Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by J.smith (talk | contribs) at 23:06, 4 January 2007 (→[[Gödel's incompleteness theorems]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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)



    #wikipedia-en-admins

    The recent Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) matter has directed attention to the behavior of administrators on the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-admins. A discussion needs to be held regarding this matter regarding the questions raised. Fred Bauder 15:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Treat #wikipedia-en-admins as if every word is being said in public (it isn't, but IRC clients tend to log by default these days). It's not somewhere to let off steam about what a fuckwit you think someone is.
    • Be collegiate. Respect each other's judgement. YOU'RE ADMINS! You were PICKED for your JUDGEMENT!
    • ...
    Basically, "here are ways not to be dicks. You know, just to remind you." This doesn't address the current soap opera, but it's probably a good approach going forward - David Gerard 15:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why I never use IRC, if you say something somewhere else, you should be just as accountable as if you said it here, so long as it can be proven. But you aren't usually (Everyking) held responsible, so all IRC really shows is that some admins lack the outlook on Wikipedia that they should have. Prodego talk 15:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While discussing this the arbitrators found Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Off-wiki_personal_attacks. Fred Bauder 15:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a lot of contention even on just that. Prodego talk 16:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Whilst we could agree that logs should be published, or widely available, in future, I would have strong objection to any retrospective change. I've chatted personally, and given some details of my family on IRC. I chose to do that on the understanding that a few dozen people, all of whom were named and understood IRC rules, might overhear. But the notion that the logs of such conversations might be published (and searchable) on the open web, or given to people not party to the conversation was not part of the deal, and if allowed retrospectively is an horrific invasion of privacy. Change the rules for future use if we must (although I'll probably stop using channels that are that public), but not retrospectively. --Docg 16:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, but if someone were to then create a private channel, and all the admins went there instead, we would be right back where we started. Prodego talk 16:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is already happening. And worse, such channels, being private, will only include like-minded admins. Now that the forces of darkness confer in one, and Geogre et al in another, divisive groupthink will only increase.--Docg 16:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    People should treat IRC like a very large conference call. On-wiki actions which arise out of IRC discussions should be justifiable in absence of any agreement or discussion on IRC (ignoring WP:OFFICE actions for the moment). Then again, the same should really be said about the Mailing Lists too.

    As for the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel, in spite of its apparent lack of confidentiality it continues to be a useful forum for messages like "I'm having some trouble with vandals on Steve Irwin", which obviates the need to interrupt the usual gutter talk in #wikipedia. Sure, there is a multitude of pages on Wikipedia proper which serve such functions, but to be honest, over my dialup connection they usually take ages to load, because the people who haunt such pages (including this one) have a tendency to write essay-length posts about absolute wank. IRC is much easier on my connection than pages like WP:AN, and much more interesting at the same time.

    If #wikipedia-en-admins were to be shut down, it would simply shift the "sensitive discussion" to less publicised forums, and make it more cliquey (rather than allowing access to all admins). I think that would be counterproductive, but that looks to be the way it's heading.

    For those of you who are desperate to know what goes on in #wikipedia-en-admins, you'll be disappointed to know the conversations therein are quite similar to those in #wikipedia, and only half the time are they actually on-topic. - Mark 16:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    In my opinion, we need a massive thrashing out of this somewhere—not necessarily to get a conclusive ruling (impossible, anyway, because people are free to do and say what they like off Wikipedia), but because I'm sure it will result in an informal code-of-conduct and some principles of etiquette (and hopefully moderation) emerging consensually among the majority of administrators which will serve in future to stifle most outbreaks of nastiness, sneakiness, or inappropriate specificity on a small group of agreed channels. The nasty few will have less effect on Wikipedia if their behaviours are as a result of this wised-up moral majority pushed off into channels where they are unlikely to mix with most decent-thinking administrators. But this discussion does, in my opinion, need to be centralised somewhere (if it already is, could someone guide me there, please). qp10qp 16:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion

    IMHO, the problem with the #wikipedia-en-admins is not the medium itself but that it is too big and important a forum to ignore the discussion there and at the same time it is protected from scrutiny.

    I would suggest: to allow postings of logs (obviously sanitized from the personal info and WMF legal business) if it is needed to assess onwiki activities. It could apply to any off-wiki communications (including various chats, blogs and E-mails). A usual off-wiki WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks principles would apply: you cannot be blocked only for the off-wiki activity but the good faith of your actions may be evaluated based on the off-wiki evidence. E.g. if an admin on IRC was searching for a "clean kill" instead of solving a disruption problem, then his or her block may be seen as issued in the bad faith.

    The other problem is that a few extremely productive users see the #wikipedia-en-admins as the place there a clique is plotting intrigues against them. I would guess that the easiest solution would be just to invite the editors to the channel. They could see the matter for themselves as well as solve their problems from within. As I understand very productive editors are more rare species than admins, they also tend to be devoted to editing rather than chatting, so I do not think their inclusion would significantly increase the noise level on the channel. Alex Bakharev 02:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, no reason Giano should not be on the channel. Fred Bauder 03:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In principle, yes. I could see the consequences of that heading in either of two diametrically opposed ways. Either he sees that nothing much really goes on there, or he blows his top completely. At the end of the day, much as people have been arguing on the Esperanza MfD, people editing Wikipedia have to be able to cope with the environment. As a community, we should try and keep the environment as pleasant as possible, but there are limits and people have to insulate themselves to some aspects of the environment (ie. ignore some things as beneath them, or whatever). Carcharoth 03:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We are talking about the admin-user interactions here. The primary (and in a sense the only duty of an admin) is to provide maximally comfortable environment for the productive users (and uncomfortable for the vandals and trolls). Alex Bakharev 07:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While I have no opinion toward Giano, and have tried to stay out of this topic as much as possible, I would not support Giano being on the channel; while he's certainly a productive user, there are occasionally sensitive topics discussed on the channel; I can think of at least one discussion regarding a sensitive office action that I was involved in, with Jimbo and many other admins. As far as I've always believed, access should be granted to people we trust not to leak logs or publish sensitive information; while I don't think Giano would, I think he has been involved in enough conflicts that his trust would be questioned by at least a few admins, which I think would lead to more back-channel discussions outside of the main channel. Ral315 (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that he's already violated all of the rules of the channel by posting logs everywhere. I can think of very, very few people on the channel who would be okay with him joining now. He's already burned all of his bridges. --Cyde Weys 16:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The way you say that bothers me. It gives the impression that the bulk of these people aren't commenting on the IRC question on wiki for themselves—in which case, why not? It adds to my paranoia to think that our discussing this stuff on Wikipedia is a waste of time because the "real" discussion may be somewhere else: that's almost the essence of what worries people about IRC in the first place. I don't go on IRC, so I can't judge, but so far I have been willing to believe the assurances here that most admins are simply using IRC to speed up and improve their efficiency, in which case I don't see why the question whether Giano had access or not would bother them. I can only really assess what IRC users think by what they say for themselves on wiki: is that naive? qp10qp 18:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As with any discussion on Wikipedia, there is no need to comment if you have nothing to add. There is no point in a comment that says "I agree with Cyde, bye" (and adding empty votes like this on unanimous AfD's, etc. is also stupid). —Centrx→talk • 03:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a little naive, but the fact there there were extended discussions on the arbcom list is why this is here so that everyone can get in on the conversation. Fred Bauder 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A note about -admins and Giano I am an IRC user of that channel and yes I dont support the request to have non-admins in the channel. there have been Times where I will go there an seek advice from other admins. There are times where I am unsure of what to do and I dont want my asking about it or other request to affect the users in question or how the Issue is finaly issued. there was a case about how to handle some admin actions in general and some specific advice on other areas but sometimes these conversations can feed a vandal or make the situation worse if some of the involved parties find out that you were thinking about taking one action, but when I discussed with people in -admins I decide to take a different action. My first action Could have made the situation ten times worse. But in any given situation if a user asks me about a event that happened on IRC that I was involved with I will freely post the given conversation IF AND ONLY IF I have the consent of the involved IRC parties. I have done this already with one BRfA. I would have done so in the Giano case but due to technical reason I was unable to retrieve my logs and review the situation and get consent. I think that there should be a policy that users in good standing may request the conversation, But the admin in question must get consent from the involved parties and should edit out all conversation not within the scope of the event in question Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 23:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As a non-admin, how would I even know that an admin's actions are the result of an IRC discussion in order to request the log? If you decided you choose option A instead of option B, why is the rationale behind that decision secret? If your actions are consistent with policy and practice, explaining your motives shouldn't reveal anything that isn't already described on-wiki somewhere. In my view (as a non-admin), all potentially controversial on-wiki decisions resulting from any form of off-wiki discussion (IRC, email, AIM, telephone, what have you) should be accompanied by an on-wiki explanation, accessible to all users. It could be as simple as posting a summary of the discussion on your own talk page. This is an action that admins can undertake right now to increase transparency and trust and debunk claims of conspiracy. –  Anþony  talk  11:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is usually exactly what is done. The objections to IRC seem to be about 'hidden motives' and 'conspiracy'. Not leaving explanatory log reasons would be the same problem after IRC discussion as it would be for an individual admin making a decision with no discussion. —Centrx→talk • 03:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is sad that IRC people does not want to invite Giano and could solve a chronic problem and benefit the project. Betacommand's idea of a system to officially request logs (probably sanitized from the personal info and WMF business) might be useful in some cases: suppose a friend of a user reads the IRC log and suspect something fishy was going on, then requests the official log and starts and ON-Wiki process. To be workable this solution at least require an IRC culture of inviting diverse productive users instead of kickbanning them. Alex Bakharev 11:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He is perfectly capable of coming on IRC. —Centrx→talk • 05:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    New rule

    I (with my "Group Contact Chair" hat on) have instituted a new rule for #wikipedia-en-admins:

    Chanops can remove a user's access to #wikipedia-en-admins for being "an obnoxious jerk" or being unproductive.

