Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the 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

Be ready for some POV edits to narcissism articles

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

... BUT

There is something you can do.

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

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

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

Click on these links:

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

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

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

Have a great year!

Sam Vaknin

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

• If the article really is based mostly on a copyvio we should reduce it to a stub and just start over. --W.marsh 21:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's assuming it's true. If it is, I'd agree, but I'd like to see what portion of our text he feels is copyvio before we start stubbifying it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, he may mean that 60% he agrees with so assumes is based on his work :-) Guy (Help!) 22:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from these diffs, most of the complainant's work has been expunged from the articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Narcissism_%28psychology%29&diff=98281543&oldid=30605408

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Narcissistic_personality_disorder&diff=98238115&oldid=34362845

mostly on the grounds that it was neither accurate, cited nor verifiable, and replaced by accurate, verifiable text instead from a number of sources.

I have personally asked the poster, on more than one occasion, to specify any text he feel is in copyvio and I will, remove it (which he cannot do himself as he is on indefinate ban for repeated sockpuppetry see User:Samvak) I have yet to recieve an answer. --Zeraeph 00:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have just blanked a small section of Narcissism (psychology) [1] that he might claim was a copyvio (see [2], though he reposted it himself after it was blanked due to copyright concerns [3]. It seems best to blank it, partly for the sake of peace and quiet and partly with the intention of re-writing it in a properly cited and verified form. It is the only possible copyvio I can find in any of these articles --Zeraeph 06:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

At a slight tangent to this, there was an (apparently unrelated) edit on Talk:Narcissistic personality disorder [4] that I am really uncomfortable with in many different ways. ‎It seems racist and anti semitic as well as being a gratuitious attack on Sam Vaknin. That cannot be helpful and is contrary to [5].

I made the mistake of responding, if very mildly and civilly (I was shell-shocked by that degree of anti-semitism and did not like to leave it unremarked) but I am now wondering if it might be possible for the whole offensive remark and the responses to it (myself and an AOL anon) to be permanently deleted? It's just so nasty that I don't like leaving it there. --Zeraeph 11:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

How ironic that this series of edits would befall narcissism-related artcles. Savidan 20:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Fraternities and sororities

What do you all think of the massive amounts of external links that are contained in a traditional Wikipedia fraternity or sorority article such as Delta Sigma Pi, Alpha Kappa Psi, Phi Kappa Psi, or Alpha Epsilon Pi? Is this appropriate at all? I posted this to WT:EL a month ago and get a few responses Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_11#Fraternities_and_sororities. I just removed the lists at Delta Sigma Pi [6] and registered a whopping (-23,730) on the removal according to the big bold red numbers on my watchlist (now, granted, that was a large table and I'm sure the fact it was a table added to the size of it). I figure I should probably get a little bit more of input on this before I go any further with such large removals.

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

Sounds good to me. -- Donald Albury 02:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That is not what external links are for. EL should be limited to articles that are clearly justified. The national chapter for instance. I don't think any individual chapters could justify a link, unless perhaps there is something extraordinary about them that is 3rd party verifiable. - Taxman ^Talk 02:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, those are not valid. We used to have chapters writing breathless articles about themselves. They'd go to VfD (it was back then), and the advice was always, either put it in the college or just delete it. So now it seems that they're linking from their national frat/sororities. That's better, but it's still unacceptable. The chapters have plenty of linking-to from the national organizations' own web pages and their colleges' web pages. They don't need to be page rank boosting with us. Geogre 03:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

While we're talking about these, there are also articles for the sub groups of the organisations. I had a quick hand at fighting back the bloat with redirects, but appeared to be going it alone and was mostly reverted. - brenneman 03:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

{{Beta Theta Pi Chapters}}

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

• I note that the (few) bluelinks in that template are redirects to the main article. I don't think we need articles on each individual fraternity chapter; for most of them there is little to say beyond what it says in the main frat article. I think this template should be removed. >Radiant< 12:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It really seems excessive still, to me. I know it's harmless to have a list of "all chapters of X," but it's only harmless until people treat it like the infamous (and a pox eternally be upon it) List of high schools and argue that the presence on the list means that there should be an article on every one. I.e. lists are sometimes used in circular logic to argue that there must be an article on each item on the list. Therefore, I still maintain that the national organization's web page is linked from the article on the national organization, and that should serve sufficiently for anyone seeking chapters. If the chapters don't achieve fame/standing outside of their campus communities, then they're not encyclopedic, in my view, in a list or an article. Geogre 14:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Per this discussion, I have nominated the template for deletion. Metros232 14:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I did about a dozen or so so far. A good tool to see articles on frats and sororities is to look at {{North-American Interfraternity Conference}} or Category:North-American Interfraternity Conference. I did basically the bottom two rows of the template. I'm going to take a break for now if anyone wants to step in to continue. Metros232 16:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If anything the {{Beta Theta Pi Chapters}} should go. Individual chapter articles of national/international fraternities are completely unnecessary. Wikipedia is not a webspace provider for individual chapters. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to voice your opinion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Beta_Theta_Pi_Chapters. The template was nominated yesterday for deletion. Metros232 18:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Are just simple lists okay?

• I think we should draw the line at a list of chapters without external links. It is encyclopedic to have a list of what colleges and universities have these organizations, because that is what the organization is all about. When it is a fraternity/sorority with a lot of chapters, a list page is appropriate. However, I don't think external links to the chapter websites or articles about the chapters is appropriate. --rogerd 17:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. It's entirely relevant to the existence and mission of the organization in question (fraternity) to be associated with colleges. How else would one illustrate this without using a list? The external links thing, I agree with, we can get rid of those. But a link to the Wikipedia articles about the colleges themselves is appropriate. --Htmlism (talk · contr) 23:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• This has been brought up here a few times and at my talk page User_talk:Metros232#Fraternity_Chapter_deletion.28s.29. It appears the consensus is beginning to form that the links are to be removed but simple lists are okay, is that what I'm seeing? Metros232 23:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I can understand the reasons for removing the links (though I don't agree), but there should be a list of chapters. These are the most important aspect of any national fraternity/sorority. Greek organizations measure their size by the number of chapters and initiates as well.

I'm opposed to the inclusion of a list because 1) WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information and 2) I believe that this would be listcruft; having a list for the sake of a list. If the individual chapter in particular is important, it would go in the history section. Otherwise, people will probably find a list individual chapters on the fraternities' home page or something. Hbdragon88 23:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• I still think that the organizations themselves bear the burden of telling people where they are, not us. An encyclopedic account of the organization should discuss the organization, rather than list all of its accomplishments (placement of chapters), in my view. After all, we would not want to have a list of all the places where a business was located, nor a corporation, nor a non-profit philanthropic organization. Secondly, the lists can be used to justify the re-emergence of individual articles, and six months from now people may have forgotten the present consensus or simply be nodding off on the issue. I have nothing against these organizations, but I don't think a list of each chapter would be appropriate for anything, including Recording for the Blind or American Heart Association. Geogre 05:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for advice

At the moment, I'd like to just get some feedback and ideas. I'm unfortunately involved in what has been a rather long running situation.

It started, innocently enough, when I came upon an article which I thought would be interesting to clean up. Over the past year it has had various clean-up tags, including that it was too much like a list. So with my enjoyment to organize, I thought I would dive in and do a ReOrg of the page, and hopefully broaden it into an article instead of merely lists.

It "almost" was going smoothly, until I moved a few of the references to the disambiguation page of the same name, which brought other wikipedians who disagreed with several changes.

A lengthy discussion of whether wiktionary links should be on a page, whether real-life or fictional should have more prevalence (I felt both equally, either in the same article or in separate articles), and on, and on. A large amount of information was split (before I arrived to the page) to a list already, and I split more to a related page.

The trouble is that those who would dispute a change never were willing to offer references for such arguement, and later admitted that they weren't interested in doing so far various reasons.

And it's continued on and on.

Much of the discussion has been about semantics, but lately, since I've attempted several times at compromising, I performed various page creations, splits, and mergers, at the request of others. The discussion has devolved into where the redirects should point to, and what names of redirects are more accurate, and where should the original page history reside.

So now we come to my Request for advice. You'll note I haven't mentioned any persons, nor the pages involved. I would like some general advice for such situations.

What should I do?

I feel like I'm being attacked consistantly for trying to uphold what I presume are correct policies and guidelines and such, by those who would seem to not know understand such policies.

Of course, it is entirely possible that I'm the one misunderstanding as well. (Sigh @ "the right version".)

