Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Netsnipe's 6 Month School Blocks

Netsnipe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just reverted several of my 31 hour blocks of schools and switched them to 6 month blocks. Ordinarily this type of change wouldn't be a problem, but I just took the time to check Netsnipe's block log. Over the past few weeks, he has blocked many school IPs, many with only 3 or 4 edits, for 6 months. These are IPs with little or no prior block history. Check out the following examples:

• 204.129.152.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 3 edits total, blocked 6 months
• 206.110.32.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), >50 edits including vandalism reversion, 2 31 hour blocks, blocked 6 months

* 66.194.72.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), >50 edits including fixing grammar errors, no prior blocks, blocked 6 months _{My mistake, linked the wrong IP alphachimp 17:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)}

You can find many, many more such examples in Netsnipe's blocking log. This matter was discussed in some brevity on my talk page, where I decided to bring it here.

I realize that no consensus exists involving blocking schools. Some administrators believe in only blocking for 15 minutes until the vandalism abates, while others (myself included) increment blocks in a similar fashion as non-shared IPs. This length of block though, seems like a completely unreasonable assumption of bad faith.

That said, I'm willing to start blocking schools for 6 months if the community wants it. Do you? alphachimp 17:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If there has been little or no vandalism at an IP, then 6 months blocks on them are absolutely not appropriate. —Centrx→talk • 17:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, before I start blocking schools for a month or longer, I like to see a history of vandalism from the IP. Chances are these are just kids in the library or classroom who had some spare time and decided to vandalize Wikipedia. Its the ones that come back time and again and continue to vandalize that are a problem. I think blocking a school IP (or any IP) for 6 months after only 3 contribs (2 obvious vandalism and 1 could be interpreted as a "test" edit) is a bit much.↔NMajdan•talk 17:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Centrx and Nmajdan, and with Alphachimp, who is hardly a soft touch with respect to vandals. Newyorkbrad 17:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that duration should be made on a case by case basis and that 6 months for a school IP would be rarely appropriate. I also agree that Netsnipe needs to stop issuing 6 month blocks until we can resolve this. Rklawton 17:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've requested that Netsnipe stop until this can be discussed in detail. alphachimp 17:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Netsnipe would revert your blocks is pretty disturbing. John Reaves (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If Netsnipe "reverted" the blocks in the sense that he replaced the initial block with a longer block, there is nothing per se wrong with that, and it would be the right thing to do if in fact the longer blocks were appropriate for these IPs, which I believe is the sole issue here. It is not uncommon that someone will do a quick vandalism block and then someone else might later find that a longer one is warranted. —Centrx→talk • 17:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have a major issue with other admins undoing my blocks and placing their own, particularly when they leave a message on my talk page (like Netsnipe did). I freely admit that I block a lot of users every day. There definitely are times when I miss some redeeming or damning characteristic of an IP. In this case, like Centrx said, I'm frustrated by the underlying assumption of bad faith. Rather than wheel warring, I'm bringing the issue here. alphachimp 17:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

66.194.72.243 (resnetplp1.seattleu.edu) isn't blocked at all. Are you sure you have the right example there? Anyway, before I issue any schoolblocks, the IP address has to be clearly marked as belonging to a K-12 education institution or district in their WHOIS record or Reverse DNS lookups. Now that we can clearly identify school IPs, apply anon-only blocks and provide a useful blocking reason (i.e. Template:schoolblock) which they see at MediaWiki:Blockedtext, why should we continue accomodate immature kids who continue to conduct drive-by vandalism only because their anonymity and lack of accountability emboldens them to? The vast, vast majority of our vandalism comes from primary and secondary school students. We assume good faith and allow anonymous edit from ISP proxies and DHCP pools because we know that there will always be a mature person somewhere amongst the vandals wishing to contribute to the encyclopedia. However, when it comes to schools, sometimes the vandalism is pooled together into single proxy address which will have a long and extensive edit/block logs and other times spread across a pool of IPs allocated to a school. -- but the aim is the same, to stop kids from workstation-hopping by sending the message that we have zero tolerance for vandalism on Wikipedia. The 24 hour autoblocker just isn't enough when they will return week after week because they know that they can get away with it. With regards to the "wheel warring", what do short blocks stating "Repeated vandalism" and "vandalism" do for WP:AGF if an innocent student happens to come across MediaWiki:Blockedtext? They will not assume good faith at our end and I've seen many an occasion where they post a confused and often angry unblock request on their talk page or email unblock-en-l -- even worse is that in these cases, admins will automatically decline their request to unblock their IP address and tell them to create an account which only wastes their time and/or cause confusion. We can be more helpful in the long run if we politely inform them from the outset that they should get an account in order to differentiate them from the more immature of their classmate. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

My mistake on that IP. I've striken it from my original post. alphachimp 18:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

These are educational institutions and do have useful, mature contributors. While your reasoning applies to an IP that is a long-term source of problems, there is no reason to block an IP for six months when it has one day of vandalism. What you are advocating is a blanket policy of ending anonymous editing from all schools; we have no such policy and we ought not have such a policy. —Centrx→talk • 18:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it's not like we're actively seeking out school IPs to premptively block. They need to be reported to WP:AIV in the first place. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You do claim above that you make sure it is a school IP before you do such a block. While not true hunting, it is hunting within the set of WP:AIV. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Netsnipe has criticised long-term blocks of mine on IP addresses. Anyway, my opinion is that six-month blocks on school IP addresses, provided they are anon-only, are appropriate in cases of repeat vandalism. I believe, for example, that if this is the fifth time that IP address has been blocked, it is appropriate to give it a six month block. Do I believe it appropriate for the very first block on that address? No, probably not. In the end, a great deal of our vandalism comes from school IP addresses and I believe it is reasonable that these people need to create an account in order to edit. Or to do so from outside of their schools. The unblock-en-l mailing list regularly creates accounts for people who don't have access to other IP addresses. --Yamla 18:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Since I have not heard from one person agreeing with the 6 month block on the first IP with only 3 contribs, I was bold and went ahead and lessened the block to 12 hours, which is more inline with the blocking policy regarding new IP vandals. If anybody disagrees, feel free to change the block again as it will not offend me.↔NMajdan•talk 18:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Students can create an account elsewhere and use it at school. The fact is that these are static IPs that are accessible to a wide range of people. If very little good, and a lot of harm comes from such an IP, I see only benefit from a long anon only block. That being said I think this should only be done after several shorter blocks have failed. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(double ec) Some school IPs bring nothing but pain, over a long period of time, and sooner or later a 6-month block saves a lot more resources for us than repeatedly noticing, reverting, reporting, and blocking it for 31 hours, a week, or what have you. In those cases, for static IPs that have long histories of egregious abuse, extensive block logs, and very few or no helpful contributions to compensate, I do support long blocks (provided the blocks are anon-only, and we're willing to help those who do need accounts to get them, which AFAIK has generally been the case). In less clear cases, however, I'm not so sure about it -- when I block, I base the duration off the IP's history. Some school IPs have a significant number, or even a majority of helpful edits. Other school IPs are dynamic (universities tend to have ranges, I guess for their labs and dorms). Open to discussion, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, and if you look at my blocking log you'll see that I'm not hesitant about blocking school IPs with a long term history of vandalism and blocks. Here, however, we're talking about issuing a single 6 month block to IPs with no prior history of blocks (or a tiny history), some of which have legitimate contributions. I'm not trying to downplay the significance of school vandalism, I just think that we should be careful that we aren't pushing out any legitimate contributors (such as the next Nishkid64). That's what assuming good faith is all about. alphachimp 18:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I agree with this 100%. Long blocks on repeat IP vandals is completely appropriate for repeat offenders or especially destructive offenders (such as a high risk template). But the IP in question has not established itself as a repeat vandal. Two vandal edits and one test edit in a 30 minute span is not deserving of a 6 month block.↔NMajdan•talk 18:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think that long, anon only, blocks that stop school vandalism, once shorter blocks have failed, and if there is a history of at least, oh, 2 dozen or so vandal edits, tend to make sense. I support these long blocks if account creation is possible. That said I think a nuanced approach is appropriate, going with a long block as the first thing to do (on this wiki... elsewhere is elsewhere) may not be the best first step. ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The question I need to ask is: do we want to keep on playing whack-a-mole for months on end while we wait for vandals to slowly get each workstation in their labs blocked one by one because there will be cases where workstations at certain schools have individually allocated IP addresses for each computer. It's rather unfortunate that currently we have no tool to view how many IPs in an netblock have warnings or current blocks in order to see the bigger picture. I guess I might have to whip something up once I graduate from uni and have some spare time. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If a school has a different IP for each computer, then a school block would not make sense. However, I have never heard of a school that does not share 1 or 2 ips. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's one example where I recognised a pattern in the IPs after getting fed up playing whack a mole with individual IPs, I emailed the school and they consented to a blanket range block: Southern Hills Middle School: 161.97.219.0/24 --  Netsnipe  ►  19:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I tried a different approach last fall and got positive responses: when I encountered a school IP that had 11 blocks over 12 months I e-mailed the district's IT department. They got back to me promptly and a polite phone conversation followed. They hadn't been aware that a problem existed, took the situation seriously, and liked my suggestion to assign student vandals to improve a Wikipedia article under teacher supervision. I could understand a 6 month block if a school is hostile or unresponsive, but why not be proactive about turning these long term problems into assets? After all, the computers are usually only a few yards away from the bookshelves. Durova^Charge! 19:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The converse is also true. unblock-en-l has been contacted on numberous occasions by school IT administrators after a schoolblock has notified them of the situation. But when you're blocking 2 vandals every minute on WP:AIV, you just don't have time to fire off an email for every case. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Do schools still have bookshelves? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment on something netsnipe wrote: "Anyway, before I issue any schoolblocks, the IP address has to be clearly marked as belonging to a K-12 education institution or district in their WHOIS record or Reverse DNS lookups. Now that we can clearly identify school IPs, apply anon-only blocks and provide a useful blocking reason (i.e. Template:schoolblock) which they see at MediaWiki:Blockedtext, why should we continue accomodate immature kids who continue to conduct drive-by vandalism only because their anonymity and lack of accountability emboldens them to?"

