WP:RFM or WP:RFC dispute resolution, but is not a mitigating circumstance with respect to edit warring. Et cetera. >Radiant< 09:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:CyclePat

CyclePat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has emailed me again requesting unblock, but he makes it perfectly clear that he will continue to campaign for the reactivation of WP:AMA, which campaign is what got him blocked in the first place, so I am disinclined to unblock. He is being asked by at least one former AMA advocate to drop it, with similar lack of success. This fills me with sadness. I like Pat, for all that he is irritatingly persistent. I am not sure who can persuade him to drop it, Kim Bruning tried and failed. Good ideas welcome. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are intended to prevent further violations, such as trolling[10] in this particular case. After reviewing Pat's talk page, it seems to me that he is 200% sure that everything he does is perfectly right. I see no point in unblocking him unless he promises to stop his crusade against the communty's consensus. MaxSem 10:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone can talk him through the consensus? He really really does not accept that it exists. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The only other thing I can think of is banning him from the Wikipedia namespace altogether, just let him contribute to articles. This may not be practical, but it's all I can think of. Every edit he makes to Wikispace is either trolling or useless, often a concoction of both. Other than kickbanning outright forever, this might be an option? Moreschi ^Talk 13:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on his talk page; Pat certainly seems set on resuming disruptive editing should he be unblocked. The wikilawyering and word games on his talk page (his attempt to characterize this block as 'extortion' based on his interpretation of dictionary definitions comes to mind as a recent example) exemplify the reasons AMA failed in the first place. He's done some good and useful things, but until he's prepared to stop beating this dead horse, I'm not prepared to unblock. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat did previously honor a ban regarding the editor assistance project that was placed after discussion at the community sanction noticeboard. Perhaps placing a stronger ban (a ban on any editing related to the AMA) could be similarly effective? If he would be willing to honor such a restriction, it would be much better than blocking him altogether. I don't think hes a bad guy, he just gets a bit overzealous, but really we're probably all guilty of that at one time or another. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's made clear to Pat that AMA is dead and that no call to bring it back is wanted, desired, or allowed, and he's willing to go along with it, I have no problem with that. I have a feeling that Pat will not accept it, however... SirFozzie 19:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd go along with that, provided he agrees. It's probably more realistic than a ban from the Wikipedia namespace. If he violates it, ascending blocks ending in indefinite. Thoughts? Can someone put this before him? We might as well get his views on such an arrangement before a full discussion of how it would work. Moreschi ^Talk 19:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I informed Pat of this discussion and invited him to respond at his talkpage.--Isotope23 20:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sent him an email along the same lines, though less nicely phrased. If he replies to me in the affirmative, that should be OK for an unblock, as far as I'm concerned. Moreschi ^Talk 20:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I am allowed to post here or not, but I wanted to tell that I have had a confilct with this user, recently. His alternative account (or maybe sockpuppet, not sure) User:CyclePat2, erased most of the Saturn Corporation article, because it was unsourced, Me, as well as a couple of other editors, continued to revert, when it teetered on the edge of being an edit war. He later trolled the talk page of it. He finally stopped, but not without a fight. (He got blocked because he attacked an admin by dropping a couple of f-bombs) I just thought that I would let you know that. I don't really think that he should be unblocked after my unfortunate run in with him. Since I am a non-admin, if me posting here is not allowed, then you can remove this comment. I just thought that I would inform you of this conflict. Karrmann 20:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Posting here is completely allowed, for everyone. Hmm...we are supposed to be forgiving. Clemency is the virtue of the great, etc. I'd say it's worth giving this chap one more chance. He is capable of making productive contributions. Moreschi ^Talk 20:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I protected his talkpage, just as a heads up. I set expiry of two weeks and told him that I hope by the end of those two weeks, he'll be ready to rejoin us and get over the AMA. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be unprotected so he can respond to the offer. I don't know Pat very well, but from what I gather, if he is committed to pursuing a discussion on AMA now, he will be committed to pursuing it in 2 weeks as well.--Isotope23 20:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected. We need to him to make one more comment on this offer, yea or nay. Just one. Moreschi ^Talk 20:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Non-admins are absolutely allowed to post here. "Administrators' noticeboard" means that the board is for issues which may require the attention of admins, not that only admins are allowed to post or comment. As to your specific complaint, could you please provide some diffs of the conduct you object to? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

An example of him trolling the Saturn Corporation talk page is here. What got him blocked is here. While I understand the idea of forgive and forget, it does get annoying to have an editor start a flame war whenever his edits are reverted. If an editor is just going to troll and attack other editors, then I find no use for them here. Wiarthurhu would make many useful contributions, but would always attack other editors if we changed up his edits or reverted any edits from him, so he eventually got blocked because everybody got tired of him attacking everybody. I say that an editor that is always attacking other editors is of no use here. That is just my opinion, though. Karrmann 20:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to talk sense into Pat on his talk page but for me (and this is really unfortunate) I'm starting to get a bad faith feel off of him, I even started an RfC on him in order for him to see that he was trying everyone's patience so he could stop, take a breath and move on a better editor. <sigh> I wish he would drop the subject on the AMA, it is gone it should rest in piece before this becomes the circus that the Espernza Closing was. It would be great if he could come back but his track record as of late makes me wonder if he can really ever accept that the AMA is done. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 22:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Kite

