Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive51

New WP:V template - just for you! STOP - HAMMERTIME!

Ever come across those users who either edit war or are combative because you're trying to remove information they think deserves to be in their favorite article? Although they act in good faith they feel attacked, and being backed into a corner with 4 editors reverting you and not explaining why you contribution can't be there doesn't feel good.

This is not to be used between experienced editors of Wikipedia. It to EXPLAIN.

I recently used this on an edit warring IP user and he immediately stopped and I thought "Hey, other people could use this!"

This can be used on

1. The top of an article's talk page
2. In a subtopic in a talk page
3. The user's talkpage

which makes it very versatile.

What do you want them to do? {{stophammertime}} or {{verifiability}} or {{wp:v}}  !!!

Remember to personally thank him for his contributions below the template and that you hope they will continue to edit our encyclopedia. Don't be seen as a big meanie - even to the bad acting ones!

These quotes are straight from Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is an official and founding policy of Wikipedia.

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

"Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources."

"The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic."

--mboverload@ 22:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I mean, I too have the tendency to say "Hammertime" everytime I get to a stop sign... okay, nobody else? Just me... okay. But I don't understand why the template is called {{stophammertime}}. It doesn't say that in the message and the template is not even comedic. It's a great template, but the name doesn't really fit the style of it. joturner 22:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I have a hard time remembering the names of templates, and I thought - hey - why not use my favorite phrase when telling fellowikipedians to stop? If ANYONE has a suggestion about a better name, I am more than happy to move it. In the end it's just the name. --mboverload@ 23:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved it to Template:Verifiability.[1] How's that? {{Stophammertime}} still works as a redirect, obviously. I also created a shortcut at {{wp:v}}. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice template, Yayyyy for Samuel Blanning's move! :-) (→Netscott) 23:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Samuel! --mboverload@ 23:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Please don't tell me that's the correct number of ohs. joturner 23:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Haven't the faintest, it was a "repeatedly mash Ctrl-V" job. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It's two too many ... *shame* Proto///type 13:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Proto is 2 legit 2 quit. Syrthiss 14:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocks can now be made on only anonymous users.

Just in case anybody didn't notice. Werdna (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Woo-hoo! Are there instrucitons on what "Block anonymous users only" and "Prevent account creation" mean, exactly? Just zis Guy you know? 12:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I would guess that once an IP block is set then to prevent anyone from that IP from getting around the IP block by simply creating an account, the second option allows an admin to prevent account creation from the blocked IP to ensure that the block stays enforced. Thereby any accounts that were created from the blocked IP prior to the IP's blockage are not themselves automatically blocked. (→Netscott) 13:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• excellent! a toast on the developers! dab (ᛏ) 13:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• It's about time! :) Haukur 13:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Excellent... no more being blocked at school. And I thought the best thing about July 11 was the free slurpies at 7-Eleven. Cookies and milk for the people who made this happen! joturner 13:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Now it's time to take a look at what we can do about those pesky vandalism-only school IPs. And maybe finally blocking some AOL proxies for longer than fifteen minutes. And having unblock requests on the mailing lists reduced by about 80%. And... --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• No more collatertal damage! :))) - Mailer Diablo 13:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Question - if an IP range is blocked, is someone able to create an account if they are using an IP in that range? Proto///type 13:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• If the "no account creation" box was checked (default is to check it), then no. If it was unchecked, then yes, they will be able to. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 13:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Someone with a good understanding of just how this works and the options we have in blocking should update WP:BP and related pages. NoSeptember 13:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't know about updating, but certainly discussing it would be a good idea. Or perhaps we should discuss it here first because there would be more admin feedback. For instance, permablocks would no longer be taboo, and are best for vandalism-only IP addresses, but we should not apply a "prevent account creation" on an IP permablock. AOL IPs can probably be treated like any other IP address, but should only block anonymous users only. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Much of WP:BP merely discusses the procedure and consequences of blocking, the same is true for the Special:Blockip page. The first step is to help everyone understand how many options we have from a technical standpoint and how they will affect users. Only then can we really get into discussing policy changes. NoSeptember 14:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah. Well, since Tim and Brion are likely busy doing other stuff, I think anyone can do so, thanks to your suggestion. :-) I'll take a gander and see if I can offer a penny or two. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• I agree that we need a policy update. Would it be OK, for example, to block a long-time IP-changing vandal by blocking all anons coming from a large ISP? Rhobite 14:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Expiry times and application" talks about the blocking times. We need to update this, but I also tihnk we need to discuss it first. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Does an autoblock automatically disable new accounts now? Will (message me!) 15:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• My understanding is that autoblocks are set as default blocks, that is, blocks all users on the IP and prevents account creation. Tim could clarify if he changed this. Essjay (<small>Talk • Connect) 15:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• AFAIK, autoblocks continue to work as usual, that is they block everyone on the IP. However, because of the new block precedence feature, an autoblock affecting an IP can be overridden by a block specifically on that IP. For example, if that block is set to "block anonymous users only" then registered editors can still edit, even though the autoblock would have blocked them, because the IP block takes precedence. --bainer (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the wording of WP:BP to explain the new options. I also moved around the paragraph about administrators with known shared IP addresses requesting notification before blocks on those shared IP addresses, and changed the wording to suggest that blocking anonymous users only is appropriate in this context (I think that's compatible with existing policy and practice). However, there needs to be discussion on other circumstances in which the enabling or disabling of these options is recommended, for example, should it be recommended that "block anonymous users only" be applied to all blocks of AOL IPs? --bainer (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That'd not be such a good idea, it will prevent any new user from AOL from joining Wikipedia. --WinHunter ^(talk) 16:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have missed that there is also a setting to allow new user creation while the IP is blocked. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Questionable username

How do we feel about Kim jong il (talk · contribs), whose only contribution was a nonsense article and was deleted? Is this a permissble username? - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. Real people are to be discouraged, and more than likely, this account is not going to be constructive or good. I'd say username block. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Eh, based on 김정일 (talk · contribs), I'm going to go out on a limb here and say BLOCK, BLOCK, BLOCK, thank you--64.12.116.200 17:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Abusive message left on my page by user

Have fun reading it, don't forget the image. User's computer settings are screwed up - his text size is far too big. I have told him how to fix it. He says he'll never edit WP again until I revert it...Yeah I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to do here.

My best guess is that this user has severe vision problems that I have never heard of (needing everything to be small and purple with extremely low contrast?) --mboverload@ 01:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Latest message after he "disrupted" MY page with a huge image and I removed it. Please do not continue editing my comments. I intend to report this matter and removing this from your Talk Page instead of correcting the damage you did to mine is only covering up what you did. Ste4k 01:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC) --mboverload@ 02:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

He left a similar message on my page. By the way, I removed the image - Image:Mboverload.jpg - because it's actually copyrighted (due to the Microsoft interface visible). joturner 02:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

However, that's not vandalism mboverload. joturner 02:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I put it in quotes. However, he did insert an overly large image multiple times into my talk page in the goal to disrupt it. --mboverload@ 02:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No she put it on your page to show you what your comments looked like just as she believed you and the other two admins were showing to her by putting a screenshot image on her talk page. She isn't an expert on images at all and this was the first time she had ever posted a screenshot. Ste4k 11:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Me and many other users are discussing this on the IRC channel incase you wish to join in, which I wish you would. --mboverload@ 02:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you notify her in any respect to this conversation, or the conversation on IRC before unilaterally deciding to take matters into your own hands? She certainly would have appreciated it if you had done so instead of blinding her to communications which were coming in faster than she could handle. Ste4k 11:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you remember writing this statement in the next section on this page? "Although they act in good faith they feel attacked, and being backed into a corner with 4 editors reverting you and not explaining why you contribution can't be there doesn't feel good." Try four people who appear to be admins who won't even allow an editor to read their own talk page. It's hard to believe that you have anything else on your mind, in my opinion, other than vandals. I may be slow, but I will eventually respond to a comment. Ste4k 11:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Monobook.js and Monobook.css would solve this problem. See these examples. (→Netscott) 02:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Just as a comment. Ste4k took this objection to Mboverload's rfa. I'm sort of alarmed by that response. Alphachimp ^talk 02:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are alarmed since nobody told me where any of these discussions were taking place and I had to find them on my own. Ste4k 09:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If that user really wants their talkpage to look like that, they can do it through css by adding an inner div id "MyTalkPage" and styling it the preferred way, while everyone else can read. GeorgeMoney ^(talk) 03:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have decided on a more optimal solution, but thanks GeorgeMoney / Netscott. Ste4k 11:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Excuse me for stumbling into this mare's nest, but I can't help wondering, if she can only read her talk page if it is tiny and purple, how does she read the rest of the encyclopedia? Thatcher131 16:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I wish, Mboverload, you hadn't done that. I brought this here after a conflict had already arisen (as I said, I changed it and Ste4k reverted it back), so I think we should have had more discussion before doing anything. *sigh* Mangojuice^talk 17:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. This user is not in any way malicious. She is doing her best to sort out a walled garden which needs some long and patient work. I am already in dialogue with her over various things, and if people had left it to me, or employed tact, we would not have this problem. As it is we have one person whose faith in WP has been dented. She has not "left the building", which is good. But now would be a good time to stop this discussion and archive it out. There's no problem with taking what is perceived as a heavy-handed action to an RfA (it's exactly the sort of thing whihc does and should get discussed there), and above all we need to remember that Ste4k has only been with the project for under a month, so we have to cut some slack while she learns the ropes. Of course people will now embarrass me by posting diffs to places where I have done the same and worse. I throw my weight around too. But was it really necessary to be so harsh so soon? I don't think so. Just zis Guy you know? 20:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think this user is very malicious. She does it often in a very sneaky way abusing WP policies.--Who123 15:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

ALL she had to do was revert it back if she didn't like it. I wouldn't have removed it again. --mboverload@ 00:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

finally

but now the real question, does it work on autoblocks?--AOL user 15:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, autoblocks continue to operate normally, that is, they block all anonymous and registered users on that IP. However because of the new block precedence feature, it is possible to set an IP block with different options (such as allowing registered editors).

So say that a registered user X gets blocked, and an autoblock goes onto their shared IP. This would block user Y who is innocently using the same IP. But if an admin came along and applied a block to the IP, with the option "block anonymous users only", then the IP would remain blocked (preventing X from evading the block) but Y would still be able to edit. --bainer (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

eh? but that's operating on the assumption that an IP block overides an autoblock, but isn't that patently false?--152.163.100.200 16:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The changes to the ways blocking works, in addition to the "block anons only" and "prevent account creation" options, also gave blocks unique identifiers (to prevent more than one block on the same target) and implemented a precedence system, in descending order:

• Username blocks
• IP blocks
• Range blocks
• Autoblocks

A username block takes precedence over all other blocks, and so on down the chain. --bainer (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, Tim Starling answered just about all of this a while ago, in this post.

• —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Splash (talk • contribs) .

Shouldn't something indicating what type of block was made be added to the block log? Right now the only way to tell is through the block list. I would like to be able to tell through the log. Prodego ^talk 20:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

New feature, feature requests already :) Auto text like the protection text would be helpful. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Should we block unregistered AOL users?