    Note that this is a stronger rule than the implicit rule for all IRC channels - that is, that chanops can remove a user's access to any channel for being highly obnoxious or counter-productive. This is because, well, we expect better things of our sysops.

    #wikipedia-en-admins was created for crash- and near-crash-priority stuff. I'd rather we didn't have too much of a closed community about it. If we have people being unproductive, but not counterproductive - that is, idly chatting about the weather, well, it encourages just the wrong sort of mentality.

    For those that want channels for idle chat, well, #wikipedia itself springs to mind.

    James F. (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The return of PalestineRemembered

    User:PalestineRemembered, is just back from a 1 month block for Serial violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:NOR and WP:BLP" Since his brief return he has

    It seems to me that PalestineRemebered has not understood the purpose of his original block (see here; to emphasize to him that Wikipedia is not a battleground for fighting for his own POV, or for insulting other editors, but an encyclopedia. At this point, I'm not sure whether another 1 month block, or a permanent block is in order. Comments? Jayjg (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Geez, some people never learn. I've reinstated the initial block and added an additional month for ignoring the warnings given him the first time. FeloniousMonk 00:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I had some (limited) contact with this user prior to their first block. If they've picked up where they've left off (as Jayjg indicates with the diffs, I checked a couple of them and it looks like they have), endorse block fully. To be honest, it wouldn't suprise me to see this user blocked indef/community banned within a week of the current block ending... Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayjg forgot to mention this gem that PalestineRemembered posted yesterday: "[I]t's impossible to insert any evidence against Zionist politicians [on Wikipedia without it being reverted], no matter how well referenced and indeed proud they may be of their murderous racism." --GHcool 20:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the block as well, I'm not sure what was going through his/her mind what he said all that. Khoikhoi 21:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I support the block; however, I do just want to point out the irony of PR's "rant" that "[Zionists] can again ring prominent people in my neighbourhood and point to what I've posted". It seems crazy until you realize, without putting too fine a point on Jayjg's politics, that is indeed exactly what has occured with this ANI posting. -- Kendrick7talk 17:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC) I told him to take the 'Z' key off his keyboard, so if he comes back ranting about something that looks like onion-ists....[reply]

    Google Web Accelerator

    Ok, I was just auto-blocked for having the Google Web Accelerator recently installed. It also stated that my IP was User:64.233.173.85, which my IP is always in the 216.75 range or in a 209 range, so why is it readling like I'm from an entirely different range? Am I missing something about Google Web Accelerator? semper fi — Moe 05:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    When you use Google Web Accelerator, your IP goes through Google's proxy, which has been blocked as an open proxy. Naconkantari 05:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, no matter then, uninstalled.. semper fi — Moe 05:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't uninstall it - just disable it for *.wikipedia.org. The below link from Hbdragon has the step-by-step. It claims to have saved me 5.1 days of loading time (out of 435 days total loading time), so I guess it has at least some benefit.... —AySz88\^-^ 06:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Google Web Accelerator for the gory details. Hbdragon88 06:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My advice is to leave it uninstalled, this is not the only website it causes problems with. I used it for about 4 hours before getting sick of it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Same here. —Mets501 (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And if you want to save loading time, just install the FasterFox extension and use an optimized build of Firefox. Combined they can make browser loading times basically instant on any broadband connection. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 16:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    New anti template vandal feature

    I just noticed that a feature which Ligulem requested last week has already been implemented. If you click 'edit' on a page and scroll down to the list of pages transcluded onto it you will now see "(protected)" or "(semi-protected)" next to those which have such status. This is a quick way of identifying any templates on the Main Page, Main Page/Tomorrow, the 'article of the day', or any other page are vulnerable to vandalism. Good job by the devs. --CBD 13:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lovely! Thanks for pointing that out (and thanks to the developers, of course). -- Natalya 14:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice! HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Very cool. It woudl be even more awesome if it showed a (redirect) for those who are redirect templates so I could eliminate those (while I'm editing the page, of course, I wouldn't edit a page just to fix the redirect). Hbdragon88 23:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Speaking of which, what is with User:Jmax-bot/FACount.js, why is it listed there, why can't I find the results of the include, and why is it not protected? What is it being used for and how is it included? -- Renesis (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to be listing the current number of Featured Articles, so the number only has to be updated in one place to fix all places where the number is used. It is a .js even though it isn't a JavaScript for one simple reason: .js pages are effectively protected for all users except the user whose subspace it is in. Thus, Jmax-bot doesn't have to have the sysop bit to update the count, but every other user does. --Cyde Weys 18:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On the Main Page it is specifically used at the bottom of the 'Today's Featured Article' section in the link to 'All XXX featured articles'. I expect alot of vandals will see that it is 'unprotected' and be very disappointed when they can't edit it. :] --CBD 11:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy Deleting Articles at AfD

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ant Bully (TV series) contained a discussion of whether it was appropriate to tag pages already at AfD wth speedy tags. I had always thought that that was the appropriate course of action of you actually wanted a speedy to go forward if say a page eligible for G10 is nominated or an author blanks a page while it is at AfD (G7). That way admins who do CSD patrol and see the page and evaluate it in a timely fashion (either deleting it or removing the tag and letting the AfD continue). Otherwise a speedy delete "vote" is unlikely to be acted upon because AfD's are very often not very active between days 2 and 4. What is the consensus of admins in this area? Eluchil404 16:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If it is a clearly speadyable item then most admins think nothing of closing the AfD early with a speedy delete. I don't think putting the speedy notice there is wrong as long as the AfD notice stays. After all, if it qualifies for speedy deletion then the discussion is not relevant. Just my 2 cents. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If it qualifies for speedy deletion then there's no point in wasting editors' time with an AfD. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with the above, leaving a note with User:Ceyockey. -- Steel 16:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I normally just put a "Speedy Delete" vote on the AfD (or did before I got the mop, anyway), rather than adding a speedy tag, but either works. --Tango 16:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's at AFD I think you can add speedy tags to it. Just make sure that as an admin you close the AFD at the same time as "speedy delete". There's nothing against speedying an article under discussion at AFD. AFD doesn't exempt an article from speedy deletion. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's okay, but I'm wondering if it would be worth trying to discourage it. One would think that, if it's made it to AfD, the tagging person did not feel it necessary to rush it, so why should we, especially when we might learn something? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on the speedy criterion I would think. I purposely didn't use A7 as an example because I agree that little to nothing is gained by speedying on notability rather than waiting 5 days since new evidence might emerge. I do, however, think that there is a real gain in speedying a G10 rather than letting it wait and the same applies to, say, G1. The deletion debates are pretty crowded and there is no need to clutter them up with easy cases. And thanks to eveyone for the feedback. Eluchil404 22:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of them are just because someone has gone to Wikipedia:Deletion policy or some other page and seen "Articles for deletion" and thought it was the appropriate place. Something being on AfD does not necessarily mean that the nominator was familiar with the speedy deletion criteria or thought that the deletion would be controversial. —Centrx→talk • 11:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that tagging an article on AfD for speedy deletion is indeed appropriate in cases like this, where the article turns out to be speedy deletable for some other reason than what it was put on AfD for. However, if the article is on AfD because it's not clear whether it meets a particular speedy criterion or not, I'd recommend expressing your opinion on the matter on the AfD page. Generally enough admins do look at recent AfD nominations that any "speedy delete" comments there do get noticed and acted on fairly promptly. Of course, if it does happen that an article lingers on AfD for more than a day with a clear consensus to speedy delete, tagging it with something like "{{db|see AfD page}}" may be a good idea. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If speedy was already considered by an admin and declined and proded or AFDed instead, then don't tag for speedy deletion again. If new information has come to light, for example that it was newly discovered to be a repost or blanked by the author, then tagging for speedy is appropriate. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-01 22:36Z