FYI, interesting piece of html inserted on kite that made clicking anywhere on the page go to the spam site. I've taken out the angle brackets to disable it: p style="font-size: 50000px; left: -50px; width: 100%; position: absolute; top: -50px; height: 100%; font-color: transparent" [11]. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 14:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We already seem to have a name for it at WikiProject Spam: "invisible inkspam". Femto 15:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky IP responsible has been softblocked for six months. Neil ╦ 15:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesnt do anything on Firefox 2.0.0.4, nor on IE6. —Crazytales ^{(talk) (alt)} 23:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Copyright problems

Help is needed here if anyone is willing. It has been just me and two other admins working on this page, and it is getting quite backlogged. So, all you suckers who claimed in your RfA that you would help with whatever backlogs exist, get to work! --Spike Wilbury 17:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And while you're at it, there also is a backlog at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. Garion96 (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion.  :-P --Iamunknown 01:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Aye aye, sir! (but working very slowly) --Alvestrand 07:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Opinions needed on CSN

Could a few folks please take a look at this thread on the community sanction noticeboard and weigh in with some comments? I've tried to provide some neutral comments and encourage everyone to go forth, edit, and sin no more, but get the feeling the thread's going to spiral shortly and could use some other outside opinions. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 18:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Harry was a white dog with black spots & User:Quakerman

Hi everyone. I am concerned about the edits of the above user, for example, those here [12]. As I would like to be appropriate in response to issues such as giving "final notice" to an editor with no edit history, and I would like to avoid approaching 3rr with this editor, I am turning this case over to the collective for perusal. I think I may have become a tad frustrated with the user blanking communication on her/his user talk page as soon as it was posted combined with relative attacking behaviors such as that above, regarding a post in an AfD by an IP editor (User:81.14.178.73). For this reason, I will back away and leave it, if any communication is appropriate, to other admins to oversee. Thanks, --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 20:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I on the other hand consider User:kukini's behaviour to be harassment, and ask that it be dealt with as such. This started with him reverting my edits on Richard Clayderman and the related talk page. I posted a polite note on his talk page stating that I was doing this based on Biographies_of_living_persons. He questioned what I considered defamatory and I cited three examples on the talk page, and the fact that opinions on the article page had no source and should be deleted immediately as above. I of course removed the warning from my talk page as it was totally inappropriate.

This prompted User:kukini to troll my contributions for perceived errors. He found one, where I had mistakenly put the warning he refers to on the user page instead of the talk page. I felt justified in placing the warning because the user had shown him/herself to be an anonymous user that had vandalised a page during an edit war. This was shown because he/she subsequently signed a comment on an AfD page (Delete the article! HAJ 21:11, 7 June 2007 —The preceding comment is by 81.14.178.73) User 81.14.178.73 had made exactly the same edits as several other anon users who had already also been warned. If a user makes an anonymous comment, and then subsequently signs it, it is clear who the user is. The page was protected, so the anon user had no choice but to get a user name. Unfortunately, he/she must not have realised that it would not allow immediate edits.

There have been a couple of other issues which have been solved through dialogue with the other affected users to everyone's satisfaction.

I think it ill-behooves an administrator to wade in to past issues without ascertaining the facts. A simple note on my talk page asking why I did what I did would have resulted in dialogue and hopefully consensus. User:kukini chose not to do this, and I certainly got the feeling he was "out to get me", and therefore have asked him to cease this harassment. Everything I have done has been in good faith, and I am happy to use the dispute resolution procedure on this matter. Harry was a white dog with black spots 20:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection

More admins may wish to express an opinion on some pretty drastic changes that have been made to this page over the last 2 months. The page discusses when the main page FA should be semi-protected. Changes have been made (see this version [13] for example) to suggest routine semi protection for the rest of the day in the case of high vandalism. This does not to my mind in any way match our present approach (or the approach we should take). To my mind semi-protection should be reserved for extreme vandalism such that reverters can no longer keep up and should be for brief periods and reassessed every hours or so. There appears to have been limited input from admins (or indeed the wider community for some time). If interested, please join the discussions on the talkpage. WjBscribe 23:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone feels inclined to compare the previous page to the current one: 11:41, 4 April 2007 and 22:06, 11 June 2007. – Steel 00:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Image undeletion

Resolved

OK, this is my first question as a newbie admin so go easy on me :) The lead image of Chagas disease, Image:Trypanosoma cruzi crithidia.jpeg, was deleted locally on April 4 under CSD I5 (on Commons). The thing is, the file is now gone from Commons—the file only: the image description page is still there, and there is no record of it whatsoever in the Commons deletion log. My question is: (1) can I undelete the file locally and re-upload it to Commons or (2) should I take it up at Commons, asking for admin assistance there to find out what's going on with the file? WP:DELETE seems woefully insufficient to explain this, so I thought I'd ask here. Thanks in advance. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Commons picture has been restored - looks like a glitch. There was deleted copy of the image, but no one had deleted it. Might be an example of this problem. WjBscribe 02:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed—thank you. Should have thought of that... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 09:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