Given the new blocking features discussed above, would it now be advisable to block the entire AOL proxy pool from editing by unregistered users? This would have the side effect that AOL users would no longer be hit by random autoblocks.

(Also see this discussion on wikien-l, where Angela notes that the whole issue may soon become irrelevant if AOL does finally start providing XFF headers to us. That said, it might still be a good idea to block unregistered AOL users until this is implemented.)

—Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• No, now please stop harassing random AOL users--172.148.156.116 19:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not something that should be done lightly but all things considered I think it might actually be a good idea to block unregistered AOL IP's until XFF headers are provided by us (or AOL stops using their weird dynamic IP system). Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 20:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't, because 1) AOL is never going to alter their proxy system, honsetly, that wouldn't be a temporary block, it would be indefinite, 2) unless you're willing to abandon the idea of anon editors all together, you shouldn't, unless of course you want to block ALL IP editors, in which case, go ahead--172.148.156.116 20:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that registered users won't get whacked, and that they can still create an account if they want, I say block em indefinitely. It would reduce vandalism by at least 50%. I don't see a downside. Proto///type 20:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Then block all IPs, it will reduce vandalism 100%, I don't see the downside--172.148.156.116 20:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think at least the percieved downside to blocking AOL is that it reduces our openness, the upside of course is a slight decrease in vandalism and a cessation of vandalism that is impossible for us to stop due to AOL's setup. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 20:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Why, might I ask, is anyone lumping in the 172.xx.xx.xx ranges in with the rest, the very fact that using wikipedia's secure login yeilds a static 172 address, should exempt this range from any sort of range block, why they're even being lumped in with the rest of AOL's supposed "proxy pool" I don't know--172.148.156.116 20:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it makes sense to block huge swathes of the world from editing the encyclopedia. A little less time feeling overwhelmed in the CVU channel when the bots are almost always on top of it would probably help. If we are to get XFF headers soon, then there's no need at all. -Splash - tk 20:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Block 'em all. By blocking the entire AOL IP range, the IP block will override any autoblocks, and we won't need to worry about collateral damage from blocking named AOL users. --Carnildo 20:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, block 'em all, block each and every user, registered, unregistered, who cares, nothing good can come from editors, they're always editing things, best thing in the world, block everyone, no vandalism, ever--172.162.162.37 21:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oh please. It's important to understand how the new block works, and I'm not sure I do. If you blocked a range of AOL IPs, but allow registration, you would prevent anonymous edits, but all AOLers could edit by creating accounts. Also, because of the block hierarchy, if a named user who was on AOL was blocked, the IP block would override the autoblock, so any other registered user using AOL would never be autoblocked again. Right? So what is more valuable, allowing AOLers to edit while not logged in or never again having a registered contibutor be autoblocked? (Since new AOlers could always register) Thatcher131 21:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Allowing unregistered AOL users to edit, especially since the 172's don't ever trigger autoblocks, they're the static range assigned by wikipedia's secure login--172.162.162.37 21:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, the 172.xx.xx.xx ranges behave like perfectly normal static IPs, there's no reason I can think of to block anon editing from this range, otherwise what's the point of even having this?--172.162.162.37 21:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• OK, so leave that range out of it. I doubt anyone would go through and tag every single AOL IP address tonight, anyway. However, as vandalism incidents occur, the question is how long to block. The old reason of 15 minutes to prevent autoblocks of registered users no longer applies. So if >15 minutes is ok, how far do you go? The point is that if a registered user editing through AOL is blocked, it will still trigger autoblocks. But if we block an IP range for vandalism, registered users on that range will still be able to edit, and newbies will even be able to register. Sounds pretty good, but I may yet be missing something. Thatcher131 21:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

(after 6 edit conflicts) As far as I know the 10 account per day per IP rule still exists, so that could restict AOL users ability to create an account. Prodego ^talk 21:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's the 6 account per day rule, they changed it a while back--172.162.162.37 21:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Block indefinite. The point is to keep autoblocks from hitting other AOL users. --Carnildo 22:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Strong support on blocking AOL proxy ip#s which have produced significant vandalism. We have long had a very large problem with vandals taking advantage of AOL rotating proxies. This has been one of Wikipedia's most harmful vulnerabilities to long term repeat vandals. Yes, legitimate users will need to log in to edit-- perhaps a minor "inconvenience" for them, but one which thousands of other legitimate Wikipedians have taken care of, with many benifits both for the users and Wikipedia. -- Infrogmation 23:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: I've updated the "AOL proxy pool" link above to point to AOL's own list, which indeed mentions that the 172.* range is not part of the proxy pool. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

User editing after indef block

There seems to be a problem with blocks. In particular User:Jewbo_WaIes,_LOL has been indef blocked twice today (username violation) yet continues to be able to edit ([2]). I don't know what's happening here. Could someone (a developer?) investigate? Thanks, Gwernol 21:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Naconkantari 21:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Gwernol 22:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:New England is broken

Talk:New England redirects to itself. I don't see a way to fix this as the history is unavailable. Can an administrator please look into this? Thanks. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 01:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Jkelly 01:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much! -- Malber (talk • contribs) 01:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Prevent account creation

I added a short sentence about the anon-only blocking feature. Now, exactly what does enabling Prevent account creation do? If I apply it to my own account (with IP address 1.2.3.4),

1. Does it prevent a user logged in as Deathphoenix from creating new accounts?
2. Does it prevent registered users under the IP address 1.2.3.4 from creating new accounts?
3. Does it prevent the anonymous user 1.2.3.4 from creating new accounts?

Now, if I apply it to my IP address (1.2.3.4),

1. Does it prevent registered users under the IP address 1.2.3.4 from creating new accounts?
2. Does it prevent the anonymous user 1.2.3.4 from creating new accounts?

--Deathphoenix ʕ 14:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's an IP only feature; if you apply it to your account, it does nothing, if you apply it to an IP, it prevents any new accounts from being created on that IP. I could, of course, be wrong, but my reading of Tim's email was that this, like the anon only feature, is only related to IP blocks. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 14:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If this is the case, how would we stop someone who is creating a large batch of blockable usernames? Use checkuser, find the IP, and block that IP from creating new usernames? EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 21:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Loged in users can not "create account" — xaosflux ^Talk 01:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually they can, by going to Special:Userlogin while still logged in, though it's relatively rare. I guess the question worded better would read, "If I block User:BadUserName, and click 'Prevent Account Creation,' does this prevent the user from making bad usernames, or would I have to find out their IP address and block that?" EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 01:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocking the username will stop account creation automatically, regardless of the check settings, as I understand it; this is something that has been the case for ages and has not been changed. Likewise, trying to create a new account from an IP used by someone who has been {{unsernameblock}} will trigger an autoblock, which continues to function like any old block, preventing account creation. So, stopping users from creating accounts is as easy as blocking one of them, and if they're smart enough to evade the autoblock, having a checkuser pull the IP and set a "no account creation" block on it. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 09:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Essjay, that's what I figured. These extra tools should give us a lot more options on how to combat certain occurrences, and I'll join in with everyone else in applauding the developers in providing these much desired changes. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 09:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Signature Transclusion

I noticed a relatively new user Sean gorter (talk · contribs) was transcluding his signature, and explained why they shouldn't (and untranscluded their signature for them in a handful of locations (1, 2, 3, 4); despite the note, they appear to be ignoring the note and going ahead with it anyway ([3]). I know it causes strain on the server so figured I'd give you guys a heads-up. The user in question is not exactly disposed towards taking my advice (link). — Mike (talk • contribs) 12:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Changed to {{user}}. --kingboyk 15:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've had a word with him on his talk page. He already knows he shouldn't be doing it (and that last link you provided is asshattery that could get him a short block). Proto///type 12:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Damn, I was hoping what I saw the other day was an isolated incident. This is an oversight within the software which can catch and auto-transclude a signature if it has a backslash, but not a forward slash. Is this something worth submitting a bugfix for? I spoke to CrnaGora about it as well, but he doesn't use Talk pages evry often so I can't tell if he's actually using that page or not [4]. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Small question: At which level of privileges is signature editing enabled? Is it a manual-edit-in-the-database thing? --mboverload@ 02:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Litch

I blocked Litch for personal attacks. He asked for unblock. This was reviewed by Samir and the block confirmed. Unblock was placed immediately. I protected the page, as my experience of Litch is of endless trolling. I'd be grateful for other opinions, and if any admin thinks the page should not be protected, please reverse this. Tyrenius 03:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Samir and Capitalistroadster are on the case, so I think this should be sufficient. Tyrenius 04:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

User WIN

User:WIN has been a scourge of the Talk page for Indo-Aryan migration for months. He tries to start arguments about the validity of the theory with the goal of trying to prove it wrong. Repeated attempts to show him that Wikipedia isn't about proving a theory wrong or right (since that's original research), but rather about mirroring outside scholarship have failed. The admin User:Petros471 blocked him before, but after the block was released WIN is up to the same old thing. Look at the diff here to see a sample WIN addition to the Talk page. He blatantly says that no references are required, and admits that he's trying to argue whether the theory is right or wrong. Petros471 currently has difficulties with the Internet, so he can't take action, so I humbly ask another admin to step up. CRCulver 08:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Need help checking a category

So it appears that at somepoint for a couple of days towards the end of May, Category:Wikipedia indefinitely blocked users with a significant edit history was plugged into the {{indefblockeduser}} template. Problem being, anyone indefblocked and tagged as such ended up in the category whether or not they had a significant edit history. I've started to go through all the pages in the category alphabetically, and most of the names do not belong (I just got through the letter E, with only ten pages of about ninety checked belonging in the cat). I could use any available assistance in digging through and checking the pages/users in the cat. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody review the blocks

I have an opinion that blocks of Irpen (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) and Grafikm_fr (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) by Dmcdevit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are too harsh and not warranted. Please see the discussion on User_talk:Irpen#Edit_warring_2, User_talk:Dmcdevit#Tag-removal_edit_war, User talk:Alex Bakharev#Irpen, etc.. Can somebody review the blocks? abakharev 06:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I second the request to review the blocks but this might take some time, as I believe the blocking admin is off to get some sleep now. --Lysy^talk 07:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Dmc does sleep occasionally. ;-) --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hope it's not hibernation ;-). Apparently nobody cares to take a look at the situation. I'm only glad Irpen takes the block so lightly. --Lysy^talk 19:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Help or second opinion needed

User FrancisTyers (an administrator) moved Individualist anarchism in the United States to Anarchism in the United States without disscusion and dispite oppositon to the move. Since I don't want to edit war by moving the page back and fourth, I ask for advice/help on this matter.

