Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive73

Agree with blocking for racist and personal attack comments?
Even though I'm an administrator, I wanted to see if other admins agreed with how I'm proposing to deal with User:Williamdevino. This supposed 14-year-old kid from England is going around posting racist and hateful comments on different talk pages, expressing support for the KKK while also sphewing hate at people of color. For samples of this, see his userpage and talk page, as well as and. That last link shows User:Williamdevino demonstrating his talent at truly wonderous language. That last post also seems like it falls under the blocking policy for making "Personal attacks that place users in danger," as well as a violation of the NPA guideline. However, before I blocked him I wanted to see if other admins agreed with doing this. Also, should he be given a warning before blocking or has he already crossed the line on acceptable behavior?--Alabamaboy 20:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd go with one warning, and a block for any hate-speech after that. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like a neo-Nazi troll more than anything else, considering his edits. One warning, and if refuted, indef-block. --210 physicq  ( c ) 20:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I just posted the warning. We'll see what happens now. Thanks,--Alabamaboy 20:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have indef-blocked already based on edits such as this, but since he's extremely likely to violate the warning it may not matter much. Newyorkbrad 20:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I blocked briefly after seeing that second diff. That's really, really not a "get off with a warning"-level breach of our behaviour guidelines. Jkelly 21:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was tempted to block him immediately but he'd posted comments on some article talk pages I edit and I didn't want people to think I had a conflict of interest.--Alabamaboy 21:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I love this comment on his user page: "I am a supporter of the KKK, AWB and NAZI party and have been since I had an apifamy of sorts and acquired white, Christian, European pride." Apifamy? Sounds like some painful type of bowel blockage :-).--Alabamaboy 21:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? After comments like this one I would have expected an indefinite block, no questions asked. As a matter of fact... Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 23:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If there was any doubt before, that removes it; I hadn't gone back quite that far in the contribution history. Support indefinite. Newyorkbrad 23:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support indef. That's a death threat, unambiguously. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, shouldn't Jimbo hear about edits like this? Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Newyorkbrad 23:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. I also missed that death threat back in the contributions list. Removes any doubt whatsoever.--Alabamaboy 00:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Indef, without regret. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a death threat, it's garden-variety inarticulate bigotry. I still support banning this fuckwit on the grounds that he has made it abundantly clear that he has no intention of abiding by policy, but we really must stop over-reacting to use of the word kill when there is no credible threat of harm.  Personal soapbox, sorry. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ummm JzG, this is a death threat. "WE'LL KILL HIS WHOLE FAMILY.", how much more plain should it be? I agree that just the word kill does not make a death threat, however, when you use that word as a verb toward a person or group of people, with a statement of intent such as "We will", then yes it is a death threat. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think what Guy meant is that there's no credible threat of harm. If I start receving letters written with newspaper clippings from the KKK, that's a death threat. A dumb teenager with testosterone problems typing silly comments on a keyboard in his bedroom isn't, because there's no...well, threat. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be indefed, of course. yandman  15:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. It's like the drunk in the pub yelling "I'll kill you!" then falling flat on his arse because he's... well, drunk.  It's the difference between a death threat (which the police would take seriously) and random inarticulate raving (which they would not). We block this one for irredeemable cluelessness and disruption, not for death threats. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not the point of view I would take. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion reminds me of the time an anonymous vandal posted some very silly death threats on my User Page. I chose to enshrine them for all to see and was roundly scolded by several admins for doing so.  I tried to argue that these were not "real" death threats, just a bit of juvenile idiocy. Others disagreed.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This user may be back as. Jkelly 03:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if that's not the aforementioned user, this one definitely needs a blocking. He's someone's sock, considering his first edits were to create a new neonazi userbox, and post an RfC. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, I just pushed his block up to indefinite. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That should be standard procedure for people who only wish to push hatred here. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is--they get blocked.--Alabamaboy 19:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Attention: Undiscussed page moves on a massive scale
I just want to call the attention to the fact that User:Highshines has started a massive page move campaign of articles relating to Chinese royalty. Thsi is completely uncalled for given the fact that Highshines has refrained from taking part in the discussion about how to normalize the names of Qing dynasty royalty on Talk:Xiao Xian Chun. An administrator needs to talk to Highshines soon, before he/she makes a complete mess of these pages. For evidence, please refer to Special:Contributions/Highshines.--Niohe 01:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Jiang left a not about the moves, and I supplemented with at link to WP:RM. I also removed text from the userpage that was a copyvio from Sparknotes.  Teke ( talk ) 02:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot! I warned that this would happen last week on Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive72. I also want to alert other adminstrators to the fact that Highshines has been blocked for sock puppetry and disruptive page moves before, please refer to Requests for checkuser/Case/Highshines. In order to cover this up, Highshines has removed the sock puppeteer tag from his/her talk page and deleted warning messages from his/her talk page.