    I think that adding a speedy tag to an article undergoing an AfD process is an open invitation to delete the article out of process and leaving this door open is an invitation to conflict. However, as there is wide consensus here that it's ok to have an article coexist in multiple deletion processes, I won't act in a manner conflicting with that consensus. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy deletion is a process too, so provided the article meets the criteria for speedy deletion, I don't see how speedying an article while at AfD is "out-of-process". The speedy criteria are intended to describe the sort of articles that we do not want under any circumstances; if an article meets the speedy criteria, it should be deleted – Gurch 20:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    user:MelForbes removal

    I would like my username user:MelForbes to be deleted. I am retiring from the WP project. Will log-in on Tuesday Jan 2nd 2007, for the last time. MelForbes 00:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I can delete the user page and talk page, and block the username from editing but we don't delete actual users. Is that what you want me to do? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The user account can simply be renamed instead. —Centrx→talk • 11:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if one of you could freeze-up the account or whatever, as I don't want to be going back into it again. Thanks! MelForbes 14:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User who repeatedly uploads untagged images

    I was wondering what should be done about Abono para sembrar flor (talk · contribs). They have repeatedly uploaded images without providing copyright or source information and have ignored (and possibly cannot understand in this case) all messages left on their talk page. It appears as if their native language is Spanish. Right now all the images they have uploaded have been tagged for deletion unless information has been provided, and if this continues it will just create unnecessary work for admins who have to delete these images later. VegaDark 08:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned him in Babelfish Spanish. I really need to practice more :(—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the warnings do not work, I would suggest an indef. block for the user. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Spanish wasn't perfect, but it was definitely good enough to understand. :) -Patstuarttalk|edits 17:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock

    I am requesting to be unblocked. I am prepared to make my case. 149.166.137.124 19:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC) (a.k.a. User:Koavf - please e-mail me.)[reply]

    You should still be able to make your case (i.e. edit) on User_talk:Koavf. Please see the {{unblock}} template for more instructions. This mechanism allows for open, honest communication about the block and its end result, which email can sometimes inadvertently stifle. -- nae'blis 19:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued linkspam at Everson v. Board of Education

    This page has a history of many different anon's repeatedly replacing the page with linkspam, going back to October. I have no idea why this page was targeted, but as far as I noticed, every single time new spam is added it is by a new IP so blocking users won't do anything (unless it is determined that these IP's are all from an open proxy). I would request page protection but it is doubtful someone responding will protect the page, even with the history this page has. (Usually people will only sprotect if a page has lots of vandalism in a short time frame). Bringing this up here to get a few more pairs of eyes on the page and possibly find a solution. VegaDark 19:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll add the page to my watch-list. Maybe the link can be added to the blacklist? (WP:SPAM has a link to the meta blacklist I think) ---J.S (T/C) 19:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already had a couple added to the blacklist, the problem is that it looks like a new link everytime. VegaDark 19:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. I should have looked at the page history before I commented. Hmmm... I'm going to check the IP addresses. It might be possible to block a range and catch'em.
    If not... our only option is to watch/revert until they get board. ---J.S (T/C) 19:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like we are dealing with zombie-computer spam. Not sure what we can do about it. ---J.S (T/C) 20:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You could semi protect it for a day or two. That would do the trick if its anon IPs. --Spartaz 20:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is similar activity at pyrrolidine and World Social Forum (which I temporarily semiprotected). Maybe others can watchlist these too. I suspect these few may just be the tip of the iceberg. Is it safe to block (indef or otherwise) the offending IPs as open proxies/zombies? --Ed (Edgar181) 20:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No point in blocking, they only ever edit once. ---J.S (T/C) 20:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, some of them edit more than once. For example 122.32.18.84 (talk · contribs). Don't know if that changes anything though. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm ah. Well, either way, a block won't be effective to stop the spam since they are switching IPs so often. ---J.S (T/C) 22:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia promoting small wikis

    Unfortunately some Iranian wikipedians has started another wiki for Iran related articles. The reason seems to be that wikipedia guidelines and policies was not tolerable for them. For example User:Zereshk wrote on his talk page:

    "I may manage to spend the time editing some articles on the WikIran project. WikIran is a far more reliable source on Iran, far from partisan propaganda editors and sadistic admins." [3]

    And he wrote on Persian Wikipedia village pump:

    این حقیر و برخی دوستان دیگر که جانمان از ویکیپدیای انگلیسی به لبمان رسیده خود دست به راه اندازی پروژه جدید و مشابه ای زده ایم تا بلکه بدور از هیاهو و جهت گیریهای سیاسی به نوشتن یک دایره المعارف بی طرف, غنی, و ویژه ایران بپردازیم.

    means that:

    We (He himself and his friends) are completely hopeless from English Wikipedia so we are going to start a simillar project to...

    And that project is WikIran. Most of it's articles are completely copied from english wikipedia. I have no problem with that project but they are abusing wikipedia to promote their website. As it said on WP:EL#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest:

    Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote links. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked.

    It's against guidelines to put huge number of links to that website. I informed that user about this two days ago [4] and today I removed those advertising links to that wiki (about 50 links) Special:Contributions/Armandeh But now User:Khodavand (which he is from that wiki as he stated on his talk page) reverted them all. I don't want to start an edit war. Please warn those users to stop advertising on english wikipedia. Forgetting that guideline, I remember that when I started to conribute on WikiTravel they told me not to link to LonelyPlanet website as we are trying to write the same things here. This is similar to what is happening to Iran related articles on English Wikipedia. Hessam 23:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a built in way to cross-link...why don't they use that? ---J.S (T/C) 05:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by built in way? You mean interwiki? Hessam 08:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't the right to fork true of all Wikimedia projects? That site will still be GNU licensed since it borrows existing GNU material, which means Wikipedia can use any improvements they create. Please explain further if I'm missing the point...I don't see a significant difference from other forks and mirrors who accept advertising. DurovaCharge! 06:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is when the forked project tries to add links to itself from Wikipedia. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Taking into account the number of links being inserted, and the fact that User:Zereshk, an experienced editor, created a blatantly unacceptable (notability guidelines) article about his wiki (which is being discussed on AfD), I can't help thinking they're trying to use Wikipedia as free publicity/a recruiting ground for their wiki. yandman 08:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, I see what I missed... this project is not an official wiki. Never-mind about my suggestion. Nuke any wiki-spam as if it wasn't wikispam. No special rules apply. ---J.S (T/C) 15:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just for the record here, I can safely claim that over 75% (if not more) of the entire content of English Wikipedia's articles related to Iran was written or coauthored by me. Before I came, all of Iran's articles were mere stubs or non-existent. You can check my content edits, which near 20000. So the least I expect, if not any gratitude for helping turn WP into the first source of information for Iran, is for people to stop using WP as vehciles of personal vendetta against me. (Ive already posted an example of admin User:Armandeh's vulgar posts to me here). If you want to accuse me of something, at least have a good reason, and accuse me of something, not because I helped expand WP and WikIran.--Zereshk 03:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I consider this as a Personal Attack. Experienced users know that If someone has huge number of contibutions on wikipedia it doesn't mean he is good user either. For example they will look at your block log and find out your spamming background. As I'm an administrator on persian wikipedia I know what you do to gain votes from other projects to destroy AfDs or Arbitrations.[5]
    I want you (All admins) to watch this AfD against invited voters as spamming is going to happen again [6]. Hessam 08:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See here for a more general question. yandman 09:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mainpage

    Am I the only person seeing that image on the FA Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory? --maclean 01:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC) --[reply]

    Image:Weston_Park_Yarralumla_crop.jpg? --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 01:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a little more vulgar than that one. It was on for about five minutes so I thougt I say something. Next time I'll purge my cache before speaking. Sorry for looking dumb, I'll go back to my corner now. --maclean 01:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, nothing to apologize for, this is the doings of a pernicious vandal; please do report these things as soon as you see them. Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-03 02:50Z
    Was the image on the Main Page or on the article itself? Both the image and the blurb on the Main Page have been protected, so it shouldn't have been on the Main Page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that it was the article itself. The template vandal did it through minor templates within the article. Metros232 01:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there anything else we can do to stop this guy besides pre-emptively protecting templates? -- tariqabjotu 04:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    We coudl ask him politely. Anybody have his email address? Hbdragon88 05:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    {{bite}}