My suggestion is to either move Anarchism in the United States back to its original location and leave FrancisTyers to start a normal "Requested moves" procedure or to restore Individualist anarchism in the United States with its revision history and leave Anarchism in the United States as it is. -- Vision Thing -- 16:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone fix

Hi someone moved the article Pod_Slurping but did a copy and paste move, can an admin fix this please? Mike _{(T C)} 16:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

All history is now at Pod slurping. Jkelly 16:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

User impersonation

I'm not entirely sure as to whether this is the place to post this, but User:Sharpdust signed with my name while adding a license tag and a fair use rationale (which he by the way copied from one of my uploaded images) [5]. This was done after I removed the image from the New Found Glory article for having insufficient copyright information [6]. Is there a special method in dealing with user impersonation? Thanks! --HarryCane 18:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The user in question was sent off for 24 hours. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Continuous IP vandalism

I and other editors have reported this user (24.12.158.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) multiple times for the past half year. He has been blocked on and off again (three times as of now, couple of more times with his sock puppets), but continues vandalism the day block expires. I'm requesting a permanent block, as he seems unimpressed by warnings and temporary blocks. This notice was written today on WP:AIAV, but immediately removed by User:Redvers, saying "24 hasn't edited for 2 days", which is incorrect. He has vandalised pages and will most definitely continue unless he's stopped. --HarryCane 18:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, his last edit was yesterday. If he starts up again, I'll look into it. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody review the blocks

I have an opinion that blocks of Irpen (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) and Grafikm_fr (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) by Dmcdevit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are too harsh and not warranted. Please see the discussion on User_talk:Irpen#Edit_warring_2, User_talk:Dmcdevit#Tag-removal_edit_war, User talk:Alex Bakharev#Irpen, etc.. Can somebody review the blocks? abakharev 06:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I second the request to review the blocks but this might take some time, as I believe the blocking admin is off to get some sleep now. --Lysy^talk 07:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Dmc does sleep occasionally. ;-) --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hope it's not hibernation ;-). Apparently nobody cares to take a look at the situation. I'm only glad Irpen takes the block so lightly. --Lysy^talk 19:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Help or second opinion needed

User FrancisTyers (an administrator) moved Individualist anarchism in the United States to Anarchism in the United States without disscusion and dispite oppositon to the move. Since I don't want to edit war by moving the page back and fourth, I ask for advice/help on this matter.

My suggestion is to either move Anarchism in the United States back to its original location and leave FrancisTyers to start a normal "Requested moves" procedure or to restore Individualist anarchism in the United States with its revision history and leave Anarchism in the United States as it is. -- Vision Thing -- 16:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone fix

Hi someone moved the article Pod_Slurping but did a copy and paste move, can an admin fix this please? Mike _{(T C)} 16:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

All history is now at Pod slurping. Jkelly 16:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Restoring an Edit Count to Some Normalcy

I've had to perform an extremely high frequency of edits on my monobook.js file over the past couple of weeks, pulling out modules, putting them in, trying to track down an error that had been screwing up part of my interface. As a result, I'm a bit concerned that my edit count may have been artificially inflated by the multitude of edits associated with same — and although I don't mind a high edit count, I'd rather not cheat my way into it. :-) (An unusual situation, given that when you're tinkering with monobook.js, you can't really "use preview.)

Am I correct in saying that if I wanted to "resolve" this problem, I could locally save a copy of the file the way it currently is, and then tag it with a {{db-owner}}, meaning that once the file was zapped, the edits I've made to that file wouldn't count? (Yes, I know that the count would show in User space anyway on VoA's breakdown, but still.) — Mike (talk • contribs) 18:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. Nobody uses edit count for much of anything. --Carnildo 21:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, but I hope to someday file a second RfA (not anytime right away, but perhaps in the fall or winter) ... and it's definitely used by many people in that particular forum as a metric. — Mike (talk • contribs) 21:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of by Kungfundam, thanks! — Mike (talk • contribs) 21:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

User impersonation

I'm not entirely sure as to whether this is the place to post this, but User:Sharpdust signed with my name while adding a license tag and a fair use rationale (which he by the way copied from one of my uploaded images) [7]. This was done after I removed the image from the New Found Glory article for having insufficient copyright information [8]. Is there a special method in dealing with user impersonation? Thanks! --HarryCane 18:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The user in question was sent off for 24 hours. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Continuous IP vandalism

I and other editors have reported this user (24.12.158.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) multiple times for the past half year. He has been blocked on and off again (three times as of now, couple of more times with his sock puppets), but continues vandalism the day block expires. I'm requesting a permanent block, as he seems unimpressed by warnings and temporary blocks. This notice was written today on WP:AIAV, but immediately removed by User:Redvers, saying "24 hasn't edited for 2 days", which is incorrect. He has vandalised pages and will most definitely continue unless he's stopped. --HarryCane 18:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, his last edit was yesterday. If he starts up again, I'll look into it. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Requested Moves

I am digging through the backlog at Wikipedia:Requested Moves, but I just seem to keep the balance with the new requests. If there is a non-admin (or more than one) who want to assist me with some tasks that non-admins can do? That would be tasks such as fixing double redirects left after a move, doing uncontroversial and unobstructed moves, closing clear no consensus cases as well as clear opposition cases). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

AOL range blocks

There has been recent identical vandalism from 3 AOL ranges (64.12.116.*, 64.12.117.* and 152.163.100.*) consisting of rapid tagging of user pages with the WoW and a different IP address each time. I have blocked the three ranges, for 1 hour, with an "ANON ONLY" /24 range block. Cheers TigerShark 22:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody review the blocks

I have an opinion that blocks of Irpen (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) and Grafikm_fr (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) by Dmcdevit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are too harsh and not warranted. Please see the discussion on User_talk:Irpen#Edit_warring_2, User_talk:Dmcdevit#Tag-removal_edit_war, User talk:Alex Bakharev#Irpen, etc.. Can somebody review the blocks? abakharev 06:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I second the request to review the blocks but this might take some time, as I believe the blocking admin is off to get some sleep now. --Lysy^talk 07:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Dmc does sleep occasionally. ;-) --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hope it's not hibernation ;-). Apparently nobody cares to take a look at the situation. I'm only glad Irpen takes the block so lightly. --Lysy^talk 19:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Help or second opinion needed

User FrancisTyers (an administrator) moved Individualist anarchism in the United States to Anarchism in the United States without disscusion and dispite oppositon to the move. Since I don't want to edit war by moving the page back and fourth, I ask for advice/help on this matter.

My suggestion is to either move Anarchism in the United States back to its original location and leave FrancisTyers to start a normal "Requested moves" procedure or to restore Individualist anarchism in the United States with its revision history and leave Anarchism in the United States as it is. -- Vision Thing -- 16:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone fix

Hi someone moved the article Pod_Slurping but did a copy and paste move, can an admin fix this please? Mike _{(T C)} 16:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

All history is now at Pod slurping. Jkelly 16:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Restoring an Edit Count to Some Normalcy

I've had to perform an extremely high frequency of edits on my monobook.js file over the past couple of weeks, pulling out modules, putting them in, trying to track down an error that had been screwing up part of my interface. As a result, I'm a bit concerned that my edit count may have been artificially inflated by the multitude of edits associated with same — and although I don't mind a high edit count, I'd rather not cheat my way into it. :-) (An unusual situation, given that when you're tinkering with monobook.js, you can't really "use preview.)

Am I correct in saying that if I wanted to "resolve" this problem, I could locally save a copy of the file the way it currently is, and then tag it with a {{db-owner}}, meaning that once the file was zapped, the edits I've made to that file wouldn't count? (Yes, I know that the count would show in User space anyway on VoA's breakdown, but still.) — Mike (talk • contribs) 18:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. Nobody uses edit count for much of anything. --Carnildo 21:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, but I hope to someday file a second RfA (not anytime right away, but perhaps in the fall or winter) ... and it's definitely used by many people in that particular forum as a metric. — Mike (talk • contribs) 21:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of by Kungfundam, thanks! — Mike (talk • contribs) 21:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

User impersonation

I'm not entirely sure as to whether this is the place to post this, but User:Sharpdust signed with my name while adding a license tag and a fair use rationale (which he by the way copied from one of my uploaded images) [9]. This was done after I removed the image from the New Found Glory article for having insufficient copyright information [10]. Is there a special method in dealing with user impersonation? Thanks! --HarryCane 18:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The user in question was sent off for 24 hours. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Continuous IP vandalism

I and other editors have reported this user (24.12.158.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) multiple times for the past half year. He has been blocked on and off again (three times as of now, couple of more times with his sock puppets), but continues vandalism the day block expires. I'm requesting a permanent block, as he seems unimpressed by warnings and temporary blocks. This notice was written today on WP:AIAV, but immediately removed by User:Redvers, saying "24 hasn't edited for 2 days", which is incorrect. He has vandalised pages and will most definitely continue unless he's stopped. --HarryCane 18:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, his last edit was yesterday. If he starts up again, I'll look into it. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Requested Moves

I am digging through the backlog at Wikipedia:Requested Moves, but I just seem to keep the balance with the new requests. If there is a non-admin (or more than one) who want to assist me with some tasks that non-admins can do? That would be tasks such as fixing double redirects left after a move, doing uncontroversial and unobstructed moves, closing clear no consensus cases as well as clear opposition cases). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

AOL range blocks

There has been recent identical vandalism from 3 AOL ranges (64.12.116.*, 64.12.117.* and 152.163.100.*) consisting of rapid tagging of user pages with the WoW and a different IP address each time. I have blocked the three ranges, for 1 hour, with an "ANON ONLY" /24 range block. Cheers TigerShark 22:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject notices

Back in the day I remember there being quite a fuss made when WikiProject CSB covered talk pages with wikiproject notices. This is happening more and more with current projects, is there actaully any guidelines to say which talk pages projects should and shouldn't tag - or was the response to CSB back in 2004 exceptional?--Peta 03:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The only guideline as far as I know is Wikipedia:WikiProject/Best practices#How to attract contributors (Advertise!), but it does not say which talk pages should and shouldn't be tagged. Of course, it did not stop someone from creating Wikipedia:Avoid using WikiProject talk page templates (see the discussion when is was initially a policy proposal). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I "resurrect"

Hello! Appearently, I have died in a car accident and my account got stolen (I tried to explain it at User:HRE). User:Gurch suggested to me that it would be a good thing to note here... --HRE 16:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see that the news of your demise was greatly exaggerated. Syrthiss 17:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As I understand that you meant only good will/joke, I must incline that I'm insulted by that. This gave me a lot of trouble. --HRE 00:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I too, must incline, at a 45 degree angle, so that small animals can climb up me to reach a higher position. The wonders of simple machines. Deco 00:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What animals are those? I've found that most small animals, up to and including cats, are perfectly capable of climbing up a human standing in vertical position. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand... --HRE 08:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe a goat would be a good example. --Lysy^talk 08:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

HRE, I think Deco is having a joke at your expense on account of your English. You said "I must incline...". But "incline" means to raise something at an angle, like a ramp. I guess one use of inclined ramps is to allow animals to climb to elevated positions. A series of irrelevant noise followed about ramps and animals. Presumably you meant to say "I must confess..." or "I must admit..." or something similar. I think perhaps having a joke at your expense was in poor taste under the circumstances, especially considering that you'd just registered your offense at the first whimsical reply. -lethe ^{talk +} 10:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am certainly not having a joke at anyone's expense. Maybe I just don't understand the situation. Surely he was joking when he said he died in a car accident and his account was stolen? I thought his response about being insulted was also a joke. Is this a serious thread? Deco 17:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Check his user page. Apparently his account was indeed stolen, and the person who stole it used it to indicate (falsely, as you may have surmised) that he had passed away. As you can imagine, this has caused him a considerable amount of trouble. --Aquillion 20:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case I apologise - I didn't look at his user page. Sorry. Deco 08:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

HRE - You can feel insulted or not. My whimsical reply was continuing the tone of your post - "Apparently I have died of a car accident" and I "resurrect". Syrthiss 12:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Phantom images?