On one hand I would like to just "walk away", from the situation, but on the other, this should be resolved "correctly" due to possible GDFL concerns.

I think the greatest problem so far is the lack of input from "outside" opinion.

So this is what I am asking now. (To quote Jonny 5: "need input".)

I am very hesitant to raise this to the next level (mediation or arbitration), because, honestly, I think it would reflect rather badly on those who have been involved, since I honestly think that their only real mistake besides what some might call rather aggressive "POV pushing", is a misunderstanding of policies or even how some features of Wikipedia work. Though it's becoming tiresome, I'll discount their various attacks on me at this point, if it only should bring some sort of resolution.

So anyway, let me bring my rambling request to a close:

What should I do now? - jc37 04:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Summarise that in 50 words or less :P Viridae^Talk 08:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is to do with the vast morass of articles, redirects, and dab pages associated with Wizard. As far as I can tell, the main discussion is at Talk:List of wizards in fantasy. This is just a note to clarifiy the situation, I am entirely uninvolved with the debate. Tevildo 12:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I was involved, but after one of the participants objected to the way I was trying to handle it (I was initially approached on my talk page by jc37 to comment on the issues), I've withdrawn. There is a half-hearted attempt to list the pages at User:Carcharoth/Analysis of the page history of Wikipedia Magic pages, and I'm about to attempt to trace the edit history of a sample piece of text to demonstrate the issues. Carcharoth 12:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I intentionally didn't post where and what and who. (Anyone who understands reading edit contributions could have found out the info if interested.) I wasn't asking about comment for the specific problems (else I would have posted on WP:AN/I), though of course such comment is always welcome, and perhaps is just what the situations needs...

However, what I was hoping for was for others to offer advice on "such a situation". Ask questions for clarification, etc. That is (I presume) one of the functions of the admin noticeboard (this page)? I think in any situation, it's can be nice to get advice from others.

For the specific incident, I left a note on User:Essjay's talk page, which I suppose I could cross post to WP:AN/I. But as I mentioned above, I was/am hesitant to go higher in the dispute resolution route, because I don't think it will reflect well on the others involved. (And perhaps I should apologise to Carcharoth for including him. He shouldn't have been subject to such as he was. Though I do thank him for his assitance thus far : )

Anyway, the request still stands... What do you (plural) think I should do now? - jc37 01:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand - and I (and others) would like to help. But I think the problem is that the answer to all of that is "it depends." It depends on the context, the other people involved, the specific things that have been said, etc. I don't think that, without knowing more, I can give you advice on what to do when you just generally feel attacked and think other people are wrong on an issue, but can't get them to listen to you. (Other than to take a deep breath, relax, and remember that it's just an online encyclopedia - and if a page ends up "wrong," there probably aren't any GDFL issues you need to worry about.) --TheOtherBob 01:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. (I've even given a similar response, saying "it depends", myself : )

And I have to admit, it felt kinda odd reading "...just generally feel attacked and think other people are wrong on an issue, but can't get them to listen to you." Depending on the context, it could mean that the person in question (me in this case) is "POV pushing", or it could mean that those whom he's discussing with are, or both. So I guess it is necessary to give specific instances. I have to admit, after almost a year of discussions, this whole thing is really starting to feel wearisome.

Well for now, since I still would rather not (yet) elevate/escalate/whatever this. Let me ask this way. Would anyone willing please read over Talk:List of wizards in fantasy, and let me know if in some way I have been uncivil, or whatever else I'm being accused of? From my perspective, I think I haven't been, but I would welcome more opinions. (I'm also somewhat concerned about the copy/paste/merge/split/etc issues, which may or may not be GDFL concerns, but I suppose we can wait on that for now.) Note that to understand some of the discussion, you may need to go through the edit history of that page and of Wizard, comparing times to edits. (I don't know if or how "UTC" may confuse this.) Basically a sort of talkpage-specific Editor review. I don't suggest that you add to the discussion there (though obviously anyone is welcome to) as of yet, if because I don't wish others to be on the receiving end of the vitriol that Carcharoth unfortunately received. I believe in the idea of "many eyes", and I think that probably this has just been a situation where there haven't been enough "eyes".

Thanks in advance : ) - jc37 03:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Other parties' discussions

For what it is worth, I wandered over to User_talk:Goldfritha (one of the parties to the ongoing dispute), intending to leave a message, and found this conversation with User:Dreadlocke, the other party to the dispute. I'm really not quite sure what to make of it all. Opinions from others would be welcomed. Carcharoth 05:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, wow. I saw the lower discussion on the talk page, but hadn't noticed that one. From where I sit, it (commentary about WP:OR) seems to be congruent to the relationship of WP:AGF and WP:AAGF... (If that makes sense)... I agree with Carcharoth, other opinions would be welcomed. - jc37 12:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Which raises the general question of where such things can be discussed. They were talking on a user talk page, maybe not realising that those pages, like all Wikipedia pages, are publically viewable. Discussion shouldn't be stifled, but equally discussing someone behind their backs (like they were doing, and like I am doing here) feels wrong as well. How does this all tie in with WP:AGF and WP:DR? Carcharoth 15:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, initially I intended that this discussion just be advice to me as to what to do next. I don't think that that was/is behind anyone's backs. Nor do I think that posting on this noticeboard to be that either. However, since this may have gone a bit beyond my initial intention, perhaps the discussion should move? Especially considering User talk:Goldfritha#Wizard (fantasy) (as noted by Carcharoth, above); and now I find this, and noting the orginal header to the post. I'm guessing that the user selected this admin due to this, which follows up on the discussion in which they wish for a "sympathetic admin". (I honestly don't know if User:InShaneee would or would not be. I'm not certain if I've ever seen the username before?) I also am concerned since there are several flat-out untruths in the request. I think I'm past the presuming good faith question of "What should I do now?" On top of all the rest, misrepresenting the truth in order to push a personal agenda is enough, I think. My question now is: where to next? to WP:AN/I? to WP:3O as initially suggested by User:Essjay? to Mediation (per WP:DR)? or just straight to arbitration? When I mentioned this discussion to him, Essjay suggested that I wait some here to see what you all said first, so I think I'll do that for now. - jc37 13:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

General suggestion

Just a general suggestion as to how this might be progressed: Both sides should put together, in a neutral venue (that is, away from the contentious talk pages) a brief summary of (a) what they consider the major problems with the current situation are, and (b) how they think these problems should be resolved, without (at that stage) ventilating their critisisms of their opponent's actions. This should, at least, enable a neutral observer to form an opinion without having to wade through the current mass of argument. Tevildo 07:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

On one hand I have no problem with that (It's kinda what I've tried to do, but we keep getting sidetracked.) My only question would be "where".

On the other hand, to explain, might require explaining past events (likely lengthily). I think a summary of "how we got here", might be necessary to figure out "what do we do now". (Which is kinda why my initial request at the top of this thread, while stream-of-consciousness, wasn't the "50 words or less"...) But if that isn't a concern then, I suppose "off we go". Does anyone else have any ideas as well? At this point, supplementary suggestions are welcome : ) - jc37 08:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI

• http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/foi/Cyberlaw_Syllabus
• http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/foi/Day_2_Assignment:_Edit_Wikipedia
• http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/foi/Day_3_Assignment_-_Participate_in_Wikipedia_Dispute_Resolution

WAS 4.250 12:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• LOL! Looked at in succession that way, it makes it look like their edits are bound to be disputed :-) I have no real problem with educated people being encouraged to learn about and participate in this project. The critiques of their edits are good - many standard newbie errors pointed out. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm a little suspiscious of "TheWayThingsWork" here: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/foi/Group_6_Dispute_Results 68.39.174.238 23:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Henchman 2000 (talk · contribs)

Henchman 2000 keeps putting back unencyclopedic lists to the Mario Party articles with the only reason being "all the other Mario Party articles have a list of minigames". [7]. After I removed some unencyclopedic things from the articles, he left a somewhat incivil message on my talk page [8], to which I replied. [9] He seemed to have ignored this message, as he is still adding the info back to the articles. What sort of action should be taken here? –Llama man^{sign here} 16:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see it looks like he has stopped. If it happens again try explaining on why you removed the links. The user is probably inexperienced and doesn't know what should and shouldn't be placed in articles. — Arjun 16:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in this case you need this to explain to a new user. Henchman seems (from my contact with him/her) to be a positive contributor, that may just need a little guidance to get started here. Prodego ^talk 17:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to explain it some more. –Llama man^{sign here} 17:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I have. If he/she continues, perhaps someone else could explain it to Henchman? –Llama man^{sign here} 17:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow... this was pretty incivil. Would someone else please explain this situation to him/her? He/she seems to believe that encyclopedias should contain "every molecule of information", and even nominated WP:CRUFT for deletion. He/she (why can't think language have a singular unisex pronoun?) doesn't seem to be believing anything I say, so that's I request that someone else explain it, as I really don't want to get into an edit war over this. –Llama man^{sign here} 20:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have warned him :) — Arjun 21:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