    Hey peeps. I got fed up with WP:BITing, so I created {{bite}}. Use it on those overzealous NPP individuals who mistag newbies' articles within seconds of creation. See e.g. my inaugural use of the template here in response to this. Emendations and feedback on the text of the template will be appreciated etc. The syntax is ths usual: {{subst:bite|article name}}. Thanks. - crz crztalk 02:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The stop sign and the "completely unacceptable" might be a little too aggressive. After all you don't want the template to break WP:BITE for the newcomers to NPP ;-) Prodego talk 02:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Personally, I don't think such a template is helpful. Even if the wording ("completely unacceptable", threatening a block) was changed to be less confrontational in tone, I think a personal note of why you disagreed with the tagging of a speedy deletion is much better than placing a template that really doesn't explain much, especially given that the person who tagged the article in the first place may be inexperienced, and the template itself may be seen as a form of biting. Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A block threat too? I didn't notice that, that is a bit over the top. Prodego talk 02:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (arg 3x edit conflict!) I already changed your wording [7] to avoid biting NP patrollers. :) —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-03 02:41Z —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-03 02:43Z
    (edit conflicts) If this is your first template, will I be in trouble if I speedy it? I would modify some of the language in the template a bit (unless you are going to create multiple levels of warning here, which would probably be overkill). Here are my first-cut suggestions (language suggested to be deleted in strikeout, to be added in italic), I'm sure there will be some others:
    "Please do not bite newcomers! Wikipedia grows by making new editors feel welcome and giving them time to learn how our website works. See WP:BITE. Your tagging of /article name/ for speedy deletion was completely unacceptable not appropriate because its author is a newbie relatively new editor and had not had time to develop the new article, or the tag was applied inappropriately page did not warrant speedy deletion, or both. Mistreating newcomers discourages them from contributing and becoming productive editors here. Repeated instances may result in a block. Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions."
    This template would only be appropriate in clear BITE cases. In good-faith cases, a more tailored warning should probably be used. Newyorkbrad 02:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (lotsa conflict) Well... Have you not seen those certain users who bite by the dozen without so much as a note? I think the eventuality of a block is not farfetched, though I've certainly never done it nor seen it done. It's been removed, regardless. - crz crztalk 02:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone disagrees with the concept of telling the recidivist biters to ease up. I think WP:BITE when correctly applied is a great thing about this site. It's purely a question of style and wording. Newyorkbrad 02:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I made it much less confrontational (perhaps too much so), so take another look. Prodego talk 02:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Awww peeps - you have emasculated my baby. Now the warnees would simply scoff at it. At least put back the hand! - crz crztalk 02:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's an issue of irony/hypocracy - biting someone when asking them not to bite. I suppose we've inadvertently bitten Crzrussian with all the edit conflicts here, biting him when asking him not to bite when asking others not to bite, sorry about that :) —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-03 02:58Z
    P.S. "new levels of meta-irony" —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-03 03:00Z
    's ok. I am not a newb. I am unbitten. I will probably create a private text that's a lot stronger than this and use it on severe offenders. I think y'all are way too soft on these people. They are seriously the #1 bane of Wikipedia, worse than the edit warriors. n00bs are our biggest asset, and I have already heard a hundred times on and offwiki that we are regarded, rightly or wrongly, as a bureaucratic morass where good faith contributors who don't know our ways have to put up with overzealous NPP goons competing as if for first place in some perverted contest with their fancy Javascript tools. I have posted last week about WP:NPW, asking if people thought that thing was deleterious to the project overall - there were no takers. Seriously though, the problem needs solving. I've been making trouble at RfA with it for a couple of months now, but that apparently did not strike enough fear into the relevant hearts. If the crz problem-solving methods are too rough-hewn for all of you, I understand that, but then do better things yourselves, please. - crz crztalk 03:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    btw, does anyone know the definition of "hypocracy"? Does "rule by the lowly ones" fit? lol - crz crztalk 03:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Noob-biting is the number-one bane of the 'pedia? I would've said lack of sources, but maybe that's just me. Anyways, I understand where you're coming from about the NPP thingy - this automated new-page-patrol tool surprised me too. (The again, I couldn't even figure out how to install AWB once I downloaded it, so maybe I'm not one to comment on these tools.) But giving stop-hand emblazoned, robotic, and somewhat patronizing warnings to contributors who are working, in good faith, to clean up the encyclopedia isn't going to help. Why not just type them an explanation of what actions of theirs that you disagree with, direct them to the relevant policy, and save block warnings for when they haven't stopped after two or three personalized, situation-specific warnings? In short, I think the template isn't really going to work out. Picaroon 03:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (de-indent) I've said this on a couple of RfA's, but nowhere more public: as much as I agree that some of the NP patrollers think they're playing an MMORPG and are leveling up by racing each other to bad articles, is quick speedy-tagging really "biting"? If I were a newcomer who had written a blatantly deficient article, I'd like to be informed of it quickly, rather than coming back a few days later to find my one creation swept into the wastebin hours after I considered it "finished". We'd also like to see enthusiastic newbie effort going toward something productive - even a well-written and polished article about a lame garage band is still an article about a lame garage band; no sense in letting them pour more time and effort into something that is never going to pass muster. Also, obligatory general objection to talking in templates. Opabinia regalis 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's mostly the immediate mistagging that I am worried about. "Jane is stupid" can be tagged before creation for all I care. It's good faith legitimate efforts that are getting swept up. As for refernencing, we can always fix it up over time in established articles. But without contributors we are dead. - crz crztalk 03:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen the kind of biting you describe sometimes, but agree with Picaroon that it's not the "#1 bane". I think the first message should be a very friendly reminder, not a threat to block. Anyway, you're free to use stronger wording, I just wouldn't put it in a template. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-03 03:54Z
    But there are plenty of "good-faith" but totally misguided new articles created - mostly people's garage bands, from what I've noticed. Does tagging these fall under your definition of biting? To pull a random example of the speedy queue, I doubt the creator of Phazm meant it in bad faith, but there's nothing encyclopedic about it. It was tagged 3 minutes after creation and a talk-page template was left for the author: is that a bite situation in your view? Opabinia regalis 04:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is having a problem with incivility in general (anyone biting anyone, not just newbies) and with oversensitivity about being bitten (Bob:You were rude - you should be blocked for always being so incivil. John:No I just disagreed with you. Tom:Well as his friend but uninvolved in this fight, I'm going to block you. ...) I'm not sure the problem is getting worse, but we certainly aren't handling it well. WAS 4.250 04:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Two things: First, repeated and unashamed WP:BITEing is disruptive. We can block for that. A personally written warning is likely to be of more help than a template, though. Second, placing obstacles in the way of patrolling and tagging new pages might well be counter-productive. It has been noted that spending too much time at The Frehose Of Crap makes one jaded. We should recommend that people take time off to do Other StuffTM. It is not easy to tell the difference between version 1.0 of a band vanity article and version 1.0 of a valid article, so perhaps we should soften the wording in the {{db}} class templates to point out that this is not personal. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Doesn't it take like several hours before an admin even sees a speedy tagged article nowadays? Anyway stuff that really doesn't meet a CSD is still hopefully untagged by the admin. I create plenty of articles and nothing ever gets tagged for speedy deletion... create decent articles (formatted, categories, etc.) and you don't have to deal with people on the lookout for bad articles. Pretty simple. --W.marsh 14:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No. Herbert Saffir was tagged within 20 minutes of my re-creating it, and speedied 3 minutes after it was tagged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Argyriou (talk • contribs) 17:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    Looks like you lost the csd lottery then. Lame, yes, but I'm not sure there's much we can do about it. Someone has to go first. --tjstrf talk 18:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    An incivil template is not the awnser to incivility. Part of the problem with wikipedia is TOO MANY DAMN TEMPLATES. :p Just say what you want to say. ---J.S (T/C) 15:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Somebody drops that nasty template on me and it will be deleted without comment. Removal of garbage is not biting newbies, it's cleaning up trash and vandalism. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, it can be both, I guess. People doing new page patrol should take care when deleting a page to welcome the users and try to leave a friendly and positive message (I use {{chinup}}). Pages can be trash but their creators may still have potential. You never know who's going to grow into a good contributor. Herostratus 05:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I got jaded doing new page patrolling, but a monh or two ago, I tagged many, many articles within a minute of creation, and yes, quite a few withing seconds and often got beat to it by others doing NPP. Apart from obvious spam, I tagged many articles with db-bio for being non-notable. Now one could argue I should wait an hour or two and come back and see if the user added more info, but the whole system of tagging gives the user a chance to say they are going to add to the article with a holdon. Sometimes admins would remove the speedy tag and change to a prod if they felt there was some doubt and I think this works well. If I have to wait an hour to check the article again, it's a no go, on a busy night I might tag 50-100 articles, and there is no way to keep a notepad of articles and wait and see if certain articles improve. If I felt that I'm going to be tagged for biting when I'm doing vandal fighting and new page patrol, I would be hesitant to bother to do the work. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 06:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that many articles can and should be speedy tagged instantly, but for those where additional work may show the required notability (say, articles about bands), waiting a bit can't do much harm. However, this means that we need more people doing time-delayed new page patrol (TM), i.e. going to the new pages, moving down to the 500th or 1000th most recent raticle (some 12 hours old or so), and start digging through those. It is amazing how many of those pages are still fit for either speedy, prod, or merge... Fram 09:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deltabeignet

    This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

    As a show of good will, Deltabeignet's IP (static and unshared) which was used for the anonymous edits has been soft-blocked so that he can only edit with his account. Deltabeignet has already admitted it and has promised not to repeat the behavior. The case is dismissed and can be reopened if the problem resurfaces again.