This action seems to cater just for USA educational institutions, since there is no indication that other countries' educational institutions would crop up in the checks being made here. of course, speaking for the UK, I have seen many instances of vandalism from UK schools, but the policy as indicated by the quoted material seems quite USA-centric.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've placed plenty of long-term blocks on school systems from all over the place during my time, offering an administrator at the school to contact me to have the block removed. None have done so. I've seen, few, if any cases of school's in this country contributing constructively. Long term blocks = not necessarily as bad as an idea as you're all making it out to be. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 13:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible solution

In reading over the above, I wonder: Perhaps the solution is to set a guideline such as Netsnipe describes, but let's shorten the starter block length from 6 months to 2 months. I can see the POV of how block lengths of hours or even several days can be pretty much a waste of time in these cases. Would everyone find that to be amenable? - jc37 10:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. We desperately need a uniform set of procedures and policies when it comes to identifying and blocking Shared IPs, especially schools. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

ok, What could be a start would be if you would flesh out the following reasons supporting the idea into something guideline worthy. (I'm collating your comments above - and yes, whack-a-mole made me laugh : )

• Anyway, before I issue any schoolblocks, the IP address has to be clearly marked as belonging to a K-12 education institution or district in their WHOIS record or Reverse DNS lookups. Now that we can clearly identify school IPs, apply anon-only blocks and provide a useful blocking reason (i.e. Template:schoolblock) which they see at MediaWiki:Blockedtext, why should we continue accomodate immature kids who continue to conduct drive-by vandalism only because their anonymity and lack of accountability emboldens them to? The vast, vast majority of our vandalism comes from primary and secondary school students. We assume good faith and allow anonymous edit from ISP proxies and DHCP pools because we know that there will always be a mature person somewhere amongst the vandals wishing to contribute to the encyclopedia. However, when it comes to schools, sometimes the vandalism is pooled together into single proxy address which will have a long and extensive edit/block logs and other times spread across a pool of IPs allocated to a school. -- but the aim is the same, to stop kids from workstation-hopping by sending the message that we have zero tolerance for vandalism on Wikipedia. The 24 hour autoblocker just isn't enough when they will return week after week because they know that they can get away with it. With regards to the "wheel warring", what do short blocks stating "Repeated vandalism" and "vandalism" do for WP:AGF if an innocent student happens to come across MediaWiki:Blockedtext? They will not assume good faith at our end and I've seen many an occasion where they post a confused and often angry unblock request on their talk page or email unblock-en-l -- even worse is that in these cases, admins will automatically decline their request to unblock their IP address and tell them to create an account which only wastes their time and/or cause confusion. We can be more helpful in the long run if we politely inform them from the outset that they should get an account in order to differentiate them from the more immature of their classmate. - User:Netsnipe
• Well it's not like we're actively seeking out school IPs to premptively block. They need to be reported to WP:AIV in the first place. - User:Netsnipe
• Students can create an account elsewhere and use it at school. The fact is that these are static IPs that are accessible to a wide range of people. If very little good, and a lot of harm comes from such an IP, I see only benefit from a long anon only block. That being said I think this should only be done after several shorter blocks have failed. - User:HighInBC
• Some school IPs bring nothing but pain, over a long period of time, and sooner or later a 6-month block saves a lot more resources for us than repeatedly noticing, reverting, reporting, and blocking it for 31 hours, a week, or what have you. In those cases, for static IPs that have long histories of egregious abuse, extensive block logs, and very few or no helpful contributions to compensate, I do support long blocks (provided the blocks are anon-only, and we're willing to help those who do need accounts to get them, which AFAIK has generally been the case). In less clear cases, however, I'm not so sure about it -- when I block, I base the duration off the IP's history. Some school IPs have a significant number, or even a majority of helpful edits. Other school IPs are dynamic (universities tend to have ranges, I guess for their labs and dorms). Open to discussion, though. - User:Luna Santin
• The question I need to ask is: do we want to keep on playing whack-a-mole for months on end while we wait for vandals to slowly get each workstation in their labs blocked one by one because there will be cases where workstations at certain schools have individually allocated IP addresses for each computer. It's rather unfortunate that currently we have no tool to view how many IPs in an netblock have warnings or current blocks in order to see the bigger picture. I guess I might have to whip something up once I graduate from uni and have some spare time. - User:Netsnipe
• Here's one example where I recognised a pattern in the IPs after getting fed up playing whack a mole with individual IPs, I emailed the school and they consented to a blanket range block - User:Netsnipe
• This action seems to cater just for USA educational institutions, since there is no indication that other countries' educational institutions would crop up in the checks being made here. of course, speaking for the UK, I have seen many instances of vandalism from UK schools, but the policy as indicated by the quoted material seems quite USA-centric. - User:ddstretch
• I've placed plenty of long-term blocks on school systems from all over the place during my time, offering an administrator at the school to contact me to have the block removed. None have done so. I've seen, few, if any cases of school's in this country contributing constructively. Long term blocks = not necessarily as bad as an idea as you're all making it out to be. — User:Pilotguy

The main opposition in the discussion above was that 6 months right away seemed to be too long of a block for so few cases of vandalism. Hence my suggestion of 2 months. Though the actual length of block, and the amount of edits "necessary" is obviously discussable. However, from the posts I just pasted above, it would seem that there may be a guideline to be found regarding lengthy blocking in certain situations.

Looking forward to your thoughts/comments. - jc37 10:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on. We do need a guideline in this area. I think a 2-month block would be sufficient in even most bad cases. -Will Beback · † · 10:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Still looking forward to thoughts and comments : ) - As I have not been involved in "valdal fighting" besides reverting the occaisional article, and such, I wouldn't know where to begin. I was/am hoping that at least one of those above would offer some thoughts and ideas : ) - jc37 18:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I'm hesitant even on the 2 month idea. Jumping immediately to 2 months really does seem like an assumption of bad faith. To be honest, my guess is that this entire thing will boil down into "the individual admin gets to decide". It's nice to know that leeway exists, but, at the same time, it worries me that we're blocking some good users. alphachimp 15:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Relisting AFD and conflict of interest?

Is it inherently a conflict of interest to relist an AFD and comment in it? Please discuss at WT:AFD#Relisting and conflict of interest. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-16 01:07Z

Global Warming Dmcdevit method

We'll be trying some of Dmcdevit's thoughts out on Global Warming.

We're unprotecting now. Could folks please keep an eye on the page, and block any Edit warriors on sight? (Note that you can block for edit warring even when there has been no strict 3RRvio, but do be careful of what you call an edit war, nevertheless.)

Hopefully no-one will actually be editwarring, but since we're unprotecting a contentious page, you never really know for sure.

--Kim Bruning 03:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Appreciate the help, and the attention. However, I assume no one here is going to do something radical like actually find some way to propose a real compromise, or try to ameliorate some of these issues.

weird how this article keeps going around in circles, and people keep proposing all kinds of actions, but no one proposes any sort of solution, or even offers some slight objective insight on what is causing all this. Just my two cents. I know people want to stay neutral. However, I think some objective guidance might be useful. My own personal request would be (in case you asked) can someone please tell the status quo faction to occasionally let some new sub-topics in? Does that seem like a valid compromise? Please feel free to comment, of course. Thanks. --Sm8900 04:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This didn't last long. I've already blocked Jacob Buerk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for performing a mass reversion without discussing first on the talk page. Naconkantari 04:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, can Jacob's right to use TWINKLE please be revoked? --Iamunknown 04:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Any administrator can remove a user's rollback scripts by editing their monobook.js file. Naconkantari 04:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator.  :-( Although a warning should probably be given first. --Iamunknown 04:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone noticing that the article was unprotected that fast was most likely following this thread and knew about the repercussions of edit warring. Naconkantari 04:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Striking this per an email I received. The editor has been unblocked. Naconkantari 04:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a controversial topic at the moment. I don't even know if it is possible to stabilize the article, until the situation in the real world also stabilizes. --Kim Bruning 04:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have give one-hour blocks to Tjsynkral (talk · contribs) and Nrcprm2026 (talk · contribs) for edit-warring. Admins should note that Nrcprm2026 has been banned from editing certain other articles by ArbCom (depleted uranium case) for disruptive behaviour. Physchim62 (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A box-like message would be far better, a comment can be easily skipped by editing a determined section. -- ReyBrujo 04:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Question, I don't see any edit war like behaviour from Tjsynkral? He made a single edit this evening that doesn't even seem to have been challenged by anyone. Could we get some evidence of where he was "warring" cause I apparently have missed it? This block happiness NEEDS to stop. Kyaa the Catlord 04:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The edit warring needs to stop. Naconkantari 04:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:EW: "An edit war is when two or more contributors repeatedly revert one another's edits to an article."