And threatening to edit war is probably not the best of ideas. Metros232 21:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

He/she apologized for being uncivil, but keeps insisting that the minigames list be added back to the articles. Shouldn't Henchman at least start a topic on the talk page to get a consensus? –Llama man^{sign here} 20:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

GNAA and Troll organization

A reference to them is constantly being readded to Troll organization under "notable troll organizations", but since this ref has been removed from the GNAA disambig page and the page has been locked to prevent it from being readded, I have continued to remove it, because if the administration agrees that it doesn't even deserve to be referenced there, then it certainly doesn't anywhere else. I'm concerned that it may be worthy of a reference, as many have said it is, and that the admins are against this because it is viewed as feeding the trolls. I hate trolls as much as the next guy, but if it IS notable enough to merit a reference, then it should be given one, trolls or not.--Azer Red Si? 20:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, it should be added. The fact that we have an article about GNAA is food enough to justify having it listed at troll organization. We can't add more fuel than having an article about GNAA, unless we make it featured and put it in the main page... *shudders* -- ReyBrujo 20:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't we rid of that article as unverifiable? --Spartaz 20:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you are right. I thought Jimbo had said something about not putting it into AFD until 2007, thought it would not be nominated until this year. -- ReyBrujo 20:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

& DRV agreed. In which case we don't need to mention it unless it get references and is verifiable - something the main article found very hard to do properly which was why is was deleted in the end.Spartaz 20:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus that there is no verifiable information about them, especially not to verify their notability. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Fruit Basket as a vandal only account. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it strange that American Nihilist Underground Society is an acceptable as an article and has been subjected to a number of AfDs, but GNAA is not. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 20:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• I checked the sources, none of them actually address the subject in detail. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• • You can AfD it if you think it does not meet inclusion standards. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom ruling on talk page removals?

Can someone point me to the recent ArbCom decision where they ruled that users may remove notices or warnings from their talk pages, as a removal is seen as an acknowledgement that the notice/warning was read? There seems to be a lot of confusion over this matter. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Apparently, I understood that notices of vandalism and the like were to be archived, not deleted. I seem to have misunderstood this. --Kukini 23:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh bother. A Arbcom doesn't make policy rulings, the community does. B There is a long running discussion somewhere (I'll try and find a link) between vandal fighters, who insist that removal of warnings is itself vandalism and a blockable offense, and editors who disagree. C In many many discussions on this page, I have never seen an admin actually willing to block a user for removing a talk page warning. (If you get blocked for it, the debate over whether it is a blockable offense is rather moot.) D The warning removal templates have all been deleted after MfD determined that removing warnings was not by itself a warnable or blockable offense. Thatcher131 23:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Kukini 23:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are some links:

• Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings
• This noticeboard discussion with a good overview of the situation by CBD.
• Additional discussions here, here, here, and here. Thatcher131 00:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

When I said "ruled," I was referring to a ruling in a specific case - and I would like to have that link, since it's been mentioned a few times recently on AN/I. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As Thatcher131 said, the ArbCom doesn't make policy rulings, so you aren't going to get a link to somewhere that they "ruled" on this. The most recent widespread community consensus on the matter can be found here. --CBD 00:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine, replace "ruled" with "said." By focusing on one word, you're both missing the thrust of my question (not to mention assuming that I'm a bit of a dolt, which is rather annoying - this ain't my first rodeo). Several people on AN/I referred to a recent ArbCom case where one ancillary point made by the arbitrators was that removing talk page comments or warnings wasn't a blockable offense (I believe, but I may be mis-stating that). I'd like to see that case. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see that case very much as well, if it exists, but Thatcher131 and I may be the only two users other than the arbitrators who have read every word the ArbCom has written for the past several months, so if neither of us remembers such a case, either the person who remembered seeing such a decision may be mistaken and/or any such statement may be older and/or not prominent in the decision. I've also just checked the page that summarizes all ArbCom decisions and I don't see any reference to this topic, one way or the other, although that page generally is limited to discussing the remedies portion of each decision rather than the principles applied or findings found. If I come across any discussion of this issue in an ArbCom case I will be sure to let you know. Newyorkbrad 00:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Good grief, Brad, even I don't read every word. It doesn't ring a bell, and it would probably be a side comment on one of the evidence talk or workshop pages, rather than part of a final decision. Thatcher131 00:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Brad, I know you hang on AN/I as well - you don't recall this being cited at least once and I believe twice within the last 2-3 weeks? (The case could be old, for all I know, but it only came to my attention recently.) It sounded as if the ArbCom statement was a side-comment on a larger case; now I'm really kicking myself for not bookmarking it or linking to it on my userpage. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the statement on AN/I that there was such a case, but I've looked for the case twice now, unsuccessfully. Thatcher's probably right that if there was anything, it was a side comment rather than a central point of the case. As I said, if I come across anything I'll let you know. You might also post on the talk page for requests for arbitration at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration, which the arbitrators probably read, and see if any of them remember anything. Newyorkbrad 00:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There have been cases where removing warnings was cited as part of a larger pattern of incivility and disruption. Perhaps that is what people are thinking of. If there is a case that directly deals with response to removing warning itself (aside from a larger context of disruption), I've never seen it. Dragons flight 00:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That's right, but the removal of warnings was singled out as something that wasn't prohibited or wasn't blockable. (I did read this - I'm not crazy). It was absolutely not the main issue in the case I'm thinking of. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I recall in an earlier dispute, if someone removes a warning from their talk page, it is acceptable to do so as it indicates that they have been warned before. However, when it comes to IP talk pages, I am not sure, but my opinion is that they should stay. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 23:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I do somewhat recall the ArbCom convering or at least discussing something like this sometime ago (note that I'm speaking from my experience as a user, as I've only been on the committee a week or so now :-) ), but perhaps it was an offhand comment by one of the Arbitrators and not something official? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely for IP talk pages they ought to stay so RC patrollers know that they have been warned before. The warning templates were deleted because a more direct approach is needed; inserting a boilerplate when one is removing warnings is not the answer. —Pilotguy (ptt) 00:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have seen some users archive everything but warnings which they remove. It becomes very hard to correct repetitive misbehaviour when they are hidden away like this. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

But...users with user names may delete the notices without archiving them, right? --Kukini 00:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This is my concern as well, HighINBC. --Kukini 00:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

IP vs logged in user is irrelevant. The only purpose warnings serve is to help the user understand Wikipedia procedures. If they remove the warning they've seen it and it has accomplished its purpose. Re-adding a warning after the user has removed it is edit warring and in some cases harassment. --CBD 00:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. That is the primary purpose of warnings, but they are also helpful in spotting a pattern of behavior from a particular editor. —bbatsell ¿? 00:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Although this issue has been discussed in various forums, I don't recall having seen any ArbCom decision discussing the issue. Had there been such a decision, I am sure it would have been mentioned by someone in the lengthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings and its predecessors. Newyorkbrad 00:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm I bet I can make a bot that goes through a talk page history and points out which revisions have warnings. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

How about one that tallies warnings by category? "This user has received 4 {{test}} warnings (highest was {{test3}}), 2 {{npa}} warnings, and 0 {{seriously}} warnings." I think that's the info I'd want to have if I was on a user talk page and facing the warn/block decision tree. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Such a bot, at least for IP accounts would make RC Patrolling much easier and cleaner! --Kukini 00:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I am picturing a full report, with statistics at the top, and each warning with appearance and removal revisions. It will find all templated warnings and a few key words like legal threat etc... I am already working on the basics. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Where will this bot output be? Since there is no consensus that removing warnings is prohibited, any report a bot posted to a user talk page can be just as easily removed. Thatcher131 00:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it could be protected, or the bot could have subpages. Perhaps it could be a bot run only on an admin's request? | Mr. Darcy talk 00:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I will probably run it offline, you go to a page on my server, enter the name, it will make a report. A bit like interiot's tool. It will only read Wikipedia. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

How's your bandwidth? And you may have a problem with server loads depending on how many queries you run. But that'll be up to the bot approval group. Thatcher131 01:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

