Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on 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 you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, 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

Tasks

The following backlogs require the attention of one or more administrators.
Transwiki to WikiBooks, WikiQuote, and WikiSource.
Requested moves, Vandalism in progress, VfD cleanup, Copyright Problems and Requests for page protection

General

New admins being over-enthusiastic with blocks

I've noticed several new admins blocking IPs for a single piece of vandalism (and not giving a warning, obviously). I don't think this is a great idea - thoughts, people? (While I myself have only recently been promoted to admin here, I've been an admin for months on Wikinews so I know what's hot and what's not.) Dan100 (Talk) 20:58, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

If there's a vandal with a recognizable pattern of edits who's jumping from IP to IP in quick succession, I think it's reasonable to block without warning when the pattern appears. Especially when the characteristic edits are highly offensive or prominently placed. Of course, it's a judgement call to say when it's "clearly" the same vandal on a fresh IP. FreplySpang (talk) 21:11, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

For the sakes of my own memory, I often create redirects between such ips. El_C 02:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: I've just blocked Dan100 and FreplySpang for disruption to WP:AN, 6 months each. That is all. Func( t, c, e,  ) 21:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Freply - Indeed. However, that really doesn't seem to be what's happening here - more a case of people not applying testn messages when a vandal strikes, but then blocking without warning, or simply blocking straight-off with no sign whatsoever of a pattern.

func - ;-) Dan100 (Talk) 21:18, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping I'd be your first block, Func. ;-( SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:21, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, you are blocked where it counts...in my heart. :) (Um...did that make any sense?) Func( t, c, e,  ) 21:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Frankly no, it didn't. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:36, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think he was saying that you're a fatty deposit, but I could be wrong. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Dan, can you give examples? I only block without warning if it's someone who vandalized George W. Bush in a heinous fashion (The note at the top of the article is considered warning enough, and no one's called me out on it). I agree that blocking IPs for single pieces of vandalism is wrong, but sometimes, as Freply said, we sometimes recognize a pattern. --Golbez 21:23, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

There are certain vandals who have such obvious characteristics, like using the same image over and over again, or hitting the same (relatively obscure) article over and over again. In any case, I've blocked Golbez, er, because the sun was in my eyes. Func( t, c, e,  ) 21:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not overly keen to list examples as I don't want to engage in finger-pointing. I'd rather we just establish whether it's a good idea or not, and hope the individuals concerned take the hint :-) PS I saw your (golbez's) GWB vandal block go through - I'm not referring to that, which was fair enough for the reasons you give. Dan100 (Talk) 21:36, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Dan, I'm not sure that subtlety will work, if for no other reason that this is a pretty big place and your posting here may go unnoticed. If you have specific concerns and don't want to air them in this forum, you may want to contact the relevant person(s) in private. --MarkSweep 21:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think all of our administrative actions are open to review at any time. Especially if it's by constructive admin peers, and not a raving IP (for once). I, for one, would want to know if I had done anything improper. Dmcdevit·t 21:55, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

But before I do contact anyone, can we establish whether such blocks is a good idea or not? Personally, I prefer to go through all the testn messages before I block - and far more often than not, I don't get to a test5. Dan100 (Talk) 22:00, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes test messages help, sometimes fast moving or extremely offensive vandals are clearly just out to vandalize, and brief blocks solve the problem better. An example of the latter would be the person who keeps replacing templates with pictures of penises. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you there too - but we must be careful! I blocked an NTL IP for 15 minutes for just that kind of thing earlier, but that caught out a legit user. Oops.

But the blocks that made me start this discussion were of IPs who'd only done the usual low-level stuff - page blankings or slipping a bit of gibberish into an article. Stuff testn (usually) works on. Dan100 (Talk) 22:08, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I will say that blocking reflexively is, or is becoming, a part of the wikiculture. I don't think that's a good thing. Blocking is a useful tool in certain circumstances but can either be ineffective or actually backfire in many others. We can afford to be more cautious and thoughtful about what we do and how we do it. Everyking 02:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that we don't do enough, technically, to be able to block troublemakers effectively. Something as simple as a client-side cookie for AOL users would help considerably, as would better technical measures to deal with socks. At present, a purportedly new user doing a random page blanking might be a newbie or might be someone who has blanked dozens of pages, and it's too easy to assume the latter. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Oy, we should be ahead of AoL vandals, not vice versa. {{AoLoL}} :( El_C 02:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Uninvited, you have a roots of a fascinating idea there. How about whenever a person tries to access Wikipedia from a blocked IP or account we send them a cookie that identifies the block in question, and then whenever they try to access wikipedia again from the same browser we can check for the presence of said cookie and continue the block if appropriate. Some thought would have to be given to dealing with socks where one account might be blocked indefinitely and others temporarily, but I think this has the makings of a really powerful technological tool. (Of course some people will work around cookies, but every little bit helps). Dragons flight 03:00, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yes I like Uninvited's idea. -- Solipsist 08:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Since many AOL members end up making edits from several different addresses the same day, I think it would be helpful in identifying edits that originate from the same source as well as with the block itself. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, we all seem to be avoiding Dan's main question, so I will say: No as a general rule, it is better to first reach for the {{test}} warning rather than a block. In the cases of a particularly knowing vandal, it can be appropriate to skip some or all of the test steps and move on to a block more quickly. One reason for this, is that a test warning (on a non-massively shared IP) can be more effective. Many vandals are fairly young and to them it is probably a game on the level of making prank phone calls. Just letting them know that their actions are being watched is frequently enough to get them to stop. In fact to force the message home, I sometimes prefix a subst of a test template with a phrase along the lines of 'Your edits to xyzw have been reverted...'. Which is to say - yes I know what you did, whilst having the benefit of reducing confusion if another user on the same IP picks up the message.

The trouble with a block is that it is more impersonal, so the vandal is less likely to feel embarrassed. -- Solipsist 08:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

One problem that I've often found is that editors reverting vandalism – especially petty vandalism, but sometimes more serious stuff – don't always bother to add a test warning (I don't myself; it can vastly increase the time taken, and there's a lot of vandalism to deal with). When I check the contributions list of a vandal and find a long history of more serious vandalism, I might well block even though no warning has been give. If it's all reasonably petty, I'll give a warning, but usually go straight to "test3" (or, in severe cases, "test4"). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. But I'd like to emphasize I think it is almost always better to use the earliest appropriate test message, and then block on repeated behavior. The only time it is appropriate to block right away is in the case of blatant repeated vandalism, where it is obvious the user knows they are violating the rules. The best way to do that though is to leave the test messages first. In review of IP's I leave test messages for, the overwhelming majority, even for IP's that have made a number of vandalisms is that they don't repeat after the warning. If they do, that's a clear case to block them, so that's easy. But leaving the test message gives a chance to not push away a potential good user. - Taxman ^Talk 18:02, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Skyring and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alfrem cases. →Raul654 22:15, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I am long past the point where a decision like the one against Skyring would surprise me in the least. In fact it'd surprise me if the decision had contained a hint of justice. Anyway, I think Skyring deserves a round of applause from the community for the good work he did here, and continued to do even under extreme pressure. Everyking 02:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I am long past the point where such a response from Ek can surprise me in the least. I suspect that he (yet again) failed to study the pertinent material prior to arriving to conclusions and issuing proclamtions. What can you do? File:Meh.gif El_C 02:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

So the recent ArbCom settlement means that Everyking stops whining about adminstrator Snowspinner, but instead whines about adminstrators in general? Big improvement. Maybe I should break out the beer glasses again. --Calton | Talk 02:55, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Weren't you supposed to be admonished about that? Everyking 02:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Not here on Planet Earth. Did you have an alternate universe in mind? --Calton | Talk 05:14, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the operative word for that "censuring"? JRM · Talk 03:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Calton, please leave the glasses in the cupboard. One editor stretching the bounds of Wikipedia:Civility doesn't mean that all of us should. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, Skyring did do some good work. Unfortunately, he abandoned that and chose to pursue a path of argument ad nauseam, harrassment of other editors, and abusive sockpuppetry.

Nevertheless, the resolution imposed by the ArbCom was certainly hefty, and that type of decision should taken with the greatest care and deliberation. In the interest of fairness, if they have erred, I am sure that they would be willing to review their decision. I might suggest preparing a brief explanation (500 words should more than suffice) of why the resolution should be modified–and how–and put it up at RFC. Strong community support for a rehearing would compel either the ArbCom or Jimbo to act.

If you're not prepared to do anything beyond making Monday-morning quarterback calls here, please refrain. Calton is a recovering alcoholic, and I'm trying to steer him away from temptation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC) Remarks stricken by me; they were in poor taste and overextended Calton's drinking game allusions. I will remove them entirely if Calton requests it, or leave them stricken so my gaffe remains plain to see.TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

And you're a slanderous, interfering, tone-deaf busybody who should stick his nose elsewhere. Everyking is a big boy, and he should damn well be willing to taste his own medicine. --Calton | Talk 06:00, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

(And User:Gadfium removes my response above but leaves TenOfAllTrades original sleazy comment. Very evenhanded application of pseudo-policy there. --Calton | Talk 06:10, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... the one who makes the personal attack criticizes the other's grasp of policy. Dmcdevit·t 06:29, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Gadfium was commendably trying to quell an argument; he wasn't trying to silence you, Calton. Calton voluntarily agreed to stop making drinking game references, and he has done so admirably. TenofAllTrades was giving Everyking some sage advice. Everyking was doing the same behavior that he was warned about previously, which he was advised would lead to another arbcom case (EK - consider this a less-than-subtle reminder). Enough bickering, everyone. I'm sure we can all find more productive things to do. →Raul654 07:48, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

What's this diplomacy where everybody gets the diplomatic treatment at my expense? Calton has done so admirably? Right here he threatened to start up again! That's doing so grudgingly. And sage advice? Raul's comment is nothing but a threat, and a blatant one at that. Everyking 09:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

At your expense? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The same language used to praise these other editors condemns me. "Has done so admirably". "Sage advice". Everyking 09:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Ten of all trades' advice about starting a rfc certainly was sage. I strongly endorse it. I agree that Carlton shouldn't have talked about getting out the drinking glasses again, and that Raul654 was being very diplomatic because he was trying to quell an argument. Tying to stop an argument from escalating is in itself an admirable thing to do don't you think? I don't think Raul654 can threaten you. He is an arbitrator. Arbitrators can only look into cases brought before them. They can't instigate them themselves, so you have nothing to fear from Mark. Never the less he could have been more diplomatic with you I suppose. Let me try. Please Everyking, we really do not want to see you up before us again. So please stop making swipes at others. If you have consructive critisism by all means make it, but stop the type of comments above which only serve to lower people's opinion of you. Constructive critisim looks like this - "The AC decision was wrong because blah blah blah. A better decision would have been blah blah blah" Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It would be more admirable if he wasn't heaping abuse on me in the process. And this stuff about an ArbCom member being unable to threaten is complete silliness. Anyway, let's see: I made a "swipe" at the ArbCom, not at a particular editor, so is the ArbCom going to punish me for criticizing them for being counter-productively harsh? How ironic would that be? Everyking 10:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

If you were truly critisizing rather than just making swipes no one would mind, no one would "threaten" and no one would offer the "sage advise" that you appear to object to. Are you aware that most people seem to think that you don't bother to even look into the cases that you swipe at on this page? Are you aware that, because of how you say it, that people often ignore what you say because it's only Everyking spouting off again. Is that what you want? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 10:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

what Theresa said. dab (ᛏ) 12:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

User:小籃子

Could we require this User to come up with a User name that contains readable characters? Zoe 04:43, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe they're readable to someone? I remember seeing recently a user name in another script...do we have a policy about this? When I'm at home I don't get Japanese or Chinese characters to show up properly but at the university they do. So maybe these characters also can be seen depending on what your computer can read. Everyking 05:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

For what it is worth they appear to be perfectly reasonably Chinese characters to me, though I have no idea what they mean. Dragons flight 05:12, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

It would be impossible for another editor to type this user's name into any talk page, AN page, or whatever, unless they have a Chinese keyboard. It requires going to the user's page and copying and pasting their name. I'm sure what Everyking is referring to is one of the many odd signatures people are using, but you can scroll over their signatures and see their real names. This doesn't tell me, who doesn't have Chinese characters downloaded on my computer, anything, and what's to keep somebody else from creating another name in other non-readable characters which causes the same "???" to show up? It would be impossible to tell them apart. Zoe 05:16, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

The name, "xiao lanzi" means "little basket", for what it's worth. --khaosworks (talk• contribs) 05:58, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

That's the big problem right there; an editor who doesn't have the appropriate character sets installed and set up might not even be able to refer to the user in question. In addition to the username spoofing issues (the Latin 'c' looks just like the Cyrillic 'c', for instance), we have just discovered another annoying side effect of Unicode usernames. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

People will find way to comunicate they always do. since I always copy the name from a persons user page when I block I don't see this makeing much difference.Geni 14:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it would be reasonable to disallow such usernames. Some users are active on more than one interwiki Wikipedia and naturally wish to use the same username everywhere. The Chinese Wikipedia obviously allows Chinese names, and zh:User:小籃子 seems to be an active user there, who is now also editing here. Some users have suggested implementing universal login so you'd only have to login once to be able to edit across various Wikipedias. If this ever gets implemented, users will naturally use their native username for this purpose.