CAT:CSD Nag

I know this must sound annoying, but could somone deal with the pages and images CAT:CSD as there's now more than 115 pages there. Astrovega 02:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There have been larger backlogs...I've deleted about thirty pages already. Sr13 07:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Damn it, I managed to empty it yesterday (look!) Neil ╦ 07:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know how many items are listed each day? It would be nice to have a few more admins to deal with some of the admin backlogs. Vegaswikian 08:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice, Neil ;). Not sure how many items are on each day, but you're right, Vegaswikian. I'm starting to hack at it a bit now... on this note, Images for Deletion has a large backlog as well... Haha, you can never run out of things to do here :). CattleGirl ^talk 08:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And I've got it empty again (with, I believe, some help from CattleGirl). Now, if everyone would stop creating articles and uploading images forever, we'd be great. Neil ╦ 08:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Very rough count for the last 24 hours gives some 3750 deleted pages (all namespaces, talk included). I haven't broken it down between Prod, CSD, AfD, MfD, ..., and I of course haven't counted which pages were listed on CSD but not deleted. Still, it seems like a rather quiet period for deletions. On the other hand, the last 24 hours, only 2150 pages were created (and not yet deleted) in the main namespace as well. I suppose it will get busier again in September or so... Fram 09:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

El_C appears to be unwilling to discuss indef block

On 29 May 2007, I was blocked after posting a comment to Jeff Merkey's talk page [14]. I have tried to discuss the issue with the blocking admin, including several posts on my talk page, but El_C's only response is "no comment."

I posted a lengthy discussion on El_C's talk page [15], which he deleted and then again posted "no comment" on my own talk page. I am attempting to resolve this in good faith, by discussing it with the blocking admin, but he appears to be refusing to discuss it at all.

I need another admin's help to resolve this situation. The way I see it, Jeff complained that I was trolling him on his user page, and El_C agreed and blocked me. To resolve the situation, I have already offered to make no edits to Jeff's user page or the user talk page, thereby resolving the situation, right? Except El_C again says only "no comment."

It it important to note that El_C told JzG that the block was not for sockpuppetry, as he originally listed in the block, but rather for what he feels was an "unhealthy fascination" with Jeff. Whether or not that's true, it's not in the blocking policy as a valid reason. And if it is, I expect to see Jeff indef'ed very soon for his relentless POV and COI with Mormons. I thought he just wanted to edit Cherokee articles?

However, Jeff is not the issue here. The issue is that I'm blocked, and the admin who blocked me will not discuss the block or what I could do to get unblocked. I've made what I feel is a more than reasonable offer, aimed at preventing entirely the causus belli, but El_C's only response appears to be deleting my comments and responding "no comment." (Pfagerburg, can't sign 'cause I'm blocked) 71.33.208.250 04:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your best course of action is to email unblock-en-l, explaining the situation fully and neutrally. Neil ╦ 07:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning to User:Hemlock Martinis issued, again. El_C 08:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I was simply acknowledging your continued avoidance of Pfagerburg's requests for a more in-depth explanation of the reasons behind your block of him. You seemed unwilling to defend the block, so I figured you wouldn't mind it being overturned. --Hemlock Martinis 08:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not undermine other admins. This is the place to discuss the block. Until the user addresses the subject of Merkey's bio and related pages, there will be no unblock. You and Neil will just have to be patient and wait for the user to comment. Thx. El_C 09:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hemlock Martinis has opted to wheel war and overturn the block. Yet another questionable administrative action on his part. El_C 09:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't wave around accusations. You were asked, by both myself and Hemlock, to explain the block. Attempts were made to engage the blocking admin in discussion, and you brushed them off. You opted to not bother responding to legitimate concers that this block was inappropriate. The questionable administrative actions here were your block with no explanation in the first place and flippant disregard of the user's civil attempts to engage you in discussion ("no comment"). Neil ╦ 09:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And for clarity, it would only become wheel warring if you now reinstated the block. I would advise against that, unless you are eactually, you know, prepared to explain yourself. Neil ╦ 09:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection

There has recently been reversion of changes to this page claiming there is no consensus to change policy, despite a large number of editors offering support for a change and very few supporting the current policy. A survey of opinions was also posted allowing users to place themselves on a continuum of position from full protection to never protect. This was deleted today as well. It has been suggested that the survey was biased and canvassed, and that the discussion has not been sufficiently advertised. Notification of the discussion has now been posted to all pages suggested. I request comment on recent changes to pages, discussion of the policy, and a notice appearing for registered users like the one I'm seeing above ('Early registration for Wikimania 2007 is open'). It has been suggested this is not important enough to justify such a notice, though I believe it's a very important policy and has wider impacts for its reflection of Wikipedia's philosophy. Richard001 08:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)