With Special:Export I can download the page with entire history with one http request, a long talk page history will only be a few megs(like downloading and image). HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I obviously don't know about your hosting capacity (although I can help you out there if you need it), but I'd recommend caching results. I.e., the first time a report on a specific user is requested, you download everything via Special:Export, parse it, store the positive results in a database, and add a notation in your database showing the last time a report was run on that user, so that future reports would only have to parse changes since that last change. Although I'm sure you've already thought of that and have already written it :) —bbatsell ¿? 01:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

How about adding a JS tool so that it can overlay the results in a box on the user's talk page upon request? —bbatsell ¿? 00:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I would probably support virtually any bot proposal from User:HighInBC after seeing the wonderful work being done by his AIV bot that debuted this week. On the other hand, I can think of at least one mild negative to this proposal, which is that the bot would have no way of distinguishing between valid warnings, borderline ones, and bogus ones. For example, users who revert vandalism will occasionally get a warning suspecting that their edits are vandalism, either because removing a large amount of bad text triggers a bot warning, or because of a near-edit-conflict triggering a revert to a bad version. Right now, when that happens, the affected user figures out what happened, adjusts any mistake that might have been made, deletes or archives the warning, and forgets about it. If the existence of the warning were recorded "on the user's permanent record", then a bad warning might be taken much more seriously. The number of bad-faith warnings designed just to impair an editor's reputation might also increase. I can also imagine that soon enough, someone would run this bot on the account of every RfA candidate, for example. I don't know whether these concerns outweigh the positive potential of this bot but food for thought. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

True, the bot will make that very clear, and post links to the revision's that the warning was added and when the warning was removed, this should be enough for the reviewer to find context. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That alleviates some of the concern, although even so, it could still magnify the effect of trivial disputes and increase some people's desire to leave a "templated" warning rather than a tailor-made one, so it will count as an "official warning." The bot is a great idea if used properly but we will see whether it is. Newyorkbrad 01:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The permanent record already exists, this is just a search engine. No bot can solve the folly of man(gee that is kinda poetic). HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

THis bot idea, it's a joke, right?--Doc^g 01:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No joke. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing "official" about the warning templates. More, there should not be anything "official" about the warning templates. They are no better or worse than the judgment of the editor who applies the template, and they are no better and probably worse than a hand-written message. Now. Use of a bot like the one you are describing would enshrine the warning templates as being official in nature. That would be a bad thing. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Enshrined? That is a bit of a stretch, just a search engine. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If the search-engine were to achieve widespread use, we'd be forced to cater to its expectations, no? "Hmm... I could leave a hand-written message asking them nicely to stop, or... no, I better not, the search engine won't pick it up!" This is already a problem with the rules listed at WP:AIV. We shouldn't be extending the problem. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This potential problem is ill defined, and hypothetical. What's more, user talk page histories are GFDL and anyone is welcome to index them in any way. Wikipedia is built on transparency, the problems you are talking about are something you need to take up with people (potentially)misusing the information the bot provides. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not making a legalistic point. Obviously you or anyone else could write such a thing. But I believe such a search engine is not in the best interest of Wikipedia. So I thought I would discuss why I believed that with the guy, you, who is currently talking about writing it. If you then want to fall back on "there are no rules against writing this", I, I... really don't know what to say! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It was certainly not my intent to fall back onto a "there are no rules against writing this" argument. I think my point about the potential problem being ill defined, and hypothetical is more of the meat of my last statement. I simply do not believe having easier access to an accurate history of a talk page is going to cause more harm than good. My point regarding GFDL is that if someone wanted to do this for pointed purposes there is nothing stopping them, so why not put it in the hands of the good guys too? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Legal schmegal, it's a bad idea. The data you'd get would be worthless in at least two senses. First, as we have been amply arguing all over the place, removing a warning is not indicative of abuse or not of abuse. It depends. Second, all you'd find out is that an action occurred, and not by whom. Additionally, -bots are stupid. They can't tell friend from foe, nor can they tell when a person is cleaning out a nest of [disreputable group here] and committing online sepuku. Finally, if such a bot were to be run, I know that I'd be happy to issue myself as many warnings as I could, just for grins. That would dilute the data considerably, of course, but that would be the point. Finally, there is simply no need for the thing. The "history" tab is available to us all. We don't need another area where -bots enable people to ignore subtlety and nuance and context. Geogre 04:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

First, while removing warning may not be a problem, finding removed warnings can help you determine if it is a problem or not. Secondly, the tool will know who made the change and refer me to the diff where it was added, and removed. It is not supposed to provide a single answer but a series of links to help investigation. Lastly, if you gave yourself a bunch of warnings(hypothetically I assume) to confound an investigation, that would be pointy. I am really writing it for my own use, if other wish to use it I will make it available. I am always coding this kind of thing for myself, just thought I would share. Geez, it is just another way of looking at the same history, no one is letting the tool make the final judgement. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Making a distinction

I do think we need to make a distinction between regular users and blatant IP vandals. Warnings to regular users are usually about content disputes, and escalating the situation by edit warring over warnings never helps. IP vandals shouldn't get the same consideration. I'm not particularly interested in assuming good faith with someone who posts 'XXX IS A PEDERAST over and over again. Thatcher131 01:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless you know that the IP is static, you can't assume that the remover is the vandal. We've had complaints of innocents with mobile IPs who log on, see yellow boxes - find accusations of vandalism, remove them and then get slapped. Talk pages are there for the benefit of the user, not the convenience of the vandal fighter. Blanking messages should always be permitted. If they immediately vandalise again, then block.--Doc^g 01:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no arbitration ruling on warnings. Obviously if someone removes a warning from his own talk page it can be assumed that he has noticed it. Which is the purpose of the warning. If you want to make a permanent notice about continued problems with an editor, and you've reached this point, an RfC is the thing to do. Not squabbling about whether or not you are entitled to maintain a permanent record of your displeasure on his talk page. --Tony Sidaway 01:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What if someone, say a different IP user, removes the warning on another IP user's talk page? I have seen this happen before. I have, up to today, considered such behavior vandalism. Perhaps I have erred in this assumption? --Kukini 01:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't vandal fighters use page histories? If I suspect there might be anything misleading about a page, I go straight to the page history, and if I uncover lots of removals, I then investigate further. Carcharoth 02:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, if I received a warning I wanted to remove, I would leave links behind on the talk page, pointing at the diff that added it, and the diff that removed it. Kind of like archiving to page history, rather than archiving to a visible archive. Archiving to page history also has the advantage of the links not showing up in "what links here" or in Google searches, and the page not being categorised, but you can still pull out a view of what the page looked like if you want to. Carcharoth 02:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• The history tab is available for all, and removal is simply an act without value. If I put a warning on an IP, then realized that it was AOL and removed it, there would be a warning removal that was a correction. If a new user goes around insisting that the Trojans attacked Athens in The Iliad and I revert him, I darn sure better be able to remove a warning, template, or box he puts on my talk page. These "warnings" are brainless by themselves: they're templates, and therefore they should only be used in the first place when you think that the account being communicated with is anonymous and unresponsive. If it's a user, an actual editor who is here most days, who talks and goes back to things, then a damn template does no damn good. If it's a user, you owe him or her an actual attempt to communicate. We began using these blasted templates merely for the hit and run vandals and substub scribblers, not for any form of resolution. Personally, I think that all long time contributors should instantly remove any template warning and demand, instead, an actual explanation with attendant listening. Geogre 04:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem with this bot is that it encourages those users who think that the best way to resolve a dispute is attacking people who disagree with them. If a warning template becomes part of a permanent record against someone (which this implies) that's an incentive to give warning templates to people in dispute against you, so that you can later argue that said person has a history of being disruptive. >Radiant< 12:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Why We Fight

...each other. It seems to me that templates of all sorts do not require, at present, consensus or even agreement before they are placed. Therefore, anyone can put any template any place. Because there is no reasoning necessary for putting a "clean this up" tag or a "this should be merged" or "vandal" tag, we end up with arguments after the placement instead of before. Because there is no necessary reasoning ahead of time, we can't have any idea whether the placement is apt or not. If we could be sure that every warning template of any sort were placed on the basis of solid agreement, then we could see the removal of a warning as a bad act. Also, we could then counsel the person so tagged to accept the template/tag meekly. However, when anyone can put any tag on anything without demonstrating advanced reasoning, there is no particular inherent value to it. All it means at present is, "One person disliked or wanted to highlight something." That's why the answer to all of the argument is, I'm afraid, "it depends." Geogre 14:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry, Vandalism & SPAM on Bharatanatyam page