I did not revert. Not once. Are we blocking users for edit warring or are we blocking them for editing? --Tjsynkral 05:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, point me at the edit warring that has caused these blocks? I'm seeing VALID edits and editors being blocked without reason. The blocking without valid reasoning needs to stop. Kyaa the Catlord 05:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Tjsynkral's edit was on a bit of the lead that's been intensively fought over the last few days, and arguably involved a tendentious misreading of the cited material. I do think the block was a bit too fast, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, these blocks are coming much too fast. This is not a good solution, especially since a number of the editors involved in the "war" are administrators and can now block anyone who edits in a way they don't agree with and have the "edit warrior" excuse to cover their behaviour. Kyaa the Catlord 05:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the above pair of blocks were reviewed by Naconkantari who declined both of them. I'm sorry, I'd like to see a third party become involved in this, cause I don't see that their edits were obvious edit warring and based on the previous false blocking by Nacon I do not believe he's weighing this from a neutral POV. Kyaa the Catlord 05:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The edits immediately before Tjsynkral's plainly violated WP:NPOV by taking a firm position on a controversy that different scientists disagree about.(e.g., "40%", "primary factors" vs. insert of "insignificant"). There's no comment on the talk page supporting that new conclusory evaluation of multiple points of view. That's one way to achieve stability for an article if a different standard for blocking is applied to edits that fail to adhere to the favored POV than those that do: eventually only one POV will be reflected in the article. -- THF 05:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I did say be careful. The article merely needs to be watched. Only block if people are clearly edit warring. --Kim Bruning 04:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm gonna feel my way around here, and maybe I will make a mistake and get blocked because it seems kinda random. Sort of like Russian Roulette. But reading Dmcdevit's article, I think this is a good way to go. Even if I run into a fan blade, I agree with the decision. --Blue Tie 06:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to the Dmcdevit approach (so long as there is adequate notice that 0RR applies), but I do object to the way it is being applied in the article, and apparently without repercussion. THF 06:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that only a few can edit. ~ UBeR 16:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Skyemoor is back to his usual nonsense and undiscussed reverts. When will he be blocked? ~ UBeR 23:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd, you put in POV material you know will be reverted, and you do not seek discussion of controversial language. It's a case of "Physican, heal thyself", and "Thou protesteth much." Now that I've read the above, I realize you inserted previously removed material as apparently 'revert bait', hoping that editors would not have read the discussion in this thread. Almost seems like a clever tactic, if it weren't for your good faith. --Skyemoor 00:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Changing "hypotheses" to "tiny minority views" into text is reverting POV as opposed to inserting it? (And there's absolutely no talk-page discussion.) I have a real concern about the double-standard being exhibited here. If there's going to be a 0RR rule, it needs to be applied evenly, and what's happening is that it's not being applied at all to the politically correct while those who wish to apply NPOV are getting blocked simply for making edits. As a result a page that already violates NPOV is getting considerably worse. THF 01:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

To you first question; yes. Say "other hypotheses" implies an unsupported significant minority that has not been established. Don't confuse political and pundit level of debate with the scientific process; even the sceptics admit to the overwhelming consensus. If you are attempting to establish a perception that climate change skeptic scientists are anything but a tiny minority, then you have your work cut out for you. Attempting to brand my edit as NPOV is wikilawyering, mr. attorney. --Skyemoor 01:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to demonstrate the double standard I'm complaining about by engaging in a personal attack on the AN page, you've succeeded. -- THF 13:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Update

Some edit warring going on again at Global Warming. Would folks keep it in their watchlists and keep an eye on it? Thanks! --Kim Bruning 02:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming is an ongoing situation, so please keep watching that page! --Kim Bruning 16:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempts, but global warming has been an "ongoing situation" at least since I joined Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz 16:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Global warming article could act as a poster child for why the Wikipedian, any yahoo can edit the article, approach can never stabilise on certain hot-button political issues. No matter if the ratio of the science were 1000:1 favoring one direction or the other, if it serves the political and economic needs of certain folks to have the article fall the other way, then the article will be under constant editing as they try to drive its PoV in the direction favored by those who have political power or money at stake.

Short of having an actual authority-based structure in our editing process, there is no way this crisis will ever be permanently resolved as there's always a new yahoo arriving to take up where the old ones left off (or were forced to leave off).

I rather wish we had a template that said something like:

"This is an article about a politically-contentious subject and is likely to be

constantly whip-sawn between at least two irreconcilable points-of-view. In fact,

at any given moment, it may be nothing more than a complete pack of lies!"

It needn't be this way, but Wikipedia is far too tolerant of editors who make it this way.

Atlant 16:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this just a battle between the 1) scientists who insist that their ReliableSources should use the standard of "Verifiability, not truth" versus 2) others whose ReliableSources use a much weaker standard of mere "Attributability, not truth"? --Rednblu 23:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I estimate there might be ~3000 articles that have issues, while ~3M do not. If you look at it that way, you might think we could just ignore the problem pages. Unfortunately many of these pages often happen to be on some of the most visible issues.

We may need to work on a different set of guidelines for those ~3000 pages. (and that in turn might take some experimentation)

--Kim Bruning 00:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think we could work out some understanding among the different camps about the proper standard for ReliableSources on global warming? --Rednblu 00:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you were asking me, but I'd have to say, frankly, "No". It's an information war going on out there in the real world and it's only to be expected that it spills into our little corner of "the media" as well. Control the information and you can control people's perceptions of the "truth".

Atlant 13:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I acknowledge there is an information war. But sometimes Wikipedia policy has offered editors' insights, such as WP:NPOV, into how the editors can come to working agreements despite the information war. I am wondering if there is not some analogous policy having to do with editors' consensus and recognition that the ReliableSources themselves must use the "Verifiability, not truth" standard in reporting what is asserted in the Wikipedia page. Something similar serves as a tacit understanding among the editors on the gravity and truth pages to develop a consensus that keeps the information war merely "Attributable, not true" assertions off the page. --Rednblu 17:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

But you're assuming good faith, as WP:AGF requires for how we treat ordinary Wikipedian editors. But at least some of our editors aren't here to create a wonderful NPOV encyclopedia; they're here to get their content added and, often, our content deleted, and they won't rest until they've achieved their goal. I realize it busts a shibboleth to openly state that, but it's obviously true to anyone who's been editing here for a while. That's why I brought up the information warfare metaphor; it's the same principle upon which Fox news was founded.

Atlant 12:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Update 2

One of the most regular edit warriors continues to do so unchecked diff diff. What happened to blocking edit warriors? Does that only apply to people who aren't pro-global warming? If we've gone back to a free for all up to 3RR a day, then let's make that clear so that both sides can all hit their 3RR and we can be right back where we started. --Tjsynkral 23:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying those two edits would justify a block? I'm not certain what standard for "edit warring" is being suggested for this article. This user may have a history of which I'm unaware, but those two edits on their own don't seem too bad. CMummert · talk 12:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There is an ongoing edit war for inclusion of the globalboiling external link on this page. One block's been handed out, but there are multiple people revert warring, can we get someone to investigate? Kyaa the Catlord 13:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at it some last night and this morning. It looked like only the blocked editor went over 3RR. If people are going to be blocked for 1RR, it would be worth putting a notice to that effect on the talk page. CMummert · talk 15:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I was blocked by User:Physchim62 for making one non-revert edit. --Tjsynkral 01:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The standards, as I understood it, were that edit warring and reverts were going to be strictly prohibited. Under that rule Tjsynkral was blocked, even without a revert. Now reverts are happening and there is no repercussion. I do not understand what rules the page operates under. They were declared -- as a special set for that page only (and a notice put on the talk page) -- and now those special rules are not being enforced. Or perhaps enforced selectively. If no admin is going to take some responsibility for enforcing the new rules, then the page should go back to the standard wikipedia rules. I suggest that the admin's involved in this decision go and remove the special notice or else enforce it effectively. --Blue Tie 16:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree completelky with Blue Tie. it is not true or valid to say there is no solution to all this. There is a simple solution to this.

We need a period where all good-faith, valid, relevant and sourced edits are accepted, and permitted to becomne part of the discussion. We need a halt to constant edit wars, reverts and deletions. Part of this means not removing perfectly valid edits due to some so-called problems with minor considerations. Doing this will allow the article to function like most Wikipedia entries; occasionally in a process of change, but not just reflecting only one person's idea of what is valid and what is not. --Sm8900 16:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, Mr. Arritt disagrees, and removed the warning. ~ UBeR 19:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Shall we expand principle of indef blocking vandalism-only accounts and nuke COI-only accounts?