This will probably not be an issue going forward. Font support on all major operating systems (Windows, Linux, Mac) is readily available. Windows XP installs fonts for pretty much all the languages out there straight out of the box (at least Win XP Professional, not sure about the home edition). We can probably expect this to be the norm going forward... disk space for storing fonts is hardly an issue anymore with the enormous hard drives we have today. -- Curps 10:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I have Win XP Professional installed and no Chinese or Japanese character support. Also, I only have a 40 gig HDD :( (but the latter is beside the point) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 18:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

How can I download the Chinese character set? I'm using Windows Me. Zoe 18:18, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I think you can go to http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/ and then ask for the "Custom" (not "Express") update. Then on the left-hand side look at the optional (not critical) updates... multinational fonts should be available as updates there, if I recall. At least that's how it worked for Windows 98 some years ago. -- Curps 19:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Zoe 19:45, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

How perverse of them. They only let you update if you're running IE. Zoe 21:42, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Cool. I can read it now. Well, not read it, but it isn't just question marks.  :) Zoe 04:22, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Sounds to me like a good reason to disallow non-ASCII characters in usernames, at least on the English Wikipedia. Can anyone name any serious current editor that has a non-ASCII name? Radiant_>|< 00:35, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • But this user name isn't offensize at all.......... I can read it and stuff. Sasquatch讲看 04:39, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • The ability to use true Unicode names on en has only existed since the 1.5 upgrade a few weeks ago. Before that names were restricted to ISO 8859-1 (a version of Extended ASCII, but still twice the size of true ASCII), so no accounts using true unicode names are going to have a long history. However, there are users such as Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason who are well-established but have usernames involving characters that are not true ASCII and which are equally untypable on a standard keyboard. Keep in mind that any name with an accent mark is now Unicode and would not be typable on most US/UK keyboards. I am in agreement with Curps and Sasquatch on this one. For me, the value of allowing people exercising good faith to have a native user name trumps the concern for needing to install fonts and/or cut-and-paste the name when referencing it. Incidentally, by going to the end of the user list it is possibly to see all of the accounts that start with Unicode characters, begining with User: S²: [1]. (380,000+ accounts have been created... wow). Dragons flight 05:38, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ævar Arnfjörð is quite easy to type on a standard keyboard. If you're using Windows, just switch to the US-International kbd, and then Æ is ctl-alt-shift-Z and ö is " followed by o. Lookie that. Ah, so easy. 小籃子 is pretty easy too, you just have to go into your setup and tell it you want "asian language support" or whatever, and voilà! Tomer ^TALK 20:37, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Or alternatively, you can call him Aevar Arnfjord Bjarmason. His name is actually readable, even if you don't understand the exotic characters in his name. Eugene van der Pijll 18:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Add "of the UK" to copyright templates

I propose that we add the words "of the UK" to the end of the first line of the following image copyright templates: Template:NationalAuditOfficeCopyright, Template:LearningandSkillsCouncilCopyright, and Template:NHSCopyright. That way it makes more sense of which country it is from, because you have no idea which country's goverment this is. I can not do this because the page is currently protected for some reason. Can an admin please help? This will make things clearer. --michael180 22:31, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected them. If there was a good reason for them being protected, that should've been recorded somewhere visible (eg on the Talk page or in an edit summary).Dan100 (Talk) 22:39, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about these templates, but I believe we generally keep any copyright-related policies and possibly templates protected, because they are important legal matters and should not be changed by well-meaning people who don't know much about law (e.g. most of us) and they certainly should never be vandalized in any way. Not that anything else should, but for legal tangles it can be worse. Radiant_>|< 00:10, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought so too, and was about to post something to that effect, but I couldn't actually find a page where this is written down - if there is one, please tell me (I think I read about this rule on the mailing list once). At least the pages that I expected it to be on, Wikipedia:Protected_page#Legal_reasons and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, didn't mention it. And Dan100 is right to note that protections should be explained on the talk page. Maybe we should create a template that explains protections for this reason? Also, while looking around, a look at some of the other copyright tags showed that many of them are not protected. If there is indeed such a rule, we should protect them all. -- grm_wnr Esc 00:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, I'm stupid: Wikipedia:Protected page#Various template pages. But the reason should still be written down somewhere. -- grm_wnr Esc 00:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• {{sofixit}}? :) I'd do it myself except that I'm way overdue for falling asleep now. Radiant_>|< 00:34, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Done! Thank You for unprotecting the pages. --michael180 14:48, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Main Page Intro

Can someone please address the comment I've made at Template talk:MainPageIntro. If you are not willing to add the link, please explain why. People have repeatedly edited the page, ignoring my request completely. I feel that shows disrespect. Pages are protected to prevent vandalism, not to restrict legitimate contribution to the administrators. Superm401 | Talk 03:57, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Specifically, 8 admins have edited the actual page and Gyre has edited the talk page, which means he must have seen my comment. There are only 3 other sections on the page. Mine is at the bottom but difficult to miss. Superm401 | Talk 04:05, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I have addressed this at Template talk:MainPageIntro. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks

A new proposal has been written to allow admins to block people that make frequent personal attacks (but only if the admin is an uninvolved party). Please visit and give your comments. It is still in the discussion stage, so no voting please. Radiant_>|< 09:40, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Important copyright question

This RFC is shaping up to be a confusing legal issue. Specifically, guidance is required for material copied from another Wiki that also utilizes the GFDL. Would a copy/paste job suffice? Should author information be recorded? If so, how: on the talk page, or via Special:Export or its equivalent, or via a link to the original wiki in the article which can be construed as advertising? Legal people please advise. Radiant_>|< 15:03, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Articles which contain nothing but long lists of external links

Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Ultimate leagues. If, as the vote now stands, this article is going to be kept, we need to change WP:NOT so as to let the world know we encourage the creation of articles which are nothing more than duplicates of Google and Yahoo! search. Zoe 19:46, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Agricultural Web Sites, where the vote is currently going in the opposite direction. Zoe 19:50, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

VfD needs closing

Can someone please close off Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ralph Woodrow (2nd nomination)? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I've closed it. I think. The instructions on Wikipedia:Deletion process don't entirely make sense, at least not to me... Dan100 (Talk) 10:17, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• What do you mean? Should they be rewritten/clarified? What part(s) don't you understand? Radiant_>|< 12:22, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Pics of kids on Wikipedia

Is it OK for Wikipedia to show images of children without their consent (see Carey Baptist Grammar School)? I know parents probably signed a release for these images to be placed on the school's website, but that release probably doesn't cover Wikipedia. New laws were recently introduced by the Victorian Bracks government (the school is in Melbourne) to ban this sort of stuff involving Victorian kids, but Wikipedia is subject to different laws I think. Please reply at the Talk:Carey Baptist Grammar School page. Harro5 09:34, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know about the laws of Victoria, but copyright wise the pictures are all tagged as GFDL, however there is no copyright statement that I can find on the website so I have emailed them via their contact form, but as it is currently 8:38pm there (GMT+10) I don't expect a response until around midnight UTC at the absolute earliest. Thryduulf 10:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

my eyes! I thought I was almost-an-inclusionist, but articles of that length about a grammar school? Images like Image:Careyprincipal.jpg should be ifd'd as UE, if not speedied. Do you know how many principals of grammar schools there are in this world? And what is to stop people from uploading images of every teacher who ever worked at any grammar school, once we're at this stage? This is on the brink of abusing Wikipedia as a private homepage. dab (ᛏ) 12:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, the school has over 2000 students and has existed since 1923, giving it perhaps a greater claim to notability than many. But perhaps a trim for verifiability would be good. Does anyone know if this one has had the VfD treatment yet? Everyking 12:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I note from the article that it is actually a K-12 institution, so at least as notable, if not more so, than the typical high school. Our article on grammar schools tells me that using the term "grammar school" to mean primary school is mostly a US practice. Dragons flight 15:48, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Grammar schools in Australia are prestigious private schools (think Phillips Academy or an equivalent in the US) and are the best schools in the system. Harro5 07:34, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I know this doesn't apply here but it may in related cases: in UK law you need the permission of the subject of the photograph to feature their image on your website. If that subject is unable to give consent (either through being too young or whatever other grounds) you need the consent of their parent/guardian or legal next of kin. They must sign that they understand where the image is being used and in what context. If you have their permission to use the image on a school website for instance, and that gets transferred across to Wikipedia without their prior knowledge, the image may not be usable. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 12:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Legal standing aside, I would say that it's reasonable (and ethical) to respect the privacy of the people involved (especially if they are minors!) in cases where the photo doesn't add anything significant to the article. Obviously that won't apply to actual newsworthy figures, but random kids at some school don't really serve any purpose in a Wikipedia article, so we don't lose anything by removing those images. -Aranel ("Sarah") 13:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Under US law, the requirement is somewhat different. In broad terms, free speech rights are seen to trump privacy rights in many, but not all circumstances. There is no requirement for permission if the photo of a person or people is used in a positive or neutral editorial context without the expectation of profit. Most images on wikipedia are likely to be exempt under this standard. The places one can run into trouble are profit motives (under US law, you have the exclusive right to profit from your image) and if the photo's usage will demean or hold its subject up to ridicule. It the latter case there are all sorts of concerns for libel and slander, but you can run into trouble even with true claims if they inappropriately single out an individual. For example, an article on drinking which included an image of "Joe Swanson, drunk" would be an actionable cause even if Joe were a drunk. While Wikipedia itself seems pretty safe from these issues in most cases, it is probably best for the benefit of reusers of our information that we always obtain permission of the subjects of photographs whenever they are recognizable. One last cautionary note, there may be tighter laws applying to children, but I am not familiar with them if this is the case. Dragons flight 14:16, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

"free speech" don't enter into it -- these images are UE to boot, and as Aranel says, we don't lose anything by removing them, so let's, like, remove them :) dab (ᛏ) 16:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I won't argue law, but I can tell you, as the former IT Director of a middle school, we ran up against this right off the bat with our own website. Our rule, and this was designed for safety and ethics, not law, was pictures or names, but never both. Similarly, pictures without identifiers of school or home. These were situations where we were dealing with our own students. In the US, there is this "public space/public property" bit, so there is probable legal cover. Let's please not sink so low as to get to the point where everything that is possibly legal is something we rush toward. Pictures without names, or names without pictures, for any subject that is currently a minor is a sane standard. I hope we can agree to it (and without a vote, just by following it). Geogre 03:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Editing without leaving a log

Wikipedia moderators (or admins) can unilaterally alter articles and insert text without it showing in history. Two times articles I have created/edited have been modified.

The first time it occurred was on my talk page: For the "White" article, someone put I "MINORLY" edited the white article.

The second time (sometime within the last 5 days) was in the Black People article. Someone decided to insert early on that Black people are not numerous in the Sahara desert. The sentence caught my attention, because it discussed where black people are "NOT" found. And that was out of touch with the article itself. (I believe someone in Wikipedia is afraid of supporters of Black history including the northern coast of Africa), whoever it is, is either really good or a Wikimoderator. I did not see that sentance in earlier edits, and I do not remember it being in the article early on. --Zaphnathpaaneah 17:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

In this edit to your user page, you said "I minorly edit this article from time to time." Are you saying that you did not make that edit? Administrator edits are just like anyone else's—everything is stored in the article history. If some edits are not being recorded, that's a serious bug that should be fixed. (You did add a lot of material at once in that edit. I know from experience that it's easy to forget little details.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 17:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I checked, and the Black article was edited by DanMS and i didn't realize it. So yes. But the second one, it seems a little silly for me to put "minorly" edit, but OK. I am very conscientious of the integrity of Wikipedia, and although you may disagree, I believe there is a bias-slant in racial issues that favors the White-European point of view, that makes some things unfair. But so I apologize if I have jumped the gun in accusing moderators of surreptitiously editing articles. However I will keep my eyes open.

NoPuzzleStranger a possible sock of Wik / Gzornenplatz

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#NoPuzzleStranger and User_talk:David_Gerard#Could_you_please_check_an_IP_address.3F.

Essentially:

• "NoPuzzleStranger" turns out to be an anagram of User:Gzornenplatz
• ArbCom says take it to WP:AN
• David Gerard says that IPs don't tell for sure one way or another
• NoPuzzleStranger says, "Well aren't you smart. I said before I sympathize with Gzornenplatz and tend to some of the things he tended to. There's no rule I know of that prohibits usernames which are anagrams of the names of banned users."

So here we are, at WP:AN. -- Curps 20:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the way forward (as set out in the Gzornenplatz/Wik sockpuppet case) is that one admin should block NoPuzzleStranger indefinitely. Then another should unblock him and there should be a blocking/unblocking war which expands to other admins. Then the ArbCom will take the case and block NoPuzzleStranger after deciding that behaviour and IPs are similar. Then Wik/Gzornenplatz/NoPuzzleStranger will start editing more frequently on a sockpuppet account, and will be caught out again after a few months, jguk 21:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

you forgot to mention that several debates, with varying degrees of accrimosity and density of personal attacks (and admonishments against personal attacks) are required. Somebody at the end of it all will total up all the words written and declare the total to be greater than in two good Agatha Christie novels, only to spark a further intense debate about whether using the adjective good is NPOV or not. There will also need to be an edit war over whether any of these debates and edit wars are lame or not. When the arbcom is petitioned again then there will be heated debates over which arbitrators should or should not be recused. After this the case will be rejected on the grounds that there is no clear evidence that any of the RfCs were aa serious attempt at dispute resolution and mediation was not attempted. Thryduulf 22:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget the block/unblock wars over 3RR violations during the course of those edit wars, and the possible departure–temporary or permanent–of one or more editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

You still forgot that the various factions should award barnstars to the admin they agree with, and then to top it off, arbcom should reject the case and leave us where we started but with another mess to deal with. :) Dmcdevit·t 08:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of personal conviction I believe there should be no block, since this user is a good if occasionally difficult editor, but of course I don't expect anyone to actually heed that. And we'll go through the same thing a few months from now. I for one am glad he continues to edit in his various incarnations. Everyking 04:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Since I'm uninvolved (I've never had any interaction with Wik/Gz), and since Jimbo ordered Wik blocked indefinately for using a vandalbot, I've blocked indefinately. If blockwars are to errupt, at least I can say the first block was done in good faith, and on good advice. -- Essjay · Talk 04:59, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Actually I don't think it's necessarily forever; it's for as long as it takes for him to resort to groveling and begging, as I understand it. Everyking 05:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

You understand incorrectly. Asking someone to contact Jimbo to discuss his past very bad behavior is not the same as asking them to grovel. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

This seems kind of like calling the glass half empty or half full. The basic nature of the situation is the same. Everyking 06:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Final decision reached

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mlorrey case. →Raul654 22:36, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That should be a year. One year is the limit for Arb cases. Everyking 03:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • No, if you had actually read the case, you would see the remedy is that "Mlorrey is banned from Wikipedia pending resolution of his legal dispute with users Meelar and Firebug.", which Uninvited Company correctly took to mean indefinitely-until-Mlorrey-meets-this-demand. →Raul654 04:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • I actually did read the decision, my oh-so-civil arbitrator friend, but I am not aware of any precedent for indefinite bans and my understanding was that undefined lengths of time default to a year. Everyking 04:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
        • My understanding is that that is the case with the exception of bans for legal threats. Legal threat bans last until the legal dispute is resolved, possibly plus additional time. A permaban that is lifted when the dispute is resolved is a good approximation to this. --Carnildo 07:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
        • EK, I don't know why you'd suggest there is no precedent for indefinite bans. I can think of a few, off-hand (Wik for the vandalbot, Michael for general vandalism, Mr. Treason for death threats, etc.). In at least one instance (Michael), the ban has been lifted after some kind of resolution/agreement was made -- clearly indefinite doesn't have to mean "infinite". But I can't think of anything at Wikipedia that limits indefinite bans to a year. If there's a policy page that states this, I hope you'll point it out to me so that I can go protest on its talk page. :-) After all, there are some crimes (vandalbots and death threats being cases in point) bad enough that the mere passage of time is not a good enough reason to give someone back the privilege of editing this site -- some kind of restitution or apology would be necessary, at the very least, for this community to trust such a user again. Jwrosenzweig 08:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
          • As far as I know all the indefinite bans were imposed by Jimbo and not the ArbCom, although perhaps there is an ArbCom precedent somewhere in its history that I've forgotten. Nevertheless, I think it's fair to say there's a general understanding that blocks are at a maximum of a year and if you don't specify it defaults to that. Everyking 08:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
            • The duration of the ban is quite clearly specified - "Mlorrey is banned from Wikipedia pending resolution of his legal dispute" →Raul654 08:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
              • Please be serious, Raul. Everyking 08:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
                • In what way is he not being serious? The ban lasts until legal disputes are resolved. If this sets a precident then so be it. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• With respect to indefinite blocks for standing violations of policy, Pioneer-12 (talk · contribs) comes to mind. He's under an indefinite block (one not even imposed by ArbCom, if I remember correctly) for insisting that some of his contributions aren't covered under the GFDL. He's been told that he's welcome to come back as soon as he drops that insistence. In the case of Mlorrey, there is still an outstanding legal threat. As soon as Mlorrey withdraws that, he will no longer be in violation of Wikipedia's policy on legal threats; the ArbCom's time-limited resolutions would then be in force. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, what I've been saying is only referring to the ArbCom. I don't dispute for a minute that people can under some circumstances be blocked permanently. What I'm saying is that the ArbCom doesn't issue bans longer than a year. Everyking 06:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The arbcom has voluntarily refrained from issuing bans of greater than one year; there is no rule that we cannot issue longer ones. On the other hand, legal threats are a very serious issue. If dealing with them requires breaking tradition, I'm all with Theresa - so be it. →Raul654 06:33, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, so that isn't a definite rule anymore, I'll make a mental note. But if this is the case, I think in the future if you're going to ban someone indefinitely you should say indefinitely, instead of failing to specify a length, since then people will wrongly assume it's a year. For example, I have a recent case that I previously assumed the decision for would expire in a year, but now I don't know what the length of it is. I think there's a lot of cases that could be affected by this. Everyking 06:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
        • • We can't specify a length in this case obviosly. But sure, we will try not to leave lengths unspecified in the future. If there are any cases that you are unsure about you can always put in a request for clarification on WP:RFAr Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 11:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Duchess of Windsor

There has been a move war or almost going on with Wallis, Duchess of Windsor. Apparently both sides are highly convinced of their respective, but opposite positions, and have only recently resorted to its Talk page to communicate their opinions. This seems a beginning of something potentially bad.... Should the article be protected against moves? 217.140.193.123 08:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

I just want to remind admins about this page having a huge backlog. Though normally the WP:CP process is supposed to take a week, right now there are listings three times as old. Thanks. -- Paddu 10:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

DotSix and puppets

Personal request: if you block a sockpuppet account of DotSix, who previously edited from IPs only, please watch the block log after you do it and undo any IP blocks coming from the autoblocker. DotSix edits from AOL and any IP he uses will be a proxy.