Hello,

I would like to bring to your attention of the recent activity on the Bharatanatyam page. Some of the users once in a while will take off information from the site such as the origins of the dance from Tamil Nadu, also some of the historical mentionings of the dance in Tamil literature. There seems to be some kind of POV advocacy which pops up once in a while. Also, there are some users whom are posting links to advertisements. Furthermore, I have noticed that these users do not have their own user name page. Below are the following user names which have been involved in such activity:

• User:Jayajaya (note: possible sock puppetry)
• User:Anitaa (note: deletes information which has already been cited, adding POVs)
• User:61.247.253.102 (note: warned 3 times for spamming, and blacklisted on wikipedia)
• User:Sangeeeeta (note: possible sock puppetry)
• User:Sakthi24 (note: previously warned for spamming)
• User:Bluegurl0095 (note: possible sock puppetry)
• User:SadirAttam (note: this one actually admits avertizing on wikipedia - User talk:SadirAttam

I have also posted messages on the Talk:Bharatanatyam page after each incident. Much work has been put into this topic with cited sources. This continuous POV editing, deletions, and Spamming does not help the article one bit and is becoming a nuisance. Hopefully this will stop.

Wiki Raja 06:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Posted identically at ANI. Suggest that any replies go there so that discussion can be in one place. Newyorkbrad 06:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

So, in the future, should I post on ANI? Regards.

Wiki Raja 08:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

One or the other (if it doesn't belong in one of the other noticeboards listed at the top of the page), depending on the nature of the problem, but not both, please. -- Donald Albury 18:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

ProtectionBot RFA and status

Per Betacommand's demand, I have shut down the ProtectionBot script running on my admin account and filed an RFA for ProtectionBot. Though I consider RFA a suboptimal tool for addressing this issue, I am prepared to accept that some members of this community will recognize nothing less. However, I would like to renew my general request that ProtectionBot be allowed to continuing running on my account during the RFA. Should the dozens of support votes at BRFA somehow vanish, I will gladly shut it down, but given the nature of the issue being addressed I feel the delay will unnecessarily expose Wikipedia to additional vandalism merely for the sake of process. Dragons flight 09:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a bureacrat, I see no need for someone who is already an admin to do anything beyond the normal bot request procedure. Raul654 09:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, another bureaucrat (Essjay) has spoken at length disagreeing with you. Dragons flight 10:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

So can someone confirm they will be taking care of protections, or watching for unprotected stuff, while the RfA is running. That is the important thing. Carcharoth 19:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I would support continuing to run ProtectionBot during the 7-day RfA period, at least on the same basis as the trial was operated. I had posted an inquiry on current status to the RfA talkpage and on the bot approval page, before seeing this thread, and will leave them to see if we can gather a consensus to do that. Newyorkbrad 20:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, talk about running it while the RFA is pending is going on here - Cheers! —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 02:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Images "by" User:RoboRanks

Today I have deleted several imagevios uploaded by RoboRanks (talk · contribs). They were found on different websites, all tagged with {{PD-self}}. (1 2 3 4 5) I'm inclined to think that most if not all images uploaded by RoboRanks are copyright violations. Of course, the guy may be a photographer travelling all over the world with specific interest for the Somali people, but given five blatant copyvios it's hard to beleive this.

So, any opinions on the actions to take? Delete all images, warn or block user? Conscious 11:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete all images and final warning to user, I suggest. Tyrenius 13:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

These user's images are definitely questionable. It would be quite remarkable if images like Image:Somalipeople.jpg and Image:Somalipeople.jpg were taken by this user. I would support deleting all the PD-self images he has uploaded. - SimonP 23:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggest checking for Primetimery. 68.39.174.238 23:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested block

Could someone please permanently block me (link). //Dirak 11:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The blocking policy specifically prohibits using blocks to enforce Wikibreaks or other leaves of absence from Wikipedia. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 14:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a wikibreak enforcer somewhere, but can't find it around... -- ReyBrujo 15:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer. Pretty neat, never used it myself though since I know the ways around it. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 15:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In future, don't ask here, just vandalise a few pages and let procedure take its course. Seriously, getting yourself blocked a bad idea; you might want to come back some day – Gurch 15:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, I can't get the Wikibreak code to work, as evidenced by my editing here. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 15:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That's because I'm a total dunce. I changed code comments rather than actual code. You can sooooo tell I've not been revising my Java over Christmas. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 15:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Are we all sure the Wikibreak code still works? I really can't get it to work. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 16:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just, er, not edit Wikipedia? Or are you really so addicted you can't tear yourself away? You may wish to seek professional help if that is the case – Gurch 17:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just testing it. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 17:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Just mail me your computer, I will guard it till you want it back. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I read through CrnaGora (talk · contribs · count) last contributions. I think that these blocks should be granted just to prevent this waste of resources and time. Hbdragon88 03:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:67.165.216.16

I'd be grateful if someone could look in on 67.165.216.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (who apparently is probably a mock-puppet of User:Primetime. I was alerted to his behaviour at World Book Encyclopedia, where he's been heatedly defending a very PoV version of the article. His response to attempts to reason with him have been unhelpful. After an explanation at the Talk page, I added {{NPOV}} to the article, made some minor copy-editing edits and added a couple of {{facts}}s. he's now simply reverting that, and started stalking my edits, peppering one article randomly with {{fact}}, and blanking another and replacing it with a copyvio notice. I suspect that he just needs blocking, though obviously I can't do that. At the very least, though, a warning from someone else might help. thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm close to 100% sure that's User:Primetime. Compare [10] with his final comment on his original talk page [11] -- if the other similarities, as well as the geographical location of the IP, don't convince you. Passes the duck test, I'd say. Antandrus (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the "I already have a mother", together with the plaintive paranoia combined with aggression (though that's all too common), suggest that they're the same person. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the link to the LTA page for anyone else reading this thread. I blocked the IP for 24h (seems dynamic, but anyone feel free to change the time). Antandrus (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That's clearly Primetime, based on the fact that it's a previous IP he used, that all the contributions are in his fields of interest, and that he exhibits the combativeness of Primetime. I'm going to change the block to a month. -Will Beback · † · 01:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I would support such extension of block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

POV edits to Animal marriage and Same-sex marriage

Hi, not sure if this is the right place for this, but User:137.22.25.150 has been inserting some strange statements into these articles. I reverted twice on Animal marriage, thinking it was vandalism. Now I'm not sure exactly how to proceed. Some help is needed. Thanks. Robotman1974 18:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

At a quick glance, the edits on Animal marriage are unsourced, so unless the anon comes up with something to back them up, they're probably not appropriate. I'd say that's not a very good lead sentence, either. The SSM edits, I'm not sure about - looks like there's some discussion regarding the link there, so maybe take that one to the talk page. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on Nebuchadnezzar II and Nebuchadrezzar II

Disagreement on what the King's name is and which should redirect to which, has been going back and forth for several versions now. (Article content has "Nebuchadnezzar", and title seems to have been at various versions of that since creation.) There are a whole bunch of other redirects that may need to be checked once this one's settled. Fan-1967 19:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected. Ral315 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

db-copyvio

Hello. I hope this is the right place to ask this. I'm jonesing to go on a mass deletion of inappropriate images from {{software-screenshot}} and its descendants. My main concern is that there are literally hundreds of images that are tagged as fair-use images but are not being used in the encyclopedia as such. I'd like to expedite the process of deleting these images by using {{db-copyvio}}, with a focus on three areas:

• Google Earth screen captures that are not used in the Google Earth article
• Pictures of people and places that were probably taken as screen captures from web sites
• Images tagged with copyleft licenses where it is clearly inappropriate (i.e. where someone is claiming GFDL on a screenshot that consists entirely of copyrighted software)

If an administrator with some experience in matters of image copyrights can comment on whether going straight to db-copyvio is the right thing to do, or if there's another path I should follow, I will appreciate the insight. Thanks! -/- Warren 21:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I symphatise with your project, but as a matter of policy, I'd venture the opinion that under the current structure of WP:CSD, WP:CSD#I6 or WP:CSD#I7 override WP:CSD#G12 in cases where either could be applied. This is because WP:CSD#I6 and WP:CSD#I7, which deal with images only, are the more specific rules. In other words, if WP:CSD#G12 could be applied in cases where the criteria of WP:CSD#I6 and WP:CSD#I7 are met, these latter criteria would be superfluous and would not need to be enumerated at all. Yet they are still on the books, and so must have some meaning. That's why I think that you should delete screenshots per WP:CSD#I6 if they are tagged as fair use but miss a rationale, or per WP:CSD#I7 if they are obviously falsely tagged as GFDL. Sandstein 22:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If there are images that are clearly Google Earth screencaptures used to illustrate something other than Google Earth, then they should probably be deleted. (as long as they're clearly google earth, and not from a similar-looking but free source like WorldWind). --Interiot 22:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I get another read on a situation?