    For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 06:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Selective deletion for vandalism?

    I have a question about version deletion. WP:DGFA#Version deletion says only to do version deletion for vandalism in extreme cases like where personal information is revealed, etc. Is it a common practice? Does it have to be agreed on somewhere? If there's an article whose last 50 edits going back 6 months is nothing but simple vandalism, is it okay to delete those last 50 edits? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Generally it's seen as a waste of administrator time to delete simple vandalism. There's no real harm in leaving it around... and there are literally millions of instances of it sitting around. I mean, if you really want to I seriously doubt you'll catch any flak, but it just is a bit unusual. I don't really see the point though personally. --W.marsh 17:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be wrong to do so: a) there is no need for 'tidy' page histories (have someone use their WP:OVERREACH if really earth-endingly important) and being able to see how a page is edited is useful; b)more importantly, it also removes those edits from the editors' contribs lists. Then their editing histories and patterns cannot be seen (without admin rights) and this has obvious consequences, particularly if an admin needs to evaluate whether/when/not to apply a block. 137.222.189.198 16:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Modify template

    Could someone please modify Template:DANFS, a protected template, so that it adds all pages on which it's used to this category? Nyttend 20:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done – Gurch 20:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Protection

    Kriss Donald Re: Users cannot get along obviosly angry. Tried to help but seems like there is not much I can do. Request protection for 1 day at most to let them cool down. Thanks for your time, --Darkest Hour $$$$ 20:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Darkest Hour. I have avoided editing the article so far so do not really need to cool down. The other people who have edited are an unregistered user and "strothra". If anyone would care to go through the discussion page they will see that I have had lengthly discussions with those who disagree with me. I have outlined my position and where I believe undue weight policy supports it. I think it would be more useful for people to contribute to the discussion and address the issues on policy, rather than locking the article. --Guardian sickness 21:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Be ready for some POV edits to narcissism articles

    Hi folks, apologies for the long post. The following is a chopped-down letter sent by a "Sam Vaknin" to some of his mailing lists... the general gist of it is that we can expect several POV edits to List of further reading on narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder, Narcissism (psychology), and Narcissistic personality disorder. Some would be good, but I think we should put these three articles under greater scrutiny for a little while. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ... BUT

    There is something you can do.

    The Wikipedia entries for Narcissism (Psychology) and Narcissistic Personality Disorder are laughable and contain numerous inaccuracies, urban legends and utter nonsense.

    Some parts of the entries are borrowed verbatim from my work (without attribution or credit, without my permission, and despite numerous protests and notices of copyright infringement issued by my publisher). But about 60% of the text require urgent revisions or outright deletion.

    Anyone can edit the entries. All you have to do is click on the edit button in the upper navigation bar of the article. You can change the text, add external links, add references to literature, citations, and anything else you deem relevant. I encourage to give it a try.

    Click on these links:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_further_reading_on_narcissism_and_narcissistic_personality_disorder

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_%28psychology%29

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

    Have a great year!

    Sam Vaknin

    --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As you can see from these diffs, most of the complainant's work has been expunged from the articles
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narcissism_%28psychology%29&diff=98281543&oldid=30605408
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narcissistic_personality_disorder&diff=98238115&oldid=34362845
    mostly on the grounds that it was neither accurate, cited nor verifiable, and replaced by accurate, verifiable text instead from a number of sources.
    I have personally asked the poster, on more than one occasion, to specify any text he feel is in copyvio and I will, remove it (which he cannot do himself as he is on indefinate ban for repeated sockpuppetry see User:Samvak) I have yet to recieve an answer. --Zeraeph 00:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just blanked a small section of Narcissism (psychology) [8] that he might claim was a copyvio (see [9], though he reposted it himself after it was blanked due to copyright concerns [10]. It seems best to blank it, partly for the sake of peace and quiet and partly with the intention of re-writing it in a properly cited and verified form. It is the only possible copyvio I can find in any of these articles --Zeraeph 06:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Threats

    Editor made a veiled threat to have me blocked [11] and again another veiled, but somewhat more direct, threat [12]. --Strothra 20:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I was just trying to let you guys know that things did not have to be so heated. If you did not realize I spoke to the other guy(i dont know who)at the help desk. Now I would like to state my comment again, Can we talk like civil humans with out acting liking raging hulks? One last thing I am quite new (2 or 3 mths). Now all I wanted is to settle this nicely. Now this is not a threat, I will bring in some one I know will help. She is quite kind and patient. So just stick it out, have fun. Thanks guys, --Darkest Hour $$$$ 20:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It should be pointed out that this issue arises from the article on the racist killing of Kriss Donald. An unregistered user had been reverting this article, which I have contributed to in a lenghtly discussion. I am still learning about Wikipedia and its policy, but have never come across a user like Strothra. He has threatened to have me blocked from editing for removing information which does not conform to the undue weight policy [[13]]

    He seems to have contributed about 8 or 9 words to the discussion and considers himself not just beyond reproach - but beyond discussion. It just won't do. I have tried for many months to achieve balance in discussing this article with those who disagree with me, but Strothra and an unregistered user have other ideas on "civilised discussion". --Guardian sickness 20:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As a yank, I am unaware of the circumstances surrounding this murder; however, based on the article itself (the sections OTHER than the one disputed), it seems that removing an entire section based on the debate regarding racial motivation is NOT in line with the undue weight policy (at least, not in the way you are applying it). It seems to be far too long in comparison with the rest of the article and should be trimmed and significantly rewritten, but I don't think it should be removed entirely, unless your position is that a negligible number of people call the murder racially-motivated, which if true makes the uncontested sprinklings of racial motivation/tension throughout the article incorrect as well. —bbatsell ¿? 21:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I re-read that and am not entirely sure I conveyed what I wished to express clearly. Basically, it's okay to have minority viewpoints in articles as long as they are sourced and they are not misrepresented as majority viewpoints. It seems that your argument has been that the views are so far in the minority that they should not be represented, but the section you have removed cites some fairly notable sources espousing that viewpoint. Thus, they should be represented, but the section should be slimmed down significantly. Regards, —bbatsell ¿? 21:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Bbatsell, you will see in the discussion that I have taken issue with the inclusion of those who claim the murder was not racially motivated on the grounds that they are a tiny minority. Wikipedia policy states “If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents.” The crux of this issue is whether one professor of politics, and one BBC investigative journalist can be described as "prominent". My contention is that they are not prominent and in the waves of coverage surrounding the case in the UK their views constitute those of a tiny minority.

    The policy seems quite explicit and I do not believe my interpretation of it is flawed. I would like to ask you and anyone else who reads this how that section of the article can possibly be consistent with the above Wikipedia policy on "prominent adherents"? I just don't see it and have consistently argued my point based on policy. --Guardian sickness 22:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I guess it would depend on how prominent those two particular people were (if there really are no other people espousing that viewpoint). I did completely misread your position, though; I thought you were advocating that the majority position is that the murder was was not racially motivated, so for that I apologize. I think a small section on the opposing viewpoint is going to be the easiest solution and will garner consensus, as long as (as I wrote above) the text does not represent that the debate is a large or contentious one, but rather one held by a few, and then they would be named. I think the reason this particular debate became a larger one is because the section (which was long) was removed entirely, rather than edited down to be a more accurate representation of the truth. That is what I think is the best course of action to take. —bbatsell ¿? 22:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Thanks, ---J.S (T/C) 22:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Squidward Tentacles

    Came accross Squidward Tentacles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on WP:AIV after s/he got blocked. It seems to ring a bell about my early wiki days when there was a Squidward vandal. Coincidence or pattern? Agathoclea 20:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been talking to the blocking admin about this, and I'm not sure. I don't think its SQUIDWARD as the deleted LTV page on them said it was entirely an open proxy ip vandal. Page is [14] if other admins want to look at it, it was blanked by Jimbo as a courtesy when he was having conversations with the vandal. Syrthiss 21:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A petulant and totally unjustified block