Over at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard I see a fair number of accounts that exist for no other purpose than to promote some person or company. A representative example is Uibs. This account exists to promote the Barcelona Business School, an instution of learning which the only independent source described as a one room campus that was founded by the same individual who created its accrediting body. This account blanked warnings from its user talk page repeatedly,[1][2] removed advertising and COI tags from the article under the guise of rewriting,[3] and left a rather disingenuous message at the article talk page, particularly in light of subsequent attempts to promote the institution at Wikipedia.[4]

Another example is Jeffrey Babcock, whose sole contributions to Wikipedia since June 2006 have been self-promotional. This editor has deleted warnings to his user talk page during his block and, via e-mail, has both accused me of vandalism for reverting his spam and announced his intention to violate Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets. Excerpts of his messages follow:

Your deletion of links for Jeffrey Babcock is inconsistent. There are other former personalities on the sites where I am listed who have such links. Your deletions are vandalism. Please refrain from well intentioned but misguided vandalism.

I can of course have a third party make an edit. Kind of a waste of time. You seem to be caught in a form vs function trap.

The real waste of time is supposing that such people would develop into decent Wikipedians. In light of Brad Patrick's statement on COI accounts,[5] I ask the community to support the following approach:

1. For obviously Conflict of interest-only accounts, first leave a message at the editor's talk page advising the person of site standards.

1. If the editor continues acting in a solely promotional manner, treat the account history as a sophisticated breach of Wikipedia:Vandalism and indef block.

Editors who doubt the need for such an approach are invited to spend a week tending either Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Durova^Charge! 14:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes please. I've been thinking we should have stronger shoot-vanity/promotion-on-sight policies for a while now. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 14:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, maybe this will cut down on the # of vanicruftisements that people who are trying to build a better encyclopedia have to deal with. SirFozzie 15:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I would wholeheartedly support admin action on this front. I know that no area is immune but wine articles get targeted quite a bit with these spam-only accounts and it really does get tiring. Quite a few link to Wine Library TV, which I just discovered has a Wikipedia article possibly created by a COI-SPA. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 15:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I belive that this would require a policy change (or at least clarifiction) in WP:BLOCK but I would support such a change. DES ^(talk) 16:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Arguably, this already fits within WP:BLOCK#Indefinite_blocks: Inappropriate usernames, policy-breaching sockpuppets, and single-purpose abusive accounts that have not made significant constructive edits can be indefinitely blocked on sight, and should be noted in the block summary. Is not single purpose violation of COI, WP:SPAM, WP:ADVERT, and WP:AUTO abusive of Wikipedia, its volunteers, and its readership? Durova^Charge! 16:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Arguably it does, but I think it is better to spell this one out. I have therefore proposed it on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. DES ^(talk) 16:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Do I doubt the need? By no means. But an indef block buys us at most 24 hours of autoblocked reprieve, and the spammer's back the next day with a less obvious username and no history of abuse. —Cryptic 16:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the single purpose soon shows itself. This is easier to spot and halt than garden variety trolling because the troll can be more flexible about methodology. We don't let the risk of future abuse deter us from necessary action. Durova^Charge! 16:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, but we should be taking the right necessary action. Indef blocks are only effective against accounts that try to integrate into the community. The net effect of blocking User:Spamsalot.com is that Spamsalot.com will be re-created by User:Innocuous in four days; for COIs inserted into other articles, we don't even get that long unless the article's semiprotected. After that, even the stupidest spammer will know to create accounts in advance. The only thing that blocking an unestablished user account does is delay, often indefinitely, use of our only effective tool: page protection. —Cryptic 16:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Change proposed at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy DES ^(talk) 16:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I support this, but we should think about updating Template:uw-coi so it says something ominous like "Those who use Wikipedia for blatant self-promotion may be blocked indefinitely without further warnings." Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 16:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would generally support this too. In a lot of ways, spamming campaigns are worse than simple school-type vandalism, because they're tougher to detect. If someone's adding 20 lines of profanity to an article, it just gets reverted on sight, there's no valid reason for anyone to do that. There are a lot of valid reasons to add external links, so it requires more work to figure out if it's spam. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Both proposals sound very good to me. Durova^Charge! 16:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with teh template change, too. DES ^(talk) 16:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Having a simple rule that allows the blocking of COI-only accounts would give more teeth to our COI rules. Posting COI problems at WP:AN/I doesn't always give any concrete results because of the perceived complexity of these cases. If there's a simple rule, administrators would be more willing to take action. EdJohnston 16:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd support this. A reasonable idea which would, as others have said, add teeth to COI rules.--Alabamaboy 23:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A significant change like this should be proposed on WT:COI, not just here. Please keep in mind that such a proposal could have serious consequences in NPOV disputes. It is not uncommon for partisan editors, who may fall under the campaigning section of COI, to be involved in NPOV disputes with each other. Hopefully, both sides are more or less proportionately represented, and the article on a whole becomes neutral. WP:COI#Conflict_of_interest_in_point_of_view_disputes suggests conflicts of interest in NPOV disputes should not be brought up, in keeping with assume good faith and the principle of commenting on the content, not the editor. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 23:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. As proposed, this clarification will not be effective in such cases. Presumably these people are editing articles besides one about themselves or their organization. The statement only applies to single-purpose accounts that engage in blatant self-promotion. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 12:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

For those interested, the conversation has moved here. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 13:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of jargon and abbreviations made this discussion extremely difficult to follow. I have expanded most of the abbreviations. Please avoid habitual use of abbreviations to denote policies because this makes Wikipedia an extremely difficult environment to follow. At the very least, name the policy page in full (all policies have full names) when you first introduce it. --Tony Sidaway 10:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A fair comment, although I doubt many of the people who populate this board need full name descriptions of every policy. What do you think of the discussion at the policy talk page? Proposed new wording met with mostly approval and a couple of articulate objections. My original request here was for community support of an interpretation I would like to apply to the blocking policy's present wording? Let's remember the main issue is more important than semantics: conflict of interest manipulation is a serious problem at this site and we need a stronger response to combat it. Durova^Charge!

(unindent) Hi! Just want to point out that accounts initially perceived as single-issue, COI accounts can sometimes work out. Can even become administrators. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk deletions by admins, regarding Danny's behavior on the Foundation phone ongoing

How are the deletions at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Danny justified?

• User:Newyorkbrad 2007-04-17 01:53 [6]
• User:Sean William 2007-04-16 22:33 [7]
• User:Tony Sidaway 2007-04-16 12:40 [8]
• User:Newyorkbrad 2007-04-14 23:45 [9]
• User:Tony Sidaway 2007-04-13 18:43 [10]

02:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC) something wrong with my signature. re-sign Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In the edit summaries, if you so wish to read them. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Tobias, you're beating a patch of ground which was previously occupied by a dead horse. The RFA is over. Can we let it go? // Sean William (PTO) 02:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In the thread in question, you described having called someone at his workplace without suggesting any purpose of legitimate communication. As such, the call presumptively constituted harassment, and it was inappropriate to publicize it further. I suggest, for the fourth time, that you drop this matter. Newyorkbrad 02:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I called the office, which publicises a phone number on the net. I did not call Danny directly. I talked with a woman and Danny rushed in taking over the phone. Then he shouted, and hang up. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

He rushed to grab the phone so he could tell you he couldn't speak English?? Newyorkbrad 17:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No. That was in another call. He took up the phone and said somethig in hebrew. I asked whether he could speak in English, he replied "Lo". Well, as far as my hebrew goes this means "no". When he said "No ingles" I replied in spanish, because spanish is fine with me. He connected me with someone else but no real talk happend. I do not remember the order, but in one call he took up the phone and whistled. The rushing was before. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Its time to reign in Tobias - see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Tobias_Conradi. ShivaIdol 06:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but perhaps a community sanction discussion is in order at the appropriate page. This just gets worse and worse and shows no sign of improving. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we only need that admins respect the written policies. My page is deleted and this deletion does not even show in the deletion logs. Censorship. Why are you all afraid of true and verifiable facts about yourself? Some people have a very different culture to that of truthfullness and harmony. They run around beat people. If the beaten record this, they delete it. And beat again. They invade Iraq. They kill the Indians. The aboriginans. The Africans. The Arabs. The Jews. They spread lies about weapons of massdestruction. They lie half the day. But the world goes on. There are allways people lieing and hiding truth. And deleting. And throwing bombs. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually wasn't sure about the speedy deletion, but with your last comments you have lost me extremely completely. Newyorkbrad 18:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

With that last comment, I think it's now come time for a community sanction. Harassing admins over the phone. Constantly ignoring community consensus. Making clear attacks against Americans in order to imply that any American admins cannot be objective. Part Deux 18:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What does your comment, "Some people have a very different culture to that of truthfullness and harmony. They run around beat people. (....) But the world goes on. There are allways people lieing and hiding truth. And deleting. And throwing bombs.", refer to, Tobias Conradi? --Iamunknown 18:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:CSN, where potential community sanctions for Tobias are being discussed. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 19:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion log glitch frequency