Is this a bug? Feature?

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Abcsports98.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bokken.jpg. Neither one shows up if you just type the image name into go/search ... but if you click on the URL, you will see a page with a redlinked "Image" tab. The former was deleted recently at IFD. The latter is very old. What in the world are these pages? BigDT 23:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ditto for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jammin80.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ayaan_hirsi_ali_parliament.jpg, both also deleted at IFD BigDT 23:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

At a guess I'd say User:Howcheng is useing the classic skin which may cause problems.Geni 00:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think something weird really is going on with Image:Bokken.jpg which renders for me, but the software doesn't recognise that there is a file there. It is not a mirror from Commons, either. Jkelly 01:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the others, but the uploader of Bokken.jpg is listed as "(Automated conversion)", which as far as I know means this is an old image dating from pre-MediaWiki days. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged the Bokken image as {{GFDL-presumed}}, so it now has a description page and should show up as a bluelink. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like the image files are there but there is no description page. The problem might be that Howcheng might not be deleting them correctly? I think you are supposed to "Delete all revisions of this file", not delete the image description page. --Fastfission 01:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What I could suggest is just upload a blank image using the same file name and delete the image correctly. If that does not work, I am not sure what will. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe only the image descriptions were deleted, the images themslfes were not. Restored and deleted the right way (I left Bokken untouched, as it seems to have a valid copyright tag) abakharev 08:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Footemps

Footemps (talk · contribs) created the page Head-fi which was speedily deleted due to lack of notabiliy, and afterwards proceeded to recreate it and has stated on its talk page that he saves it outside of Wikipedia after every edit with the intent of recreating it if it is deleted again.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 02:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The article wasn't an obvious speedy candidate. I've warned him, but I don't feel it's necessary to take further action unless he continues to recreate after the AfD closes. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

User-undeletion of Wikism

I would like to move the deleted Wikism to Meta. Could someone either do a direct transwiki or move it to a user subpage so that I can do it? _SeahenNeonMerlin 05:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restored and moved to User:NeonMerlin\Wikism abakharev 08:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Unemployed Vandal (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This user has apparantly misused {{unblock}} to (slanderously) attack Kungfuadam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). What do you think? Myrtone:-(

• Protected his userpage abakharev 08:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

We need to scour the Image namespace

At User:ESkog/ImageSurvey, I summarize the results of a 100-image spin through the namespace. I found that roughly 41% of our images are fair use, and of those, about 93% do not meet the requirements that a rationale and source be provided. More administrators need to be checking on image copyrights and trying to keep the namespace clean. If you don't feel comfortable with copyright issues, there are quite a few resources on Wikipedia to explain our policies - get informed and get involved. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And anybody who is not an admin but feels qualified to make these judgments should feel free to tag the images for deletion or list them here. There's nothing stopping folks from bagging the trash and leaving it outside the janitor's office :-) Just zis Guy you know? 09:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

41% of images as fair use is a lot lot higher than most other estimates, which tend to give the figure as less than 10%. Granted that many free use images are now on commons, so the proportion of fair use (which are kept on English Wikipedia) will automatically rise. Physchim62 (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

41% is reasonably consistent with the check of 1800 recent uploads I did back in March: I found just over 50% of new uploads had a fair-use variant license tag. Even if it was only 10% a year ago, the flood of new image uploads would be enough to raise it to 40% today. --Carnildo 18:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a Random article function for images.Geni 18:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Special:Random/Image. Prodego ^talk 18:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

well my servey of 32 images found 46 percent fair use and one unlabled.Geni 18:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Alot of fair use images are being uploaded now and that isn't good in my opinion Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Seven percent meeting the bare minimum of compliance with policy is higher than I expected, but then I spend most of my time looking at the ones that don't. Our sorting and warning about deletion projects could certainly use more involvement, and don't involve admin actions in any way. Jkelly 18:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use isn't the only problem though. I know User:Kiwidough is lieing in him image uploads but since he isn't responding to comments on his talk page there isn't much I can do without going through WP:PUI which is time consumeing.Geni 20:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

With image undeletion, there's no need for PUI to take two weeks for the obvious cases. That still wouldn't change the fact that it takes longer to go through the steps to get an imagevio deleted than it does to upload it. Jkelly 20:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Statistics:

Type	Count
Category:Free images	853215
Category:Fair use images	374304
All images	1376546

N.B. these numbers have many caveats, more information at User:Kotepho/reports/Images by copyright status statistics. I haven't really looked into the numbers much, but I would say that the number of free images is overinflated more than fair use.

Image: is a huge mess, and with the wait times on PUI and CP (and the frequent backlogs on orfu and such), it really isn't going to get better anytime soon. I think the worst thing right now we have is {{Coatofarms}} (12680 images) (and other Category:Semi-free images (16205 total)). Kotepho 22:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As a point of information, Wikimedia Commons has 676,218 media files as of this timestamp. Jkelly 23:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the worst things we've got right now are {{promophoto}} (a dumping ground for 82,000 "I found it on a website somewhere so it's got to be promotional" images), {{magazinecover}} (100,000 "this person appeared on this magazine cover so it's fair use" images), and {{GFDL}} (328,000 mixed genuine GFDL licenses and "the project is GFDL so I'd better stick that tag on the image" cases). {{PD-ineligible}} and {{No rights reserved}} are also pretty bad. --Carnildo 07:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that the Coats of Arms are the easier problem to solve. Sort them into ones in which the design is public domain and ones in which it is not. All of the ones that have PD designs can be drawn by Wikipedians and thereby be as maximally freely-reusable within the constraints that local governments put upon their use. People don't upload unfree Coats of Arms when there is a free one available. That's not true for magazine covers and other photographs of people. Jkelly 17:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that the magazine covers are the easier problem to solve: shoot 'em all and let DRV sort it out. :-) --Carnildo 01:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

List of commercial seduction teachers

I deleted this although it probably wasn't a cadnidate for speedy deletion. Posting this here for review. - brenneman ^{L} 12:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. What would have been wrong with AfD? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

agreed. brennnemann is clearly abusing his admin powers. he deleted a ton of articles without afd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.225.167.24 (talk • contribs) .

Yeah, he's so abusive he even had the audacity to post his actions on the Administrators' noticeboard for peer review. *gasp* --mboverload@ 14:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What exactly did the "commercial seduction teachers" list have? I'm envisioning my hot highschool english teacher in 3...2...1... --mboverload@ 14:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

exactly, by protecting it instead of afd, he makes it so people cant see the previous page he purports to be fit for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.225.167.24 (talk • contribs) .

To save anyone the trouble of combing through my log:

1. 12:28, 9 July 2006 Aaron Brenneman (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Commercial Seduction Teachers" (redirect to deleted page)
2. 12:19, 9 July 2006 Aaron Brenneman (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "List of commercial seduction teachers" (spam)
3. 12:13, 9 July 2006 Aaron Brenneman (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Englandlair" (does not assert notability serves mostly to support external link)
4. 11:45, 9 July 2006 Aaron Brenneman (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Pickup Artist" (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pickup artist)
5. 11:43, 9 July 2006 Aaron Brenneman (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Talk:EnglandLair" (talk page of deleted article)
6. 11:43, 9 July 2006 Aaron Brenneman (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "EnglandLair" (group with no indications of notability, also served mostly to support external link)

The only one that was even a stretch was the "List of..." which I posted here. I didn't AfD it because I was already cranky and tired and it was an obvious delete, failing the spirit of the law if not the letter. There in fact would have been nothing wrong with sending it to AfD, and I promise to be more circumspect in the future. I also should link to the criterion for speedy deletion as opposed to simply naming it, I see now. I'll take it to DRv then. - brenneman ^{L} 14:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

re Pickup Artist that discussion was from LAST YEAR. the new article is not necessarily the same as the old one. this is the SAME situation as Seduction Community where a new article was written to satisify detractors. the same process should hold for Pickup Artist

• The article as deleted was a steaming pile of poo, and frankly the entire thing only existed for a few vain and shallow people to engage in self-aggrandisement, so deletion was the best solution all round. Just zis Guy you know? 20:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm impressed. You're obviously working hard with the best motivations with the project in mind. There are judgement calls. You had the self-awareness and integrity to question one of your own and bring it here. Keep up the good work. Tyrenius 22:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This problem continues

Ste4k has now tried to stop using her talk page entirely, saying she will ignore and delete messages left there. She has also been deleting my comments there as "personal attacks". For someone who quotes so much policy, she still doesn't understand the part that says "your user talk page has the important function of allowing other editors to communicate with you. People will get upset if they cannot use it for that purpose." --Nscheffey^(T/C) 21:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

marriage.about.com

This about.com microsite is linked in a few hundred articles - is it actually a reliable source or are we being used to promote someone's pet project? Just zis Guy you know? 12:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What is a microsite? about.com has Alexa rank of 72. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-13 03:32Z

A subdomain. About.com has all kinds of content maintained by different folks. Just zis Guy you know? 22:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

WAM!

I go to look at a page history, and then all of a sudden.. WAM!

All versions of this article are listed here in reverse-chronological order. To view a specific version, click a date. To compare an old version with the current version, click cur. To compare a version with its predecessor, click last. Minor edits are denoted as m. For more help, see Help:Page history.

Talking up half the page, can whoever did that put it back the way it used to be?--64.12.116.200 17:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This is being discussed here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#History_Tab_usability. Keep further discussions there, please. Shanes 18:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been blocked for no reason...

I think it’s due to an IP address problem.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.200 (talk • contribs)

No, you aren’t, because you were able to post here. Happy editing. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This was posted by an AOL user it seems, which means either one of those floating AOL range blocks that have become so popular in the last few days, or autoblock collateral--64.12.116.200 17:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The side effect of long range blocks on AOL is that it forces the vandals to register user names if they want to vandalize anything, which of course leads to more and frequent autoblocks--64.12.116.200 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This might be a good way to test the new system, if it works, it means that a 1 second block across all AOL ranges might actually work to clear autoblocks, and if it still doesn't work, nothing gained, nothing lost--64.12.116.200 17:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The range block is supposed to override the autoblock, I thought. Thatcher131 02:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the point, a 1 second range block would clear most if not all autoblocks on a given range (assuming it works the way it's supposed to, which it probably doesn't)--152.163.100.200 02:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Under the new system, a one-second range block will block the range for one second. No more, no less. If it's an anon-only block, then for one second, registered users from the autoblocked IP will be able to edit. --Carnildo 03:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

um, hello, what just happend?

repeated vandalism from this range, sorry; please log in if you wish to edit - AO

Account creation from this IP address (152.163.*.*) has been blocked. This is probably due to persistent vandalism from your school or Internet service provider.