    User:InShaneee blocked me for 24 hours, accusing me of vandalism [15]. I just wanted to bring to someone's attention the fact that this was utterly untrue, and InShaneee blocked me simply because I removed a tag claiming an article for his 'paranormal' wikiproject, because the article had nothing to do with the paranormal. I found this extremely offensive and would like someone else to offer their opinion on this admin's actions. It really won't take you long at all to assess whether I vandalised anything - I've got very few edits. Special:Contributions/81.178.208.69 lists all of them (less than 10). Thanks. 81.178.208.69 23:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well just to note that Red Rain in Kerala does seem paranormal. You should first discuss the changes on the talk page first. — Arjun 23:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh it really doesn't look like the anon did anything but edit war with Inshanee on the talk page. InShaneee shouldn't have blocked someone he was in a dispute with, such as it was, and shouldn't have said it was a block for vandalism when it clearly wasn't. The anon should have discussed the issue rather just edit warred. But the block has expired and there's no sense crying over spilt milk, really. --W.marsh 23:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have discussed, if I hadn't been prevented by being blocked. The point is less whether red rain in Kerala is paranormal or not (and I don't see how organic material in comets could remotely be considered paranormal), than whether this admin acted appropriately by a) blocking someone he was in dispute with, and b) giving a dishonest reason. I think it's very patronising to talk of spilt milk, when this is not about my block but about an administrator who directly contravened policy. That's rather more important and should, I think, be taken a little bit seriously. 81.178.208.69 00:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the point is if the article is under the umbrella of a project your not associated with at all. InShaneee should have gotten someone else to block you, but the block was valid. ---J.S (T/C) 00:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict and beaten to the punch by JS) Please keep in mind that the template you removed simply indicated the article was being watched or edited by a Wikiproject; in this case, it does NOT mean that the incident is definitively related to the paranormal or any such thing, it simply means that the Paranormal Wikiproject has agreed to contribute to the page (because of the proposed theory discussed on the article page). Removing content from talk pages while not refactoring or archiving is vandalism and you should have been blocked in my view. With that said, InShaneee should have asked another administrator to review the situation and take appropriate action. —bbatsell ¿? 00:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What utter rubbish. Wikipedia:Vandalism says nothing about removing things from talk pages automatically being vandalism. You obviously don't understand the policy. Did you look at my edit summaries? Did you notice that I am not the only one who doesn't agree with this wikiproject sticking their noses in? And the article was getting on just fine without 'paranormal' people getting their project onto it. It's not like anyone asked them to help, as you seem to be implying. 81.178.208.69 00:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Separate from the merits of the block, I'm concerned that this editor apparently posted the "unblock" template at 11:38 (UTC) today, no admin reviewed it, and the block remained in effect unreviewed until it expired by time at 23:34. I am wondering if there was some problem with the unblock template, or whether the requests listed in "category:requests for unblock" should be listed in time order or should have the time of the request accompanying the username/ip. Newyorkbrad 00:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I normally review the unblocks each morning, but today I was working on my new bot. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The template isn't "broken" ... it's just that, honestly, who are these admins who are updating the What links here to {{unblock}} often? I haven't seen them. HighInBC says he reviews them once a day. That's more often than 99% of the other admins out there. --Cyde Weys 01:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understand it, an admin doesn't have to check for links to the template; aren't all pending unblock requests listed at <category:Requests for unblock>? I still think it might be helpful if they could be listed in the order the request was posted, or marked with which ones have been reviewed by a previously uninvolved admin and which haven't, or something. Newyorkbrad 01:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Explaining to 81.178.208.69 why the Wikiproject tag is no big deal is all well and good, but I'm afraid it doesn't do much to address what I'm having a rather hard time not interpreting as an abuse of the block button by InShaneee. Instead of criticizing 81.178.208.69, we should be apologizing. As far as I can see, he wasn't even warned about our policies regarding edit-warring; and to call what he did "vandalism"... well, go read Wikipedia:Vandalism if you think it might have been. It wasn't. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to concur. Initially both this IP user and Inshanee were using Edit Summaries to discuss the issue, rather than using the talk page. That's a bad idea, but far more forgivable for a newbie than an admin. Inshanee then both warned and blocked the IP at virtually the same time - telling him that he was the only one who disagreed, and for the first time telling him that he should take it up on the discussion page. [16], [17] (I've got to wonder how the IP was supposed to do that given that he was being blocked. In any event, Inshanee hadn't followed his own advice, so it's hard to expect a newbie to know to do so.) Look, we've been over this ground before - it's "spilled milk," but I'm afraid we do need to address this incident in at least some form (particularly since it involves biting a newcomer). Just my two cents.--TheOtherBob 00:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left a note drawing InShaneee's attention to this discussion. Newyorkbrad 00:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Concur with Bunchofgrapes and others above. Even if it had been vandalism, this block would be wrong, and criticizing 81.178.208.69 when he takes it to the administrators' noticeboard is even more wrong. Admins are supposed to be held to a higher standard, newbies are supposed to be cut extra slack, and all editors are supposed to be warned before they're blocked, unless there's some extraordinary hurry about it. 81.178.208.69, I apologize for Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 00:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    Well he did edit war rather than discuss. I don't buy that admins are never allowed to critisize new users/whatever subset of users, the new user here was acting in good faith but still sort of in the wrong and that he was edit warring. This was a situation where you expect an admin to try to help a new user understand what's going on and the need for discussion, rather than just block them and walk away. Still, if you get reverted, new user or admin, the best thing to do is post an explanation and request an answer, not just keep reverting back and arguing in edit summaries. --W.marsh 01:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be an increasing problem of administrator's overstepping their charge. (I expect this will be reverted simply for saying this). --FuitOfTheLoon 01:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Administrators are human beings. Some make mistakes once in a while. There are over 900 of them and it's unfair to characterize the good, hard-working administrators that are out there like this. --BigDT 01:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I did just block said user. However, he's Cplot (talk · contribs), so he's used to that. Cheerio. Mackensen (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL, well, at least you didn't revert him just for saying that. ;) --BigDT 01:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No good faith edit is ever vandalism. But more importantly than that ... any time we add categories or talk page headers, we need to keep things like this in mind, because they can be offensive. If you add something to a Wikiproject, you are characterizing that topic, even though that isn't necessarilly your intention. If you characterize something that is important to someone (like their religion, culture, viewpoints, etc) as something that it is not, that can be offensive and should be discussed. --BigDT 01:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I think the project template thing is getting out of hand. I have removed a project template from an article talk page[18] because I thought it was completely inappropriate to the article. -- Donald Albury 02:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good grief! Blocking someone because edit warring over a template? What the...? No. Just plain no. Even if a person is 100% wrong according to every reliable source, you talk. You try to explain. You work with them. You listen. You do not block. I'm with the above. We draw breath only as long as we keep conversing, keep learning, keep improving. In this particular case, things are even worse. Unless there is a massive history here that the blocking administrator didn't feel like sharing, these blocks are out of line. Geogre 03:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If this isn't reason enough to form an RfAr, I don't know what is. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    An arbitration case about a 24-hour IP block, no matter what the circumstances, will more-than-likely be summarily rejected by ArbCom. They gave their thoughts on a similar, yet arguably more severe, case[19], two days ago; (0/7/0/0). Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just the straw that broke the camel's back. This is certainly not the first thing he's ever done, and not the worst thing - and considering that this block is so unbelievably illegitimate and wrong, that speaks to the severity of his other actions. Wheel warring, vindictive blocks, punitive blocks, edit warring, abusing AWB, calling people vandals when he disagrees with their edits, criticizing people for calling others trolls when he does it often, protecting pages to suit his wants and needs, and of course, assuming bad faith. After all of this, I cannot see how he can be allowed to be an admin. He clearly hasn't shown ANY caution after receiving an RfC, where he had many people supporting the idea that he has at least done something wrong, with many agreeing he has acted poorly as an administrator. The man thinks that his role here is to govern the lesser Wikipedians, which he has shown by his constant demands for non-admins to show him respect. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He's right; that's exactly what I think. --InShaneee 13:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps it should be pointed out that, contrary to statements made above, this was not a case of biting a newbie. Worldtraveller (aka 81.178.208.69) [20] has been a registered user since August of 2004. — MediaMangler 14:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Was it WorldTraveller? Did he know that? If so, it would have been really helpful to use the noticeboards to seek input. That's what AN/I is supposed to exist for. On-wiki, not off, and with consultation, not without, and with discussion. Geogre 14:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the anonymous editor in this case was me, dropping by after a few months away and wanting to do so anonymously. InShanee is not really guilty of biting a newbie, though he had no way of knowing that he wasn't, and I was guilty of making my case via edit summaries instead of on the talk page. What doesn't change, though, is that InShanee's block of me was unjustified, he used his administrating tools to gain the upper hand in a dispute, and the reason he gave for the block was dishonest. Worldtraveller 15:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fraternities and sororities

    What do you all think of the massive amounts of external links that are contained in a traditional Wikipedia fraternity or sorority article such as Delta Sigma Pi, Alpha Kappa Psi, Phi Kappa Psi, or Alpha Epsilon Pi? Is this appropriate at all? I posted this to WT:EL a month ago and get a few responses Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_11#Fraternities_and_sororities. I just removed the lists at Delta Sigma Pi [21] and registered a whopping (-23,730) on the removal according to the big bold red numbers on my watchlist (now, granted, that was a large table and I'm sure the fact it was a table added to the size of it). I figure I should probably get a little bit more of input on this before I go any further with such large removals.