An editor Router (talk · contribs · count), whose first edit was June 2006 to Farmers Insurance was adding a criticism section and a link to famersinsurancesucks.com, is making me suspicious. I encountered him at the Farmers Insurance article during an edit war over users removing the criticism (among other things). As far as I could tell from my looking at his contributions, it seems most of his edits revolved around trying to keep whateversucks.com and criticism sections in articles (Farmers, Zurich, Paypal). He's been warned before that wikipedia is not a soapbox, but still seems committed to the criticism and sucks.com pages. He looks very much like a SPA.

Can I get some others to take a look? Syrthiss 00:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:70.103.176.242 is worth looking at, he (R) gave them a "blatantvandal" warning for removing a paragraph with their links in it. 68.39.174.238 05:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I suspect that may just be Router notloggedin. :) Syrthiss 12:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Wait, that one looks like they were removing the Mormons4justice stuff and explaining to router about removing edits. You sure you picked the right ip out of the bunch? There was one that added the suck.com site earlier than june. Syrthiss 12:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Advice requested on username

I notice User:Merkinmuffly and left a username warning on the user's talk page. Merkinmuffly has replied on my talk page with the following:

You flagged my username (Merkinmuffly) as inappropriate. I read the article on inappropriate usernames and I agree that this name could fall under that heading. However my intention was not to reference the slang terms but rather the character of Merkin Muffley from the film Dr. Strangelove. Which, admittedly, itself refers to the slang terms. Anyway, I'm fond the of name (and the film) and it's served me well as a username for several sites, since it seems rarely to be taken. I'm wondering if you're personally offended by it or just noticed it as part of some kind of automatic flagging. If so, is there any chance we can wait to see if someone is genuinely offended by it before we force the name change? For what it's worth, in my experience, the people who know what merkin means usually know who "Merkin Muffley" is, too.Merkinmuffly 01:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As the user appears to have chosen the name in good faith and is asking nicely, I've come here to ask the opinion of others. -- Donald Albury 01:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names is the place for username discussions. -- JLaTondre 01:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Their good faith and niceness certainly does play in their favor. Perhaps looking at past similar examples might help (though at WP:RFCN). -- Natalya 01:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Without actually looking at RFCN, I had the impression that was cases where the user had not responded to the request to change the name. I'll move this to there. -- Donald Albury 02:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Reporting sockpuppets

CrnaGora (talk · contribs · count) has decided to leave Wikipedia, and on his page he has left a list of all of his sockpuppets. Here they are:

• User:Editman9000
• User:Emperor of Europe
• User:Europa22
• User:Gaius Julius Caesar
• User:God of Chaos
• User:Milan B.
• User:Mongora
• User:Montenegrin Serb
• User:Ottoman Sultan
• User:Piroman
• User:Pravi Gusinjac
• User:The True Garfield
• User:VZDSL

Just thought you would want to know.--CJ King 02:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a great way to get totally unrelated people banned. Is there any evidence these are actual socks? Superm401 - Talk 09:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-creation of deleted pages

What's the policy for users re-creating a page of theirs that was deleted? If several months have passed, does that change anything? I'm particularly concerned about Mama Zogbé, deleted in September and re-created today. I've been in a long dispute with this user and do not want to take any action myself, so thought I'd mention it here. Thanks, — BrianSmithson 02:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If it was speedy deleted then it is generally okay(though may still be speedy deletable for the same or other reasons). But if it was deleted due to an AfD then WP:CSD#G4 comes into play. Failing meeting speedy deletion criteria, you can nominate it for WP:AfD if you feel it needs to be deleted. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged it with {{db-repost}}. If it's generally the same text it will likely be deleted. Hbdragon88 02:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's now deleted. You can tell them to go to WP:DRV if they wish to overturn a deletion. Of course, if an article is deleted for lack of content, you can simply go ahead and write a better one without need for any process. >Radiant< 12:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's back up Yet Again - I (re-)tagged it as {{db-repost}}, but someone with the magic bits should salt it. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 15:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

SALTed it, and left note on the talk page for the re-creator with a note about DRV. Syrthiss 15:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

They recreated it as a section on the talk page, and I've removed it again. Syrthiss 16:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

They recreated it again as a section on the talk page, and I've removed it yet again and protected the talk page. Syrthiss 14:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a request

Is there an oversight who would like to listen to my problems? Sergeant Gerzi 09:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but there are admins like me who might read them if you post here. Superm401 - Talk 09:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want an edit to be oversighted, see Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Don't post requests on that page, but use the email link to contact the oversight mailing list – Gurch 18:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Meta admin needed

A meta admin is requested to look over Wikipedia:Interwiki map, a page for discussing pruning of the m:interwiki map. Other users are of course welcome to comment; specifically, the list of mappings is very long and contains many mappings to sites we do not generally accept as external links. >Radiant< 10:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Funnypop12 and the Muhammad article

Funnypop12 is insisting on removing all the images of Muhammad in the Muhammad article. In an edit summary he mentioned that he believed that the images that we have there are actually images of Persian kings, and not of Muhammad. However, when asked to substantiate his opinion, he has refused to respond. Several editors has again and again asked him to reply to the questions on the articles talk page, but has refused to do so, and has ignored these requests and questions. Funnypop12's only reply has been to revert again and again, usually without any edit summary. The fact that he refuses to explain himself, and the fact that he keeps reverting without any edit summaries, has made the situation quite difficult for the other editors of that article. I request that an Admin now do something to change the current, unacceptable situation. -- Karl Meier 10:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please consider dispute resolution or request page protection. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you want us to use dispute resolution dealing with a guy that refuses to respond, and instead continue to revert without any edit summaries? Anyway, there is already a mediation going on regarding this article, and Funnypop12 ignores any request to participate there or on the talk page. As for page protection, I don't see why the other editors of the article should be prevented from editing it. Funnypop12 is the only editor that is clearly disruptive there. -- Karl Meier 10:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you are basically doing the same thing, removing well-sourced material over and over again from the very same article. --Aminz 10:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that you are now supporting a guy that is reverting without using any edit summaries, and who is refusing to explain himself. That is quite interesting Aminz... As for your "well-sourced material", my problem with it is that you are presenting it in a way that is shouting a message at the reader. But that is another issue, that is properly more suitable for another type of dispute resolution. -- Karl Meier 10:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like a Wikipedia:Single purpose account. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And based on the first edits that he made, there has been several editors guessing that it might be the sock puppet of a more experienced user. -- Karl Meier 11:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest WP:RFCU. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I already did that. It was refused as I didn't knew exactly who the user behind the possible sock puppet is. The reply was that check user is not for fishing. -- Karl Meier 11:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That user might be a sockpuppet or might not since the edit is removing the picture of Muhammad which everybody can do. As far as I know this issue is not settled down yet and there is a mediation over it. As I said before, I don't see your edits to be much different than that user's. --Aminz 11:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Funnypop12 is most likely a sock of banned User:BhaiSaab. However, it's not improbable that it's a sock of either User:ALM scientist or User:BostonMA both of whom are edit warring to remove Muhammad's images. Regardless of the puppetmaster, Funnypop12 is an abusive sockpuppet created for the sole purpose of edit warring. Beit Or 11:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It might be or not. --Aminz 11:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead of throwing blanket accusations here, Beit Or, prove that it is a sockpuppet. Such accusations might be considered as personal attacks. Be careful. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather than guessing who might be behind this account, I believe we should work on getting the problem solved. Fact is that he refuses to respond to the questions that several editors have asked him, and fact is that he continue reverting without caring to explain himself properly. Nearly Headless Nick, what do you think we should do about this? As he refuses to respond to any messages on his talk page, on the articles talk page or elsewhere, I believe that dispute resolution isn't a useful option. -- Karl Meier 11:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If he's non-responsive, mediation is out, but RFC is certainly in. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 13:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Odd user page and user behaviour