What was that all about?--172.149.233.183 05:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• must be restricting account creation--AOL user 06:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Protected, deleted pages

There is a discussion at Template talk:Deletedpage#How temporary is this? about deleted, protected pages that should not remain protected after several months, with no reason to think they will be recreated, and whether there should be some automated system or guideline for getting rid of them. —Centrx→talk • 04:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No idea how to work backwards to solve the existing instances without running a bot over the categories, but if the {{deletedpage}} template was dated like {{prod}}, it might help. -- nae'blis _(talk) 04:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is no reason to think they will be recreated is there in harm in having them there? --pgk^(talk) 17:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There is reason to believe that they could be recreated as legitimate encyclopedia articles. I provided one example, Paris Flood, and there are undoubtedly others like that. Less obvious are articles about persons, which is one of the common uses for protecting a deleted page. There are always many people with the same name, some of whom could warrant an article, or the original person could become notable. There are more than a thousand protected-deleted pages, and the default on Wikipedia must be for it to be editable, not protected. If there is no reason to think that an article will be wrongly recreated, then it should be unprotected. Even if there is some minor reason to think that it will be wrongly recreated, it should be unprotected for the same principle by which we don't just protect every page that has more than average vandalism. —Centrx→talk • 06:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Another important point is that we want to avoid metadata clutter in the article space. For one thing it uselessly shows up in search results. Haukur 08:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

please investigate vandal administrator KillerChihuahua

The following pertinent and highly researched links keep getting removed by birdmessenger. I have been blocked a few times by a rougue administrator that vandalizes by the alias: KillerChihuahua

• List of Catholic Prayers
• Prayer in Judaism
• Bahá'í prayers - a list of prayers from the Bahá'í faith.
• Sacred Space a daily prayer site by the Irish Jesuits, using the Ignatian tradition, a branch of Catholic spirituality dating from the sixteenth century
• Live Prayer Network - The largest prayer system on the net, in minutes add live prayer to your site
• Prayer Software - Get prayer, prayer for others and have it sent to any mobile device
• Live Prayer with Bill Keller Live Prayer with Bill Keller

Someone please investigate KillerChihuahua's history in reference to the prayer page.Spicynugget 18:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

US Military Bases

The unblock list has received an e-mail from a US serviceman. It claims that editing from that base is banned because of the actions of one particular user. Are military bases s special cases like schools or AOL users?Capitalistroadster 19:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Luis Jiménez (sculptor) needs help

The article about Luis Jiménez (sculptor) really should be Luis Jiménez and then one of those pages that allows the seeker to choose between the sculptor and the footballer. Currently googling Luis Jiménez to find the sculptor [who is probably (opinion) getting more searches than the footballer] does not lead one to wikipedia. Help. please. Carptrash 18:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can't be responsible for Google, but Luis Jiménez is and should be a disambiguation page. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

216.143.138.153 (talk · contribs) troll at large

FYI. Phr (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Impending edit war at Republika Srpska

I am going on vacation and will not be able to monitor this page. I had it protected and it clearly needs some effort to deal with some obvious edit warring. It's unprotected right now, but heads up, if some admins want to go take a look it would probably be a good idea. Thanks. Wikibofh_(talk) 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Wipfeln

[11] User talk:Wipfeln [12] [13] I smell trouble. WAS 4.250 23:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

PoolGuy again

User:NavyBlueAnkletMarionette. Some people never learn do they.... Raven4x4x 01:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

userpage copy

It appears that User:Pido1337 has dropped a slightly older copy of my userpage into his, subsitituting his name for mine. Is there any problem with my removing that? Joyous! | Talk 17:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why Pido1337 shouldn't simply be blocked. No useful contributions; he started with penis vandalism, and now this. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Your userpage is released under the GFDL. As long as he complies by those terms (through attribution), there's absolutely nothing you can do to get him to stop "ripping off" your userpage. Hell, I do believe I copied my talk page from someone else awhile ago ... I no longer remember who, though it is somewhere in my talk page history. --Cyde↔Weys 17:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but IMHO copying the barnstars and the contrib list is at best uncool. Just my 2 cents. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about my layout being copied. If someone feels that the design of the page works for them, then more power, and all that. I am concerned that he's copied the "I'm an administrator" note. And I'm missing any attribution from the article history, or elsewhere. Joyous! | Talk 18:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Copying userpages is not really all that big a deal, I copied my first real design from Cool Cat. After all imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I did remove the reference to being an admin however, and left a note. Prodego ^talk 19:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't see attribution anywhere, and apart from the barnstars and contributions he also copied some lyrics by Yusuf Islam, which are most certainly not GFDL, under the heading "Some of my works". There's also what I assumes to be the US constitution <edit> and the lyrics to The Battle Hymn of the Republic</edit>, but presumably both those are public domain. I removed the barnstars, the contributions list and the copyvio lyrics, but as far as I can see the whole thing is technically a copyvio. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not by the editor, as the editor doesn't own the page anyway. Copied user pages have come up before and been OK'd. Maybe strictly speaking for GFDL purposes the edit history of the page might need to be copied across as well. Tyrenius 04:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

thecelebritycafe.com

I came across this website when doing some cleanup; it's linked from several Wiki pages and does contain some original content (such as an interview with Oz Garcia) but the site is as advert-laden as any I've ever seen. I'm tempted to go through each one and keep or delete based on relevance and original content. Thoughts? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 12:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me; it's what should be done with any website, really. That link is currently used on 23 pages; anyone interested can find a full list here. Essjay (Talk) 16:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, 14 links remain, and each appears to be an original interview specific to the site. The rest have been replaced with a legitimate news site link or, where appropriate, nuked altogether. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know about that feature. Thanks, Essjay. -- Kjkolb 03:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Privacy policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page was previously requestd for page protection but the request was not properly fullfiled or denied. Myrtone

As the article has only been vandalised 13 times in the past year (albeit 6 times in the last two weeks), I don't think it necessarily needs page protection. Proto::type 14:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just semi-protected it for now, but will remove within a few hours. Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. It was I who listed it for semi-protection. A few hours protection will make absolutely no difference, you might as well unblock it now. The problem is with a proxy spammer over several weeks. The article is low-traffic, with few regular editors, and all the edits within the last month have been the spam, or (mainly my) reverts. I was hoping protection would serve to foil the spammer's plans, but it might as well serve as a proxy honeytrap for now. Please add it to your watchlist. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the spammers are all beleived to be open proxys or Zombie computers and have been forever blocked. Myrtone

Indeed a different one each time. Just like in the films it doesn't matter how many you kill, they just keep coming. :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Wikipedia is fucking shite

isnt that name a policy violation?Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me petition 03:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Already blocked. Thanks Naconkantari 03:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling that wasn't a question? hehe --mboverload@ 04:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Actor

We need some help with the actor infobox template Template:Infobox actor. We need the image field fixed so you can simple put "example.jpg" in the field and it will image tag it and resize- I'd say 200px seems to be the norm for infoboxes. Once that's done, we'd love a bot to fix all the exiting ones, where users have been using [[Image:Example.jpg|200px]] inside the field, as the fix would cause duplicate pictures. Thanks a lot, I think it's an important infobox that just needs some professional TLC, as it will be useful on hundreds of wiki entries. --TheTruthiness 06:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User:PIO blocked on it.wiki

Hi, I saw you also had some similar troubles with this user, so better to let you know that this user has been blocked for one year in it.wiki for personal attacks and verified use of sockpuppets ([14], [15], [16], [17]) enforcing a political agenda. We removed some malicious comments on his userpage which could eventually lead to legal troubles. He escaped the accusation of legal threats only because expressed in a wrong form. He might also be proposed for definitive ban, we are at an early stage of discussion and we are still ckecking his edits. Greetings, Sn.txt --151.44.43.149 12:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Tyrenius

User:Tyrenius is using his new-found admin powers to edit my talk page and delete a relevant link that has been approved/endorsed by other more experienced admins, and is threatening to use his new powers to block me if I do not subject myself to his censorship. - Chadbryant 03:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

As Chadbryant is effectively claiming he has a community consensus for his viewpoint, I am leaving his page as it is, so we can see what the community consensus is. He has posted a link (the link can be found here) to what he claims is the real identity of another editor. It is obviously forbidden to post personal details of another user, and a link violates the spirit of this, even if the letter might be deemed to have been observed. Chadbryant claims this user is a vandal who has harrassed him and admins have therefore approved this link. There are procedures for dealing with vandals, and this is not one of them. Even if all that Chadbryant claims is true, it is still unacceptable, and furthermore leaves the door wide open for this "loophole" to be completely misused. Tyrenius 04:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This may be one stepped removed from actually posting the content of the link on Wikipedia but that argument is sophistry and it may be that this incident invites a clarification of the policy section posted above—something to the effect of: "Note that edits which have the effect of releasing personal information, such as posting a link to an external source where personal information is contained, with the intent of disseminating that information, will be treated the same as if the content was directly posted on Wikipedia." Though it should be clear by context, I endorse Tyrenius' actions, and would be interested in seeing substantiation that the "link...has been approved/endorsed by other more experienced admins."--Fuhghettaboutit 04:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that the link should be removed, as well. In my opinion, personal information should only be released when necessary to prevent harm, such as serious vandalism. The intent of the page linked to appears to be to embarrass the subject. There are enough admins that you can find a couple who will endorse almost any position (although not the same admins for every issue), but I doubt that there is a consensus among them that the link is fine. -- Kjkolb 04:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The link should be removed. A user talk page link to a webpage claiming to expose the identity of any other editor, and defaming the individual in question (dink or not, abusive sockpuppet master or not) is inappropriate -- Samir धर्म 10:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this link. See user talk page. Tyrenius 16:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. There is plenty of precedent from ArbCom re revealing personal details, it's something which the project takes seriously. Just zis Guy you know? 19:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking up the discription of a Image moved to the commons

Hi! I found this image on the commons, which hasn't a proper source discription. It only states the English Wikipedia as a source, but since the image is deleted here, this is not enough. Could an administrator please look up the deleted discription page of that image an tell me, if there is the real source given? Thank you? -- iGEL (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

03:09, 14 August 2005 . . Wikiman86 (Talk | contribs | block) 1,489×1,164 (267,709 bytes)
(Hapkido students practice throwing and locks in a dojang. {PD}) 

-- Drini 15:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Original descriptive text: Hapkido students practice throwing and locks in a dojang. {{PD}}

Someone later changed that to PD-US, but same difference. No source or anything given, so I wouldn't trust the claim of PD much... Shimgray | talk | 19:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User uploading a lot of images without tags

User:Fame has uploaded numerous images without copyright tags in the last month+ (about a month and a week or two). Since June 8, the user has received 18 different notices about them from OrphanBot. Some of the images have been tagged by other users, but I don't think I've seen the user go back and correct the tags on his or her own. What's the best way to handle something like this? Metros232 16:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I went through all his uploads and tagged for orphans and nsd's so most of them are tagged now. I'll leave a message on his talk page about uploading Images without tags. Best way to handle it is to talk to them. — The King of Kings 17:07 July 15 '06

I am begging an admininstrator for help.