These blocks will hurt innocent people, most notable of which WBardwin, who's currently harrassed by overzealous admins and the autoblocker half the time he edits (see User:WBardwin/AOL Block Collection for the full tragedy).

I filed bugs #2879 and #3165. If you have a Bugzilla account or are willing to register one, please consider adding your vote to getting this fixed. JRM · Talk 16:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Another proposal that's always floating around is to allow signed-in users to edit even if their IPs have been blocked. See Bugzilla #550. Carbonite | Talk 16:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Boothy's talk page

Should User talk:Boothy443 - deleted on the 15th by his request - be restored for historical purposes? — Dan | Talk 18:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparently it has been. Yes, I do think unless a user is planning to leave Wikipedia permanently their talk page shouldn't be deleted. Even if they're leaving permanently I think it's somewhat questionable. Everyking 06:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it has not been undeleted. Boothy443 moved one of his talk page archives back over the talk page (a pretty sneaky way of making it look like it has been undeleted). Makes me wonder what it is that he's trying to hide. --cesarb 15:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty standard that everything on Wikipedia is kept in the page histories unless there's a good reason why not. Isomorphic 06:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Boothy's talk history can be found in his four archives: 1, 2, 3, 4. --Canderson7 16:09, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Even then, there is a need for the page history (so you can know who added which comment). That's why I told Boothy443 he should move the talk page, instead of asking for it to be deleted. --cesarb 17:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

He did so in the cases of archives 2, 3, and 4. In addition Archive 2 has all of the history of Archive 1. --Canderson7 17:20, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Admin-imposed perma-block same as an ArbComm one?

Suppose an admin imposes a permanent block on a user for making a direct threat of offline action (the example here should be User:Amorrow). His first sockpuppet is blocked immediately. But he continues editing under anon IPs freely. Generally speaking, when the ArbComm issues a ban, edits may be reverted on sight by any user for the duration of a ban, and this applies when a higher authority e.g. Jimbo issues the ban too.

So can the edits of perma-blocked user, so blocked by an admin, also be reverted on sight, or does that need a higher authority? -Splash 19:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Admin-imposed blocks reflect the sole judgement of the sysop, and may be reversed by another sysop. Arbcom-imposed blocks and other enforcement actions are expected to be enforced by all. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Thank you. -Splash 19:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Friendly Reminder

Just a friendly reminder to all admins- when you update WP:DYK, WP:ITN, Featured Anniversaries/holidays, or the featured article template, make sure to protect the images. In addition, make sure to unprotect the images once they are off the main page. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Template deleted

I have taken action and deleted Template:FloridaDecencyLaw

Here is the contents:

Under Florida Title XLVI, Chapter 847, Section 11, it is a misdemenor and possible third-degree felony to distribute photographs of sexual acts in such a way that they are available to minors. Without an age check, such photos are against Florida Law, and could cause Wikipedia to be shut down. This image appears to violate that standard and should be considered for deletion.

It is absurd and can only be disruptive, specifically created as a legal threat, so is against the Wikipedia:No legal threats policy anyway.

Ta bu shi da yu 12:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record (if anybody cares :) ), I support this action. Zoe 23:45, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I actually find that message vaguely alarming, but I presume there's a counter-argument to the claim? Everyking 04:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

What about Freedom of speech and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The law in question makes repeated reference to "obscenity". In the United States, the legal definition of "obscenity" is the Miller Test. Every image on Wikipedia will either pass the Miller Test on the grounds of literary or scientific merit, or the image will be listed on IFD as being unencyclopedic. Any remaining parts of the law that don't reference obscenity should be covered by the First Amendment. --Carnildo 06:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid y'all are a little out of date or optimistic. While the Miller Test led to the development of "community standards" as the judge of obscenity, that, by itself, has been used specifically to cripple online endeavors and mail order. (When a federal action is sought, they pursue simultaneous prosecutions in 4-5 communities where standards are offended, thereby bankrupting the commercial concern and using "community standards" as a weapon.) Additionally, the new attempts at chilling online adult content, in particular, have largely sailed past the courts in de facto destroying the Miller Test (although not de jure). This does not mean that I agree with the template, but simply saying "free speech" is naive these days. If our educational/artistic merit would be judged in aggregate or in detail is also unclear. I would hope it would be the former, in which case we'd have no worries, but the winds blowing through the US in the last decade are fickle and freezing. Geogre 03:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Under Florida Title XLVI, Chapter 847, Section 11, it is a misdemenor and possible third-degree felony to distribute photographs of sexual acts in such a way that they are available to minors. Without an age check, such photos might be a bit iffy under Florida Law, but not under Federal Law, and are unlikely to cause Wikipedia to be shut down. If you're really paranoid, you could always move this image to our servers in Amsterdam.

*innocent look* Kim Bruning 12:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of an article

Can an admin please delete Mahadrek ? This page was supposed to be deleted a long time ago as per the vfd.

• Done. The reason it wasn't deleted is that the VFD debate didn't link to the article. Nonetheless, it was a copy of the Mahadreck article, and the content was fictitious. Thanks for finding it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFC

Could some other admin please delete Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jayjg? Its 48 hours has expired; I'd do it, but the initiator already thinks I'm a co-conspirator. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency

This is going to be a revolt in the making, when it comes to WP:CIV and WP:NPA. It already has caused Agriculture to pack his bags and leave. Admins should go by there to make sure that things aren't becoming too hot. --Titoxd 03:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

There are also policy questions involved, and Jimbo Wales has extensively weighed in.--Noitall 04:36, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

This VFD is doing wikipedia no good. People are voting and bickering over the existance of this project as if they were voting over a proposed wikipedia guideline or policy. In my opinion a way to end this mess (and the sooner the better) would be to create a wikipedian club instead and replace this project with that. Along the lines of Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club. Call it Wikipedia:Decency concerned wikipedians club or something, and then people can just sign up there as they would with this project. I personaly don't understand why these people can't have their own Wikipedia Project (so I voted keep), but a wikipedia club should be an acceptable compromise and nobody can't possibly deny a club from existing. Or can they? Shanes 04:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

We don't endorse this project. If they really want a club, they can form this offsite. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not really about whether the WikiProject or club is or should be endorsed, it's about keeping things civil. Several RFC's can be filled out with the amount of personal attacks and flaming that have been occurred in this thing, and there's plenty of vote-changing, sockpuppeting and personal attacks to keep admins busy around the clock. This VfD is only a day old, and with it exceeding 100 KB by now, the frenetic pace of it isn't going to change in the foreseeable future. It is probably the most intense discussion in Wikipedia right now. --Titoxd 04:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. No, "we" don't endorce it. And if general endorcement is a requirement for a project or a club, then fine. But I didn't think it was. Do "we" endorce Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion, for instance? Shanes 05:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It's manifestly obvious to anybody who looks that any WikiProject is simply an association of Wikipedians with similar interests. The only issue here should be whether WikiProjects should be extended to cover people with similar opinions; there's no question that "we" don't endorse any WikiProject. Incidentally, does "we" mean The Community? Does the community have to agree on something, or have a majority in favor, for it to exist? If so, why do we have inclusionist and deletionist associations? — Dan | Talk 19:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem if they want to have their club, so long as they don't slap their Big Brotherish templates all over articles like Islam, Wicca and Pandora Peaks. But it seems clear from the outset that they are attempting to impose their own POV on the entire encyclopedia and are trying to use their templates to force it down the throats of every other editor. Zoe 04:54, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

The whole thing is just an absolutely dismal display. I cannot believe so many people are voting to delete a wikiproject just because they have different views. Views have nothing to do it, because both sides' views regarding decency are compatible with Wikipedia; it's all a matter of consensus to be worked out, policies and practices to be developed, etc. The VfD is nothing beyond a single question: should these people be allowed to have a project promoting their views about obscenity issues and so on? You could ask the same question if people formed an "anti-censorship" wikiproject. The answer should of course be yes in both instances. I'm stunned that this is actually a matter of contention. Everyking 05:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Well, no. This Wikiproject's sole goal runs counter to WP:NOT. That's entirely different. Virtually every other WikiProject or related organization is about adding or organizing content, or both (or isn't actually doing anything at all, as the WikiProject Inclusion mentioned above). All of that is constructive. This one is the opposite. Radiant_>|< 09:58, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on the merits of the project are not to spill over here, please. Everything on that I've already read in the VfD, which is arguably the biggest train wreck in Wikipedian history. Polls are evil. The problem here is that if you agree the project is in fundamental contradiction of Wikipedia's goals, you'll be inclined to think VfD has something to say about it. But if you don't, you won't. The VfD can't settle the meta-issue and it's not trying hard either; instead people are happily flaming each other on the "decency" issue itself. Polls are evil. Oh, and did I tell you yet how polls are evil? JRM · Talk 10:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• We should hold a poll on that :) Radiant_>|< 10:58, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

  They did! The outcome was "banana". Or "no consensus", I forget. But that page illustrates exactly why this VfD will do anything except have a constructive outcome. Of course, Kim Bruning made the mistake of asking people whether it should be closed, thereby ensuring nobody could do it without getting shouted down, and possibly reverted.
  The real trick will be containing the flamewars, trolls and other assorted nonsense after the nomination has run and getting some decent (pardon the word) discussion on track. JRM · Talk 11:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Polls are not evil. We can't even agree on that, apparently. Everyking 17:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

  "Polls are evil" is a slogan, not a moral absolute. Read the article. It doesn't say "don't ever use polls, ever, because they can never come to any good", it says "if you want consensus, a poll is the last thing that should be on your mind". Polls have their uses as census-takers and opinion-gatherers; constructive discussion is a thing they only support as an afterthought, however, and only by generating enough heat to power something more productive. The article should really be titled "polls have limited areas of application and should be used with care", but that's a whole lot less catchy than "polls are evil". (Where "evil" isn't used in the mainstream sense either, but in the hacker sense.) JRM · Talk 00:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This VfD, and the "Ed" incident, also helped convince User talk:Filiocht, to leave the project: User talk:Filiocht#Why I won't be back any time soon. — Paul August ☎ 00:46, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hmph, people advised me against closing this VfD early. I guess the advice could have been better. :-P

The conclusion from this VfD is already No Consensus, there's already too many keep votes for anything else. Hmm, would some folks be interested in getting together and actually declare that (and more importantly, patiently explain why)? It doesn't even need to (all) be admins, anyone can close a VFD. It'd be interesting to see who at wikipedia is actually still skilled at negotiating and obtaining consensus. :-) Kim Bruning 01:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

anyone with that skill is probably sane enough to stay away from this mess. while things have calmed down a bit this is only because voteing is the only thing to do right now. It is probably best left untill the weekend when thing will be a bit quieter.Geni 01:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

People are leaving over this though. Do we have a point at which we say "enough"? If there's a good plan to follow. I wouldn't mind (temporarily) losing adminship over it, for instance. Better than the terrible damage this is doing to the project, in precedence and in people lost. Kim Bruning 01:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It is best left alone now. If you try and stop it you will just bring up another set of issues. Attempts to stop these things on wikipedia before they have run their course tend not to work unless you nip things right in the bud. I think things are calming down the vote rate has fallen the flame wars have mostly burned out. I don't think we are likely to lose any more people. At this stage keeping it contained and letting it run down of it's own accord is the only real option.Geni 02:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Did so on the talk page. I am not going to close it; not on my own, not in a group. That should have been done five minutes after it was opened. Not one day, not three, not now. If this didn't have a built-in self-destruction timer I'd agree, but this isn't worth it. To me, at least. There's no reason the consensus bandwagon... I mean, boot camp... I mean, gathering place can't be set up irrespective of the VfD circus that's going on, though. The project talk page would be a natural choice, after cleaning out all the existing crap, of course. JRM · Talk 01:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Very well, let's let it burn out. But after that, we should seriously look at vfd. And I'm not just talking people who happen to have an admin bit set. :-P Kim Bruning 02:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Build a centralised point for conflict, and you'll get conflict. It shouldn't be a surprise. I like the idea of pure wiki deletion. Put a notice on the article, let people complain about the deletion on talk. Most articles that really need deleting would get deleted practically unnoticed. If there were bickering, it would be localised and if there were any need to arbitrate, we could simply say "keep the article and move on to something else" and what's the harm done?

Of course, I'm not kidding myself that such an eminently sensible course will actually be taken. Far from it. We'll continue to have war because people like it. -- Grace Note

I agree with Geni, it would be a mistake to try to "stop" this now. And I agree with Kim, that we should do something about something ;-) Filiocht leaving is not a good sign. Paul August ☎ 02:43, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Should I even bother to point out the hypocracy that the Morals and Values Council or whatever they wanted to be called, was perfectly fine with the idea of a VfD, right up until the first vote tally when they found out they were losing, at which point they unilateraly decided that a WfD was a really bad idea, and thus, doesn't count, unless they win, then it counts--64.12.116.74 02:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Probably not, since WP runs by consensus, not random straw polls. Please also review this. Thanks, and good day. Tomer ^TALK 02:58, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Some questions and comments from me during this vfd

• There needs to be a clearer definition of "consensus", or at least a consensus definition of consensus depending on the issue. You can make it loose, but at least set some paramaters. The vote has been steady at around 60-40, but is that enough? Doubtful? Possible?
• agriculture apparently won't come back regardless of the end vote, thus making all of this moot unless someone officially takes over the project for him.
• A clearer policy on preventing sockpuppets from voting is needed, and it needs to be clarified if IP address votes should be considered as sockpuppets regardless of edit tally.
• What would Wikimedia do if someone brought legal action on Wikipedia?
• This is an amazingly diverse community, and regardless of the failures shown by this vfd, the fact that that so many people care about trying to address these failures show the success of this project in my opinion: a large amount of users want to protect and advance this project however they can.