Hi. Apologies if this is the wrong place to post, but I think it's the best place. Please take a look at this user page and also the user's edit history. User:Bunchofgrapes has asked him to desist from spamming, but as well as the edit behaviour, the user page is worrisome. --Dweller 11:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Obvious SPA, he's using WP to get signatures on a petition about himself, and canvassing. No useful contribs. I've blanked his user page for now, it should probably be deleted. >Radiant< 12:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Patrick Haseldine is a curious mix of WP:SOAP and flannel. I considered AfDing it but there might, under the layers of trivia (do we really need a whole paragraph saying how he wrote the Nulabour and they told him to get lost?), be a valid subject. I'd bet Actual Money that the anon who created and did most of the work on this is Haseldine himself, and I wonder about the identity of Phase1 (talk · contribs) and Phase4 (talk · contribs), but that's because I'm a nasty suspicious bastard. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• The user says on his user page that he's Patrick Haseldine. I've posted a note about observing WP:COI on his talk page. John Broughton | Talk 14:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Occitan people

A while ago this category came up for renaming, and was being discussed, with the possibility of deletion. Grcampbell (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) depopulated the category completely (its subsequent emptiness led to at least one participant in the debate supporting deletion). I repopulated it; Grcampbell reverted my attempts for a while, but (despite his managing to get me a 3RR block) I finally managed to get the thing done. The debate was finished, the category was kept and renamed. he's now busy depopulating it again.

I have no doubt that the category has been wrongly applied in at least some cases, but the aggression and single-mindedness with which this user is removing all trace of it suggests to me a political motive. Could someone knowledgeable in this field have a look, and at least set my mind at rest?

Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No political motivation in the removal of this category applied to people erroneously either then or now, as previously my actions were carried out after discussion on French talk pages and when the category was tagged for speedy renaming, not deletion. The way this category was/is applied to everyone from the south of France, regardless of ethnicity or linguistic abilities could have been politically motivated. I have left it on people from Languedoc-Roussillon and Midi-Pyrénées, esp. from before the mass migration of people. However, as I was under the impression that information on wikipedia had to be verifiable, the removal should be done unless it can be verified that these people are occitan. An example of how this category was misused is on Olinde Rodrigues, a Spanish Jewish banker, not an occitan. Unless the facts can be verified, one should err on the cautious, especially with living people. On another note, what Mel Etitis has failed to purposely mention (for whatever reason is anyones guess), is that I have been filling up the appropiate sub-categories with verified occitan people. --Bob 16:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't deliberately fail to mention it; I didn't know. The way that categories work is that it's only possible to monitor their contents for articles on one's watchlist. The ones that you removed are on my watchlist, from when I repopulated the category, the ones that you've added aren't.

Still, thank you for clearing up the matter. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a cup of AGF all around, for Bob and Mel. :) Syrthiss 16:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm still not convinced. User:Grcampbell's depopulation of the category is too single-minded for me to be comfortable. Although he usually doesn't explain his removal of the category (merely saying that it's inappropriate), he occasionally lets slip that it's because there's no evidence that the person in question spoke Occitan. In other words, he's operating from the position that Occitan people are only those who speak the language. I take that to be a personal view, doubtless held by many others, probably a majority view, but not uncontroversial, and not to be simply assumed when taking unilateral decisions about the appropriateness of categories.

Few people here are interested in the matter, and so I doubt that anything will be done (I'm certainly not going to go into this without support; his aggressive response last time makes it clear that it would be an unpleasant waste of time), but I'll still put myself on record as being worried by his actions. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Article creation form?

This is the first time I've seen this, and I can't find any sign of it around the help pages, so I am curious what the hell it is: Click edit on Heat capacity rate -- it's clear that the user who created this page did so by filling out some kind of form. Does such a form exist? I've never seen one. The advice given is not bad or wrong, but I did not know such a thing existed (and if it does, the form contents should probably not be in the article, right?) Thoughts? Dina 17:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like this was copied from the form for Wikipedia:Articles for creation, which is for people who want to propose articles being created without registering and dealing with any other issues themselves. See, for example, [12]. —Centrx→talk • 18:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, got it. I'll go clean it up. Thanks Dina 18:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the form - or if you will, the wizard, is here: Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Wizard-Introduction. John Broughton | Talk 14:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RPP

I've been contacted by a user who says there's a backog at WP:RPP. Could anyone more familiar with this process work on it? Conscious 18:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The backlog has been alleviated. -- tariqabjotu 21:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Conscious 21:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Commons images on the Main Page

Okay, let's review this because I have had to fix this no less than three times in the past week.

When an image from Wikimedia Commons is on the Main Page, you have two options: (a) protect the image both here and on Wikimedia Commons or (b) download the image from Commons and then upload it locally (and then protect, copy image info over). All admins are at least capable of doing the second option on their own, so please let's get this down so we don't have anymore of the shock image vandalism on the Main Page that we have had in the past month. -- tariqabjotu 19:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be demanding a {{shrubbery}} to request that the spadework be done by the preparation gnomes. The image can be PRODed on creation, after all. Then the protectionbot (other shrubbeires notwithstanding) will be able to do their funky thing. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't understand a word of what you said. Could you rephrase that, without the lingo? -- tariqabjotu 00:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't get it either, but I suspect it has something to do with another thing we may need to check at WP:FAC - that the work is done in advance - but I don't know what that work is. I still can't speak Fair use or Images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. let me get out my JzG-English translator. "I don't think it would be asking too much that the basic work on the article be done beforehand (ie, the image be uploaded locally), so the bot (barring any other issues), can protect the article from the main page vandal." Hope this helps. SirFozzie 00:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I understand what he means. I don't think ProtectionBot (I'm assuming that that is the bot mentioned?) is relevant to the discussion here: if it passes and runs, then the bot would take care of all of this, except for the deletion of the image (it would tag the image for speedy deletion instead.) However, for right now, while we don't have a bot, administrators need to pay careful attention to images on the Main Page and used from Wikimedia Commons. Protecting the image description page here, without protection on Commons, will not suffice; the image must be uploaded locally and then protected. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• For a protection to work, we need the image uploaded here. We can't protect a non-existing image and if we don't upload it here, someone else can upload an image with the same name and overwrite the commons one. Only option b works, hence the c-uploaded template. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's not true, according to several Wikipedia instructions regarding this topic; option (a) does work. Protecting the image on Commons and the image description page on the English Wikipedia prevents non-sysops from uploading a new image locally under the same name and tampering with the image description page. -- tariqabjotu 17:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• I definitely don't speak images, Fair Use, or bot. If this ultimately means we need to start asking that images be local (I guess that means, not commons?) on FAC, will someone post a note at the talk page of WP:FAC? Over my head, over and out, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing has changed recently, so here is no need to comment at WP:FAC. -- tariqabjotu 19:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure we've got a procedure

Re: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_4#Category:Categories_for_deletion -- Can this section be closed because of rethinking... (read quickly)

Xpost clarification from Commander Keane

I don't think it's any big deal, but the issue was raised that revising the CFD proposal as I did this afternoon perhaps ought be cause for restarting the discussion. Trouble is I don't know that I have any authority to unilaterally say delete it and start a discussion under the new modified proposal which effectively adds one category leaving the subject cat alone save for clarification editting. That would be fine except since posting, a half-a dozen others have agreed with my original (less informed) thinking. OTOH, we're sort of switching horses mid-stream if left alone. Either way, unless there is a procedural precedent to close the current discussion, someone could get their nose out of joint. Hence the alert and question on AN. If that's not clear on either WP:AN or my talk, I don't know how to make the point better. Examining the linked CFD should clarify it upon inspection. I guess I'll post this to AN as well. Best regards // FrankB 02:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Original request