I am begging an administrator to give me a little help. I seem to be under attack. I believe a lot of false accusations have been leveled against me. I am ready to leave the Wikipedia project. I feel as if I have entered a vicious insane asylum. Please email me at MichaelDWolok@aol.com Michael D. Wolok 17:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you apparently have a Request for comment currently ongoing concerning your conduct, you might be better off explaining there - you don't seem to have given your side of the story... -- ChrisO 17:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD closing review

As I feel I might possibly get some heat and questions regarding an AfD I just closed, I figured I'd report it here for community review. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent-Meridian High School. I am not an administator and I was involved with the discussion at this AfD, but I closed it several days early as keep. The article that was nominated is now far removed from the article that exists (it was improved dramatically. The discussion in the AfD has digressed to sarcasm and personal attacks. There is no point in this remaining open for those reasons. So I'm offering this here for review of others. Thanks, Metros232 20:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You didn't remove the tag from the article; by all means be bold, but please also be careful. -- 86.131.218.85 21:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Done with my apologies. Metros232 21:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You state good reasons and the nom was withdrawn as well. I'd recommend still letting something in dispute run for the 5 days. You can put up a note asking for civility. Check out non admins closing. There doesn't seem to have been much heat to date. Tyrenius 16:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue, however, seemed to be that no one was reading the entire discussion, so a civility request would have been easily missed. If people had read the whole discussion, they would have seen her withdrawl of the nomination. They also would have seen that the article had dramatically changed since its nomiation. I don't think the discussion was still in dispute, I think the consensus was not in doubt based on the updates to the article. After the article was changed and updated (around 00:00 13 Jul) 1 delete vote was added, a couple of deletes were changed to keeps, and 13 keeps were added. And yes, I probably shouldn't have closed the discussion since I was involved, but it had barreled into a forum of sarcasm, finger-pointing, and personal attacks that probably wouldn't have been solved with a civility note. And fortunately, aside from one apparent troll, I haven't gotten heat over this. Metros232 17:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the points you have made, and this is doubtless why no one is creating a fuss. However, I suggest in a future similar situation to make all those points in the discussion, particularly drawing attention to NPA and CIVIL. If things are getting particularly nasty, then ask for admin assistance, and abusers will get warned and, if they persist, blocked. However, people on AfD sometimes get carried away and then respond positively once inappropriate behaviour is pointed out. Try putting the civility request in bold, or at the top (which everyone presumably looks at) or repeating it each time there is a problem. Also re. change in article, try inserting a space, then an announcement in bold that the article has been rewritten and earlier comments apply to the initial version. Anyway, you are acting in the interests of the project. Tyrenius 01:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

SUKI(tm) claims

Could someone have a glance at Talk:Suki? There are escalating problems with a collective hoax: edits, notably to Suki and New World Religion, from various IP addresses asserting the existence of a major world religion called SUKI(tm). No reputable published sources have been provided. Prime mover is 64.110.251.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). It's been merely a long-running nuisance until now, but is starting to turn nasty with threats of disruption and retaliation towards specific editors [18]. [19] Tearlach 23:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The above was moved from WP:LTA as it seemed more appopriate for notice here; no comment from me. 68.39.174.238 20:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin help required in moving You (song) to You (Kumi Koda song)

"The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move." (repost, this was removed by Werdnabot. Maybe this request needs to be posted elsewhere or?) Br, Brz7 21:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it needs to be taken to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Joelito (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've redirected You (song) to You (Kumi Koda song) as the content of the two pages was identical. Gwernol 21:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That was not the proper way to do this. The page history now rests at the redirect. I will make the move properly. Joelito (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The move has been performed. Joelito (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Br, Brz7 22:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

AMorrow tries to edit by proxy

Andrew Morrow , who is banned from wikipedia is curently trying to rewrite considerable pieces of wikipedia related articles, including Larry Sanger, History of Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales, but also Barbaro and John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. All pages are now semiprotected, and I have undone the more recent changes, but would appreciate if others would like to go through the last two as there is a lot of stuff going on there.

At a seperate note, he has tried in the last days to edit the Jimmy Wales article by proxy, trying to to use me as his online editor (which misserably failed, as if I am stupid). For several days, I have just let this go, but after the recent flurry of edits at various pages, I fee I can not let this go. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree that we need more eyes on these articles and several more. I'll post the others in a few minutes. --FloNight ^talk 14:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete list of articles that Amorrow is suspected of editing in the last 2 weeks. District of Columbia Civil Contempt Imprisonment Limitation Act, Florence Nibart-Devouard, Wikia, Wikimedia Foundation, Digital Rights Management, Wikipedia:Wikimedia, Wikia, Inc., MediaWiki, David Kelley, Michael Davis the disambiguation page, Wikipedia:List of banned users

Suspected recent sockpuppets of Amorrow. ConeyIsland (talk · contribs) Doublespace (talk · contribs) Double2space (talk · contribs) TechsMechs (talk · contribs) TechsMechs2 (talk · contribs) TechsMechs3 (talk · contribs)

Will add more later. Welcome those familiar with his MO to review for errors. FloNight ^talk 15:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser indexing

Begin Public Service Announcement

For those who don't know, an index of previous public checkuser requests are kept at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case; each case has its own subpage, and all are indexed there. All requests, including those that were denied and/or came up unrelated are included. (Let me be clear: Having your name on that page does not equal being a sockpuppeteer. We include all requests, even those made in bad faith, so there is a permanent archive that a request was made.)

Now, for the public service announcement: The checkuser index is only complete insomuch as we know about requests. If requests are not made, or results are not reported, on RfCU, then they are not recorded there. Often, someone will make a request directly to a checkuser, or will post something here or at RfAr that results in a check, with the results being delivered in the same place. Unfortunately, those often fail to make thier way to RfCU, and as such, aren't indexed.

In the interests of maintaining as complete an index as possible, a report page has now been created for posting such results. Anyone who sees a checkuser result posted somewhere on Wikipedia other than RfCU should copy it to the "reports by non-checkusers" section of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Unsorted results with a diff of the original posting (so we can confirm authenticity). The checkuser clerks will then see that it is indexed.

Thank you for your time and assistance. Essjay (Talk) 15:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

End Public Service Announcement

Really need to look into.

I got a message from 24.192.44.141 which really scared me. I believe that this user is a predater and needs to be blocked immediately. Karrmann 07:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked IP for a month, left an abuse report for investigation Wikipedia:Abuse_reports#24.192.44.141 abakharev 07:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Forgive me if I'm being clueless, but unless 'edsel' is a euphemism for 'penis' or something (and as far as I can see he's referring to the picture of the Ford Edsel car on Karrmann's user page), I don't see how this qualifies as stalking. He didn't say "I know where you live and I'm coming to see you". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I was probably an over-reaction from my side, the user sent me E-mail explaining the situation. He really owns the vintage car and seems to act with the best intentions. I have unblocked him and removed my abuse report abakharev 04:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The best of intentions in asking to meet a fourteen year old boy? A case of AGF gone awry - air on the side of caution, here. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It is irresponsible to ignore a request for protection from a 14 year old who has received an inappropriate message. It is not usual for blatant requests for meetings to to be posted on wikipedia. 24.192.44.141 could see that Karrmann was 14 as it states it on his user page, where the message was also posted, not on the talk page. At the bottom of the message was the request "Please delete after you read this." The user did say, "I know where you live", to be precise: "I live near you (Detroit area)". It is no wonder that Karrmann is frightened. The user who posted this message either has untoward intentions or is incredibly naive. Whichever way round, such a message is inappropriate, and would be interpreted with great suspicion by most people. It would certainly not look good if it got wider publicity (which is not unlikely with wiki watching sites) and could be very damaging for wikipedia. I suggest the block is reinstated and also the abuse report. This has to be taken seriously. The euphemism mention does not help, and, if Karrmann's (understandable) fears that he has been contacted by a predator are true, it is hardly likely that a predator would announce his intentions blatantly. The edit summary for this invitation to meet is "Vandal hunting". It is also the user's only edit. Tyrenius 02:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have copied all of the above to Jimbo Wales talk page. Tyrenius 03:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"Vandal hunting" is the name of the section that he edited. --Chris (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)copied from User talk:Jimbo Wales Tyrenius 05:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to think I'm alone in seeing the concern over this as a rather panicky overreaction. For the record, I'll state that I'm uninvolved in this situation, other than as an observer & commentator. Alex Bakharev has already acted immediately to block the user until the situation could be investigated. After he gathered the facts, he unblocked the user, even before I finished inquiring about the block. The user said nothing other than that they lived in the same metro area (them and about 1 million other people) and that his car, pictured on Karrmann's userpage, was available if Karrman wanted to see it. On that page, Karrman states once that his age is 14, and several times that he drives one car or another. At the least, Karrman's talkpage gave mutiple messages about his age. However, without there having been a specifically inappropriate message, I'm not sure how much the age matters. The comment could be interpreted badly, but I really see this as a classic example of the need to assume good faith not only in article edits.

The discussion of this issue has bounced from WP:AN to WP:AR to Alex Bakharev with a sidetrip into User talk:24.192.44.141. We are building a fear-fueled Chinese wall between adults & youth, both here in the project & in society as a whole. Growing up, I knew nearly every adult in my neighborhood, spent time with some of them, even visited their houses unescorted. I emerged unscarred & unmolested. Karrman & Alex Bakharev both exercised extreme caution in this situation. However, the situation has been considered in several fora, investigated by the blocking admin, and resolved. Where is the remaining issue? And why isn't it an issue of dispute resolution, if there is some dispute with respect to this action, rather than (another) discussion in Jimbo Wales' talk page? --Ssbohio 14:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The first thing Karrmann says on his user page extremely prominently is that he is 14. It is at best a bad lapse of judgement for an adult to contact a 14 year old in this way and to suggest meeting. At the very least he should have asked Karrmann to let his parents know. Instead the user ends the message "Please delete after you read this." It is the first and only edit from that IP address, and the user has not come forward to offer a public explanation to reassure us or Karrmann. Karrmann has obviously been badly frightened by this, and it is a duty of care towards him to show that we are taking this seriously. I don't think this is something that admins were chosen to deal with and it at least needs to be known about at a higher level of the Foundation. This is not building a fear-fuelled wall between adults and youth. That already exists in society when an adult stranger suggests meeting a youth in this way, and also wishing to hide evidence of that suggestion. The fact is that Karrmann is seeking the help of adults he trusts, in order to protect him and make him feel safe over one he doesn't. He is entitled to know that he can do this, and it will be taken seriously, not trivialised as "a rather panicky overreaction". I'm not panicking: I am exercising caution and due diligence. Tyrenius 01:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that the IP user is the same as Loungelistener (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) who uploaded the edsel. (→Netscott) 01:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Another thing where does Karrmann (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) legally drive his vehicle(s) if he's 14? (→Netscott) 01:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

From Karrmann user page: "Cars I've owned - Ok, well, technically, they are my parents' cars, but you get the point." On private property I hope. Tyrenius 02:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There is seriously something untoward here. No one with good intentions would instruct you to delete a message afterwards like that. They might suggest you can delete it if you so choose, but not impress its neeed for deletion. It certainly doesn't sit well with me, though a block at this point might be pointless. With dynamic IPs they could have had 3 different IPs since then. I think the page was semi-protected, I'd recommend continuing that for now.--Crossmr 01:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Jerry Jones and CongressRecords