Karmafist 13:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• A clearer definition of consensus is not needed, certainly not here. The outcome is quite obviously no consensus, which defaults to keep, or rather, VfD isn't the right tool, use something better. VfD operates by "rough consensus", which is deliberately not chiseled in stone with unmoveable percentage thresholds to discourage gaming the system and getting tangled up in borderline disputes over whether consensus was "really" reached (in such cases, the answer is almost always "no").
• Wasn't aware projects were owned by people in the first place. It's obvious this project can't simply muddle on in its current form, if only because it triggered a heated VfD. I suggest all of us "officially take over".
• What's wrong with the existing policies? Sockpuppet votes are routinely ignored. Again, in this case, it hardly matters. Users who are clearly not sockpuppets couldn't reach consensus on the matter; a barrel full of sockpuppets won't change that. The issue for IPs is even clearer: the majority is cast by sockpuppets and people who have no idea what Wikipedia is about. They are still free to voice their opinion, but their votes are not important as far as raw numbers go. Those few IP addresses used by people who are knowledgeable of Wikipedia's policies are another matter, but they are rare as hen's teeth on VfD. In any case, closing administrators are expected to exercise good judgement in deciding what votes were cast in good faith and what votes were motivated by malice or ignorance, and they generally succeed. Other people are free to point out edit tallies, possible motivations and their opinions on whether the vote should count, but ultimately this is just extra information.
• Challenge them? I don't see the issue here. Legal action is distinct from legal threats, though. We get a lot more of the latter than of the former. And as Jimbo has pointed out, the chance of someone taking legal action against us is close to zero, since it's a) highly doubtful any laws are being broken in the first place and b) in nobody's best interest to challenge Wikipedia over them.
• That's not how I read it. I voted keep and certainly do not wish to "protect" and "advance" the project. In its current form, it's severely misguided. It needs to be retargeted and the inflammatory/ambiguous "decency" nonsense (whose decency?) should go. If by "success" you mean "generates discussion", then yes, this project is amazingly successful. Discussion doesn't build an encyclopedia, however. JRM · Talk 21:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• On that last point: Karmafist may refer to the whole wikipedia project; in which case, he's right. If he means the wikiproject: I've tallied the keep votes: at the moment, I'm counting 81; but only around 13 voters say they agree with the goals of the project. Eugene van der Pijll 11:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I see the second political party on wikipedia has arrived Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship. If this gets listed for deletion I will be found in a very deep bunker a long way away (probably wikibooks).Geni 21:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

To everyone: please do not proliferate discussions. Take any comments on this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship. JRM · Talk 21:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Seriously considered deleting the VfD

I just looked at the VfD now--I voted keep very early and hadn't really been back since then. It's a mess and the collateral damage is in my opinion much worse than would be the possible effects of either keeping or deleting this project. On the other hand deleting it would have just annoyed everybody. There's nothing for it, this just has to run its five days (not a second longer) and be quietly tallied by someone who is patient enough to do so. It's been about three days now so I suggest that anyone who fancies taking on the challenge should get started now--there are hundreds and hundreds of edits on that VfD. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The score is already being tallied, see the talk page: 77 keep, 107 delete. Eugene van der Pijll 13:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The score isn't tallied until the closer does it. It's a specialist job. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Who's going to be brave enough to close the VfD? Someone has to close it... Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Why would one have to be brave to close it? It seems like a straightforward "keep (no consensus)" vote. (And if I were to close it, I'd just base my decision on the tally on the talk page. There has been remarkably little sockpuppet voting and other controversial activity on this vote, and the tally is not even close to a consensus to delete. But I'm not going to close it, as I have already voted.) Eugene van der Pijll 10:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The only reason I won't be closing it is that I don't close discussions I participated in. I agree that it looks pretty straightforward, and the sooner this one is closed, after the five-day lag time is up, the better. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

If you want, I could close it, as I have not voted yet and believe that I am unbiased. So far it does look like a no-consensus, but I would take some time looking at the comments, seeing if there are any more sockpuppets, etc. Of course, I wouldn't mind if another admin closes it... Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD Closed

After an anonymous editor decided to try and close this VfD in my name, I have closed the discussion with a result of No consensus. --Allen3 ^talk 02:40, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Should perhaps someone talk to Gateman1997 (talk · contribs) about this threat to renominate the project. Dragons flight 16:48, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous poster at Robert W. Welch Jr.

I'm not sure if this is the most appropriate place for this, so if there's a better place please let me know.

There's a problem arising in the Robert W. Welch Jr. article. What appears to be a single anonymous poster has posted an atricle which is a direct copy from this site: http://www.robertwelchuniversity.org/content.php?con=40 . In addition to being a copyright violation, the information from the site appears to be highly biased on a controversial subject. I have attempted to post a more NPOV article on this subjcet (see the Revision as of 02:13, 12 August 2005) but the anonymous poster keeps deleting any information except his or her own.

In addition to the Welch article, it appears this same poster has created similar problems at the John Birch Society, Joe Kernan, and Mitch Daniels articles.

This poster (assuming it is one person) posts anonymously using addresses starting with 63.134.129. Among the variations on this are 63.134.129.90, 63.134.129.13, 63.134.129.11, 63.134.129.112, 63.134.129.142, 63.134.129.158, 63.134.129.191, 63.134.129.223, 63.134.129.31, 63.134.129.223, 63.134.129.189, 63.134.129.75, 63.134.129.191, 63.134.129.210, and several others. It also appears Western Goals Foundation may be the same poster.

I'm open to suggestions on how this should best be handled. MK2 04:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Gracious. This has been going on since April? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Remove all CopyVio material, if the editor persists in re-inserting then block with range blocks. Let me know if you need help with that. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the article started with copyvio from the Welch site. Gonna be a bit tricky -- might make most sense to totally delete it as a pure copyvio, and then MK2 can restore his original version. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, judging from some of his other edits, this poster has been doing this kind of thing since at least December of last year. (It's hard to track down because he has a slightly different name each time he signs on.) No reason to think he's likely to stop.

I have no problem with restoring my previous versions, (I'll go and give it another shot) but I don't want to participate in a revert war. And I have no idea what a range block is or how to use one. MK2 07:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Neutral_point_of_view

I'm not sure if this is the perfect place to leave this... but can someone speedy keep this article from VFD. Some noob nominated it for deletion in bad faith.Gateman1997 16:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Can we try unprotecting IP address?

It was protected due to vandalism since August 1st - I think 16 days is plenty; let's see if the vandalism has quieted down. If not, we can reprotect it. I'll put it on my watchlist. JesseW 18:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected it. Two weeks should hopefully be enough time for the vandal to have lost interest. - SimonP 18:59, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that there was some vandalism, but hopefully it will be light enough to not be an issue. JesseW 03:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

MediaWiki:bad image list

What the heck is this page, other than Tim Starling's personal opinion? Zoe 20:37, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

The software prevents any image listed there from being inserted inline into a page. It was created for the purpose of combatting vandalism. Its weakness is that it can only be used for images which consensus has decreed should not be shown inline in the relevant article, e.g. autofellatio2.jpg; consequently, unless we want Image:Circpn.jpg to disappear from its article, we can't list it on this page to prevent people using it for vandalism on other pages. — Dan | Talk 20:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Everyone think happy thoughts.

Where was there consensus that this image be put there? Zoe 23:51, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

no one made enough of a fuss when it was put there to worry about. Incerdently if you reopen this issue I think it may be posible to ban you under the dissruption clause. I mean the fight over at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency is bad enough but GNAA got listed on VFD again. I feel that restarting the Autofellatio debate is not something we need right now. In short please for the love of Exploding whales leve this issue alone for now.Geni 00:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME!!!!! Who the xxxxx died and made you God? And have you seen that I was not the person who brought up the image for a vote for delete in WP:IFD for apparently the THIRD time? 04:09, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Good god, both of you cool it. No threats and no yelling. Let's try discussing what this discussion is about now. Dmcdevit·t 04:28, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

oh dear. I appolgise if my extreamly lighhearted tone was missinterprted and I apologise for giving anyone the impression that I would ban them. No I can't stop anyone from reopening this issue if they want but I really really hope they don't. Again I'm sorry.Geni 11:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Ok. Cease fire, everyone. Play the ball, not the man, etc. The question is "How is/was consensus for these images determined?" - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe that consensus for not showing the autofellatio 2 image inline was reached at talk:Autofellatio, I presume that the autofellation thumb image is there for the same reason. I can't remember where the request was made for a technical enforcement measure, but I wouldn't be suprised if it arose out of the previous autofellatio IfD debate. Imho having a major debate about the introduction of this feature wasn't necessary, but consensus must be reached for each image that is added to it. Thryduulf 06:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

technical inforcement was due to it's use in vandalism. The agreement not to put it inline wasn't exactly due to consensus but more due to fatgue on both sides. now will people please stop tyring to reopen old battles or are we going to have to have a debate over schools as well?Geni 11:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The issue was partially decided at Talk:Autofellatio and in a series of IFD arguments (which I'll find later when I have the time to search the archives), but mostly here and here. — Dan | Talk 13:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

after everybody was really fed up with the topic, I think both sides were grateful for the face-saving compromise of "link, but don't inline". I don't think any other result will come of it if we go through the excrutiating debate again, apart from more workforce and nerves lost to more productive use. dab (ᛏ) 19:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The decision was on the basis of an earlier image that we held a vote on. If I recall correctly the vote was headed for a no consensus and there was some argument over how to interpret that. Jimbo Wales intervened and said that the image in question was unencyclopedic in his opinion and if not deleted it should at least be linked rather than inlined. He has since then expressed his personal satisfaction with the eventual outcome--that the old image was deleted as a copyright violation, a drawing was placed inline and agreed to be generally suitable, and a new image was obtained with a compatible licence, and this new image was linked rather than inlined. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:3rrblock

Hi. Just to let you admins know, I've created a handy template at Template:3rrblock. It includes links to the reverts and everything, so it might be useful in dealing with 3rr vios. Let me know what you think. Vacuum c 03:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

This appears to be redundant to {{3RR3}}, though the new one has a bit more. Was that intentional? Dmcdevit·t 06:38, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

No, it wasn't intentional. I do believe my template ought to be used, however, because it puts the onus on the blocking administrator to provide evidence of the reverts and thus quells any unnecessary squabbling. Vacuum c 20:43, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

This would seem to add to the work involved in issuing what should be a simple block. All the evidence will already have been presented at WP:AN/3, or at least should have been. -Splash 20:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I prefer mine it's less work User:Geni/3RR(although i do need to get round to makeing a mention that you can edit your talk page).Geni 00:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

FilePile VfD

Would someone please put the FilePile VfD out of its misery? The longer it stays open, the more polluted and acrimonious it becomes. (And while I voted in that VfD, this plea for attention is more because I've watched the discussion spin totally out of control in the past day or so, and hope that it can be put down soon.) Jason 04:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I recommend that it be closed without consensus, and that the issue be mediated before being relisted to avoid another trainwreck. Kelly Martin 04:38, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I did the deed. A look at the article history was enough to make my brain hurt. This was clearly out of control. I also blocked User:Linnwood for 24 hours for 3RR (I counted 13 in 24 hours!) and User:Xed for 72 hours (I counted 21 in 24 hours!). I also note that he is on personal attack parole per arbcom ruling, and some of the edit summaries speak for themselves. Dmcdevit·t 05:50, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Jason, for bringing this to attention here, and thanks to Dmcdevit for putting it to sleep. I and a few others are still very much interested in having the article dealt with according to proper WikiProcess, and we'd appreciate any help any of you could offer with regard to mediation or advice. Again, thank you. — Adam Conover † 06:11, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Am I missing something? I haven't been following this at all, but I see at least 16 undisputed delete votes and a grand total of 3 keep votes, a clear consensus to delete. Calling off a VFD as disputed just because someone attempted to disrupt it seems to me like it might set a bad precident; that could easily encourage people who want a VFD to fail to create a bunch of socks and disrupt it themselves. Aquillion 03:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Balanitis xerotica obliterans/temp

Please could someone delete this page. It was created by myself as a temporary space for rewriting the article, but is no longer required. - Jakew 10:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Done. Thryduulf 11:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Server trouble?

Is it just me or has the Wiki been unusually slow and unstable the last couple of weeks? I get 'no response' errors about 30% of the time I hit submit. And it's not even peak time. Radiant_>|< 12:18, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

It's not just you. The good news is that most of the time when you get "Server error/no response", the edit was committed anyway.

Atlant 12:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Blocked IP returns immediately

I blocked Zivinbudas as 85.206.202.162, and he returns immediately so Dab has to revert his vandalism. What happened? If someone unblocked him, I'd like to know why.--Wiglaf 15:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

If someone else blocked him as well for a shorter period of time, the shorter block expires first. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 18:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

His most recent edit was one minute before you blocked him (cf. the block log and his contribs). I always refresh a vandal's contribs list directly after I block him to make sure I haven't missed any edits. — Dan | Talk 18:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess it had something to to with the slowness of the server :).--Wiglaf 19:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Zivinbudas is very quick to redial. If you block one of his IPs, make sure it is a /21 rangeblock, otherwise it will have no effect at all. Also, I suppose we should note somewhere that his 1 year ban is reset. dab (ᛏ) 19:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Dab—check User:Zivinbudas. :-) Tomer ^TALK 23:59, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Can we as ordinary admins reset his block is that a task for the arbitration committee?--Wiglaf 19:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I have reset his block.--Wiglaf 20:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It might not be such a bad idea to keep track of the socks/IPs he edits from that cause the ban to be reset, similar to the way it's being done at User:Lir. Tomer ^TALK 23:59, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

User:Ehoxha

This isn't yet a dispute, but because I'm not knowledgeable enough about the topic, I'd like to see someone take a look at User:Ehoxha's edits to Freedom Institute, which seem to promote a pro-Bush POV (he removed a parargraph critical of the organization from the article). BTW: the username is also probably a cause for concern. AlbertR 21:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Sandbot

The Sandbot has been restored. Rejoice! The Sandbox will stay clean. --AllyUnion (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

History pages?

Is it just me, or has the format of history pages changed? There's only a single space between the date and the username, where before I'm sure there used to be a few dots, or something. It just doesn't look right, anyway. I can't see any MediaWiki: pages that have been edited recently that might have caused this. sjorford →•← 12:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed the same thing. It is somewhat annoying as the anon IPs tend to blend in with the dates. - SimonP 15:20, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Seeking opinions

Please take a look at Talk:Religion and schizotypy#Moving the page/redirects and the history on Religion and schizotypy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I would like to solicit opinions from fellow admins on this as to whether I'm being (un)reasonable or not. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Blocking open proxies

We very much need a software upgrade that would allow for blocking of all known open proxies, even if there are a very large number of them. See for instance the edit history of Hurricane Camille: [2]. -- Curps 16:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. It's probably RyanCahn. There's a vandal stalking me, and he's the only person I've pissed off recently. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I've just collected a huge list of IPs that have been stalking Cyrius, (and actually, I'm still collecting them). How do I make sure they are open proxies, other than just doing a google search and seeing if they pop up on those illegal lists of open proxies? Func( t, c, @, ) 18:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

You might want to check out the incident here. I checked those IP addresses against a bunch of RBLs using this. Feel free to ask if you need help checking any of them. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:NowCommons

Could someone please see my comments on the category's talk page and start doing something about it? IMO, enwiki is too focused on bureaucracy and too little focused on getting things done. Jon Harald Søby \ ^{no na} 16:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

If I delete nowcommons images, would anyone really mind? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 20:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

If in the process you lose essential copyright information, such as the list of original authors, then yes we would all mind. Moving a GFDL image to commons means more than just uploading it over there, so one needs to check that all the neccesary steps were taken before the image is deleted. For the most part, people have been discouraged from deleting NowCommons images while we await the magic MediaWiki tool that will make it simple to move the authorship and version information to Commons. Dragons flight 20:30, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Dodgy Unicode again

Following up the discussion above about Chinese usernames, I note that User:Сurps and User:Сdс have been registered, but these are not the same as the known users Curps and Cdc - instead the c's and d's are Cyrillic letters, which look the same but are separate characters as far as Unicode is concerned. They don't have any edits, but they ought to be blocked indefinitely anyway, as probable bad faith accounts. (Three similar accounts have been blocked already, see list at [3].)