 * I don't have any administrative powers to undo this kind of massive disruptive edits. This will happen again, and I think it is time to block Highshines from editing these pages.--Niohe 03:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am undoing the moves as they did not have any sort of consensus for the amount of renaming the user did. Teke ( talk ) 03:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * All moved back to where they were. That will prevent it from happening again, since my moves created redirects the user cannot move them back.  RM would be for doing that.  Teke ( talk ) 04:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, you can "overwrite" an article if the only edit is creating a redirect, or at least I think I have seen that happening... -- ReyBrujo 04:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * True enough, I'm watching the pages. I was speaking in the context of moves :)  Teke ( talk ) 04:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Go make some false edits (add some of thsoe "R from" templates) to prevent users from movewarring...I did that when a user kept moving Kitty Pryde to Shadowcat. Hbdragon88 09:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If anyone had any doubt what kind of editor Highshines is, please have a look at the following foul language posted to Jiang's user page (in Chinese) for four hours:


 * 

I think Highshines has earned himself/herself a block by now.--Niohe 14:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know Chinese, would you mind providing a translation? Additionally, I'm not sure why the user made that post when I told him at the time that I was doing it to remove copyvios from Sparknotes. sigh Anyone other uninvolved third party care to dive in here?   Teke ( talk ) 18:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

''Don't worry about it, Teke. I know you're doing the right thing. However, someone also deleted my userpage after you, and I think it was Niohe. By the way, all the page moves I have done was according to Niohe's suggestion on the talk page of Xiao Xian Chun. Highshines 19:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)''


 * I would worry about it. What Highshines wrote is the kind of profanity you don't want to translate. It was a rant directed to the person who touched Highshines user page, making various comments about the smell of the private parts of the mother of that editor and the circumstances surrounding his conception. Is that enough or do I need to give you a verbatim translation?.

Niohe is both exaggerating and lying. All I have said was that the person who removed my user page (not Teke, but after him) must have had a bad upbringing. I can provide a verbatim translation: "To whomever deleted my userpage: The one who had performed stealthy actions on my userpage must have been forced to do bad and brutal things by his mother. Also, he must have been beaten badly by his father. Therefore, he was formed that way." At that time, I was really angry with Niohe because he had frequently vandalized my userpage and talkpages before. Highshines 20:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You know that is not an accurate translation. Don't even try.--Niohe 21:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

''It is an accurate translation. I can show it to every one word by word with a Chinese-English dictionary. My remark is clean, but your paraphase has added further sexual contents to it. What are you planning at, Niohe? Highshines 21:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)''

OK, how would you translate "谁妈的逼" into plain English? Or "谁爸操了以后"? --Niohe 22:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole phrase "谁妈的逼" means "who has been forced by his mother to [do bad and brutal things]". The character "谁" means "whose", and the character "逼" is a verb which means to force someone to do something he/she is unwilling to do. In this case, I meant that someone so vandalic must have been "force by his mother [in his childhood] to do immoral things". I know it is a bit strong, but I already suffered enough from the vandalizations of my pages. Highshines 22:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 的 is a possesive prefix marking the noun following 的 to belong to the noun preceding it. You used 谁妈 which means "that person's mother" and 逼 therefore is a noun, and the only meaning of 逼 as a noun is an obscene reference to female genitalia. -- 我♥中國 22:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely wrong about "the only meaning of 逼 as a noun is an obscene reference to female genitalia.". I have never heard of that. Instead, 逼 also means "forcing someone" when used as a noun. Highshines 22:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? A 造句 quiz then: make a sentence where "逼" is used as a noun meaning "forcing someone". (There are no gerunds in Chinese!) -- 我♥中國 22:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you say your user page was vandalized, can you provide diff histories showing the vandalism? -- 我♥中國 22:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Highshines has also started to use threatening language, as evidenced by his comment to my my talk page. If the above profanity won't earn Highshines a block for abusive behavior I don't know what will.--Niohe 20:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

''Niohe, if you were the one who removed my userpage, you better explain why. If you didn't, then why do you have to feel being "threatened"? Highshines 20:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)''


 * Teke did it, as he said: . 146.186.221.141 21:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

''If I wronged you this time, Niohe, please accept my apology. However, if you have been kind to my pages before, I wouldn't have been so mad at you. Highshines 21:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)''


 * Apology for what? For including me in your rant or for calling me a liar when I paraphrased your profane remarks? --Niohe 21:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

''Well, if you don't want to accept it, that's fine to me. I was trying a apologize for a possible mistaking you as the remover of my page. However, I don't think my remarks have any profane element. Instead, your paraphrase only produced exaggerations and lies.'' Highshines 21:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)''