I have been exchanging emails with Jerry Jones. He wants to return to editing. I think he has done a pretty good job of identifying the problems that got him banned. It might be that he won't work out, but I will monitor him closely and coach him a bit. The original problems are at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive103#Jerry_Jones.2FJJstroker. He wants Jerry Jones and CongressRecords restored and the rest of his sockpuppets deleted. Fred Bauder 01:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is guaranteed to end in tears and would say he's caused too much trouble to return, but if you want to monitor him etc., I wouldn't stand in your way, provided that any return to previous behaviour is dealt with promptly. Tyrenius 09:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think I can do that. One thing I don't want to do is go through a rehash of all of his past offenses. I'm afraid that will be a lure both for him and others. Maybe I'll advise trying a new name. Fred Bauder 13:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to lifting the community ban of Jerry Jones/JJstroker/CongressRecords/etc. This user was legitimately blocked due to serious, repeated violations of core Wikipedia policies. Most seriously, he plagiarized material over and over again, and then refused to acknowledge the behavior when confronted with the evidence. Similarly, his image uploads have been problematic, as shown by the numerous warnings on his talk pages. Furthermore, he has been a very one-sided POV pusher, even posting on Stormfront.org asking how to justify his edits here. Lastly, he has used a string of sockpuppets to evade his ban. Bauder has given no particular reason to unblock him. If he can share in detail this user's admission of guilt and promises to refrain from all of these inappropriate behaviors then it might be different. But a sneaky, plagiarizing, neo-nazi editor is not someone for whom we should be bending our rules. (Since when do we "delete" accounts?) -Will Beback 03:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If it is necessary to bend rules I won't unblock him. He seems willing to follow our rules at this point. I have no interest in his point of view. Fred Bauder 03:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What has he said to you to convince you to overturn his ban? Has he admitted to breaking the rules in the past? If he doesn't admit to making past errors then his promise to not make future errors is worthless. -Will Beback 03:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe we should assume very cautious good faith. If this user really has reformed, he will have to prove it, and, furthermore, prove it for a long time. There should also be a strict understanding that any blatant violations will cause this user to revert immediately to current status. Editing should also be strictly limited initially, probably by exclusion from certain articles and/or limits on number of edits per day, so they can be properly monitored. Tyrenius 04:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I am going to unblock Jerry Jones so he can join the conversation here. He is expected to edit only in this dialog, not on any other page. That way he can be questioned regarding his admissions about past activities. He has admitted errors in the past. Fred Bauder 11:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain why he needs two accounts? -Will Beback 18:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not 100 percent certain about the correspondence between the committee and Mr. Bauder, but if there are any remaining questions I will be more then happy to address them openly and honestly. If it is possible I would like to be integrated back into the wikipedia community. I promise to comply with any conditions set upon me. I can honestly say that I have seen the errors of my ways and it is my personal guarantee that if allowed back to the project that I will refrain from any behavior that can be deemed inappropriate. I can objectively see how some of my past behavior constituted a critical lapse of judgment on my part and for that I apologize. I just want to put all of these issues behind us and work together to build a quality encyclopedia.

Thank you all for your time.

Jerry Jones 21:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: As for the two accounts I didn't know the procedure. I believed that administrators needed to unblock the Jerry Jones account to keep it on file just incase they needed it as a reference for some reason. You are free to delete them and in fact I encourage you to delete all of the sockpuppet accounts. I apologize for creating them as I know it was against wikipedia policy and for that I am dearly sorry. Jerry Jones 22:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Jerry, thanks for having that attitude. In our prior conversations you denied making any errors, so I'm not sure what it is that you have now seen. Can you please list your previous errors? If you don't recognize your previous errors then it will be impossible for you to avoid them in the future. Also, we need to account for all of your other usernames? There's a partial list at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jerry Jones. What others are there? -Will Beback 22:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I did this as an administrator, not as an arbitrator. This is an administrative talk page. I just suggested your new name be known to the arbitrators since they are somewhat close-mouthed. But please answer Will's question. Fred Bauder 00:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

New name? We haven't yet finished discussing whether this user should be unblocked. Per Bauder's terms, he is only allowed make edits to this thread. -Will Beback 00:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I was definitely wrong when I made controversial edits without seeking a consensus first on the discussion pages. I should have definitely asked for a third opinion if I entered an edit war as wikipedia policy instructs people to do. I think this really applies to my edits concerning use of the term racist and far right. Reviewing these edits now I can certainly understand how I presented a questionable image of someone with an agenda. The reason I didn’t remove use of the term “far left” for articles was because it simply wasn’t necessary and the term is not nearly used to the same extent as far right. I still believe that I am not as bad of a guy as I was made out to be, and I feel my edits can be justified if looked at objectively in the proper context. I believe the biggest mistake that I made was the copyright violation for 1924 immigration act article. At the time I didn’t really understand proper referencing and copyright laws in relation to wikipedia, but as you have brought that to my attention it is hard for believe that I was able to do such a thing. Repeating such mistake to me now is just morally out of the question. I am pleased to say that I have learned how to properly reference material. As for copyright violations with regard to photos, I believe that was a little blown up out of proportion. On my Jerry Jones account I uploaded around 500 photos and the vast majority of them were properly uploaded with the correct copyright tags. But given that copyright laws are sticky things, even the most experienced editor can run into problems and be asked to verify the copyrights of certain photos. Pinkville told me that the time to be 100 percent sure for copyrights is before and not after. I thought about that a lot and I believe that he is right. If there are some photos where I am nearly over 90 percent sure that the image is free use that is not ok I need to be 100 percent sure. So I will not go and add copyright material and if I chose to reference something I will be sure to do it correctly and rewrite the material. I will also not go and remove use of the term “far right” or “racist” especially without seeking a consensus first on the talk page and strictly comply with the decision reached there. But I do not plan to make such edits anymore.

I created this name thesettingsun recently because I didn’t think that I would be allowed back to wikipedia. I was reading an article and I noticed that an image was removed and wanted to help by adding the picture back to the article that had a copyright problem because I knew that the copyright was fine and wanted to help the editor who originally added it. I apologize for creating it but I didn’t intend to use it further I just wanted to help and follow the decision of the committee. I can’t edit in the shadows and I just want to come out if that is ok. If you can monitor me I will be sure to be on my best behavior. I apologize for creating the name.

Thank you for your time.

71.131.192.42 00:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked TheSettingSun pending resolution of this matter. It seems to me that editing with a sock puppet even while asking to be unblocked is not evidence of good faith. Exactly when did you decide that you would start following WP policies - just in the last 18 hours?? You have not answered my question about your other usernames. The copyvio and plagiarism matters are two separate, though overlapping issues. Please explain what error you made at the Immigration Act of 1924, and at Breckinridge Long. Separately, please explain how you know of the copyright status of this photo that you just uploaded? Image:Baarovaax.jpg Did you use the right image tag? You say that the webmaster of a website told you this this picture is fair use. Image:Baarovaax.jpg. Could you please email to me a copy of that statement? [20]. I ask because you have uploaded dozens, maybe hundred, of copyvios under your various account names. I count 67 complaints on User talk:JJstroker, 7 more on User talk:Jerry Jones. Image:ProhibitionClosedSign.jpg - why is it free use? If you are uploading images it is incumbent on you to know the correct copyright status. You have been told this many, many times. Regarding your POV pushing, it extended to articles beyond "far right" or "far left" topics; in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive103#Jerry_Jones.2FJJstroker we discussed your edits regarding Jews, Democrats, and African Americans. We also discussed your disruptions to Wikipedia to illustrate points. What is your response to that discussion? (Recall that you've said you didn't get enough opportunity to respond at the time). -Will Beback 01:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Dipping into your upload log, can you please explain the copyright status of these images: Image:Mug1173.jpg, Image:BobCerv2.jpg, Image:CharlesCoughlinSpeech.jpg, Image:FrederickJelinek2.jpg, Image:Barnett L.jpg, Image:Bakula22.jpg, Image:Gsmith2.jpg, Image:42_Burns.jpg, Image:Winrod22.jpg, Image:Amrally.jpg? -Will Beback 02:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I had discussed creating a new account so he could get a fresh start. I was thinking of disclosing it only to the arbitrators. My thought now is that it should be disclosed to those who are familiar with his past problems. I am disappointed to see him using another account on the 15th of July to edit with. Fred Bauder 03:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Jones neglected to mention that he's also been editing using 71.131.192.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). His POV edits have included removing unflattering information about a major topic of his, Charles Coughlin [21], adding a dubious claim of conditional use to a photo he'd upoladed,[22] and buffing the biography of Goebbel's mistress.[23]. This editors doens't need a fresh start: he keeps coming back to the same topics. -Will Beback 09:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

RisingJapaneseSun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (by checkuser) Fred Bauder 11:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reblocked him, as a community ban. Thank you for your input. Fred Bauder 11:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that is the wisest course of action, as this user's promises of reform seem to be empty. I now see that he has been making improper assertions of "public domain" regarding images he's been uploading to Wikicommons.[24] -Will Beback 21:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Psychomelodic's userpage

I feel his userpage is in violation of WP:UP, can I get a second opinion? — The King of Kings 16:09 July 15 '06

His userpage is violating WP:UP I think. That's my feeling. Do you want to say anything to this user about his userpage? ForestH2 t/c 16:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do feel it violates two points made in WP:UP under "what cannot be on your userpage":

• Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia
• Opinion pieces not related to Wikipedia or other non-encyclopedic material

I think these need to be addressed to him, but I wasn't sure how to without looking like a dick while doing so. I think he should just remove the big bold letters of communism has killed...give it another chance. Everything else can stay if it wants to though. — The King of Kings 16:28 July 15 '06

Yes, maybe you want to remove them or I can. ForestH2 t/c 16:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'll be WP:BOLD. :) — The King of Kings 16:44 July 15 '06

Darn, you Bold without me, thanks for removing it. — The King of Kings 16:48 July 15 '06

Ho hum. Watch his page and if he reverts revert after him. I've also left a message on his talk page. Logging off. ForestH2 t/c 16:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not an offensive content, but a true encyclopedic fact. Get your hands of people's userspaces.  Grue  09:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think shouting in BIG bold letters Communism has only killed 100 million people, lets give it another chance is beyond encyclopedic. — The King of Kings 22:12 July 17 '06

1921 in New Zealand and up to 99 other 19xx in New Zealand a huge mess

Please help fix these articles, most contain untrue, embarrassing, and insensitive content left from the template that was used to create them, in the race to be the millionth page creator. Most of the articles are decades before the content, and most say that a leader of a non-existent political party at the time those articles cover, is a person who in fact is recently deceased. If its not fixed it is likely to become a national scandal in New Zealand, and flow over to wikipedia internationally. I have tried many times to bring this to the wiki community in New Zealand, but only a few pages have been fixed as a token gesture, eg 1925_in_New_Zealand. I have just checked 1935_in_New_Zealand, 1941_in_New_Zealand, 1938_in_New_Zealand, 1921_in_New_Zealand all with erroneos content. A few have been partially cleaned up such as 1927_in_New_Zealand but still have false ontent such as Triple J Hot 100 songs, a radio station that didn't exist until 1970's, ie at least 70 articles, and in fact is Australian, NOT New Zealand radio. I believe intervention at a higher level is called for after several months of relative inactivity on these articles. How does the wiki community allow such outrageous behaviour, and what is the correct process to fix it?moza 16:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I would note that this user has made similar complaints in the past and that the articles are being actively worked on by several people. In the last 30 days there have been approx 850 edits to the articles to improve them. None of these have been made by User:Mozasaur however. See [25] and increase the 500 to a larger number for stats source. - SimonLyall 02:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If it is wrong, and you know it is, or someone else knows it is, presumably you or they lived through these events. simply delete it. I saw a couple of statements on Wikipedia about some event, and rang up a person who I knew was an eye witness to see if it was correct. The person said it wasn't, so I deleted it. Simple. Wallie 15:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

enough banter, the only important thing is to clean up the mess. Its not about editors, its about editing. I created a management page to check on the progress, although the matrix needs a wiki format. New_Zealand_Wiki_cleanup.moza 04:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You should have created that page at your User space, as it is not allowed to have them in the main space. -- ReyBrujo 04:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Make it a Wikiproject and move it to the Wikipedia namespace. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So User:SimonLyall knowingly made a whole bunch of articles full of incorrect information out of a desire to create the 1000000th article. That's deplorable. I don't call that editing in good faith. Simon, you should be pulling all-nighters trying to fix all the errors that you knowingly and wilfully introduced into Wikipedia. Snottygobble 04:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Mroliver83