In amongst the Godwin's Law-esque comparisons to genocides and wars, there is 1 valid point that is exceedingly well hidden, there. Today's deletion of User:Tobias Conradi is not recorded in Special:Log/delete. I've noticed this occurring from time to time myself, and assumed an occasional database problem of some sort causing records not to be appended to the log. However, this incident prompts me to ask: Have other administrators also noticed their deletions not showing up in the deletion log? If this is a problem that is more frequent overall than we as individuals might realize, it is probably worth drawing a developer's attention to it. Uncle G 18:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I've noted and understood, this is usually related to database replication and the missing entries usually turn up in a few days at most. Same thing that happens with articles in laggy times, though at lesser extent. If the entries are permanently lost, that's definitely a bug that needs to be fixed though. As far as developer attention goes, well, um, it might help if Wikipedia ran on something else than MySQL. (Okay, wishful thinking =) Distributed operations usually introduce weirdnesses like this and there's not that much people can do to get around this. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone placed a block yesterday, and it didn't show up, yet the AIVHelperBot removed it from the page and when I went to block the user (seeing no entry in the block log), I got the "already blocked" error message. This may be totally unrelated, but just putting it out there. The block log in question is here, and AIV removal here. Daniel Bryant 03:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, and it's pretty incongruent that right now, the log for the page says deletion and two restorations in that order, yet the page itself doesn't exist at all - it's an easily identifiable case of an obviously incomplete log. If this escalates into an ArbCom case, as it seems right now, this is obviously going to be a key point of discussions. =) And as a side note: if this is a shadowy conspiracy thing, the conspirators obviously did profoundly sloppy job since the revisions still show up in Special:Undelete. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary speedy delete by User:MacGyverMagic

Seeing as subpages of Tobias Conradi have been deleted because of soapboxing issues before, I've decided to speedy delete this page. If anyone wants to help him restore non-controversial material feel free to do so. - Mgm|(talk) 12:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC) [11]

--- no policy for this action is cited. The deletion was proposed 2007-04-17 06:39 by User:ShivaIdol.

The deletion log does not show when this deletion was carried out. [12]

As of now it only shows:

• 05:22, 13 October 2006 Robth (Talk | contribs) restored "User:Tobias Conradi" (229 revisions restored: finish undeleting accidentally deleted page)
• 05:17, 13 October 2006 Robth (Talk | contribs) restored "User:Tobias Conradi" (1 revisions restored: oops--wrong page)
• 05:16, 13 October 2006 Robth (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Tobias Conradi" (To undelete non-copyvio revisions)

A clique of admins tries to delete any evidence of their admin right abuses. Collections of such evidences are deleted. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

admins cant delete the proof of admin actions, check the logs they cant be deleted. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

sorry this is false. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What direct evidence, such as code in the MediaWiki software or a relevant page at http://www.mediawiki.org/, suggests that this is false? --Iamunknown 18:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no log entry for this deletion. I would recommend contacting a developer on WP:VPT. Naconkantari 18:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It may have been the oversight function. [13] You can also google for it. wikitruth has articles related to it. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Or if you want a more balanced view, Wikipedia:Oversight has information. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Before arbitrarily suggesting that an entire class of users are willfully removing log details, please try asking them first. You can find them here. --Iamunknown 20:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi, please will you approach MacGyverMagic (talk · contribs) before you come here? Or at least notify MacGyverMagic that you have raised an issue here? It is generally courteous to do so. --Iamunknown 18:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to chime in here a little bit: If this is a shadowy evil admin cabal conspiracy, what good does the deletion of a log entry do? For non-admin users, it's apparent that something is obviously amiss: The page has deletion log entries that say the page was restored'. And if any admin - not just the shadowy evil admin cabal members, but also the high-strung goody-shoedy-boy types - hit Special:Undelete, they see the entire article history, and can restore the whole mess with simple, easy wrist action. (At least in theory. I'm not trying it - it could be that I could restore and re-delete the user page just to test the veracity of this theory, but it's possible that the Cabal has rigged the MediaWiki code with deadly explosives. Unlikely, yes, but possible.) This conspiracy has more holes in it than the Apollo hoax, and not just because the Moon is not made of cheese. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech massacre subarticles

At the moment, there are numerous articles linked from Virginia Tech massacre, primarily of the victims, that are up for AfD. I realise this anarchic process is the way Wikipedia works, and that at some point in the future things will have settled down and articles will be deleted and/or merged, but with an incident like this that has massive worldwide publicity, is there not a more dignified way to proceed? At the moment, readers will be following links to articles and getting the large banner "THIS ARTICLE IS BEING CONSIDERED FOR DELETION" at the top of the articles. I count 6 AfD nominations related to the massacre, several of which have been speedily closed, but still, is there not a more dignified way to handle this. It is predicatable that an event like this would lead to the same old arguments over the same old things. A centralised discussion for each event would be best, and speedy closing of nominations until consensus is reached at the main disucssion. Carcharoth 13:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Specifically: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan C. Clark, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. V. Loganathan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liviu Librescu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily J. Hilscher. Carcharoth 13:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And a seventh one, tangentially related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centerville, virginia. I may have missed one or two. Carcharoth 13:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is a significant concern, then frankly I would speedy them all under IAR and redirect to the main article. The notability rule is "multiple nontrivial sources"; other than , "he was a witness"/"she was a victim" we are not likely to have independent sources for the rest of their lives, and an article that says "he was a witness"/"she was a victim" has undue weight problems. (There may be some specific exceptions, like Liviu Librescu.) Wikipedia is not Wikinews, and whether these people deserve separate articles will not really be known for some time. Alternatively, speedy close all the AfDs as keep to get rid of the notices, and revisit them in a couple of weeks. Thatcher131 14:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

FWIW (& writing a few days after this comment), to turn an article into a redirect does not need the backing of IAR; we make numerous articles into redirect every day, in order to merge information or delete duplicate articles. I think that rationale is better than quoting the sometimes controversial & (IMHO) overused IAR. -- llywrch 17:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not the ultimate outcome I'm concerned about, more the need to prevent articles and groups of articles taking up time with the same arguments that are repeated ad nauseum each time some big news current event takes place. On the other hand, maybe it is a good way for less experienced editors to be drawn into, and to gain experience of, the way Wikipedia works. Hmm. I think the real problem is the obtrusiveness of the AfD banners at the top of an article. I wonder if there would be any stomach for a "toned down" version, to put on high-traffic articles? Carcharoth 16:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Be bold on these before the nomination and merge into a single article. Administrators seeing these on speedy could consider the situation and be proactive and merge rather then speedy. The problem here is with those that wind up on a full AfD. Don't know if there is an easy way to shortcut that into a merge. Actually, I guess users could merge the contents into the maion articles for each individual even if it is in speedy. I'd like someone to confirm that though. Vegaswikian 17:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless the victims are in some way notable in their own right (Weren't a couple professors killed? They might be.) then they are notable only in the context of the main event and belong solely on that page. Wasn't there going to be a wikimemorial site for Sept. 11th victims? maybe expand that to include all memorials. -M^ask? 22:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of the articles are controversial, and needs a admin to take a closer look at it. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 17:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• We may have to wait until things have settled down. Already Virginia Tech massacre page has had around 5000 or more edits, and it is still being edited more than once a minute. Also, I know that Wikipedia is not a memorial book, but in these emotive circumstances it might be best to wait a few days before proceeding on such deletes. Anthony Appleyard 22:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, a quieter and more dignified way of dealing with articles that sprout out like this is to merge any non-trivial material and link back. It's nearly always a mistake to delete an article that sprouts out of another like this (the exception being forks to evade Neutral point of view). --Tony Sidaway 22:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The sub-article process began with the creation of Cho Seung-hui, and that was possibly a mistake, but once it was created the others came inevitably from that, IMIO, SqueakBox 22:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing could be further from the truth, Cho's article was actually the last of the subarticles to be created. For a time, every victim with more information than "was killed at VT" was getting their own article, chronicling their otherwise unencyclopedic lives. (No offense, but were it not for the "they were killed in the VT massacre", it would have looked like nothing more than a yearbook bio) The Cho article was the second (after Liviu Librescu) subarticle that actually made sense. --Golbez 01:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This matter would be better delt with at the village pump.Geni 00:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Has the wiki-memorial gone away? I recall our having one. If it hasn't gone away, then the polite and dignified way is probably for an administrator to put a template on indicating that the article is going to be moved to the wiki-memorial and deleted from main space. That lets the grieving know that we don't hate them, but we are protecting the encyclopedia. To say that this has come up before is an understatement. When I began at Wikipedia, we were dealing with continual 9/11 memorial pages being written. As emotional as the VT shootings are, 9/11 was at least as bad in terms of mass emotional effect on the world. Geogre 11:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It used to be at http://sep11.wikipedia.org/, now is at http://sep11memories.org/wiki/In_Memoriam Tizio 12:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Admins will want to keep an eye on Richard McBeef and Mr. Brownstone (screenplay), which are current redirects, the former of which is semi-protected. See also User talk:NawlinWiki#Richard McBeef. – Chacor (RIP 32@VT) 12:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And it continues:

• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Virginia Tech massacre
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sneed (article now at Inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sneed's rumor (related to the above)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Tech massacre timeline
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamal Albarghouti
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Chiang
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Sterne
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Tech massacre (inevitable, I suppose)

And if that was not enough, the "list of victims" group of articles for different massacres (Whitman and Columbine at last count) have been thrown under the spotlight by this, and are each undergoing seperate AfDs. Haven't people heard of umbrella nominations? Actually, haven't people heard of being bold and merging and redirecting instead of nearly 20 different AfD discussions. Don't people ever discuss things on talk pages before dragging things to AfD? Carcharoth 22:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Brokendownsubaruoutback (talk · contribs) was the account that was blocked. Uncle G 14:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems likely that after a major news event there will be a tremendous amount of activity at Wikipedia. This is a good thing, and we should keep WP:BITE in mind. Rather than try to clean things up at the start, why not let things take their course, and then clean it all up after the interest has died down. Looking over the AFDs there are hundreds of comments both pro and con. There's no need to start arguments after a few days. We can wait a few weeks. There's no real harm in waiting before nominating an article for merging or deleting. The harm in not waiting is that newcomers will be put off, and many are likely to react emotionally. After all, having some articles about some non-notable people who were just murdered will not harm the project. Trying to clean this up now is like trying to clean up a rowdy party before it is over. If you do that, you are just sending a message that you want your guests to leave. -- Samuel Wantman 01:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Though the corollary to that is that this is an important part of the learning process for new, and even moderately experienced Wikipedians... It's been a long time now (well, it seems a long time), but I do vaguely remember something similar (though not on the same scale) for July 2005 London bombings. I first really got involved with Wikipedia on the back of the activity around that article, well, that and the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, but I can't remember whether AfD was involved to the same extent. Some of the AfDs I have pointed out are quite correct and appropriate, and some, as Sam says, could have waited. I suppose the larger Wikipedia gets, the more likely it is that high-traffic, new articles, sprouting numerous subarticles and related articles, will generate a lot of AfD activity. There are clearly pros and cons, and I suspect that getting the balance right requires experienced editors to be bold and carry out obvious merges before someone less experienced jumps in with an AfD, and for admins to speedy close obvious AfDs, and for a few AfDs to go ahead anyway to demonstrate the process in a high profile way for lots of new editors (and readers). Carcharoth 02:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been through this process several times before. During the July 2005 London bombings I spent a lot of time over several days keeping the Wikinews coverage in shape, for example. During the Jamie Kane (AfD discussion) controversy I boldly rewrote an article in an exceedingly high profile AFD discussion and even got some mentions elsewhere for doing so. (I've just done the same sort of bold rewrite at Michael Sneed (AfD discussion), as a matter of fact, as well as speedily closing Michael Sneed's rumor (AfD discussion), and I've been sitting on Michael Sneed and Chicago Sun-Times to help ensure that the soapboxing, attacks, and original research are removed.) As I said at Talk:Virginia Tech massacre in response to a comment about putting our best foot forward: I think that the fact that people can see our merger and deletion discussions underway, and see that experienced Wikipedians treat them calmly and civilly and in accordance with our policies and guidelines, aim for neutrality, verifiability, and elimination of original research, are careful about biographies of living people, and act to eliminate mis-uses of Wikipedia for attacks and soapboxing, is putting our best foot forward. Uncle G 14:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Experienced Wikipedians just need to be as bold as you are being, while still managing to explain things to those that haven't quite got the hang of the policies yet. What I hate seeing is the same arguments dragging on over nearly 20 different AfD discussions, and no-one stepping in to boldly close the discussions. And jumping in with merges, rewrites and redirects before someone starts an AfD, is still the best option of the lot. I just wish there was more latitude sometimes to redirect and merge while an AfD was in progress. Sometimes it is so obvious what the best course of action is, that just demonstrating it says more than a thousand AfD votes. Carcharoth 16:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Article طاعون عمواس ţā`ûn 'amwās

Resolved

 – —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-19 02:35Z

Regardless of notability, what's the usual course of action here? Presumably articles on en-Wiki have to have titles composed of Latin alphabet characters? I'd move it, but I'm not sure what to move it to (Emmaus plague outbreak?) EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Plague of Emmaus by Raul654. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-19 02:35Z

• The answer to the question is "Yes." Wikipedia does not host non-Latin articles, and "untranslated foreign language" is a reason for deletion, both. If the article is in English but merely has a non-Latin title, do as Raul did. If the article itself is in a foreign language, tag it. If it's tagged for a good long time and remains in non-English, it can be tagged for speedy deletion. Geogre 11:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone should also add the non-Latin name into the article. I would, but I don't know what the language is! Is that an Arabic script? Carcharoth 02:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added a reference, categories, a redirect from Plague of Amwas, and a little bit more information. Looks quite interesting. I know this is the admins noticeboard, but anyone want to take this article and run with it? It still needs something saying what language that name is. Carcharoth 02:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know Arabic? I think this is the Arab Wikipedia page for Emmaus. This is definitely their plague article (nice pic of Yersinia pestis). Oh, someone's put a resolved tag on this section. I'll toddle off to WP:RD instead. (That Arabic font actually seems to be telling my keyboard it is a right-to-left script, as my delete and backspace key functions have swapped round! Try it yourself.) Carcharoth 05:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A strange effect of a missing template file

In Category:Broken redirects for speedy deletion I found three biochemistry-related pagenames including Carbohydrate metabolism. But they proved to be not redirects and not speedy-delete-tagged. When I went into edit mode with Carbohydrate metabolism, the resulting transclusions list at the bottom included the name Template:Gluconeogenesis, which was red, showing that that template did not exist. I gave Template:Gluconeogenesis the dummy contents {{}} , and after that Carbohydrate metabolism was no longer listed as a speedy-delete-tagged broken redirect. Anthony Appleyard 12:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This has happened again, with User:Wlmaltby3/Depth chart/sandbox, which was listed as {{db-self}} because it transcluded the missing template file User:Wlmaltby3/Depth chart. Anthony Appleyard 20:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at AIV

Please attend. --Dweller 16:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

* Um, thirteen reports, folks. Please help out. --Iamunknown 19:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

All clear now, thanks. :-) --Iamunknown 20:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion of page

Please see Talk:List of best-selling albums (UK) regarding the need to undelete the page per permission granted in OTRS to display the top 5 albums and singles. MECU≈talk 16:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Someone with OTRS viewing privs will need to check this [14] - Alison^☺ 18:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

TFD/MFD closure section

I just closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Uw-warn, which really should have been a TFD. In fact, it was substed on the appropriate TFD date subpage. I decided to close it using the {{Tfd top}} and {{Tfd bottom}}, since it is a debate for a template, but which debate archive template should I use? If I use the TFD one, it will take the user to a transcluded version of the page, while the MFD one will take them directly to the page. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

AIV BACKLOG

Pretty long- thanks in advance. GDonato (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• yay~ all clear. --Iamunknown 20:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Remove RfA

Could an Administrator remove my RfA? Thanks! --Trumpetband 22:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Change your acceptance statement to a withdrawal, then I can get it for you.--Wizardman 22:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. I linked to a diff of this request so it can be easily confirmed. WjBscribe 22:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the help! --Trumpetband 22:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Several blocks

Moving this to the Brandt thread. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

But still worth noticing, in either place. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 00:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates

Resolved

Are there any admins watching over this? I'd be happy to take it on, but I can't close the current discussion because I started it. -- Samuel Wantman 00:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. (You only have to be an established user to do this). MER-C 03:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

600+ articles/images at C:CSD

Help, please. NawlinWiki 01:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it, this is disturbing. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 01:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I see progress is being made. Please note that one of the entries is a Category that I tagged G4 over 13 hours ago. (not complaining, I just didn't know if admins paid notice to the categories in there) --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Pssh- I found an image two weeks ago that had been in there since early January. :-P --Iamunknown 03:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Open wireless