 * This is ridiculous. First, you apologize and then you call me a liar.--Niohe 22:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Highshines, I will provide a word-for-word translation then.
 * 谁[whoever]对[to]我[my]个人[personal]网页[website]动了[did]手脚[hand-foot, meaning "sneaky action"], - whoever messed around with/did sneaky things to my personal website
 * 谁[whoever]妈[mom]的['s]逼[vagina]又[also]烂[rotten]又[also]搔[slutty]又[also]臭[stink], - [that person's] mother's vagina is rotten and slutty and stinky
 * 所以[therefore]叫[ask]谁[whoever's]爸[dad]操[fuck]了[ed]以后[after]才[then]把[gave]谁[whoever]给[gave]生[birth]出来[out]了[action completion particle]. -so that person's dad fucked her then gave birth to that person
 * So don't even think about lying. There are plenty of people who know Chinese here
 * -- 我♥中國 22:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That translation is correct.. mm. I might say that 手脚/hand-foot might mean "stealthy" or "hidden". Other than that, yes. Highshine's "translation" was a complete lie.-- Elar  a  girl  Talk 06:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of comments
Highshines has now removed another editor's comment twice (1, 2), apparently because it provides a translation of his incivil comments in another language. I suggest that this, along with his previous history of disruptive action detailed above and his use of sockpuppets merits a block; I request input before I implement this. —bbatsell ¿?  22:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have blocked her for 2 weeks. -- 我♥中國 22:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the block is appropriate, the fact that Highshines has already removed your comments from her user page does not reflect well on her either. Given past experience, we may expect a wave of sock puppetry from Highshines in the next couple of days.--Niohe 22:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I just restored your comments on Highshines talk page, I felt that was appropriate given what has happened.--Niohe 23:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Highshines blanked the block message 3 times so I have protected her page as well. I don't know of any precedent with this so in this case I did what I think is the most convenient thing to do. I realise that non-admins would not be able to edit this page but I don't know if semiprotection prevents blocked users from editing their own talk pages. -- 我♥中國 04:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems appropriate if the block message is getting blanked, with semi they can still edit the page. Lift the protection when the block expires, and it's all good.  Teke ( talk ) 01:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where to address this concern
I find User:Weatherman90/deathpool to be macabre and in poor taste. I realize that this is a user page, and that I have the freedom to just not go to it, but I am concerned about the image this page portrays of the wikipedia editing community. The insensitivity toward death of notable people and the hand-slapping and points giving, seems in particular to be contrary to the standards of conduct that are implied in most of our policies. After reviewing WP:NOT and WP:User page, I don;t find a section I can cite and say directly prohibits this game, but it just doesn't pass my smell test. If people do a wikipedia search (and include the checkboxes of user pages) on recently deceased celebrities, they are likely to wind up on this page. I would be embarassed, (after bragging to all my friends and business associates that I help edit the wikipedia), if a news article came out about the pedantic and insensitive activities of these few editors. I believe that this game should be taken to an off-wiki venue. Jerry lavoie 06:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * From WP:USER: Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia," particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project probably works well enough, even though it doesn't mention subpages specifically. WarpstarRider 07:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw that too...(that's why I bolded the word game). But where do I take my concern from here? Is there a proper location to officially report this?  Jerry lavoie 07:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Try WP:MFD. WarpstarRider 07:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Weatherman90/deathpool, nominated by . Daniel.Bryant 09:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You guys are so very responsive! Thanks.  I think this section can be archived now.  Jerry lavoie 16:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're impressed with that, try this--a bot archives everything here automatically. :) Chick Bowen 05:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Mitt Romney
Hi, please excuse me if I'm posting this on the wrong board.

On Mitt Romney's page, about halfway down, in the section titled "Governor of Massachusetts, 2003-2007" there is a picture of Mr. Romney addressing some troops. Someone has vandalized the picture by putting the word DOUCHEBAG in large bold type on the bottom of the picture.

Thanks. 69.92.252.140 14:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Everything is all set. Thank you for addressing your concern! All I had to do was reupload the unvaldalized version in order to fix it. → &ensp; J A R E D &ensp;(t)&ensp; 14:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For future reference, clicking the little (rev) link at the version you want to revert to is easier. &mdash;Cryptic 15:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What little rev link? Are you sure that isn't a custom js addon you have? Prodego  talk  15:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought only admins had that function. That makes sense now. Thanks. I didn't even realize that that link was there for non-admins! └ Jared ┘┌ talk ┐&ensp; 15:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's there for all autoconfirmed users (note that IPs like the original poster in this section can't do it). Prodego: Look at Image:Flag of the Olympic Movement.svg for an example, and scroll down to the revisions. It appears like this: (del) (rev) 09:41, January 20, 2006 . . Denelson83 (Talk | contribs) . . 768×512 (9,584 bytes) (Created by User:Denelson83 in Inkscape, based on the Olympic flag image at the World Flag Database. {| style="background: #FDB; border: 1px solid #C60;" |- style="vertical-align: middle;" | style="line-height: 75%;) . --Rory096 20:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

User:SuperDeng
Anyone who remembers the debate about the indef-block of may wish to comment at WP:RFAR where he is appealing his block. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with it, but 3 arbitrators have already voted not to take the case. Newyorkbrad 03:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Restore page history request
Instead of moving the page The Councillor of State to The State Counsellor, user Vidor created a new page and copied the contents. The page move is correct, but could someone please restore the history? In addition, the changes he made on the new page are also correct, to complicate matters further. Thanks in advance. Er rab ee 22:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Jkelly has taken care of the history merge. —bbatsell  ¿?  00:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblock Tengri
''This is already posted at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --bainer (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)''

Attention: New featured process
Featured sound candidates is a new featured process (like pictures and articles) that has just opened. Admins might want to add this to their watchlist, as only admins will be able to promote to Featured sounds. Also, everyone is encouraged to nominate appropriate sound clips. -- Cyde Weys 03:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting... great idea! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Bobabobabo won't go away!
Yes, we're still dealing with this user who was banned some time ago, but won't stop coming back with open proxies.