This message below Xposted fm Here on My talk, as I'm not sure there is a standard procedure to cover this. Note: That linked section is tagged with {{helpme}}. Sub-title: Convinced by the two contrary votes or 'Whoops!' (Your choice! <g>) Re: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_4#Category:Categories_for_deletionTwo editors have suggested the current section be closed and restarted for this date, with my revised proposal of this afternoon. (Here on My talk and on that CFD discussion -- comments by User:Jc37) Unfortunately, there was a strong current in accord with my original suggestion, which for consistency in category naming practices, now seems to need adjusted, in effect withdrawing my own nomination, which I did via an edit a while back. The contention is that the new section is now too complicated, this violates procedure, or both. Sigh. Assuming you all can reach a consensus on how to handle this then... Per the (above) suggestion at Fabartus#Thanks_for_your_notification. and that made recently on the section bottom Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_4#Category:Categories_for_deletion can we get an appropriate close out, link to the revised and re-dated discussion per this suggestion and that left on that CFD talk, or other such measures that are appropriate to keep the admin tracking straight. Or do we let this original proposal ride, etcetera, including my revised proposal or would it be best to leave both proposals as necessary and let the spam notification have time to work to see if others change their vote or comment. (Waiting with bated breath on your collective wisdom! <g>) A 'Good Courtesy Complication': Since I contacted all parties who had signed the text one way or the other, if the current discussion section is closed, please leave a link to the new section and page dated today, etc. As the one suggestion points out, changing the proposal due to my brain fart in line with the better proposal seems in order... as does simplifying it for the novice. On the other hand, this tangles the rules up more than a little. Suggestions and resolution please. Whomever closes this out, there is also a {{helpme}} on that talk page section, as speed seems to be a good idea. Best regards // FrankB 00:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Germanium and Walstad's conjecture

User:Germanium creates and re-creates nonsensical Walstad's conjecture; please SALT! Also this user adds nonsensical edits to other articles, including Gödel's incompleteness theorems and Everything, something must be done! -- 131.111.8.99 02:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please also remove link to Walstad's conjecture from Theory of everything: can't do it myself as it is sprotected. -- 131.111.8.99 02:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Germanium is indefblocked, and I'm going to remove the link now (if it hasn't been already). The block should remove any need to salt - if someone recreates it in the near future, they'll be blocked as a sock of Germanium. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

New (non) blocking capability.

Our friends the developers have implemented a new feature which allows an account to be given a permission indicating that they should not be subject to blocks on their IP address. Currently this new permission is set for... us. All sysops are now immune to IP blocks. If you use the same IP/range as a vandal the IP can now be blocked for all users... except you. This sort of capability might also be useful in cases where a few legitimate users have the same IP as alot of vandals (schools come to mind). Currently, so far as I know, there is no interface for setting / removing the permission, but I expect that's being explored. --CBD 11:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Neat!--Mackensen (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Massively neat! KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Neato! --Syrthiss 12:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a good feature for admins. I don't think it's a good idea to hand it out to other people. It would just become another form of the repeatedly rejected "Trusted User" proposal. If we ever do decide to create a trusted user group, it would be good to give it this permission, but I doubt that will happen any time soon. --Tango 13:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would hope you are wrong about this, and that this permission is opened widely in the near future. It is annoying to get autoblocked, but what is more annoying is that you cannot fix the situation without revealing personal information. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I and many other trusted users have no desire to use admin tools; but one step at a time Wikipedia is creating admins as a special class not to be blocked even if they do things nonadmins would be blocked for. The constant drumbeat that "admin" = "trusted user" is problematic. WAS 4.250 14:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please (re-)read the details. This change has nothing to do with a block on an admin's registered account. Rather, if an IP address is blocked, an admin can continue to use that IP address - for example, at a school. This change has nothing to do with privileges; it's about keeping a scarce resource (admin time) from being inadvertently reduced. John Broughton | Talk 14:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, admins can still be blocked... you just have to block their account directly rather than blocking their IP and having it automatically impact them. --CBD 15:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For instance, admins regularly get blocked as a result of AOL blocks, but I thought this problem was solved with the AO-only block? This flag is still useful, of course, for blocks when admins forget to set the AO flag, but I don't think that's a common mistake nowadays. Nonetheless, a useful feature! --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a bit redundant with 'anonymous only' blocks. The difference is that if there is alot of anon vandalism and registered sockpuppets from an IP/range you could go ahead and block everyone and then give this flag to the few legitimate users. --CBD 15:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Could perhaps longstanding users with reasonable edit counts request this kind of flag? For example, I often edit from TJHSST, which is behind one of the FCPS proxies. Every time there's an IP block because of some kid having "fun" with a page or the like, I'm autoblocked. This kind of flag would not confer any advantage--any user could still be blocked by an admin. 151.188.16.20 20:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Bug or dumb admin?

Something odd happened last night and I'm trying to figure out if I hit a bug, found odd but expected behavior, or if I was just brain dead. I noticed that the very first edit for Douglas Bradford Oliver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) had unacceptable material in the edit summary. The page had a total of four edits so it seemed pretty straight forward to delete the page and restore just the last three edits. After I did this, I went back in and was surprised to find all of the edit summaries still in place. After deleting the page again I restored just the last edit. Still, four edit summaries shown, but I couldn't see the details in the edits. This would be OK accept that the problem information was in the edit summary itself. At that point I found out that the user had been indef-blocked for a vandalism spree so I just deleted the page and called it done.

Being that I don't want to expirement with creating, editing, and deleting pages to recreate the behavior, can someone plesae tell me if this is normal? If it is normal, how do we remove edit summaries that have issues? Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 12:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you were seeing the history as it was chached in your web browser. You have to force a reload or clear your cache. Thatcher131 12:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Several times. Now, I did a standard "F5" refresh instead of a "CTRL-F5". Hopefully that wasn't an issue. Usually I've only had to use CTRL-F5 when there are sub-pages (such as js or css files) which need reloading. --StuffOfInterest 12:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Typically I find I have to do a junk edit to the article for the history to reflect the removed edits. Syrthiss 12:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi SOI, sometimes the servers need time to catch up; if you wait five minutes and clear your browser cache, then you shouldn't be able to see the deleted edit summaries anymore. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

One edit to the article should fix the history. When I do history merges, I typically only get half the history after the restore, then use rollback on my last edit (the move), and get the full history. Kusma (討論) 13:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, SOI, it's not your fault. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 16:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I know, it's genetic. :) --StuffOfInterest 17:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen the page history being shown correctly after fixing a cut and paste move, or deleting and restoring to get rid of a specific revision. If you click on the button to change the history page to show only 20 revisions (or anything that you hadn't used before), it'll show the history correctly. - Bobet 18:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Where cooler heads prevail

I would like to ask that some neutral parties calm down the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Husnock in particular the discussion about ip addresses coming out of Dubai. I have to admit the case against Husnock is pretty strong but there also really does appear to be a number of shared ip addresses and possibly public computer labs where these messages are coming from, giving rise to the unrefutable issue that these could indeed be separate people. Discussions about their motivations is moot, there is little way to know why anyone surfs a particular webpage. There is starting to grow concern that all of these ip addresses are being labeled as either being Husnock himself or being persons manipulated by Husnock. One person even went so far as to say he would assume all posts from the address were Husnock unless the people contacted him to say they weren't. This appears to have greatly upset one relatively new user who posted to the page and then was called a sockpuppet of Husnock without much basis. Maybe people just need to be kindler and gentler and not jump to conclusions. Husnock's own webpage says he is gone from the site and he hasn't edited in weeks. The main purpose of this message to make sure these ip ranges don't get blocked as they are used by dozens of people. Just need some help from neutral parties. -213.42.2.27 17:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As no one has said anything about blocking these IP ranges I would suggest that it might be wise for 'uninvolved' anonymous contributors to stop involving themselves in this matter. --CBD 18:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup. An amazing coincidence that all of these 'uninvolved' anons and at least one new account (Pahuskahey (talk · contribs)) write in a very similar cadence, share very similar interests (Starfleet ranks), etc. The personal attacks against other parties in the case aren't helping also. - Merzbow 19:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It is also amazingly coincidental how all of them knew to immediately go to the talk page of Husnock's arbitration case, and nowhere else. Proto::► 19:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

By editing the case pages, you involve yourself. Just cut it out. Thatcher131 19:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

thing is, if (Pahuskahey (talk · contribs)) is a sock (seems likely - normal feeble stories about sharing an office, lab, being in the area etc), I'm a little concerned about the pictures on his userpage. --Charlesknight 20:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

History merge for two revisions?

I just noticed Bio-Hazard Battle and Bio-hazard Battle existed at the same time, but were merged today. The article is now in the former link, but the history in the later. I am thinking about deleting the Bio-Hazard Battle and moving Bio-hazard Battle there. Anyone think a history merge is better (there are apparently two revisions at the later that are not in the former)? I am at work, that is why I have time to ask. If you want to do anything, just do it :) -- ReyBrujo 18:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete it, just turn it into a redirect. And move the history to wherever the final article ends up. --Cyde Weys 20:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

iPhone and Apple iPhone

Need a hand here. I already fully protected Apple iPhone as a redirect to iPhone, but people are converting the iPhone article into a redirect to the others. There must be a history merge between both articles at a late date. -- ReyBrujo 20:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)