Putting in some sort of automatic block or check for such usernames sounds like a nightmare, so it's probably just something to keep an eye out for. (Is there a way of generating something like Special:Listusers&startfrom=Zzzzz?)

Try [4]. (However, this is only for users with a user page. You can also try the User talk pages.) Eugene van der Pijll 21:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

On a related note, the discussion further up the page doesn't seem to appear in the TOC (it should be 7.4) - I'm guessing this is because there are Chinese characters in the heading. Known bug? sjorford →•← 17:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

the users have been blocked.Geni 17:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I pre-emptively registered the Cyrillic Curps myself, after Func reported his impostor. It might have been simpler to just block indefinitely, but this way I'm sure even if the block drops for some reason. -- Curps 02:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Somebody made a template a month or so back that you could put on the user and user talk pages of accounts you register to preemptively prevent impersonation. Unfortunately I can't remember what the template is called... Thryduulf 10:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

{{Doppelganger}}, of the form {{Doppelganger|RealUser}}:

--Calton | Talk 10:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. :) -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 18:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that template. ‡ Jarlaxle 20:43, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Final decisions

The arbitration committee has reached final decisions in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Emico and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Argyrosargyrou →Raul654 20:09, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

User:Fenian Swine

Should User:Fenian Swine be required to come up with a less contentious User name? Zoe 22:28, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Since I think "Irish Pig" would, I'd argue yes from analogy. Whining that no offence was intended will no doubt ensue. - Nunh-huh 22:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, he claims that he is a Fenian. Zoe 22:45, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

And so the whining begins<g>. - Nunh-huh 22:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Let the guy have his name for God's sake and get a life you people. He is probably wanting to make some useful contribution, let him get on with it and don't piss him off so he buggers off. You admins are out of control, don't you have anything better to do, like making a proper contribution to this endeavour? --81.76.36.114 14:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If he is wanting to make some useful contribution, an inoffensive name will aid, not hinder him. - Nunh-huh 16:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Neither should the name he has hinder him - lighten up, move on and spread peace. There is work to be done. --81.79.117.98 16:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It shouldn't but it could cause other editors to take his edits less seriously. From Wikipedia:Username:

Remember that a controversial name may colour other users' perspective on your own credibility or political viewpoint. In addition remember that Wikipedia is a world-wide source book and so take care in selecting a name to avoid anything that might potentially cause offence to someone from a different culture, religious or ethnic group.

Wikipedia recommends that users avoid

1. names of politicians, military or religious figures or events;
2. any other names that may be seen as potentially offensive, or endorsing or opposing the politics, policies or beliefs of a public figure.

People should be able to judge you purely on your contributions, not an emotional response to a potentially controversial nickname. Avoiding an offensive or insensitive name is in your own interest. So do please be careful. Remember you are working as part of a community. Show everyone else the respect for their beliefs that you expect them to show to you.

It's in the user's best interests to select a name that does not purposely offend. slambo 17:11, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• At least have the common courtesy to tell me about this.I have made serious edit's to this project and I feel it would be highly unfair to force me to change my name.I am a Fenian and mean no offence by my name.--Fenian Swine 23:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Well that is a problem that the 'other' users will have to work through. If User:Fenian Swine finds his edits are less well received, or he receives negative comment on his talk page he may well reconsider his name, but that should be up to him. My point is that it should not be in the domain of admins to police this area of policy in such a rabid fashion.

This whole 'offensiveness' topic is obscured by subjectivity. For example, the user name Nunh-huh could be construed to be offensive to large numbers of disabled people. I work with disabled people, many of whom are speech impaired, and that particular user name resembles a phoenetic reconstruction of some profoundly speech impaired people's attempts to vocalise.

But that would be political correctness gone mad, which is precisely what this admins debate about an honest users name is. PC GONE MAD. BTW, your name, slambo, is only one consonant away from sambo - where does it stop? Lighten up, move on and get to work. --81.77.137.70 18:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

All of this has been discussed on the user's talk page. The user understands the issue and desires to continue using this username. If anyone feels strongly enough to pursue this, I believe the appropriate forum is WP:RFC, not here (since it would be community consensus that matters, not administrator consensus). As 81.77.137.70 says, please move on and get to work. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:08, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

It's already on RfC, I brought it here because nothing was being discussed there. Zoe 04:33, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I myself have enjoyed many a discussion with the above user and have found him to be a serious individual who found his name through a private joke. He desires to keep the name and continue making serious edits. PS He really is a fenian. I see no problem.Tunney 23:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Look, I wouldn't be offended by it. You're not offended by it. But someone is offended enough by it to go to this trouble. He should change the name and move on. Can't he just call himself Fenian? Or something more subtle that more sensitive editors just won't get? Clair de Lune 07:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with offensive usernames, this is about the abuse of admin powers by Zoe. He is not offended by the name but is just flexing his "administerial bollocks", not because it is within his authority to do so, but because it contradicts his POV and he can. Until there is a concensus that this username violates WP policy it should be unblocked, and Zoe should be sanctioned appropriately. His edit history reveals a swift propensity to revert, delete and block, but no willingness to respond to criticism or genuine enquiry as to his actions. Which admin has the necessary "administerial bollocks" to reinstate this username until such time as there is a proper concensus? --81.76.0.139 11:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• I don't want to get involved in this issue, but I just want to point out that insulting people isn't going to win you any sympathy. Radiant_>|< 12:34, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

There is no insult to anyone, just a colourful analogy. I do not want sympathy. I want fairness and transparency in this closed process for an unfairly maligned user, predicated on one particular admin's POV regarding the users name. Nobody has responded to the point at hand: what authority did Zoe have to block this user, and what is any other responsible admin going to do about it? If you are an admin, please do get involved in the issue and sort this out. See: Rfc for a fuller debate. I also repeat, I am not Fenian Swine. --81.76.39.113 13:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

No, you're probably one of the many concerned citizens who wants to keep people honest by heaping scathing commentary on them. Ascribing nasty motives and clamoring for sanctions whenever people don't keel over immediately to cater to your demands is not a good way to go about things. Admins are volunteers too, you know. Two wrongs don't make a right -- just because you see admins misbehave doesn't mean you can beat your chest in self-righteous indignation pointing it out and expect people to accommodate you. 69.46.0.40 13:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Relax 69, let's get back to the point here. This discussion started about a possible violation of WP user name policy. No concensus has been reached that this particular name breached the policy, yet the user has been banned. This is wrong. A responsible admin should rectify this, that is my point. You are the only one engaged in chest beating as I see it. --81.76.39.113 13:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, that is your point, and if "get a life" and "flexing administerial bollocks" and "X should be sanctioned appropriately" are supposed to be rational support for it... But, hey, don't mind l'il old me. You have a Point, this Entitles you to things. I don't, and will shut up now. 69.46.0.40 13:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

What? Stick to the issues, try not to become emotional. A WikiPedian has been banned without due process on the whim of one particular admin. There was no concensus that the name was in violation of WP policy. I repeat: this is wrong, and should be addressed. I am not attacking you or all admins, although I suspect from your comments that you are an unsigned in admin. I think admins perform an admirable function, but there are lapses that need to be addressed and, in my opinion, this is one of them. --81.76.39.113 13:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I bid your fairwell.Good look to Zoe in the future.May she block many more innocent helpful user's such as myself.Also your blocks are highly ineffective as I can still edit.Ticfaidh Ár Lá.--213.202.143.141 14:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

well what do you expect I just undid your block. the suer name produces few results from google. I think a policy of wait and see would have been best.Geni 14:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

For F**k's sake, why did this take so long? --81.76.39.113 14:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

This reminds me of the matter of User:ClockworkSoul's and User:CyborgTosser's user names, which came up when each of them had their RFA. ClockworkTroll agreed to become ClockworkSoul, while CyborgTosser kept his user name, (outside of the US, I gather that the word "tosser" isn't, um, nice, or something).

As was the case for CyborgTosser, I needed someone to explain to me why "Fenian Swine" was offensive, and in the end, I really don't see the problem, given that he is a "Fenian". If he was a British apologist for Oliver Cromwell, it might be a different matter, but since he isn't, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. Func( t, c, @, ) 16:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

And the issue remains, who the hell is going to reprimand the loose cannon, renegade 'admin' that masquerades around these parts as Zoe. Probably also known as Anon:69.46.0.40

Zoe is a hard working competant admin. I 've seen rough admins and zoe isn't one of them.Geni 19:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Wait, let me guess, this ID will be miraculously blocked as well for "violating" WP policy. NewsFlash people: This is called suppression of free speech censorship, oppression, fascism - the list goes on. I will now go off to don my brown shirt, and my black hat. --Mr Swine 17:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

No wikipedia is a private organisation it has no power to affect your freedom of speach. If you ahve a problem with the way wikipedia is run you are free to level or try getting policy changed via the normal process.Geni 19:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Sock/impostor update

Please note that when I reverted Muc Fíníneach for blanking a comment by Davetunney on User talk:Zoe, s/he created Davetunney., a Davetunney lookalike with a period at the end of the name and complete with copycat userpages, and used it to blank the comment again. Another oddity: the apparently real Davetunney who made the comment about enjoying discussions with User:Fenian Swine in this thread (see page history, but see also this), was round about the same time suggesting Fenian Swine be banned. Oh, btw, and Fenian Swine apparently nominated Davetunney for admin. Yawn... one possible reason for these inconsistencies might be that Davetunney's account has been compromised. But I suggest the only sensible way of sorting out these stage-Irishman japes would be through an IP check of, uh, several accounts. I've permabanned Davetunney.-with-the-period, of course. Unless somebody here protests, I'm going to leave the autoblocker to its dirty work, too. Bishonen | talk 19:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD that is WAY overdue

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Adequacy Style Troll. Someone want to close this? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Seems to me that most of the 'keep' voters are sockpuppets. Familiar crowd. Let me guess, WP:KAANASTFDB2? Radiant_>|< 10:10, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• OK, I'll close it. Will take some time. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Hold on, it doesn't appear to be linked to the August 3 log, or any other log, resubmitting instead. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe it was removed from the daily log? (then again I have looked over August 3 and didn't see evidence thereof) Radiant_>|< 13:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Flying Spaghetti Monster

By the way things are heading, if this discussion is left to run the full five days, it is going to be unclosable, because it will be impossible to sift the wheat from the chaff. It has already spawned disruption such as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Flying Spaghetti Monster. It might be worthwhile treating this as a highly exceptional case and closing early, simply in order to halt the disruption. Alternatively, Ta bu shi da yu or another administrator might care to re-run a more closely monitored discussion. Uncle G 12:41:23, 2005-08-23 (UTC)

• Whoa, that's one of the worst VFD messes I've ever seen. It googles a lot, but most of that seems to be linkspam. Speedily closing this seems like a good idea; I've looked over the history and blocked a bunch of sockpuppets (people may wonder why I bothered, but if someone creates an account in 2004 and barely uses it except for a sudden few VFD votes half a year later, I'd say that's gaming the system). Radiant_>|< 13:07, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

The LJ'er is going on my list of internet idiots, and if I ever feel like losing my admin powers I will delete that article just to piss the entire list of anons off. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 14:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

even without the sockpupets it appears a pretty clear keep. The more interesting factor is what happens when we get round to deleting the images as copyvios.Geni 14:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: the copyvios: one of the images has clearly been released under the GDFL (the Sistine Chapel take-off), and its talk page documents the email chain granting license. The other one has yet to be confirmed to be under GDFL, but there's a few emails out there awaiting reply. Jason 14:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I was bold, and went ahead and closed the discussion. It's a keep, even if you throw out the anon and unsigned votes. I'm going to protect the page to prevent anyone from adding extra votes. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 14:56, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm astounded that we kept this. This is an in-joke, comedy. The whole article reads like an attempt at humor. Look at the little notepad scribbling of the monster! In any case it's obviously completely non-notable. When I see something like this kept and remember that I've written perfectly good articles that have been deleted, it makes my head spin. Everyking 10:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

There's currently 71,000 hits on Google for "Flying Spaghetti Monster". While it is silly, it's not as silly as Intelligent Design, and it's a valid satire on current goings-on at the Kansas Board of Education which seems to have struck a chord with many, hence it's encyclopaedic. -- Arwel 10:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the discussion was "advertised" on a relevant LJ board - that was bound to attract as many legitimate wiki users who wanted it kept as anon sockpuppets with a bee in their bonnet. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 11:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Certain things excel at Google tests without necessarily having a whole lot of genuine notability. I figure this got passed around a whole bunch of blogs and that way it accumulated a bunch of hits. It sounds to me sort of like the invisible pink unicorn, which we also have an article on. I don't really think either one is particularly notable, although they might merit a paragraph or two each in a more general article on this kind of thing. But oh well, what's done is done. Everyking 11:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

FSM also got picked up by the boston sun times and another major news paper.--Tznkai 12:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletion reminder

A friendly reminder to those who are doing speedy deletion: Images are not redundant, and therefore should be placed on IFD instead, if they are merely similar, such as JPEG versions of PNG images. I am seeing more of these situations popping up, and was recently asked about it. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• OK, I was told that the wording on that policy on CSD is a little ambiguous, so I copyedited and added "or any other picture that has been saved in a different image file format" to make it more clear. If you can make it more clear, be my guest. The point, as I recall, is that different file formats each have their own pros and cons (which are listed on WP:IUP#Format), and thus when you convert an image from JPEG to PNG, some of the resolution and quality may change. That is why they should not be candidates for speedy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you convert from JPEG to PNG there is a 100% chance of quality loss, so the image could be deleted without remorse. If you compress them separetely from the same matrix, that's a different story. --Sn0wflake 18:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Really? JPEG is the lossy format, not PNG, so you lose information when you convert from PNG to JPEG, not the other way round. If you convert from JPEG to PNG, you just end up with a bigger file. Rl 18:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe you might be missing my point, somewhat. I am not some JPEG advocate, I am merely implying that any compressed image which is converted to another compressed standard produces a result worse than the original. The best you can hope for is that it looks just as good, but pixel-level that's not true, right. So unless the two versions are generates from the same PSD (for example), you can rarely win anything by keeping the replica. Unless maybe pngcrush is very wisely and carefully used? --Sn0wflake 19:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Taking this off the noticeboard. Answer at User talk:Sn0wflake. Rl 19:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• While Rl is correct, the point is that not everybody knows that, so the CSD should simply state that having two identical images in different file formats is not grounds for deletion (e.g. GIF is also lossless, but converting JPEG to GIF can nevertheless lose quality because of the lower color depth). Radiant_>|< 08:01, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Lost archived peer review

Could someone give me a clue what's happened to Peer review/United Kingdom and weapons of mass destruction? Thanks - SP-KP 18:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

It appears that this peer review was originally submitted with several other pages at Wikipedia:Peer review/France and weapons of mass destruction. Checking what pages link to the article is usually the quickest way to track down peer reviews such as this when the link on the talk page is not working do to page moves or similar problems. --Allen3 ^talk 19:37, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Canada Free Press and Judi McLeod

Canada Free Press and Judi McLeod have been the target of a smear campaign by an anonymous user who has made other attacks on them in the past (off Wikipedia); Hobbes000 (talk · contribs) (a brand-spanking newbie) seems to have corrected the article, but Ms. McLeod and the paper are understandably concerned about these articles. If some neutral parties would watchlist these articles in case in case more potentially libelous material is added, it would be appreciated. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Watchlisted. I'll keep an eye out. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

VFD on Moonbat

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Moonbat has been running for 24 days and no-one has actually closed it. I would do it myself only I have voted in it. David | Talk 22:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Flooding a new page at wikipedia, all time !! [Kourosh_ziabari]

You are a wiki admin and I need your help. Can you explain about this changes to my page? [5] He is flooding page Kourosh ziabari with under-18 langauge all time and I don't know what to do 70.52.6.147 He uses many IPs and Wiki IDs and I don't know what to do. 70.52.6.147 is his last IP. I adivce you to take a visit from this comparation of main text and hacked text. I can name this, just hacking a page. Using the most abusing comments, word and phrases for a 15 years old jounrliast! I can not call it anything except hacking.