Recently, I've been dealing with the fact that she remembers the passwords to accounts that are blocked, and once the user talk is unprotected, she floods it with an old version of an article full of fair use images. I really need to stress that the user talks cannot be deleted for this reason.— Ryūlóng ( 竜 龍 ) 03:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * By what method are these talk pages being deleted, and how can we go about establishing an exception list so that they are not deleted in the future? Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 03:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Try using indefblockeduser-nocat instead of the standard indefblockeduser template. --210 physicq  ( c ) 03:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Would it perhaps be better to have a bureaucrat (or whoever) delete the blocked accounts altogether? Is this doable? Newyorkbrad 04:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a whole lot of accounts. Pretty major task to delete them all. -- Fan-1967 04:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We can't delete accounts, remember? --210 physicq  ( c ) 04:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that occasionally an account has been deleted, but it may be that it requires a developer to do it and therefore it wouldn't be practicable as a solution to this situation. A developer can also change the password on an account, but again, doing that for lots of accounts could be more trouble than it's worth. Thanks for quick feedback. Newyorkbrad 04:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm switching over the templates using AWB right now...if only Ryulong or someone can provide a whole list of accounts... --210 physicq  ( c ) 04:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I have to do it manually now, considering that I'm trying to twiddle this program a bit. On with copy-and-paste! --210 physicq  ( c ) 04:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I gave phsyicq210 the link to the main list of sockpuppets (I was dealing with deletions and protections on my end while this discussion went on (also worked to deal with the fair use image spamming, and several checkusers to root out IPs)) Tomorrow before I have lab, I will be contacting RoadRunner to end this once and for all.— Ryūlóng ( 竜 龍 ) 06:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Slight digression
Not to spill any beans but do we have a "possible sleeper account" holding cell somewhere? brenneman 06:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Do we have any links to discussions as to why username/account deletions aren't done?  I'm not even talking about those accounts whose only edits have been deleted, but those with no edits at all.  I recall some discussion about User:Mark with regards to this, but my memory is hazy at best...
 * 2) Is there any consistant way to warehouse concerns about new accounts?  For example, my *blink* right now is that there are a slightly higher than average number of pseduo-random accounts rolling by ( Kd345 (talk • contribs) Hkst84 (talk • contribs) YA718 (talk • contribs) Drbq79 (talk • contribs) 1cor1313 (talk • contribs) Jtb550 (talk • contribs) Bdm87 (talk • contribs) Zmf123 (talk • contribs) etc. ) but I've got nothing to do with that feeling.
 * There are a couple of points on the username account deletions, firstly we actively encourage people to sign up to accounts so they don't get bothered by irrelevant messages, this can apply to someone who only reads as well as editors, having an account also enables setting of other perferences. The other thing is many have been blocked on creation as being inappropriate usernames, or created as preemptive doppelganger accounts to prevent abusive/confusing usernames. Going ahead and deleting those would just broaden the pool for reuse by those who have nothing better to do with their time than make a nuissance of themselves. A better solution may be to enable the password and email of accounts to be reset on a similar basis to checkuser/oversight at the moment (i.e. a small group of trusted users with logging in effect.) --pgk 13:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (Or of course a simpler account locking facility to prevent further use of the account) --pgk 13:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, showing us the open proxies is a public service! We get to play whack-a-mole and clean up the project at the same time :-) Guy (Help!) 13:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem reporting Vandal
Looking for some help from the administrators. I have an article on my watchlist, SuperTed which has been repeatedly vandalised over the last 3 or 4 days, see History for info. Obviously the same person from the material they are adding, but having come from about 9 different IP addresses. How do I report someone who is moving this fast??? Thor Malmjursson 12:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I proteted the page, vandalism should stop now.-- Wizardman 14:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No
Some idiot has moved content from the article No to NO. Since then, reverts have been in progress on the original page such that now both exist. Because of this I am unable to move content back from NO. I need someone to sort this out and then either delete the NO page or redirect it to No.--Boris Allen 19:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've merged the histories back at No where it was previously. Cowman109 Talk 20:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Pay-per-edit?
Just dropping a note. --210 physicq  ( c ) 00:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hiring an independent source to repair inaccuracies seems like a fine way to avoid conflict of interest, if that was really the deal. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Jimbo has stated, and I agree, that this is a very unethical practice. It should be discouraged.  Very strongly.   Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 00:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if Jimbo said it then that is another matter... HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I quote:

Any potential customers of MyWikiBiz are warned that paying someone to write an article for Wikipedia is very strongly frowned upon by the community. Policy in this area is still evolving, because we have recently come to understand how serious this problem can be. I personally strongly recommend against hiring MyWikiBiz or any similar "consultants" to help you get a listing in Wikipedia. This is counterproductive and unethical.--Jimbo Wales 04:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 00:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jimbo. The whole point of Wikipedia is that we are all volunteers, who are in this just for the love of it. We have no vested interests in this project, we have nothing to gain and nothing to lose (besides an off-wiki life ;). Paying someone to edit Wikipedia for you is absurd. Besides, wouldn't this make the blogger Microsoft's meatpuppet? And I don't think hiring meatpuppets will circumvent WP:COI. A ecis Bravado 00:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The idea of hiring an independent source is common but inherently ridiculous. You're not independent of someone if you get paid by them. Again, if you have a problem with your Wikipedia article (or another article you have a conflict of interest in), post to talk, but don't try to edit it yourself.  Superm401 - Talk 19:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Boy, I thought Guy was joking last week about not getting paid. You other sysops aren't getting the anonymous deposit of $5,000 (USD) from a numbered Cayman Island account each month?  Teke ( talk ) 01:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I knew there was more to it when I didn't pass my RFA last week... so who got the extra cash? AH! HA! It was you wasn't it? (eyes turning left ... then right) Seriously though, what would be wrong, if considering I am a notable enough subject, WP:V, WP:NOR, etc... lets say Phil McNeely. And I wanted to pay a student to make sure my article was well balanced per wiki policy... or even to start an article on my bio. Perhaps, he may even defended the article on my bio from being edited or having information that may be libelious and negative to not only my political campaign but my life as well. If someone can obviously argue his way through the system, such as lawyers often does for their DUI clients, then I see no reason why we (an experienced wikipedian) can't be payed. Perhaps my hidden skills as an expert writer, lawyer, or something else will help propogate my POV. Perhaps a real paid lawyer could give me a fair representation during my debates. Perhaps a well experience wikipedian will know how to contour the rules in this persons favour. Remember every article is full of POVs (see the quote on my user page). I'm not saying we should keep the information, but if Microsoft wants to spend 10'000 $ during the launch of Windows Vista to make sure that certain POV are well sourced and properly reference as per wikipolicy, I'll make sure to argue it the best I can per my knowlege and experience in advocacy at AMA and as per my education. Jimbos opinion is exactly the same as mine. It's one man's opinion. --CyclePat 02:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P.s.: It's funny you quote WP:COI. That "guideline" says "avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors;" however as an independant contractor writing for an organisation, technically, I would not be related to the company. I obviously wouldn't be arms lenght but technically, I wouldn't be editing an article related to my organization. --CyclePat 02:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Letter vs. spirit. —bbatsell  ¿?  02:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * First, we don't let subjects of articles decide they're notable; that's vanity. Someone you pay to edit is not going to be inclined to make the article POV, even if they say otherwise.  If they're trying to stop the article from being deleted, that's yet another conflict of interest.  Just because you know how to game the system doesn't mean we have to let you.  And no, you don't get to wikilawyer either.   Finally, to state the obvious: The authority of the Wikipedia founder (a current Wikimedia Foundation board member) is not equal to that of a regular editor. Superm401 - Talk 23:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * People who take advocacy as you do make me question my membership in the AMA. What part of unethical is hard to get your mind around?  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 02:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL, Well... where do I start.... (self referene back to my above comment? nah). Well, in general, being a prosecutor (attacking), I think, doesn't require much imagination, but being a defence lawyers requires a lot more imagination. ie.: He might have been here, he migth have been there, we could done this instead, the wikirule might have meant this, etc... (oops! Advocates aren't lawyers that's true.) Anyways, being an advocate is about the same because you are somewhate making a choice to defend the other side, all while remaining still technically being honest and ethical. However, again, it always requires, a lot more imagination to defend someone. "There is always another way of seeing things or the possibility of another solution to what is being alleged." Surely, and I mean this as a compliment, your little train that could still has some imagination to remain an advocate and undestand that there is really nothing unethetical about arguing other possibilities!!! How else would we protect the right of the trully innocent wikipedians! ;) (smiles) (Don't worry, like the Bernado case, a good defense lawyer eventually releases even incriminating videos) p.s.: good one Bbatsell! --CyclePat 03:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A few things here.
 * COI is a guideline, and has next to no teeth. (All it says is try to avoid them)
 * The whole point of Wikipedia isn't about the "love of it", but is about writing an encyclopedia.
 * I thought the whole treatment of the MyWikiBiz scenario was an absolute farce, and involved drawing up some of the worst guidelines ever. (It involved the paid party writing articles off wiki for other unrelated users to copy over, which pretty much meant in was incredibly hard to trace compared to say drawing up articles in the userspace or AFC)
 * I have no qualms over Reward board.
 * I believe that you can be paid to write something an still maintain a neutral encyclopedic stance, even if you are being paid by an involved party.
 * I believe that if we maintain a high level of accountability of paid-edits they can be beneficial to Wikipedia. And a lot less damaging than the hordes of drive by vanity anon spam that we get.
 * Having your firm/services connected to the use of a paid-editor is a hell of a lot less damaging for your publicity than having crap erroneous articles about your firm/services.
 * hahnch e  n 02:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For a similar situation, see the Arch Coal DRV. - hahnch e  n 02:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really see paying someone to write an article about your buisness to be any better or worse than doing it yourself. If you are notable enough and its not written like an advert noone will ever know and it will probablly stick. Otherwise you will have wasted your money and possiblly caused yourself other problems (like seeing the deletion debate for your article as the first result for a google search on your name). Plugwash 02:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally don't quite agree with Jimbo's stance on this. While I understand somewhat his opposition to the MyWikiBiz, and even agree with it partially, this is somewhat different IMHO. Microsoft appear to have down this in a fairly resonably way, approaching a blogger who I presume was considered fair and neutral, not someone who wrote about Microsoft the best company in the world all the time. Their conditions clearly didn't require any level of performance and as this blogger wasn't running a business, it seems far less likely they would care much whether they kept their hirer happy. Indeed, as a blogger with a reputation to keep, it would seem not that likely IMHO. Definitely it's far better then the goodness knows how many companies who have employees doing it on company time. Perhaps MS should have done this via the Bounty board or Reward board and gone for FA or something 203.109.240.93 17:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, this story has reached the front page of cnn.com, so it seems to be getting a lot of attention... ATren 18:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if someone wants to pay me $5,000 to put what they want in articles, as long as they can give me a reliable source, I will happily do so. HEck, it doesn't even have to be reliable.  Or be a source.  Just give me money, please.  Proto ::  ►  21:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Didn't this already get taken care of? G  e  o . 20:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've considered asking a client of ours at work if they'd like me to more actively maintain their article (right now I just keep it from being vandalized) as part of our usual services we do for them. I don't see an automatic COI, as long as a NPOV is being maintained (and I don't see that as a mutually exclusive concept). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 21:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * All points of view should be represented in the article. I am not sure why a commercial interest shouldn't be able to contribute to an article, as long as they don't prevent others from expressing different views.  The problem is when a commercially motivated editor camps on an article. If somebody does a PR/SEO job, it's very easy to spot, tag and clean up. I think it's better to welcome and educate such editors, rather than persecuting them.  Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 21:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy and Ludvikus
A request for a community ban on was posted on WP:AN on 24 January, due to a strong view from editors and sysops that "the community's patience is exhausted" (WP:BAN). It was suspended when I was asked to mediate the matter and "attempt a reconciliation" last week. I am concerned that even after just a week, I feel there may be strong evidence that the views of the complaining editors seem plausibly founded, and that this user may be pivotal to amicably resolving the matter.