We do not permit open proxies to edit Wikipedia articles, as per WP:PROXY. What about an open wireless connection? That is, someone has set up a wireless access point and has specifically left it open for anyone to use. Additionally, this access point has specifically been used by a blocked vandal who has been known to create sockpuppets. Can this be blocked under the no-open-proxies or does this not count as an open proxy? If it doesn't count, am I correct in saying it should be blocked anyway as a source of vandalism, though in this case the block would be anon-only? --Yamla 01:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing would be proving that it's an open access point. How would that work? Users have tried to intentionally get dynamic IPs blocked in the past; we can't just toss blocks out willy nilly. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A person who contacted me when I refused the initial unblock states that it is an open access point. It's already blocked because it was used as a sockfarm, I'm just wondering if I can deny an unblock under no-open-proxies. --Yamla 02:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Is that the Starbucks WiFi hotspot thing? One IP that serves 8000 hotspots? Thatcher131 02:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No, though the principle would be the same I would imagine. This particular one seems to serve one sockpuppeteer and a small number (somewhere between 0 and, say, 8, but much much closer to 0) people who aren't sockpuppeteers. --Yamla 02:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The spirit of Wikipedia:No open proxies is not some abstract moral opposition to misconfigured internet connections, but rather an effort to reduce a significant source of abuse. So your interpretation makes sense to me; this is essentially an open proxy, with the same potential for anonymous abuse. If the connection can't be fixed, advise the efitor to edit through the secure gateway: [15]. Dmcdevit·t 06:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like it should be treated more similarly to TOR. WP:TOR says it should be softblocked (allow users to edit, don't allow username creation or anon editing). SchmuckyTheCat 03:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think the tor policy needs to be changed to a hard block. Anyone smart enough to install and run tor is smart enough to find an unblocked IP to create a handful of sleeper socks, for later use through tor. This has happened several times recently. Thatcher131 13:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree the idea of soft blocking is poor, the blocks aren't so soft. Since the blocking mechanism has a hierachy of blocks to apply, with auto blocks at the bottom, a "soft-blocked" IP address is essentially immune to autoblocks... --pgk 15:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If it has been confirmed through CheckUser that the open access point is being used for abusive purposes, it should be hard blocked outright until the connection has been verifiably secured. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

New Protected Pages options

Special:Protectedpages has been updated, and now include many options for sorting and filtering the list, we may be able to use this to help resolve improper or forgotten protections now. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• I like. But when can we have namespace filtering back on linksearch, I wonder? Guy (Help!) 15:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  When mom and dad aren't mad at us anymore. Teke 04:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Request to fix a mangled page move

A relatively new user with good intentions recently attempted to move COSI to COSI Columbus via cut ([16] [17] [18]) and paste rather than the normal page move function. Can an administrator un-do these changes and put things back to the way they were before? I went ahead and left a note [19] on the user's page regarding this issue, including a link to the WP:MOVE help page. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• COSI Columbus had not been edited since the cut-and-paste, so I deleted it, and reverted COSI to as before the move, and started again with making the new disambig stuff needed caused by COSI Toledo appearing. I found that Talk:COSI had been cut-and-pasted also, and tidied after that. Then I moved COSI to COSI Columbus the usual way. Plain COSI is now a disambig page between various meanings of "COSI" and "Cosi". Anthony Appleyard 08:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy help! --Kralizec! (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

More burnination required

For those who are not willing to clear out the three day backlog of proposed deletions, the 450 or so speedies or the various image backlogs I have about 400 broken redirects for you to delete. MER-C 06:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Many of those broken redirect pages are user pages and user talk pages. Many of those user pages and user talk pages (according to their page histories) are broken redirects created by page moves and someone later deleted the moved file. Some of them have a history before they were made into redirects, and some not; sometimes that history includes messages. Some of them are of the type User:xxxxx/yyyy/zzzz, being "scratch paper" left over from user xxxx working on a page zzzz, and it was later made into a redirect which is now broken. Please recommend what should be done with them. Anthony Appleyard 13:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A point with copyvios

Wikipedia:Speedy deletions#Non-criteria warns about ""Copyright violations" whose sources copied Wikipedia". But there seems to be another possible case, where the same user put the same text and/or image in Wikipedia and in the external site. Anthony Appleyard 06:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a valid point, but it should not affect the policy. Often, a band will create their own website or myspace page, then copy its content word for word to Wikipedia. I guess we consider that other website to have its own copyright even if the same people authored the content. Maybe an expert can clarify this. YechielMan 16:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. The authors of the text hold the copyright and are free to license it under many different licenses if they wish, including a GFDL license which wikipedia can use). However the onus is on the poster to demonstrate copyright and if the other copy doesn't appear to be under a compatible license we need to be careful. e.g. An official release sent into OTRS. Though the easiest way is for the owner to update the source website to indicate the GFDL licensing for the section being used on wikipedia. If they do get deleted as a G12 and sufficient evidence of rights are put forward the deleting admin should be willing to undelete. --pgk 17:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that if we must err, it should be on the side of enforcing copyright too vigorously, because the consequences of not doing so are higher than the consequences of enforcing copyright too laxly. Natalie 18:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, when the person who uplaods text is the original author, but has also posted it to another site, that person can license it under the GFDL and then we are fine. But we need clear evidence that the uploader here is in fact the person with rights, and that that person has in fact relased the text (and any images) under the GFDL. We oftne asak that the other site be altered to include a GFDL notice, which establishes both points at once. Failing that, an email to the fopundation's permissions department is often requested. Such an email is usually sufficient. See Wikipedia:Copyright. DES ^(talk) 18:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If I'm reading this right, we are referring to instances where Person X wrote a Wikipedia article about (say) Band X first, and then copied it to www.BandX.com. In that case, both the Wikipedia article and the copied text at www.BandX.com are automatically released under GDFL; it doesn't matter who does the copying, as no one has rights. The content at www.BandX.com doesn't need to be specified as being released under GDFL; it is automatically released by having been on Wikipedia first; however, in this case, www.BandX.com needs to credit Wikipedia. (The person who wrote the text might find it odd that he has to credit "his" work, displayed on his web site, to a second party, but he does, of course.) If Wikipedia (or another GDFL-releasing entity) is not credited, then it's probably safe to assume that the material is undercopyright, absent proof otherwise. Herostratus 20:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The original post is very specifically about it being on the other site first. (As Anthony Appleyard notes, the speedy deletion criteria already warns about sites who have copied wikipedia content). But there are several misconceptions in the rest. As an author I can license my work under multiple licenses if I want. I can post it here under the GFDL which then enables others to make derivatives etc. A magazine may want to produce such a derivative but not want to be bound by the GFDL, they can arrange a different license with me for the same material, to enable them to do that, the magazine published version wouldn't be under the GFDL (Though of course anyone wanting to use my part could rely on the GFDL licensed version to make their own derivative). "as no one has rights" - the original author retains all his rights under copyright law, the GFDL licensing is the author exercising those rights. "www.BandX.com needs to credit Wikipedia" - No they need to credit the authors of the article in accordance with the terms of the GFDL, Wikipedia isn't the one to be credited since the wikimedia foundation as no rights in regard the material as they have no authorship and no assignment from the author, they are merely using the material under the terms of the GFDL as anyone else could. The original author could place a copy of his own work elsewhere (just his work, not derivative content) without crediting where he posted it first (be it here or elsewhere), he has full rights, the GFDL is about the rights of others to use his work, it isn't binding the author to follow those same terms for reuse elsewhere. --pgk 20:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that an author may license his or her own work in different was in different places or fora. When a person copies content from a website, claiming to be the original author of the content, it is often asked that the person have the site post a GFDL release. This is partly because doing so will prove pretty clearly that the person controls the site (or that whoever does control it is OK with the upload to WP) and that the person does indeed intend to release under the GFDL. (There have been cases of people copying from their own sites and then attempting to claim that the content is copyrighted and can't be changed on wikipedia without permission. This is an obvious attempt to violate WP:OWN as well as the GFDL, but it can cause unwanted conflict and time spent dealing with the situation) The usual alternative is that the unloader send a release statement to the permissions department of the foundation asserting that s/he does have rights to the content, and agrees to release it under the GFDL on wikipedia. This email is normally to be sent from an address associated with the site, so that it serves as evidence that the person sending it did not simply make an unauthorized copy. As to what needs to be done when another site copies an article from wikipedia, the GFDL's requirement for a transparent copy of the original is often interpreted as requiring a link to the copy on wikipedia, and in any case proper attribution is better served by mentioning wikipedia as the forum in which the content was previously published, as well as crediting the specific authors (as required by the GFDL). DES ^(talk) 23:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to flog this too relentlessly, yes they could link back here in order to show where it came, I don't consider that to be "crediting" wikipedia, the original authorship needs to be credited, in the case of derivatives the GFDL (IIRC) says you need to credit at least the 5 most significant contributors (how you work that out is of course the fun). If you were merely copying an article as a one off exercise (rather than mirroring current content), the approach of merely pointing back to wikipedia maybe insufficient, we may delete the article here and all record of authorship becomes invisible, we may allow a recreation by different authors and different material, in which case the back reference becomes more confusing. Like all things if this level of detail is important for what you are doing, you need to take proper legal advice, but as already agreed from wikipedia's perspective the onus is on the editor to demonstrate the ability to use the material under the GFDL and if that isn't clear or obvious we will err on the side of caution. --pgk 08:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal details of minors divulged

User:Pro Game Master87 lists the full names and dates of births of a whole bunch of kids in his family - I'm guessing that this is not OK, and needs an admin to delete and then to delete the userpage history? 86.152.203.212 08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the page and restored it without personal details of minors. I don't have time to leave a message on his talk page, sorry. alphachimp 09:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on his talk page to explain what you'd done. Will (aka Wimt) 09:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Request to remove AfD on Virginia Tech massacre timeline

Someone unwisely AfD'd this highly visible topic: Virginia Tech massacre timeline. Could this be done a Speedy keep, debate closed and the template removed by an admin? thanks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. --kingboyk 13:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note, Merging is not the same as keep. This sort of article belongs as a subsection of the mother article and at wikinews if they want it. The fact that when it was closed that a merge was refferred to as the same as a keep is a bit troubling. These unneeded articles just serve to clutter up main space. I might nom it again with a well reasoned argument for a merge and delete (redirect wouldnt be important, no one is likely to type that name into the search box. -M^ask? 19:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Help requested by another user