(Unsigned comments by Kourosh ziabari (talk · contribs) 23:53, August 24, 2005 >/small>

People attmepting to delete with no reason at all

Pages being affected: -Ryan Moore -Kitty Goodard -Blood Line I found people requesting that my pages were delted, claming it was a student film. As the writer of the film, I can confirm that the movie is real and being made. It is not a student film. I was shocked and digusting at the accusations that because of my age, I wa snotbelived. SOme one accused me of starting several page sto promote a film I want to make. It is being made and it is not promotion. I am adding a geunie independent film and tweo confirmed cast members. Please, I request that people stop mocking my film and discontinue their requests for my pages to be taken down. I hope you make the right descion, because I am very upset at this unfairness

• Note Ryan does not seem to understand what Wikipedia is and is not. -- Corey.spring 10:18, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

• delted , I was shocked and disgusting (that was my favorite one, was snotbelieved, SOme, page sto, it is not promotion, tweo. First of all, if the article was written like the above paragraph it may have not been because of your age. Also, If you are a writer, god help anyone who tries to read that. By the way, a good phrase I read on wikipedia somewhere is that if your subject is notable enough, then someone else without a direct connection to it will come along a write an article. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Sockpupperary

This is going to be easy, User:Adamwankenobi already confessed, a check may be done to make sure. [6]. User is agresively reverting Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Adamwankenobi was blocked previously for a number of reasons. I hereby request you EXTERMINATE! him. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

User openly admits on his user page (among other places) to repeated vandalism to George W. Bush. He apparently fails to realize that Wikipedia does not tolerate such behavior, and seeks to disrupt an article for personal satisfaction. Nufy8 02:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"It's all in good fun" - response to sockpuppetry and vandalism. This shows someone who doesn't care if he breaks the rules. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:29, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

To be fair he has ceased and desisted the sockpuppetry. I have had my disputes with him but he's stopped his part in the Bush vandalism a while ago. Redwolf24 03:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, as far as I am concerned he could be the one vandalising bush in the past week. Dubya is an idiot btw, just to establish my pov. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 17:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Main page intro

• Can someone please make the 2001 on the Main Page introduction a link to the 2001 page? Thanks! Flarn 00:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • This has been discussed, believe it or not, and the current link situation represents the outcome of a lengthy argument, so I think it's best not to mess with it. — Dan | Talk 05:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

use of user:Diablo

Hi,

I just signed up as fr:Utilisateur:Diablo and would like to use the same user name in EN Wikipedia.

The previous contributor using did only 3 edits in 2003 & nothing after :

   * 14:50, 9 December 2003 (hist) (diff) Cyclops (comics)
   * 14:49, 9 December 2003 (hist) (diff) m Cyclops (comics)
   * 14:43, 9 December 2003 (hist) (diff) m Archangel (comics)

Could you send me by new e-mail the new password accordingly (I placed an interwiki on User:Diablo's page to French Page Utilisateur)

Yours sincerely,

fr:Utilisateur:Diablo

84.5.88.98 18:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I think doing something like that would be a violation of GFDL. Zoe 19:57, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

If en:User:Diablo was a vandal impostor of a longstanding user on another wikipedia, you could ask a bureaucrat to change their name to something else, to free up the name Diablo for you. However, this does not seem to be the case here: this would seem to be an ordinary though short-lived user who registered the name legitimately long before you. So I don't think a bureaucrat would be justified in bumping the name. -- Curps

• You could try registering User:Diablo! both here and on FR, though. Radiant_>|< 07:37, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

"consultation"

I was looking for info on consultation and when I searched for it something about Texas came up. Just thought you should know. Thanks, Lewiswillie.

The article at Consultation is about an event in the 19th century history of Texas. For the practice of professional advice, see consultant. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

complaint

I would like to recommend the blocking of the user Bearcat of wikipedia. This user continues to use foul language and went over the line by making a death threat in this particular post (I blocked the obsenity and name):

"This whole ****ing thing is just absurd. So Jacques Rose built them a bookshelf. Big fat hairy whoopde****ingdoo. We live in a country in which the right to a private ballot is inviolable; no Canadian is ever obliged to reveal how he or she voted in an election or referendum. [******* ******] really needs to **** off and die now. </rant-off> Bearcat, who can POV on a talk page if I want to 06:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)"

This sort of stuff can't be tolerated and is even worse than vandalism.--Esto 04:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Wishing that someone would die isn't a death threat. It would be a death threat if he said he or someone else would kill that person. ‡ Jarlaxle 06:23, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Qv Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks. Radiant_>|< 07:44, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

- oh come on, so you're saying that if I wrote "you really need to die now", that can't be considered a death threat? Especially with an obsenity mixed into it.--70.25.139.42 20:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Well from what I can see no one bothered to even mention the problem to Bearcat on his talk page. That would pretty much be the first step. - Taxman ^Talk 19:44, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Major Willy on Wheels cleanup

See the move log. He's doing the page moves faster now, about 200 pages. -- Curps

There's still about 50 or so pages left to move back. Click on the "500" link in the move log. -- Curps 12:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Admin assistance requested/username

Could someone please block User:GAYNIGGER ON WHEELS for the obvious inappropriate username? Thanks! EdwinHJ | Talk 15:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Big surprise for you all I am sure, this user is engaged in some vandalism [7]. Please block. Thanks again. EdwinHJ | Talk 15:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Curps got him indef for page move. Done. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 15:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Willy on Wheels legal action?

Is there any kind of computer vandalism law the wikimedia foundation might use to pursue legal action against Willy on Wheels? Have we contacted his ISP? Even without legal action, I think most ISPs have policies against such activities and might be willing to warn him or cancel his account. I would think a request from wikipedia's webmaster would not be ignored. Just a thought. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:39, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I think I am more in favor of something involving torchs and pitchforks, but legal action and/or webmaster threats sound good too. Dragons flight 01:47, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No legal threats User:Omegatron/sig 01:49, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Ooh, moded. ‡ Jarlaxle 02:00, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Um, one would assume that any persistant vandal would have to be using a proxy of some kind, otherwise you could just block the ip from editing--172.134.225.13 02:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. If he wasn't using a proxy, then he would have to use dozens of different computers to continue editing on Wikipedia. ‡ Jarlaxle 02:07, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I've seen something implying he originates from AOL (new proxy with every dial up). This is such an unsophisticated attack I wouldn't be surprised if the perpetrator doesn't even know what a proxy is. BTW - it's not obvious to me Wikipedia:No legal threats pertains here. This is a vandal, not particularly different from someone attempting a more traditional denial of service attack. Actions done with a computer with clear intent to harm a website may not be illegal, but I think it might be worth looking into. I'm not suggesting we post something that says "hey Willy, we're going to sue you" (which I think would violate Wikipedia:No legal threats). I am suggesting finding out if what he's doing is illegal, and if so that we pursue appropriate legal action to force him to stop. Contacting his ISP and letting them know this user is using his account to vandalize our site seems to me like a reasonable step in any event. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:11, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression that User:Norm, an erstwhile contributor, was the original Willy on Wheels (see the history of his userpage): he threatened to depart "on wheels", and when he departed, he vandalized a bunch of pages Willy-style, though due to the behavior of page moves at the time they don't appear in his contribs anymore. He also indicated that he might be back, but wouldn't be using the Norm account anymore. Of course, even if he was the first Willy, the current pest might just be an imitator. — Dan | Talk 02:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that theory. The leaving on wheels comment came in March 2005, Willy has been in operation since at least August 2004. Also Norm would have left himself extremely vulnerable if he is Willy. For a while he provided a good deal of biographical information, and he also runs his own wiki. User:Krik, who is the same person as Norm, also states quite clearly that he is not Willy. - SimonP 03:04, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism_in_progress/Willy_on_Wheels#Apology_from_Norm for more on Norm/Krik. Adam^Rock 17:43, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Insofar as the Wikipedia:No legal threats aims to protect contrbutors from baseless threats of legal action from other contributors, I believe it does not apply here. First of all, WoW, having been banned, is not a contributor and does not enjoy the various protections that a contributor might. Second, it is not baseless threats that are being contemplated, but rather a genuine effort to deal with vandalism by working with an ISP. Third, it is unlikely that any such effort would end in actual legal action or the threat of it, instead being a matter of dealing with an ISP. Finally, there is no provision against the community (e.g. the Wikimedia foundation) pursuing legal action, and indeed this is often contemplated or threatened in the case of GFDL violations by mirrors. As an aside, I would be most grateful if someone would be so kind as to delete the recent legal threat on my talk page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Granted. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 03:49, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I would really, really like to find some way of communicating with the vandal. If he really is a former Wikipedian in good standing, (like I gather User:Norm once was), then there might be hope that this individual can be reasoned with...(OK, I don't sound too lame here, do I). Basically, I'd like to know if this is just some guy committing vandalism because he's braindead and thinks it's funny, or is this someone who has an actual agenda, a grudge, a bad past experience that causes these rampages of his. If anyone feels that they have an opportunity to leave this guy a message that he will actually see...let's try reasoning with him, (because there sure as hell hasn't been anything else that works at stopping him). Func( t, c, @, ) 03:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

In all honesty, there's a lot of people not even close to the level of WoW who we refuse to engage in dialogue with, so this might appear to be something like a double standard, rewarding the extreme nature of his behavior. But taken in isolation, I think dialogue would be good if possible. Everyking 03:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell No legal threats does apply here, but I see no reason why we couldn't amend it with a quick vote or something like that to say that it does not apply to persistent vandals. Everyking 03:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't make legal threats against other users of Wikipedia

Doesn't sound like it applies to WoW to me. He's not a user, he's a vandal. --Carnildo 05:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

He has accounts and has edited, so that makes him a user. Everyking 05:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, we can (and have) complained to various ISPs about various users vandalizing Wikipedia. The no-legal-threats policy is not a license to vandalize with impunity, Everyking's prouncements not withstanding. →Raul654 05:59, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• "No legal threats" is irrelevant. We, as editors, don't have any real basis for any legal action. However, the operators of Wikipedia -- the foundation, I guess? -- don't have to play by editors' rules. Sez me. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• I was interpreting it only to cover things actually said on the encyclopedia. Obviously I don't object to contacting whoever to take action about it. And Raul's insinuation that I want to give people a license to vandalize with impunity is offensive, and I think he should apologize. As far as I know, I do much more vandal-fighting work than he does. Everyking 06:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If my remarks offended you, I apologize. However, I fail to see how one can reconcile the above statement ("Obviously I don't object to contacting whoever to take action about it.") with your previous one ("As far as I can tell No legal threats does apply here"). Setting that aside, however, the point being established is a very simple one - if you vandalize Wikipedia, we may contact your ISP to report that you are using their service to vandalize our site, in violation of our terms of use and (in all likelihood) their terms of service. →Raul654 06:45, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • All I was saying is go by the rule. I even said it would probably be a good idea to amend the rule to cover this kind of thing. But as it stands I can't logically interpret a rule barring people from making legal threats as permitting threatening legal action against vandals. It seems to be fine to do so outside of the actual encyclopedia, and I do think talking about legal action in this case is reasonable. But clearly what's needed is an explicit exception for vandals to be added to the policy. Everyking 07:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, I went ahead and made a proposal for that. Everyking 07:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Here is a case where we should apply the mantra that our policies are to be followed until the point at which they contravene common sense. — Dan | Talk 07:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
        • At that point, we should aim for a community decision to change the policy so that it does match what's perceived as "common sense". Everyking 07:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• however it is sometime nice to get things done in slightly under 3 months.Geni 13:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree with this proposed policy. While I am in no way condoning the annoying and persistant Willy on Wheels vandal, I do feel that making legal threats is going too far and crossing the line. There are a number of legal matters that would infinitely complicate Wikipedia, and once under the scrutiny of the judicial systems, I feel Wikipedia would become more constricted. In addition, we would have to make several addendums to existing policies to tighten them; for example, what constitutes vandalism? In a court of law, I doubt that we could argue that our policies in the Wikipedia: namespace are law, and I highly doubt that we could "prove" that the page moves were "vandalism" (even though we, as editors, clearly see them as mass vandalism). Also, if this rule is applied, what stops editors on Wikipedia from claiming the another party is a "severe vandal"? A line must be drawn somewhere, and "severe" is very open to definition. Thus, I believe that we should follow our own policy of no legal threats and not revise the existing policy. Thanks for reading my (humongous) paragraph, and happy editing! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks to everyone who helped clean up after the Willys; you are all very much appreciated.

I respect your opinion Flcelloguy, but I don't think this should stop us from trying to figure out where Willy is coming from, informing his ISP, and politely telling them that we may be forced to block their entire net segment if they are unable to do something about the problem. Before we go jumping into any courts of law, or even debating that, figuring out where Willy is and having someone important in the Foundation talk to his ISP would seem to be the place to start. Dragons flight 00:05, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

As I see it some of the issues discussed above are strawmenpeople: if we're talking about contacting Willy's ISP and inquiring whether some of his activities run counter to the ISP's terms of service, that's pure unfiltered action, not a mere threat. And it's not a "legal threat" at all, unless we're talking about going to the police. With this out of the way, I think the real obstacle is the Wikipedia Privacy Policy: if Willy never edits anonymously, how are we supposed to learn of the IP addresses he uses, which would enable us to track down his ISP? --MarkSweep✍ 18:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The Apache logs (accessible to developers) allow the client IP address to be discovered (same way sockpuppets are verified). -- Rick Block (talk) 19:05, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I think "legal action" is too strong a word, but someone with access to some of he IP information certainly should make an effort to contact the ISP. They can and usually do keep logs of who has what IP when. They may take action if given enough evidence. If we have a systematic way of gathering this evidence and presenting it to ISP's we may get a little farther ahead. - Taxman ^Talk 19:34, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated antisemitism charges on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Anti-Semitism_in_Poland archive page

On the Vfd page a former user is being accused of making anonymous antisemitic edits in two places on the page by Users "Witkacy" and "Schwartz und Weiss". The edits were actually made by 80.130.xxx.xxx who is unlikely to be the user concerned (although this is not Witkacy's belief). The situation could easily be remedied by removing the user's name. Luckily this could be done without affecting the discussion or the vote and ordinarily I would do it in accordance with the "No personal attacks" policy. However because this is on a page which would not ordinarily be edited, I thought I should run it past people to see what they think about the situation before I jump in with both feet and remove the offending name. Note that there is no doubt about the antisemitic comments. The doubt lies in the identity of the person making them. Comments ? -- Derek Ross | Talk