    I believe that they are unacceptable under WP:NOT as they are collections of external links used to formulate a directory of chapters. It encourages each chapter to post their own link and, for large organizations, that could mean 100+ schools. Thoughts? Metros232 02:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds good to me. -- Donald Albury 02:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what external links are for. EL should be limited to articles that are clearly justified. The national chapter for instance. I don't think any individual chapters could justify a link, unless perhaps there is something extraordinary about them that is 3rd party verifiable. - Taxman Talk 02:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely, those are not valid. We used to have chapters writing breathless articles about themselves. They'd go to VfD (it was back then), and the advice was always, either put it in the college or just delete it. So now it seems that they're linking from their national frat/sororities. That's better, but it's still unacceptable. The chapters have plenty of linking-to from the national organizations' own web pages and their colleges' web pages. They don't need to be page rank boosting with us. Geogre 03:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While we're talking about these, there are also articles for the sub groups of the organisations. I had a quick hand at fighting back the bloat with redirects, but appeared to be going it alone and was mostly reverted. - brenneman 03:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    {{Beta Theta Pi Chapters}}

    I appreciate the feedback so far and hopefully will lay my hand at removing a lot of these sometime tomorrow. What is the thought on the lists in general? Is it only to have a list of the chapters without external links? Beta Theta Pi (as shown in the template above that Aaron Brenneman just provided, has a full list of their chapters on their article but no external links for them. Should lists like that go as well as those with external links? Metros232 03:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I note that the (few) bluelinks in that template are redirects to the main article. I don't think we need articles on each individual fraternity chapter; for most of them there is little to say beyond what it says in the main frat article. I think this template should be removed. >Radiant< 12:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It really seems excessive still, to me. I know it's harmless to have a list of "all chapters of X," but it's only harmless until people treat it like the infamous (and a pox eternally be upon it) List of high schools and argue that the presence on the list means that there should be an article on every one. I.e. lists are sometimes used in circular logic to argue that there must be an article on each item on the list. Therefore, I still maintain that the national organization's web page is linked from the article on the national organization, and that should serve sufficiently for anyone seeking chapters. If the chapters don't achieve fame/standing outside of their campus communities, then they're not encyclopedic, in my view, in a list or an article. Geogre 14:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per this discussion, I have nominated the template for deletion. Metros232 14:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we should draw the line at a list of chapters without external links. It is encyclopedic to have a list of what colleges and universities have these organizations, because that is what the organization is all about. When it is a fraternity/sorority with a lot of chapters, a list page is appropriate. However, I don't think external links to the chapter websites or articles about the chapters is appropriate. --rogerd 17:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. It's entirely relevant to the existence and mission of the organization in question (fraternity) to be associated with colleges. How else would one illustrate this without using a list? The external links thing, I agree with, we can get rid of those. But a link to the Wikipedia articles about the colleges themselves is appropriate. --Htmlism (talk · contr) 23:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The account User:Ygwnkm has been used exclusively to repost an external link to Phonetics in violation of WP:COI and WP:EL. I've left detailed edit summaries and multiple messages on the user page. I stopped reverting and another editor took up the challenge only to have it rv without comment by anonymous user Special:Contributions/58.143.172.67. I've entered the case into mediation where it was suggested I bring the case here. Not sure what to do from here. Nposs 02:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have gone ahead and given the IP a good faith spam warning. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 03:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, it appears that the anonymous editor is keeping with his consistent link spamming. I have given him a spam 2 template, and if he does it again, I would probably go report this to WP:AIV. It is more than likely that the anonymous editor and the registered account are the same. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 03:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If anyone is watching, there is a trainwreck going on at the Phonetics and Talk:Phonetics page. The linker has returned and become beligerent. He has not only repeatedly linked the site on the talk page, but now linked the talk from the external links of the article. It would be nice to end this soon. Thanks. Nposs 06:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears that the link-spammer is still at it, and has now done 4+ reverts. Any chance an admin could step in? (I'm leaving it alone for a while in the spirit of not feeding trolls, but have the feeling that this person won't ever stop until blocked.) Thanks. --TheOtherBob 14:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked the most recent IP for 24h. There had been previous warnings. Let's make sure the block is enforced both on any new IPs and on his original account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like 58.143.171.176 (talk · contribs) is doing the same task again. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 17:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Offensive picture in Hillary Clinton's wiki

    Offensive picture in Hillary Clinton's wiki —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.246.53.173 (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    Could you be more specific? This is likely vandalism to a template that has since been reverted (and a "wiki" is not a page, too :))—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see vandalism on the page at all nor do I see anything in the recent changes for templates to suggest any of the templates used on the page were vandalized. Metros232 03:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, found it. It was Image:Senator Clinton Hillary.jpg. It sat for over an hour in a vandalized state too, *sigh* awesome. Metros232 03:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That should more than likely be deleted then...—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cite template

    I need a bit of help at {{mathworld}}. Linas keeps trying to change it to "Firstname Lastname" which is NOT the style we use on Wikipedia (see for example any of the cite templates, where it goes "lastname, firstname"). I don't want to get into a revert war, but he just won't listen on his talk page or from other editors at Template talk:Cite web about a month ago. —Mets501 (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    195.188.152.16 blocked

    Good evening fellow administrators. I come here a man much vexed. I have blocked 195.188.152.16 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) indefinitely. This is not the first time that I or others have done so. Many of you have unblocked this IP in the past, no doubt with the best of intentions. It is true that we generally do not block shared IP addresses for long periods of time, and certainly not indefinitely. This, however, is a different situation. This is where the real Willy on Wheels edits from. If you unblock this IP, the real Willy on Wheels will create accounts and vandalize Wikipedia. I cannot put the matter any more plainly than that. Now, it is true that this is a shared IP address. However, I and other checkusers can verify that there is little to no activity from this address that does not come from Willy on Wheels. Most of the unblock requests are from Willy's socks. If you really feel that you must tinker with this block in any way, please contact a checkuser and got his or her permission before doing so.

    Yours, Mackensen (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mackensen, I suggest that you put a specific note to this effect on the talk page and in the block log, as otherwise no one will remember which specific IP you warned about. Newyorkbrad 03:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I copied the above note there. However, I've done that before, and been ignored. Mackensen (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good ... except I equally doubt that admins expect to find useful content on an IP's userpage, so they're not going to look for that either. I suggest an entry in the block log itself along the lines of "Repeated creation of Willy on Wheels accounts, should remain blocked indefinitely, see user page for info" or something like that—in that location, an admin considering unblocking would certainly see. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You might also want to change the userpage, which says "This IP address has been blocked temporarily."[Emphasis mine] 68.39.174.238 04:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left a better block message. Hopefully nobody will unblock after that. --Cyde Weys 04:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure all caps all the time is the best block message, it's hard to read and I suspect it will send some people into vandal-reversion mode. 68.39.174.238 04:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:Thomas Sowell.jpg

    Not totally sure what to do about this. Twice I've marked this for deletion under {{rfu}}, and both times it was deleted. User:Ccmg has now uploaded it a third time. He never disputes it, just re-uploads it after it's deleted. I was going to tag it {{Db-repost}}, but that doesn't seem appropriate here. Can an admin give some guidance here? —Chowbok ☠ 05:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that it's a new user I suggest giving a stern warning that if it happens again, he should be blocked. And while db-repost doesn't officially apply, it might work anyway under WP:IAR. Just my lousy opinion. Patstuarttalk|edits 16:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just deleted the image again. We're not under any obligation to keep hosting media that we've already deleted for lack of licensing information for another week just because someone uploaded it again. Jkelly 17:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    CantStandYa blocked

    Due to his long term sock abuse, incivility, edit warring, and 3RR violations I have blocked CantStandYa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely. Back in March 2006 we blocked about 30 socks, as reported Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive82#Socks of Shran/CantStandYa, while leaving active one account for him to use. He abandoned that account anyway and promptly created a new set of socks that we only discovered recently (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CantStandYa). His various accounts have been blocked many times, for as long as 6 months in one case.[22] Though I expect him to make further attempts to edit he has shown that he can't be trusted to follow community polices and guidelines. -Will Beback · † · 06:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He wasn't blocked?! He's been listed on WP:LTA for AGES. 68.39.174.238 07:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please block him for good. I almost left the project because of his stalking and incivility. Jasper23 07:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    At least his username is accurate ... Cyde Weys 16:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah. I guess Wikipedia can't stand him, either. Hbdragon88 18:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Foreign Language Wikipedia articles