Another user has requested help from me because, as he says, "I "can't" clarify sentences properly and have a touch of asperger's" (some background here and here). His contributions can require significant work to revise them and are often deleted. Can anyone suggest any help – possibly guidelines, policies or previous experience regarding users with such difficulties or support for them? I’ve already been told there is a user category for Aspergian Wikipedians by the way. Also are there guidelines or policies regarding dealing with the type of contributions he makes (other than continuous copyedits or the like)? Mutt Lunker 16:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock locator borked

I believe the autoblock locating tool is not finding autoblocks after about 2007-04-18. Could someone please check and kick it if necessary? Thanks. --Yamla 16:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Should be sorted now, looks like the autostart when the toolserver gets rebooted didn't work properly. --pgk 17:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions

What on earth is that annoying box, and when did it get there? I can't seem to find any recent modifications that would apply to Special/Contributions in MediaWiki Recent Changes. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It was a change made at the developer level, an update, by VoA. Prodego ^talk 21:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... kinda figured that's what it had to be. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Annoying? I find it extremely helpful and timesaving. Bishonen | talk 23:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC).

I especially like the new feature at Special:Newpages that lets you find new pages/images created by a single contributor... really helps with checking histories of suspected copyright violators. Sancho 23:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That feature has been there at least since June. I remember seeing it when I created List of minor Andalites, whcih was on 20 June 2006. hbdragon88 23:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it considerably handier than having to delete my username from the Special:Contributions page and typing in someone I want to check on. hbdragon88 23:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There have been a few changes to MediaWiki recently, mostly cosmetic ones like this, that have been on hold for a while until database schema updates could be performed on all of the live servers. Once the updates were on the new changes could come live; that's why it seems that lots is happening all at once. --bainer (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A curious request

Hi, folks. King Lopez (talk · contribs) made a curious request of me: he wants to know what Special:Blockip looks like. I have the capability to make a screenshot, but I wasn't sure whether doing so was kosher or a good idea. Theoretically, there's no harm in showing him what the page looks like (and there's a screenshot of part of the blocking page at Wikitruth anyway), but something doesn't smell right about the request, so I wanted to run it by some other admins. (It seems that he asked Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) first, and Khoikhoi declined because he didn't have time.) What do y'all think about this? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not a big deal. I am just curious about it. Thank you. King Lopez ^Contribs 08:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If it worries you, show him [20]. I doubt it is harmful. x42bn6 Talk 00:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd probably ask them why first. Note that they were blocked 1 week in January for 'abusive sockpuppetry', so hmmm .... - Alison^☺ 00:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's not the sekret page :P The page is released under the same licensing as all the rest, I do believe. Users without the flag just can't see the page because to access it would be for its use. I see no problem. It's something I've never considered before so I add the "I might be wrong." Teke 05:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Plus, the page used to list the AOL proxy blocks and others, which it no longer does. It only lists the ranges of the Canadian, UK, and US government IP blocks. Furthermore in my it's no big deal. Teke 05:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's GPL'd, so it's not even secret - he can go to any other site that runs MediaWiki 1.10alpha and request it there. There's no issue here. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, he's not asking for checkuser results or real names or something. I have a small wiki on Mediawiki running on the machine next to me for some collaborative projects with a few friends, anyone else could do the same and find out exactly what it looks like. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hieroglyphs syntax

Is there anything I can do to help the administrators expand the hieroglyph syntax? I'm getting sick of putting (hieroglyph not found) or saying to myself "I think this is the matching hieroglyph". I'm willing to help out, scan the images or something. Please contact me on my user page if you know how this is possible. The Egyptian articles depend on this :/

KV(Talk) 01:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Nancy Drew books overfilled with articles that fail CSD A1

I do not have the time to find them all, but this category is overfilled with CSD A1 candidates, and I cannot delete them all. I left a warning at User talk:Hedwig0407 not to create these kinds of articles anymore in the main space, and to create them in her userspace and then move them when they meet Wikipedia:Stub. Jesse Viviano 03:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... just noticed that. I'll have a look through later.--Wizardman 03:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but what is CSD A1? KV(Talk) 03:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSD#A1, "Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context for the article to qualify as a valid stub." --Iamunknown 03:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Bah, you beat me to it. hbdragon88 03:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, I hate hate hate it when people do that. Mak (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Hate hate hate" ? But remember what Jimbo said: "Wikipedia is built on trust and love." -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 06:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I don't. --Iamunknown 06:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I attached the speedy tags to all of the deletable ones at about 8am (utc). Most of them are still there. You've got some work to do. MER-C 09:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Consider them gone. Michaelas¹⁰ 16:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The bigger problem is the copyvios. The first one I looked at is one line of content and the rest a copied description, probably from the back jacket. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD sanity check

Can someone look at Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion_by_user as the few entries left in there are not tagged as CSD nor are they in the category when you look? I can't see how they're ending up in there unless something is transcluded that I'm somehow missing. Can someone else take a peek? - Alison^☺ 04:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Meh! It's something to do with the deleted page User:Mawfive/Titan destroyed being transcluded. Weird ... - Alison^☺ 04:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Appears to be fine now. Harryboyles 07:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah it will have been the job queue backlogged, the transclusion of that subpage will have done it, when the page was deleted job queue entries get added to update the details like category ownership etc. for those pages. You can see the current length on Special:Statistics --pgk 08:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

2nd admin view on WP:RFCN, please

Could we get a previously uninvolved admin to review a username discussion at WP:RFCN#The way, the truth, and the light and meta-discussion at WT:RFCN#The way, the truth, and the light, in light of WP:U#Offensive, specifically WP:U#Religion? The original closing admin has suggested getting such a "second opinion". Thanks! -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 09:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

And no one ever answered my question about the 99 names of God, either. Are these fine as user names? --Ali'i 16:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Offensive email sent

Anyone else received the following offensive email?? (content not posted here for WP:BEANS reasons) It came from KingDon9000 (talk · contribs) - who appears to have registered solely to spam people, and it contains personal attacks.

Why I got this, I have no idea. But it's not very funny, and I've just had to block the email address to prevent any further spam from this user. --SunStar Net ^talk 10:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that the individual is who he claims. Mostly because the last that I checked, Don Murphy and Wikipedia made up and are now on good terms (yes, I have the e-mail, and that is not the real e-mail address).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Normal troll. A private checkuser determined that the IP belonged to a website that features 4chan memes.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A query with some images tagged for deletion "no source"

• I started to have a go at images in Category:Images with unknown source as of 8 April 2007 "Images in this category are potential candidates for speedy deletion under criterion I4 once this category is seven days old.". I soon found in there a succession of images that were declared by their uploaders as "I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. ..." that User:Aksi great tagged for deletion {{no source}}. On looking in his user-talk page I found a discussion about images in User talk:Aksi great#Images uploaded by you, which seems to be becoming acrimonious. Anthony Appleyard 15:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems in order to me. Aksi feels s/he has reason to not trust the licences, has asked for further clarification and has been met by User:ParthianShot not answering the question, rather squirming out of it. The question is simple enough: "[Can you] add proper image descriptions?", but the answer is a long diatribe about why the question is improper, rather than providing the information or asking for clarification. If you don't want to delete the images based on the conversation, then leave it for somebody else or ask Aksi for clarification.

You did at least contact Aksi after bringing this here, didn't you? It's common courtesy to do so.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  19:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

blocked range 77.182.0.0/16

hi there!

de:user:Lyzzy got blocked on en.wp for six months, commented to be a "spambot" (see screenshot done by her). i can assure you that she definitely is not a spambot. ;-) the admin who blocked the ip (ip-range?) did not answer her request for an unblock via mail. who can help her? how can she edit here again? --JD de {æ} 17:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

77.182.0.0/16 (#455265) are dynamic IP addresses that belong to 1&1, one of Germany's leading ISPs. Please unblock the range again. -- kh80 19:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Lyzzy (talk · contribs), presumably the same person, has a completely clear block log. Natalie 19:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's about her IP range (see above). The admin unchecked the box "Block anonymous users only", so she can't edit anymore. -- kh80 19:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have asked the blocking admin to weigh in - they may have had a reason for their actions. Natalie 20:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I fixed should be anon only, I have seen some spam bots recently originating from that range. I did not receive any e-mail. (it might have been spam filtered or junk mailed by accident). If there are any other collateral from this please feel free to unblock. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If 77.182.0.0/16 are dynamic IP addreses of one of Germany's leading ISPs, shouldn't the block not be "account creation blocked"? Where are ISP-users supposed to go to create an account? --Iamunknown 23:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Reporting Admin Abuse

User:Khoikhoi has been reverting anon edits and blocking anon users without warning, please view here Please see this edit, which I'm sure will be reverted. That is a prime example of me following Wikistandards, with an admin stepping in and abusing his powers. 75.12.159.0 00:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)