JarlaxleArtemis

User:JarlaxleArtemis is (for the fifth time) currently editing Wikipedia articles (e.g., [8] [9] [10]) in defiance of his ban on doing so pending resolution of his arbitration proceedings. Perhaps someone could temporarily block him and revert his edits, as has been done previously. I've notified him on his Talk page. —Psychonaut 09:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess so, but what struck me was the decision that looks like it's going to pass: he will be "banned for one year from Wikipedia". I find that staggering. I don't know a whole lot about the user, but I have seen his edits in passing and never thought they were anything but good. The only exceptions I can think of were some pictures that looked like they might be copyvios, but they were later removed. Everyking 09:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The temporary injunction is on the page "Proposed decision", so is not actually in effect yet. At least, that is how it looks to me. At the main page of the proceedings, it says, literally, "Temporary injunction (none)". Eugene van der Pijll 10:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at this diff, you'll see that the injunction is in full effect. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:06, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

So you personally have not seen any problematic behavior from this user, therefore he must be an all round good guy who dosen't deseve banning. He I've got an idea - let's get rid of the evidence pages for the AC to read documenting such minor things as deliberately breaking the sandbox, posting libelous remarks, Encoraging harrasment of his teacher by email, mailbombing admins, taunting vandals, vandalising user pages, etc. Why bother with that when we could just ask you? If you personally haven't seen bad behaviour, it can't have happened right? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 10:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, Theresa Knott really does have a point, even if she didn't present it in the best of fashions. This is JarlaxleArtemis's second arbitration case, and if you look at the evidence page, you'll clearly see that the sheer volume of evidence that is being presented against Jarlaxle is ludicrous. There's a reason why we've got the arbcom: seemingly good editors are sometimes not. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:20, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Yes I'd like to apologise for my tone. I shouldn't have edited while irritated. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to justify anyone's bad behavior, but a year seems absurd. Why not a month coupled with probation, something like that? Everyking 18:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The point isn't to punish him for misbehaving, the point is to prevent him from making it harder to build an encyclopedia. If he's causing problems now, nothing will have changed in a month. On the other hand, he seems to be in high school so perhaps in a year he will have matured a bit. Isomorphic 06:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you think he is doing more harm than good to the encyclopedia? I think it's totally unjustifiable to impose a one year ban on a good faith contributor. Only the worst trolls and those engaged in severe and persistent disruption should be subject to such a harsh penalty. It is actually self-destructive for us to treat our own contributors that way. Everyking 06:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

you don't think copyvios are a mjor problem. Fine you clean out WP:CP. see you in a month. maybe.Geni 09:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say that. Does Jarlaxle understand our copyvio policy now? I think if he'd pledge not to violate it again then the penalty should be light. If not, then I would feel more inclined towards harshness. Everyking 11:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Ahem. We've already tried that approach. And seeing that he's already "read and understood" Wikipedia policies, you're affording him not a second but a third chance? No way. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 13:22, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

JarlaxleArtemis is responsible for uploading more copyvio'd images than any other user I've encountered, even after he had been repeatedly warned by myself and several other Wikipedians on his Talk page, and even after he was forced to admit he read through and understood Wikipedia's copyright policy by his first arbitration. However, even now he continues to upload questionable material and change image copyright/license tags. I for one am tired of cleaning up after this guy. —Psychonaut 14:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Probation

Please look at Wikipedia:Probation and use the talk page to give feedback regarding this proposed arbitration remedy. What links here will tell you the cases it is proposed in. Fred Bauder 16:09, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Human Rights Servey on Wikipedia (The final post of I_sterbinski)

Dear all,

Wikipedia was recently a subject of intensive research of an huge international human right organization. A team of people from different nationalities and ages were acting on Wikipedia for 20 days, investigating previously noted anomalities of Wikipedia free editing and forming a final report, which (between the others similar reports) will later be a guide to all future moves of the organization concerning Wikipedia. Acting under an account of a real person, their privacy is to be held private. Therefore, very few private information will be revealed.

Also, this is a result of the lack of final possition of the organization concerning Wikipedia and human rights, which was still not formed.

The team's final post on Wikipedia, where they explain their actions can be found on the following addresses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:I_sterbinski

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia#Human_Rights_Servey_on_Wikipedia_.28The_final_post_of_I_sterbinski.29

The team would like to thank to all the persons who took part in the correspondence with us.

We also want to appologise for keeping our identity secret for a longer period.

Best regards,

Aleksandar, Biljana, Asparuh, Christos, Valjon, Michael and Ana Luiza

I sterbinski 01:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Macedonia again. Ho hum. (damit I need a rolleye emotocon)Geni

how about, ϘϘ (qof qof) dab (ᛏ) 20:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have a clue what this is about? If so, could you post a quick explanation here? I guess I'm missing some history... Isomorphic 05:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

it's just a clumsy hoax by a frustrated editor, see User_talk:I_sterbinski, Talk:Macedonia if you're interested. dab (ᛏ) 10:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

there has been a long running battle going on on wikipedia about Macedonia. I assume that someone is trying to phase us in order to make us give in to thier pov.Geni 10:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Votes for Deletion v. Pages for Deletion

There currently is a minor bug in the deletion system. Some VFD's go to pages for deletion some for votes for deletion. Currently "Esquivalience" is on both, with different votes and all.TheDeletator 04:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Fixed now, courtesy of Splash. Radiant_>|< 09:06, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

fix front page

It currently reads:

1. Hurricane Katrina strengthens further to a Category 4 hurricane with winds of 233 km/h (145 mph) and begins moving towards New Orleans, Louisiana, after killing seven people in the U.S. state of Florida.

You should have it read:

1. Hurricane Katrina strengthens further to a Category 4 hurricane with winds of 150 mph and begins moving towards New Orleans, Louisiana, after killing seven people in the state of Florida. Currently it is the second-most intense named storm in the United States since 1851. A mandatory evacuation of New Orleans has been issued for the first time in history and the city sits on average six feet below sea level.

That provides much more insight about the gravity of the situation. And here is the proof: The Most Intense Hurricanes in the United States 1851-2004 with [11]. "The pressure dropped to 915 mb at 6 am. " and the last storm with that level or lower was Hurricane Camille in 1969 at 909. Hurricane Katrina is now the second most intense named hurricane since 1851 in the United States. 71.32.199.15 09:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Madchester

This admin seems not to have grsaped the blocking policy, and is ignoring my comments. So far I've found him blocking one IP address indefinitely for vandalism, and another for a week (there may be others). I think that the power has gone slightly to his head, but as he doesn't seem to be affected by my remonstrations, could someone else have a word with him? I don't think that it's a sign of anything more serious, but it needs to be nipped in the bud. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Username Trollderella

I have opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/Trollderella concerning the appropriateness of the username "Trollderella". Please direct all comments to that page. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• What's that got to do with admins? Kappa 20:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Admins tend to be more involved with community management issues, and have more experience dealing with them, than your typical editor. Nothing wrong with posting a note here when something like this comes up. Isomorphic 05:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Jim Davidson (comedian)

Could someone think about protecting Jim Davidson (comedian)? it's suffering from chronic vandalism and I'm bored with reverting it. Kappa 20:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: article was vprotcted by Uncle G. El_C 05:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Dot Six temporary injunction

DotSix, using any IP is prohibited from editing any Wikipedia page other than his talk page and the pages of this Arbitration case until a final decision is made in this case. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean the articles can be unprotected, or is it better to keep them protected? --cesarb 15:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Tried it (was also requested on WP:RFPP), didn't work, protected all again. --cesarb 16:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked DotSix for 24 hours for multiple violations of the injunction. He was actually using sockpuppets (what a surprise) since 67.182.157.6 was already blocked for a 3RR violation. Carbonite | Talk 16:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Be careful because he uses AOL. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion

To help to obtain consensus in an extensive discussion on renaming at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion, Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion (with a shortcut of WP:NFD) has been created. The purpose of the page is to hold the deletion discussions for pages in namespaces other than the main article namespace, that heretofore would have been taken to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (e.g. project pages, user pages, portal pages, and so forth). The discussion area is ready to go live. The deletion discussions of non-main namespace pages that were currently open at WP:VFD have already been transcluded there. Uncle G 01:43:13, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

• That's great, but a question: are there differentiated guidelines for namespace deletions? I'm not being snide; I really think that having no avenue for establishing communal feelings about a namespace page is only half the problem. The other half is that the same criteria have not applied to namespace pages as article-space pages, and that has left namespace in a no man's land, where anyone could put up anything and expect it to last as long as electrons flow or be deleted by the first offended admin-level user. Geogre 02:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • There are certainly differentiated guidelines for non-main namespace nominations. The text at the top of WP:NFD on what avenues to investigate before nominating something for deletion reflects what is said on Wikipedia:Deletion policy on the subject. How markedly differentiated the nomination guidelines are is a subject for discussion. As for deletion guidelines, there almost certainly are differences. Wikipedia:Brion Vibber Day almost certainly wouldn't last were it a main namespace article, but as the record of an edict from Jimbo I it would most likely be kept as a project namespace article. Uncle G 03:29:04, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  • Procedures for deleting non-main-namespace pages have always lagged behind procedures for deleting articles. The issue just hasn't come up often enough for consistent procedures to evolve. The standards, though, are different from article-space deletions since the content and purpose are entirely different. I don't think there are many cases where we really need to delete a page in the User or Wikipedia namespaces; usually redirecting or putting a "historical" tag should be enough. That said, I like the new page since the handful of non-main-namespace pages that end up on VfD usually provoke large, disruptive discussions. Isomorphic 05:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

User:132.241.245.49

Well over the course of many weeks and months, User:132.241.245.49 has made contributions to the site, however many of them are not in the spirit of NPOV. Edits such as [12] and [13] showcase this and he has also gone as far as to vandalise pages: [14], [15], the last example being quite recently. He has been left notices on his talk page about his POV editing but it doesn't seem to be getting through. I feel that he needs a mentor or someone with experience to help him learn how to edit an article neutrally because some of his contributions have actually been worthwhile. Derktar 06:13, August 29, 2005 (UTC).

Did You Know? - Spelling mistake

Could someone please change the "Yrauskin Airport" entry in the "Did You Know" section on the main page to "Yrausquin Airport" (it's been misspelled). "Yrauskin" gets only 4 Googles while "Yrausquin" gets 655. I've already moved the page to the correct title. Alr 14:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I have corrected it on the template. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 15:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! Alr 15:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Willy has now got Milk

The MilkMan (talk · contribs) seems to be Willy under a new name or a copycat. He is creating a bunch of sleeper accounts on a daily basis. I have indef blocked all the new ones I found today. I also decided to block "Milk"-named accounts with zero contributions, on the grounds that when a legitimate new user first creates an account, it's usually for the purpose of making an edit.

• Curps, why do you say he is Willy? I have no objection to your blocking the various milkpuppets. He spent a couple of days sending me copious "fuck you" emails after I blocked ten or so of them. FreplySpang (talk) 17:21, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's characteristic of Willy to register a bunch of sleeper accounts, then let them age for a while and make a few edits with them (often minor vandalism or short taunts on the user or talk page). By doing so they pass the non-newbie threshold checking to be able to do page moves, and hence pagemove vandalism. There really isn't any other reason to register sleeper accounts unless you have long term plans to use them for pagemove vandalism. That's Willy's style. It's also very telling that many "MilkMan" accounts started appearing on August 26, the very day we staved off the latest wave of Willy pagemove vandalism. Anyway, if it's not Willy, it's a copycat who wishes to do much the same things. -- Curps 18:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Aha. That makes sense, thanks. FreplySpang (talk) 18:34, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • fear the copycats, though. We are relying rather too much that there will not be a hundred willies ante portas one fine morning. The web is wide and full of crazy people, I don't feel good about this... I would ask that ordinary admins get an emergency break button, stopping all page moves, wiki-wide, only to be used during massive attacks. dab (ᛏ) 18:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    • That would be great. Maybe not all admins, but at least all bureaucrats. We're going to have to keep finding ways to combat sneaky vandalism. As Wikipedia gets more and more popular (as it is obvious that will continue) there will increasingly be more and more people willing to be more and more persistent in vandalizing. The only way to keep this place sane will be to make sure that on the whole fixing vandalism is cheaper than vandalizing. - Taxman ^Talk 19:21, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Any news yet from the developers about a (temporary/emergency) solution? Radiant_>|< 09:52, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Can't there be a change to make page moves more easily revertable like regular edits are? User:Omegatron/sig 13:37, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

It will require a change to the Mediawiki software. See bugzilla:3185 to vote for rollback of moves to be corrected, and bugzilla:1454 for a request to throttle how fast moves may be made. --Allen3 ^talk 15:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Everything should be throttled to prevent bots. It isn't currently?

I've read a little about "bot flags" and assumed people needed to get their bots approved before they could get these flags, which would then allow them to do fast bot-like things and not be restricted by the software. User:Omegatron/sig 15:36, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

They do, but nothing stops someone from running something like Tcl/Expect on they're machine that basically makes the clicks for them. I'm assuming there's similar tools for Windows, but even if not, I'm sure that's whats going on in some cases. - Taxman ^Talk 16:51, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

After a WP:3RR complaint, I blocked both SchmuckyTheCat and 2004-12-29T22:45Z for 24 hours for a 3RR violation (2004-12-29T22:45Z documented it at WP:AN/3RR). Following this, Dmcdevit protected the page, per WP:RfPP. Schmucky beleives, as he says on his talk page and at the administrator's noticeboard of incidents (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Real life sometimes intrudes), that the information on the founder's previous employment was evidence of "clear real-life harrassment", and that Jimbo should be informed. I disagreed on his views, but promised him I'd take the matter to WP:AN. Can some admins please take a look at the case and review it? Thanks in advance! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually I protected it beofre you did the blocks, not that it really matters. Schmucky left the not on my talk page, too, but I honestly don't know what to think about it. I don't know or care much about this article, and I only protected it because of the obvious edit war. Dmcdevit·t 04:59, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it harassment. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The seven external links following Sherrod DeGrippo's name look a little stalkerish to me, and after reviewing the edit history, I can't help but feel that User:2004-12-29T22:45Z was showing quite a bit of inappropriate POV in the matter...not that this is an admin matter. With the page protected, I hope they can work this out on the talk page. Flcelloguy's actions here are entirely justified under 3RR, as I think it would be difficult to show that 2004-12-29T22:45Z's edits represent "pure vandalism" as 3RR allows for. Func( t, c, @, ) 14:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

To be fair to user:2004-12-29T22:45Z a lot the external links were only added to apease User:SqueakBox and confirm that ED:GirlVinyl = Sherood DeGripoo (wether the info should be there is another matter and being discussed ATM).--ElvisThePrince 15:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

harassment by ginadana

I am being harassed by user:ginadana who is trying to advance an anti-blog adgenda along with user:dreamguy (see how he votes to delete blogs). Gina Dana has written to my talk page with warnings. Aparently I misunderstand some secret policy. But rather than warn once, she advanced to the final warning right away in her next edit. I hadn't even made any more edits or responded. She also claims that users are not allowed to edit policy, but this is clearly untrue because how would policy get there otherwise and why would access be allowed? please help! 12.111.139.2 23:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)--

Image Problem

I have inadvertently uploaded an image over Image:Flathead_Indians.jpg. It was an image of a Flathead delegation in Washington, D.C. I would gladly fix it myself, but the image page isn't giving me a revert button, or any sign that there was a different image there. Can someone fix this? I'll gladly reload the Flathead Family image that overwrote this. TIA, Mwanner 23:47, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

• As per your request I deleted what you uploaded here. There is no revert button because the image you uploaded was actually the first image saved under that name here on en.wikipedia. The image that "you saved over" is actually the image saved on Wikipedia Commons. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • By the way, Mwanner, if you did not know, the feature that we are discussing allows users to use images from Wikipedia Commons without ever having to upload a local copy here on to en.wikipedia. The bug in this feature is that similar situations can occur in which someone can upload an image with the same filename that "blocks" the one from Commons. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks. I knew there had to be an explanation. So if one could rename images, that would have been a fix... why is there no Image Move? Thanks again. Mwanner 02:00, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:CP

The backlog on this page is rediculous. It's grown to be about 310kb long and takes an unreasonable amount of time to load. I would much appriciate someone cleaning it up at least a little. Alr 02:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not that bad, it's been getting shorter lately. Moving the stuff older than seven days to a different pagemight be useful though? --fvw* 15:28, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. Alr 18:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

For the past several days, I have been one of the only ones working on clearing the backlog (although there has been some significant help today). Since I am no expert on copyright, this can be somewhat problematic and it tends to result in me leaving items on the list when I'm not sure what to do with them. With pages needing wikification listed as the collaboration of the week, the list is growing faster than I can clear it. Assistance is definitely needed. After a concerted effort the size is down a bit, but it's going to keep growing fairly rapidly for at least the duration of the week.