I would like to present the information I've noted in this last week, for evaluation and comments now that I've been mediating a week on it. If feedback is not greatly adverse to Ludvikus I shall continue working as at present. But I need to clarify that aspect before spending further time, especially as one of the cites appears to show clear wilful intent, scant regard for the project's aims, and possible view to wikilawyer.

I have included DIFFs for matters I myself have seen. I have not included any diffs that others might make if it was taken further. For now, as a mediator, I would simply like independent WP:AN feedback on the posts that I have seen this last week. I would also like to check whether the evidence tends to support a view that "the community's patience is exhausted", as some have suggested, and whether editor concerns over Ludvikus should be addressed before progressing further. Many thanks for any insight and opinions.

Link to cites: User:FT2/Evidence pages/Philosophy. FT2 (Talk 00:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There can be no doubt that there is a consensus for a community ban amongst the editors of the Philosophy article. The only question here is, is that sufficient to ban someone from the Wiki? That is, as I asked before: For the purposes of a community ban, what counts as  "a handful of admins or users"? I am of the opinion that in this case there is sufficient evidence of mischief for a ban to be enacted. Banno 01:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ here, there may be some consensus but it is not a strong one and comes only from one "edit war" to which many of the "ban" editors were drawn in by their friends. So it is not widespread and is largely from a certain bunch of editors who contacted one another about the same edit-war.  This handfull of editors were involved in this edit-war and disputes were fairly drawn out but not totally unreasonable, but this edit-war ended a number of days now.  Nor had he disturbed much the actual articles.  Now I witnessed the whole thing and if someone started being nasty or using bad language etc. it was not Ludvikus.  Now different people react to such provocations in many ways, his reaction was perhaps strong but I cannot say he has not changed nor that he may be a young or inexperienced user.  To not give fair warning on this matter I believe is not inline with wiki policy, and the "community ban," which I never heard of before, came out of nowhere and is largely post-factum.  Also I notice the evidence gathering may be biased against him.  It was these other editors who started using foul language and strong insults, Ludvikus just started reflecting them back many-fold.  I also think the litigation thing is a red herring, there really were many editors drawn in and taking cheap shots at him. -- Lucas (Talk) 03:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * After looking over the evidence (and this edit particular), I feel a ban is in order. The user's conduct is appalling, and is of negative value to Wikipedia (sorry, I realise that's very utilitarian).  That being said, I would urge you to consider removing the 'behavioural analysis' section, which is not helpful - diagnosis by proxy of the user's psychological state is wildly inappropriate.  The editing speaks for itself.   Proto ::  ►  09:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * While I only have a minor background in philosophy (arg, looking back I didn't mean that as a pun), I get the feeling that I should link to this page in case I should ever want to write a textbook on disruptive editing. Vague legal threats, mentions of 'fisticuffs', persistent and admitted incivility (even if the admission was for a retaliatory portion), as well as the content edits themselves...  When it actually becomes more brief to mention the types of problematic editing user isn't engaging in, and the behavior doesn't change and has a noticeable and pressing harmful impact, what really remains as a question? Bitnine 17:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)