    After reading one of the later comments in this debacle of an AfD, I found this category. Browsing through the stubs in question, I reached the conclusion that very few of them satisfy WP:WEB. Is there something I'm missing (i.e. is the foundation notable enough for every one of its "children" to merit its own article)? If not, can a mass AfD be considered (for all except the most active 'pedias)? yandman 08:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, being a Wikimedia project shouldn't automatically entitle you to a Wikipedia page. There are tons of tiny wikis no where even near WP:WEB. However, might I suggest seeing if this sort of material on the history and milestones of individual minor wikis would be welcomed if transwikied to Meta? Dragons flight 08:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's already here on meta. yandman 08:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While it's not much content, some of the little wiki pages do have some content not duplicated in that list (e.g. Albanian Wikipedia). So I am wondering whether it would be worth dedicating a page on meta to each project for milestones, history, etc. Dragons flight 08:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, OK. Sounds like a good idea. Anyone here who can move it all to meta before we start? I don't want the lack of a meta page to be a reason for keeping these NN articles. yandman 09:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Or we could listify it, with wikilinks to the main pages of each. We don't need to do the job of maintaining the "about" document for every language Wiki, though, and that's for sure. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    How should we determine which ones should be included in the mass AfD? Maybe a first batch containing all those having less than 10k users (per the ranking at meta)? Or less than 20k articles? Or less than 50k edits? Or all three? Any otherwise notable wikis could always be undeleted (in case we find out that there's been significant coverage of one of these very small wikis). A quick strawpoll, please? yandman 12:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • My advice is to tread carefully, and be conservative. If you nominate forty articles, and four turn out to be somewhat notable, the Afd will trainwreck, with some people voting to delete all, some to delete none, but most to delete all but three, with different people selecting a different three... you see the problem. Several of these have survived previous AfDs, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urdu Wikipedia. Chinese Wikipedia is notable due to being repeatedly blocked, and ripped off by Baidu. Spanish Wikipedia is notable due to an editor revolt and fork. German Wikipedia is notable due to multiple print versions. Russian Wikipedia is notable due to winning a national prize. Polish Wikipedia may be notable due to one print version. In short, go through every single article and only include the ones which have no mention in the outside community, otherwise I strongly suspect the Afd will fail. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good advice. I came across this AfD. Although I don't agree with the arguments given, I'm now 100% sure any attempt to apply our notability guidelines to these pages will fail horribly. yandman 14:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    YouTube and copyrights

    You will remember, I think, that a group of editors set off to remove links to YouTube, requiring that before they went back in we clarified the copyright status and encyclopaedic merit of the links. This met with some resistance. There appear to be two camps now, which might be summed up as follows:

    • those who believe that YouTube links should go in unless you can prove they are violating copyright
    • those who believe that YouTube links should stay out unless you can prove they are not infringing copyright

    Guess which group I'm in. The argument rages at Wikipedia:External links/Identifying copyrights in links, Wikipedia talk:External links/YouTube, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington and various other places. It's been moved out of WP:EL/WT:EL.

    WP:COPYRIGHT makes it clear that knowingly linking to infringing material is contributory infringement (also that linking to copyvios makes us look bad). Given that many YouTube vids are copyvios I don't think it's excesive to require people to clarify copyright before adding, but there is a small and committed group who are insistent that the default should be the other way round. More input required, I think. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the heads up, Guy. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (moved from WP:AIV --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    Blocked for 48 hours Martinp23 14:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Close poll

    Can someone please close the straw poll over at Pontic Greek Genocide? There has been total inactivity in the poll since Dec 27 2006. Thanks. NikoSilver 15:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks by JFBurton

    (moved from WP:AIV --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    • Latest edits this morning were a number of vandalism warnings ([23], [24], [25]) against users who had in fact made legitimate edits (one of these users, after the warning, then responded by vandalizing JFBurton's User Page). Fan-1967 16:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked the user for a week for personal attacks and disruption. -- Merope 16:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Redirect Deleted?

    Can an admin please tell me why Clemson Tigers football was deleted? I believe it was a redirect that redirected to Clemson Tigers. Was the redirect deleted by someone's request so they could create an article there? If not, could it be restored please? Thank you. --MECU≈talk 17:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears the article was originally created as a redirect. Later someone decided to expand it into an article. After starting the editor realized that the work was redundant and put the article up for speedy deletion with a "db-author" tag. An admin then came along and carried out the requested deletion. Unfortunately, it appears the admin did not check the article's history or see that there were several incoming links to the originial redirect page. I've restored the redirect which should accomplish the original editor's intention. Thanks for pointing it out. --StuffOfInterest 17:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Close survey of proposal

    Hello, I was hoping an administrator would be willing to officially close a survey that has been idle for a few weeks now. It can be found at Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists sections 1-5. Thank you. -- Wikipedical 18:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletions, a statistical review of 24 hours

    (From 1/3/2007 21:00:00 PM to 1/4/2007 21:00:00 PM)

    Often the media quotes us as deleting 100s of articles a day. Well, I decided to check out those stats... I pulled up the delete log and did some searching and sorting in excel to get a general feel. Yeah, I know the numbers aren't the most reliable, but it's mildly interesting.

    General
    • Total actions in log: 4007
    • Restores: 36
    • Deletes: 3971
    Namespace
    • Talk: 975
    • User: 101
    • User_Talk: 36
    • Wikipedia: 26
    • Image: 625
    • Category: 65
    • Category_talk: 3
    • Mainspace: 2146
    Criteria For Speedy Delete
    • CSD G1: 49
    • CSD G2: 3
    • CSD G3: 26
    • CSD G4: 28
    • CSD G5: 11
    • CSD G6: 6
    • CSD G7: 44
    • CSD G8: 213
    • CSD G9: 0
    • CSD G10: 40
    • CSD G11: 81
    • CSD A1: 56
    • CSD A2: 1
    • CSD A3: 47
    • CSD A5: 5
    • CSD A6: 6
    • CSD A7: 428
    • CSD R1: 93
    • CSD R2: 5
    • CSD R3: 2
    • CSD I1: 5
    • CSD I2: 0
    • CSD I3: 98
    • CSD I4: 5
    • CSD I5: 0
    • CSD I6: 0
    • CSD I7: 89
    • CSD I8: 0
    • CSD U1: 26

    (Some of the CSD counts might be overstating... I was getting a lot of false-positives with the simple excel search)

    Other searches
    • "{{db": 745
    • "{{delete": 74
    • "CSD": 813
    • "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/": 123
    Top two deleters

    Does this have any deeper cosmic meaning to wikipedia? Not likely... but at-least we can tell the press people slightly better numbers. ---J.S (T/C) 22:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    How about a list of the top ten deleters? Are they all above 100 articles a day? Also - CSD A7: 428 - not surprised. I used to do some Newpage patrolling, and there was a lot of vanity articles. Hbdragon88 22:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Execution of Saddam hussein

    This guy uber or something keeps on reverting everything and does everything to his liking. Even time of death... http://www.dailynews.lk/2007/01/01/wld02.asp which has been confirmed by iraqi government, he keeps on reverting, siting his silly sources, can somebody watch over and block this guy? Also original saddam site does not have hanging video, sure, wiki is open place for source, but this creates hate and violence, this dude keeps on putting it back, this should be final appropriate version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Execution_of_Saddam_Hussein&diff=98515213&oldid=98514518 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.220.181 (talk • contribs)

    Looking at the history of the page, I'm not sure what to think. You don't seem to be using the talk page to discuss this though, rather, just warring in the edit summaries. UBeR appears to be doing the same and was caution about the 3RR rule on this article a few days ago. Anyone else have thoughts about it? Metros232 22:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The page was just fully protected by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Metros232 23:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, 64.107.220.181 has some major issues with civility and personal attacks...
    Other then that, I'm not sure how the cell-phone video of Saddam's hanging counts as a "hate video"? ---J.S (T/C) 23:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I protected it due to excess reverting. Perhaps more controversially, I then removed the execution video links. I'm not sure whether this is considered OK or not, so I invite people to check William M. Connolley 23:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Gödel's incompleteness theorems

    Someone want to take a look at the edit war going on here? It's all pretty much Greek to me. Fan-1967 22:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Germanium appears to be attempting to edit war blatant original research into the article and has been blocked for 31 hours. I'm going to check his contribs (of which he has less than 100) to see whether an indefblock is warranted. -- Steel 23:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You beat me to the block Steel... Certainly "trollish" behavior: user was copying people's edit summaries when he reverted. ---J.S (T/C) 23:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=98518685"