Would it be reasonable to have transcluded daily subpages like at WP:CfD and other similar pages? (They could even be deleted as they are cleared, since it takes admins to finish the clearing already.) One of the problems right now is that the page is so large that any changes are slow. This makes it difficult to add new entries or to add useful comments to old ones. -Aranel (Sarah) 18:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I started working on the backlog yesterday -- I'm making it my major project at least until we bring it back down to manageable levels (and I do intend to go on working WP:CP after that, too). I think the best plan is to work through the backlog and ignore things that are too potentially complicated to deal with quickly. That might mean leaving a few entries for each day, but I think it makes more sense to deal with those after the backlog is sorted rather than drawing out the whole process. Incidentally, there's currently a discussion on WikiEn-l about good practice with regard to confirmations of permission that you might be interested in, Aranel. --Ngb ^?!? 18:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I definately think subpages are a very good idea for WP:CP, as the page is now larger and than WP:PUI, and probably sone others. Alr 18:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

To all administrators and vandal-hunters, regarding NTL Vandals

Recently, I submitted an email to the abuse center at NTL concerning User:MARMOT, which you may find at User:Linuxbeak/Admin_stuff/MARMOT. Through some detective work, I discovered that MARMOT was the user behind the User:Love Virus vandalbot attacks, which this log verified. I communicated with him over IRC, and he made it clear that he has every intention to continue the vandalbot attacks.

This is important. If there are any incidents of vandalism by an NTL proxy, please do more than just block the IP for 15 minutes. There is a link on the talk page of known NTL proxies that point to the Abuse Reporting center ran by NTL. PLEASE use it! Perhaps if NTL gets the message that some of their users are launching attacks on us, they'll actually *do* something about it. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:42, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I have been doing this for a while, but haven't gotten a response. Though if they suddenly get a hundred emails about the same IP address, one would assume they'd respond. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 23:02, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

But you'd need to give them more info than just the IP. They need to know the exact times so thay can work out who is the vandal - there are a lot of good NTL users on any proxy - myself being one of them Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. I've been blocked at least three times for 24 hours because of another (more than one?) n:tl user's vandalism [altho twice I got it rescinded]. And my IP address reads differently for every site that shows a record of an IP on my part, so I doubt the IP alone will do anything at all. - SoM 23:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but we don't just have the proxy address, NTL clients get their own publicly-routable IP too, and we have marmot's own IP as well. As it would appear this is a farely static IP, even vague time indications are good enough. Nice job LB! --fvw* 00:36, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I have a feeling they will simply ignore e-mails from people who aren't their own customers.

There's something I've been trying with the 63.19.128.0/17 vandal:

03:55, 30 August 2005 Curps blocked "User:63.19.128.0/17" with an expiry time of 48 hours ([16] + many more. Sorry if this is not you. Abuse contact @ your ISP to report IPs/timestamps: e-mail, +1-800-900-0241)

In other words, use arin.net (or ripe.net) to find out the ISP and the ISP's abuse contact info (e-mail and phone), and craft a block summary that includes that information along with a slice of page history that shows the vandal's actions (with IPs and timestamps).

It's a bit tricky because the message can't be too long; any longer than the above and it just gets truncated.

The idea is to enlist the ISP's own users (any innocent victims of the block) to report the vandal, and hopefully the ISP's tech support will be much more responsive when it's their own customers who are contacting them rather than a bunch of outsiders who are often in a different country. -- Curps 01:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

{{wikitravel}}

I've come across this template in an article I'm working on, I get the feeling that its slightly deceptive since it is an external link that looks like an internal link. This is fine in the case of the commons since we're all working under the same license, but wikitravel doesn't work under the GFDL. Sould this template be used and if so, should it only be put in the external links section?--nixie 02:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length at TFD and the consensus was that links to non WikiMedia wiki projects are acceptable but they belong in the external links section of the article. I don't know where you came across this template, but if it was at the top of the article or anywhere else, it should be moved to an external links section. Dragons flight 02:24, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

It was in the see also section, but I've since moved it to external links. Thanks.--nixie 02:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• In my experience, TFD has a tendency to delete external link templates unless they're about sisterprojects. Of course, the way this one currently looks it won't make much of a difference, but as long as people aren't going to put up brightly colored boxes... Radiant_>|< 07:03, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Curps' block bot

Curps is currently running a block bot which automatically blocks all non-admins that make too many page moves (and it promptly blocked me when I was undoing a page move spree too). He refuses to get it Wikipedia:Bots certified first. The bots policy suggests blocking, but as the bot can even run blocked (admins can block even when blocked themselves) and he's threatened to unblock himself if blocked, something else may be necessary. --fvw* 08:21, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at AN/I (permanent link: [17]), and please see Special:Log/move for August 26. The traditional Willy pagemove vandalism always stopped after around 40 or so pages, even when we didn't block him in time. On August 26, as User:Dieseldrinker, he was doing 75 pagemoves per minute, see [18] and didn't stop until he was blocked. It took several admins and non-admins a few hours to undo what he did in only 2 1/2 minutes. He then launched 8 more attacks on the same day, however by this time I was running the bot and stopped him each time after about 20-30 pagemoves.

This is a new level of vandalism that we can't cope with by traditional means. As an urgent practical necessity, I am running a block bot. I hope that we will soon have pagemove throttling or some other mechanism that will make this unnecessary. Abstract principles have to be weighed against the need to prevent massive vandalism on a scale never seen before.

I have raised the trigger threshold for page moves to a new and higher level that will almost certainly prevent the triggering that happened to Fvw (who moved more than 16 pages per minute). By the way, the bot intentionally avoids blocking admins, but because Fvw was listed as "inactive" at Wikipedia:List of administrators I had not added him to the list; I have now added all "inactive" admins to the do-not-block list as well.

-- Curps 08:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I support running the bot, given the circumstances. I don't see why it shouldn't also go to Wikipedia:Bots for retrospective approval; maybe they can suggest an improvement to it, given their greater experience of running such creatures.-gadfium 09:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Traditional bots edit pages, this one doesn't. Traditional bots do leisurely janitorial work, fixing an interwiki link here or a bit of text there, and there's plenty of time to discuss their pros and cons. This bot was run in response to an emergency situation (the events of August 26). I am not sure that Wikipedia:Bots is the appropriate forum... the discussion that takes place there is essentially entirely by AllyUnion. I posted a notice on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents back on August 26, as that seemed to be a wider forum where far more people would see it. -- Curps 09:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• I tend to think the bot should be OK in this instance as long as the set number of moves is higher than what any normal editor can reasonably be expected to make and also lower than or equal to the number of moves Willy usually makes in a minute. It may be tricky to find that balance; Curps should be careful to check and quickly unblock any legitimate user affected by it. The problem, which occurs to me, is that the bot may ironically end up blocking people who are trying to move pages back to where they should be. Is there a way to deal with this? Everyking 09:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• I did indeed unblock fvw right away. However, I am running the bot 24/7, which means it is occasionally unsupervised. This is unfortunate, but I am arguing urgent practical necessity. For those who weren't involved in the events of August 26, please see the move log and AN/I discussion for that day. -- Curps 09:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• The bot has made the following blocks. Each time it reacted faster than a human could have. So it has a fairly strong track record of success.

• • 07:18, 1 September 2005 Curps unblocked User:#35795 (oops)
  • 07:16, 1 September 2005 Curps unblocked User:Fvw (ooops, sorry)
  • 07:14, 1 September 2005 Curps blocked "User:Fvw" with an expiry time of indefinite (pagemove)
  • 14:14, 31 August 2005 Curps blocked "User:BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB" with an expiry time of indefinite (pagemove)
  • 19:10, 29 August 2005 Curps blocked "User:MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" with an expiry time of indefinite (pagemove)
  • 19:02, 29 August 2005 Curps blocked "User:BOING OING OING!" with an expiry time of indefinite (pagemove)
  • 15:29, 26 August 2005 Curps blocked "User:Mr Treason On Wheels!" with an expiry time of indefinite (pagemove)
  • 15:20, 26 August 2005 Curps blocked "User:Spongewilly Squarewheels" with an expiry time of indefinite (pagemove)
  • 15:13, 26 August 2005 Curps blocked "User:GAYNIGGER ON WHEELS" with an expiry time of indefinite (pagemove)
  • 14:17, 26 August 2005 Curps blocked "User:Willy willy willy willy... Mushroom, Mushroom!" with an expiry time of indefinite (pagemove)
  • 13:41, 26 August 2005 Curps blocked "User:George Willys Bush" with an expiry time of indefinite (pagemove)
  • 13:26, 26 August 2005 Curps blocked "User:Microsoft Willy on Wheels!" with an expiry time of indefinite (pagemove)
  • 13:10, 26 August 2005 Curps blocked "User:May the Willy on Wheels be with you!" with an expiry time of indefinite (pagemove)
  • 13:00, 26 August 2005 Curps blocked "User:My willy is bigger than yours!" with an expiry time of indefinite (pagemove)
  • 10:51, 26 August 2005 Curps blocked "User:Dieseldrinker" with an expiry time of indefinite (pagemove) (traditional block)

-- Curps 11:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• Irrespective of whether this 'bot does the same things as traditional 'bots do (That description of what traditional 'bots do is wrong, anyway.), the 'bot should be discussed on Wikipedia:Bots. That AllyUnion is the only editor who currently cares enough to voice xyr approval or disapproval in so many words does not matter. (The discussion of this 'bot may well change that.) Xe is certainly not the only contributor to the page, nor the only editor to discuss 'bots and to make comments and suggestions. (Netoholic's comments and suggestions on cases where people have run 'bots from accounts with administrator privileges are particularly pertinent reading.) Furthermore, people who want to find out what 'bots are running should not be expected to hunt through the archives of an administrators' noticeboard. Uncle G 09:55:41, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

• The only reason why I even post in Wikipedia:Bots is to make certain that they can indeed prove their bot is harmless. I've been following a general rule of allowing a test run of a given period, then if they have no complaints during their "trial run" -- they can apply for such a bot flag. The given period depends on the purpose of the bot, bots which seem to be more experimental or have the damage to cause harm yet may be still useful are given a longer trial run period. Personally, I'm taking the view that the Wikipedia talk:Bots page is a proposal for your bot to run. Therefore, people requesting for their bot to run must detail their proposal, and why they need a bot in the first place. Before this, we just allowed comments to sit a week, and everyone got their bot flag within a week. I intervened when I saw that there are some users who do make mistakes, who do use outdated bots, and who do not pay attention to warnings. Case in point, Flacus with FlaBot. However, FlaBot seems to be in line now. The rules generally are that you have to have two accounts. One for your bot, one for yourself. There have been cases where people are requesting a bot flag for their own account. There are requests for people attempting to establish bot accounts with no user page. Bot accounts should always have user pages, because they need to describe the work they are doing, allowing an admin immediate insight to what the bot is doing and can it be blocked. Supposely, we are to block bots on sight... But that seems to be less the case now... I don't want to feel like I'm the only one posting their to approve bots... but that's what it seems to result as now. --AllyUnion (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

As I told you on your talk page, I think the bot is a good idea. But you should get it vetted on Wikipedia:Bots first, so it doesn't do things like block me when I'm trying to restore page move vandalism. It's not some hurdle invented to keep the bureaucracy happy, it's there so people can check your ideas and make sure you don't cause collatoral damage like you did this morning. --fvw* 09:51, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

• I think this bot is an excellent solution to a long-running problem, and should be kept active until the developers have a more permanent solution against pagemove vandalism. Several are being discussed on bugzilla, by the way. At present the track record is 11 succesful blocks and one mistake, which was quickly corrected. Collateral damage of Willy is far larger than that of Curps's bot. Radiant_>|< 10:30, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

fvw, you were reverting page moves by User:Acid, who simply capitalized page titles in a way not in accordance with Wikipedia's usual style. Apparently a misguided newbie (his first edit was August 18) and not a vandal... nobody, including you, has ever blocked him. So calling Acid a "vandal" is misleading and unfair to him.

Furthermore you were doing these reverts three days after he did the original moves. You are making it sound as if you were accidentally blocked in the midst of urgently repairing Willy-style pagemove vandalism; that was not the case at all.

I apologize for the accidental block; you were doing pagemoves at a very fast rate which I would not have thought possible to do manually, as you say you were doing (especially considering that you have to click a button to confirm each page move). I have since raised the threshold even higher.

The urgency of the situation did not permit a leisurely discussion at Wikipedia:Bots or waiting a week for approval. That is a relatively quiet corner where very few eyes would see it. As I pointed out earlier, I posted a message about the bot at AN/I and it was discussed by those who were most involved with the August 26 willy cleanup. I am disappointed that you are being narrowly legalistic in the face of an unprecedented problem: as of a week ago, Willy can now move 75 pages per minute and that's far more than we can cope with by traditional means.

-- Curps 11:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Sandbot - New tools!

I am pleased to announce that the Sandbot has a set of new tools to play with.

• Wikipedia:Sandbox / Wikipedia talk:Sandbox (Rake Sandbox)
• Wikipedia:Sandbox / Wikipedia talk:Sandbox (Enforce Header)
• Wikipedia:Introduction (Enforce Header)
• Wikipedia:Test (Reset Redirect)
• Template:X1 (Reset Template)
• Template:X2 (Reset Template)
• Template:X3 (Reset Template)
• Template:X4 (Reset Template)
• Template:X5 (Reset Template)
• Template:X6 (Reset Template)
• Template:X7 (Reset Template)
• Template:X8 (Reset Template)
• Template:X9 (Reset Template)

---

More manual resets. Added 07:22, 25 September 2005:

• Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading) (Reset)
• Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox talk heading) (Reset)
• Template:Please leave this line alone (tutorial sandbox heading) (Reset)
• Template:Please leave this line alone (template sandbox heading) (Reset)
• Template:Template sandbox (Reset)
• Wikipedia:Sandbox (Reset)
• Wikipedia talk:Sandbox (Reset)
• Wikipedia:Tutorial (Editing)/sandbox (Reset)
• Wikipedia talk:Tutorial (Editing)/sandbox (Reset)
• Wikipedia:Tutorial (Formatting)/sandbox (Reset)
• Wikipedia talk:Tutorial (Formatting)/sandbox (Reset)
• Wikipedia:Tutorial (Wikipedia links)/sandbox (Reset)
• Wikipedia talk:Tutorial (Wikipedia links)/sandbox (Reset)
• Wikipedia:Tutorial (Related site links)/sandbox (Reset)
• Wikipedia talk:Tutorial (Related site links)/sandbox (Reset)

They can be found here: User:Sandbot/Tools. --AllyUnion (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)