The above user has come on board of Wikipedia on January 21, 2007: Yup, I'm a fairly new user. That being said, while it may bar me from a level of familiarity with certain practices and workings, it certainly doesn't mean I have to act like a new user. Also, I don't usually fill out user pages due to laziness. Let's see if this here's an exception...    * I have the ability to keep my cool when discussing things on the internets. Apparently that's something akin to a superpower, from what I've observed. ...apparently not so much.
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 20:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not that complex of a matter. Responding to disagreements or even incivility with combativeness and mounting incivility is wholly inappropriate and disruptive.  The actions of other editors might in cases serve somewhat as a mitigation, but never a justification.  And actions an editor would take "on the street" are entirely irrelevant.  I'm also unsure that showing that you find the above appropriate is something that you really want to announce, particularly given the nature of this section. Bitnine 00:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue is quite simple really. Two administrators, who control the Philosophy page, and other pages, for content, maintain that it is Wikipedia Policy to rate an Editor on the Bristol Stool Chart. Administrator User:Mel Etitis has rated me to be between a 6 and a 7. Apparently, the Community to which he belongs suports this Rating System. Administrator User:Banno also suppots this rating system, and has failed, repeatedly to take appropriate action. I have asked Mel for an apology, but he has not yet done so. It seems clear to me that he has such a great reputation at Wikipedia, that he can tream me as shit'. If this community fails to take the appropriate action against those who condone such disgusting behavior I do not, and will nor, have anything to do with Wikipedia in this vulgar and primitive stage. It is funny how my remarks are being misconstrude. I've effectively said that in the streets of New York, who someone calls you SHIT, you punch him out. But this is Cyberspace. So gentlemen, all I ask is that Mel and Banno apologize to me for the repeated use of said chart. But before you banned, I ask all of you judges, who are now asked to judge me, image yourselves in my predicament. Just click on Mel and Banno's Bristol Stool Chart, and ask yourselve how you would feel if you were so rated? If you allow powerful Administrators, like Mel and Banno, to be that abusive to editors, then I do not want to have anything to do with any of you myself. So why waste anyone's time, just answer my simple question: are these two powerful administrators, Mel and Banno, going to be permitted to indulge in such disruptive behavior? If yes, than out the door I go.
 * At the same time, if you take the trouble to look, I have listened carefully to FT2 and used all my Wisdom to end the Philosophy Wars. I've even award Barnsters to those of my adversaries with whom I've had honest difference of opinion, but who have not been abusive. I am very curious if it is possible for Wikipedia to be just to me. Banno and Mel have been here a long time. But I'm a new person. So they are very arrogant. They have complete confidence that they shall prevail. And of course, they have many friends at Wikipedia, who will, and are, siding with them.
 * I have contributed several hundred articles already. And I have never been subjected to such abuse.
 * My recommendation is that you also consider a Conflict of Issue problem. Mel is Wikipedia's In-house Philosopher. And that's why he wants me banned. It is simple, I know more philosophy than he does - and that's a threat to him. He complains how horrible the Philosophy page is -- all the time -- but he's its ghost writer. --Ludvikus 19:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Having just been involved with User:Ludvikus in the last few hours, I have to agree with the proposal for a community ban. He is continuing to make wild and baseless accusations, attacking anyone he disagrees with in an unacceptable manner. He is currently under a 24 hour block for a fairly serious and utterly baseless personal attack. He is driving good editors away from the Philosophy article and is IMHO a serious impediment to progress on Wikipedia. Gwernol 19:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

In a similar vein, please see this sixty (I think) line message - somewhat disturbing, and signed as Socrates - which I think illustrates why the Philosophy talk page is now essentially deserted. []KD Tries Again 22:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)KD
 * The signiture was prefixed with "(Just kidding)", and the link still went to the write userpage. On that one point it is not anything serious at all (then again I'm not saying a zillion other more serious points do exist...). Mathmo Talk 06:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Talking of which... with ludvikus now blocked for a week by Gwernol, I've changed your link to a permanent diff, and will now archive the talk:philosophy page to a clean slate. Feel free to unarchive any valuable threads. --Quiddity 01:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Add Category to protected template
Template:Context should appear in Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup. It seems to be fully protected. Please add. TonyTheTiger 20:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In the future, you can just add editprotected to the talk page. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. TonyTheTiger 23:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

False Welcome of New Users
User currently using sockpuppet is continuously adding user boxes to user pages that says something to the effect of "this users doesn't mind vandalizing the work of others". He did it earlier under a diffeent user name. The user seems to be doing this by a java script he has added to his monobook. His edit summaries look inoccuous, like welcoming user with " and welcoming new user using VandalProof.  He is adding around 7 per minute, and it will not be possible for me to keep up with him.  HELP! Jerry lavoie 01:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Somebody with access to some really cool tools has cleaned it all up. Makes me wonder how y'all do that... there isn;t even any evidence of it having occurred.  It would have taken me hours to undo all that vandalism,, and someone did it in like 20 seconds.  THANKS!  Jerry lavoie 01:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, I just did a search for that text on user talk pages, to see if there were other incidents of this user box being added. I found only one time:   added it to |this page on 24Jan2007.  Is this an actual authorized template???   Should Yuser31415 have added that to the users page along with an antagonistic message?  It is possible that this pissed-off vandal then copied the user  box and contrived this scheme to put it on other new users talk pages.  Jerry lavoie 02:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is possible that the IP in question had created that template and that is why it was placed there. Cbrown1023 02:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been a problem all day. I deleted the original template but the vandal is using the raw code. If the template is recreated it should be deleted on sight. Chick Bowen 02:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have deleted one as well, and blocked one of the users. However, I don't think Jerry is an admin... in that case he should place db-t1 on it. Cbrown1023 02:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ummm, I've missed exactly what the focus of the discussion is, but the userbox I added was found at WP:RCP (removed, I have just noticed, by Drini: ). I had absolutely no idea the userboxes were being used in bad faith. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed this before, and reported it here. How on Earth is it reverted so quickly? J Milburn 12:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