Could someone please take a look at the contributions of Mroliver83? I don't want to do anything unilaterally, but he looks to me like an unannounced PR flack. As far as I can tell, 100% of his edits promote Seattle's Fifth Avenue Theater. - Jmabel | Talk 18:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it. Warned. -- Infrogmation 01:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Nazism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone requested this page for protection, see WP:RfP, but the request has not been properly fullfilled or denied, what do you think? Myrtone

I'd say no. Not enough vandalism for semi protection or full protection. There are some days with 0 edits and even the worse days only have 4-5 pieces of vandalism. And your idea for blocking the IPs who hit the article alot isn't something we should do with IPs unless we know for certain that they are static. The IPs you listed are either from vastly different ranges or they've only contributed 2-3 edits, so a warning for vandalism is barely warranted much less a block of any sort. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Essays in Wikipedia Namespace or Userfied?

I would like to make a policy inquiry. A fellow editor has, without my consent, moved two personal essays from the Wikipedia namespace to my userspace. I have reverted the move, and asked the editor to, if he wishes the move to proceed, initiate a Miscellany for Deletion discussion, casting his initial starting vote as "userify." This seems to be a course of action supported by WP:MM#Cross-namespace moves.

However, I am wondering if any criteria, policy, or guideline exist as to when an essay belongs in Wikipedia namespace and when it should be userfied. Is this something that just arises out of whatever consensus arises from a Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion process, or are there criteria one can refer to in such a dispute — much as those policies people would refer to when debating a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process? — Mike (talk • contribs) 02:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• As I pointed out on WCityMike's talk page, the Admin noticeboard isn't the forum for adjudicating policy matters. He's likely wanting the Village Pump policy page.--Leflyman^Talk 05:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• • From my response on Leflyman's talk page: "I understand that administrators aren't the arbiters of policy, but as the wikimop and bucket puts them in a position to enforce them every day, my experience is that they're often more familiar with it, and, indeed, being familiar with policy is often an element tested at requests for adminship. The policy village pump might indeed have been a more fruitful place to inquire, however, I agree, but I question how frequently it is visited." — Mike (talk • contribs) 15:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's unlikely to be amenable to a policy anyway, and a policy might well be rejected as instruction creep. The bar to inclusion of WP:essays is quite low and they tend to get deleted only if they openly advocate behaviour which is contrary to policy. I don't think these ones do. It's always best when they attract multiple editors to polish them into something resembling a useful example to cite - I started WP:HOLE and it was Edited Mercilessly [tm] into quite a useful document detailing how, in the end, we can't be expected to realise how interesting, significant and relevant a subject is unless the author makes at least some attempt to tell us; it's not really fair to castigate people for not wanting to keep an article based on evidence which is not presented in the article. The proof here is that I'm not the only one to have cited it in debate. WP:NCR is another bit of nonsense with a serious underlying theme which goes directly to policy. My suggestion, then, would be to fix the essays rather than try to nuke them. WP:NOTPOLICY certainly falls under the umbrella of fair comment, and reminds us that we should always go back to policy not precedent. Just zis Guy you know? 09:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I feel this is a policy discussion that's of note beyond administrator's noticeboard, and thus not appropriate here (and thus should be moved to the Pump). Citing essays, in my view, is a policy run-around. If there's a clarification that needs to be made, then it should be to the appropriate policy/guideline itself, not in a new parallel "unofficial" realm of essay-creep.--Leflyman^Talk 14:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • As I've said in the parallel discussion we're having on our talk pages, I simply don't think your opinion is the view held by the consensus. I think a RfC is probably the best methodology you could use to clarify the policy in question. Essays can be the equivalent of useful "legal briefs," nonbinding interpretations of how Wikipedia policy governs a particular situation. I don't feel what you're suggesting is practical — imagine if our government had to write or refine policy to explicitly state every point proven in a legal brief in court proceedings. It'd be a madhouse. I could see Wikipedia encountering similar problems. — Mike (talk • contribs) 14:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a courtroom, nor (as I noted on your talk page) an experiment in rule making. You may be involved in the legal profession in real life, but please don't inject Wikilawyering into the framework of an online project. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to generate essays about how we think we should build an encyclopedia.--Leflyman^Talk 15:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm making an analogy, comparing the relationship between essays and Wikipedia policies to the relationship between legal briefs and government regulations, so I'm not quite clear where your response is coming from. I'm already familiar with what wikilawyering is, but rereading its definition again on the linked-to page, I see no support in that link for calling such an analogy wikilawyering. Furthermore, the section regarding Wikipedia not being an experiment in rule making seems to address instruction creep, not letting procedural errors invalidate posts, and keeping to the spirit of policies — none of which seem to apply to the discussion at hand, either. — Mike (talk • contribs) 15:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Generally, an essay in the Wikipedia namespace are attempts to express a particular viewpoint within the community, and are open for editing, whereas essays in userspace more clearly belong to a particular user and are generally not edited by other users. So no, there's nothing wrong with it being in the Wikipedia namespace, you put it in your userspace if you don't want it to be edited. You should also consider moving it to Meta unless it specifically relates to the English Wikipedia. --bainer (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Except, that as noted at m:Category:essays, "As of 2006, there is some disagreement about whether new essays, particularly personal essays, should be added to Meta anywhere but in user space."--Leflyman^Talk 14:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed — one editor did indeed add his opinion to that effect that to the article you cite ([26]). — Mike (talk • contribs) 14:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting Problem

An anon user 68.106.55.227 (talk · contribs) seems to be trying to delete a section of BJAODN to remove personal information, does anyone want to try and evaluate its claims? and/or possibly remove these edits from the page history if appropriate? It left me a rather long message to that effect on my talk page with this edit, probably in response to the suggestion I left on user_talk:68.110.110.155 after this user tried to file an AFD on the BJAODN page in question--AOL user 17:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the entire section per WP:DICK. BJAODN is just a joke, most of it not even funny, and all sections that someone objects to should be removed. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Marco Materazzi

Please keep an eye on this page as some anon's and new users (perhaps the same person) are vandalizing and adding attacks and other comments irrelevant to this article. I don't think it would help much or warrant blocking, as the person just gets a new IP, and a lot of it is caused by random people finding this article and thinking its discussion page is for gossiping about the World Cup. —Centrx→talk • 10:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Trying using a semi-protect. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

03:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC) The anon commentator referred to is me. Talk page is for discussing changes. Which is what is being done. I firmly protest the user POV being pushed by both Panairjdde and Centrx above. This is against the guidelines provided, and everyone has a problem with Panairjdde who obviously has a conflict of interest as an Italian. This needs a neutral POV .The dicussion page is civil, and none of it is gossip, but news from various sources. Terming other's comments as gossip on the other hand is more direct than tangential. Please someone do have a look, and tell me what is vandalized here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.141.69.21 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

See [27], [28] for blanking of other users' comments and other vandalism from this particular IP. Other IPs involved, with the same behavior and taunting messages and likely the same person, are 202.141.64.243 [29] and 11:04, 202.141.64.107 [30]. —Centrx→talk • 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Only one user Panairjdde, after he did the same to my decent request for providing Sources and adding an extra Heading. I assure you I havent changed IPs(yet) ,and none of my remarks have been taunting. 05:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)~

I think that the person is new. I note that someone issued a block warning on his page, which is bizarre. The parties involved both wrote to me, and as usual both cases can be argued. Centrix would like to limit the discussions and stick to the topic, and our new friend has a different (wider) definition of what can be discussed. I cannot see any problem with that. It just needs an agreement.

The real problem is a third party threatening to block a new person. This can cause trouble... Wallie 16:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure this could be characterized as a new "user". If indeed he has been at the same IP, he has no article edits and all of his edits are related to Talk:Marco Materazzi, none of which discuss improving the article.[31] —Centrx→talk • 01:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yaihr (talk · contribs)

How should I deal with this user? They're new, but they refuse to respond to my questions on their talkpage, upload unsourced images, write articles of questionable notability (does a special DVD edition of an album deserve an article?) and erase my deletion tags. Someone help!--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

MascotGuy alert

He seems to be at it heavy today. I've added 3 to the long term alerts page we have on him. So be on the lookout. And if you block any of his socks, be sure to list them on the long term alert page. --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Marco Materazzi

Please keep an eye on this page as some anon's and new users (perhaps the same person) are vandalizing and adding attacks and other comments irrelevant to this article. I don't think it would help much or warrant blocking, as the person just gets a new IP, and a lot of it is caused by random people finding this article and thinking its discussion page is for gossiping about the World Cup. —Centrx→talk • 10:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Trying using a semi-protect. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

03:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC) The anon commentator referred to is me. Talk page is for discussing changes. Which is what is being done. I firmly protest the user POV being pushed by both Panairjdde and Centrx above. This is against the guidelines provided, and everyone has a problem with Panairjdde who obviously has a conflict of interest as an Italian. This needs a neutral POV .The dicussion page is civil, and none of it is gossip, but news from various sources. Terming other's comments as gossip on the other hand is more direct than tangential. Please someone do have a look, and tell me what is vandalized here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.141.69.21 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

See [32], [33] for blanking of other users' comments and other vandalism from this particular IP. Other IPs involved, with the same behavior and taunting messages and likely the same person, are 202.141.64.243 [34] and 11:04, 202.141.64.107 [35]. —Centrx→talk • 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Only one user Panairjdde, after he did the same to my decent request for providing Sources and adding an extra Heading. I assure you I havent changed IPs(yet) ,and none of my remarks have been taunting. 05:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)~

I think that the person is new. I note that someone issued a block warning on his page, which is bizarre. The parties involved both wrote to me, and as usual both cases can be argued. Centrix would like to limit the discussions and stick to the topic, and our new friend has a different (wider) definition of what can be discussed. I cannot see any problem with that. It just needs an agreement.

The real problem is a third party threatening to block a new person. This can cause trouble... Wallie 16:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure this could be characterized as a new "user". If indeed he has been at the same IP, he has no article edits and all of his edits are related to Talk:Marco Materazzi, none of which discuss improving the article.[36] —Centrx→talk • 01:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)