More discussion of this at WP:ANI. FreplySpang 11:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I added a warning to MediaWiki:Clearyourcache(which shows on all .js and .css pages) so that should reduce the amount of people actually copying this or future worms using this method. A couple other admins tweaked it, and one copied it to commons. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

ACQ-Kingdom Broadcasting Network
Hi. I'm looking more for an admin opinion or two than particular action. Sorry to post here, but the involved admin seems to be on an extended break. The question is about ACQ-Kingdom Broadcasting Network, which was recently deleted as part of a 25-article group. Although participation on that mass AfD was sparse, I'm sure most of the deletions were fine. This article though, passed a previous AfD, and I think it accidentally got caught up in the sweep. Should I just let this one go? If not, is there a more casual route to bringing it back than Deletion Review? That seems to be a more dramatic route than I'd like. Thanks, William Pietri 08:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Restored and relisted--seemed like the most straightforward way. I also deleted a couple of ones from the original AfD that had been recreated, but those may show up at WP:DRV eventually. Chick Bowen 05:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's a fine way to handle this. William Pietri 19:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What is this all about?
I've been trying to work out what WikEh?/Home/ is all about. Similar stuff at WikEh?/MoreStuff/ and WikEh?/Images/. The WikEh? 'home' page is actually a transclusion of User:Masky/Wikeh/Home. I've already put a note on the user's talk page about the MfD of an unrelated set of his user pages. Could someone else look at this lot and talk to the user and find out what is happening and what should happen here? Thanks. Carcharoth 11:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Somebody might also want to look at the mass of user subpages here: Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This might be tidier. Nothing wrong with having lots of user subpages. It's purely a question of whether they are appropriate and related to work on the encyclopedia. Please, please, please talk to the user before nominating anything for deletion (if anything). I notified the user about an unrelated MfD, as I feel it is courteous to do that. But because of that, anything about this WikEh? stuff might be best coming from someone else. Carcharoth 14:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked at 'whatlinkshere' and found that WikEh? is hardly linked from anywhere. The only useful place it is linked from is Searching, and the link was added here by the user who created this 'new' internal search engine. Is this really new? It seems to me to just be an alternative to the search box, but with a very slightly different interface. It is ultimately based on what is at User:Masky/Searchbar1. So does anyone know if this really is new, or just the old search box in a new guise? Carcharoth 15:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yo guys, sorry about hosting WikEh? search engine on my userpage, then redirecting it there. I didn't really expect this to happen. You can delete it if you like. I don't really need it anymore. Masky (Talk |  contribs) 20:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand what this talk of a WikEh? search engine is all about. Since it doesn't seem to be linked from anywhere, and the creator doesn't mind it going, I'll MfD the WP namespace page at some point unless someone speedies it first. I'll wait another day in case someone says that this WikEh? thing really is a different search engine, which I doubt. I'll leave the user pages alone (they were transcluded to the WP namespace), as that is useful experience in experimenting with coding. Incidentially, is it frowned upon in general to transclude from the less formal namespaces to the more formal ones (other than template namespace to other namespaces)? Is that similar to not wanting cross namespace redirects? ie. Is transcluding from user namespace to WP or article namespace, or from WP namespace to article space, generally bad practice? Carcharoth 00:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Wikipedia:WikiEh? does exactly the same thing as the normal search function, accessing the same pages, so is serving no real purpose (and has a confusing name). I would suggest speedying it as 'user requests deletion'.  Proto ::  ►  13:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible vandalism
Reading the Power Rangers: Mystic Force page today (a subject with which i have no especial knowledge, hence my unwillingness to go on a revert spree) I found large quanities of the content deatil appeared to be implausible -- male characters given female names, the characters said to morph together to produce a third, reference to "Gays" -- so large as to make me believe that a vandal atttack may have taken place. Sincerely, Simon Cursitor 13:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was all vandalism. But it's all dealt with by now.— Ryūlóng ( 竜 龍 ) 01:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- Simon Cursitor 09:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible MyWikiBiz-like editor
User popped up in the IRC link feed after inserting a link to several koozie-related web sites. The name alone sounds a little suspicious, but nothing is showing up on Google. Any thoughts? Shadow1 (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is definitely looking suspicious to me. At the very least, someone is trying to promote koozie manufacturers. -- Cyde Weys 16:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:AFD. Durova Charge! 17:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Letit22113snow
Could someone have a look at this user, all that the account seems to be for is chatting between two people. They also seem to have multiple accounts for this sort of thing juding from some of the comments in the chat. I left warnings, which they seem to have ignored, and I'm not really sure how I can chase this any further, or if it is appropriate to. If someone could take a look I'd be grateful.

Thanks 212.85.28.67 16:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've blocked for 24 hours.--Isotope23 16:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think that they have other simular accounts, don't know if anything can be done about digging those out though. Cheers 212.85.28.67 16:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Requests for checkuser could, but I blocked it so they can't create any new accounts and if they log into any accounts they already created from that IP it should block them as well.--Isotope23 17:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:RobJ1981 AGAIN!!
Can an admin please talk some sense into this user before he starts ANOTHER edit war over ANOTHER trivial issue? Henchman 2000 19:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Some diffs would be useful. 〈 RED VEЯS 〉 20:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Trivial issue? If you think it's so trivial: leave the article alone. No one forced you to revert the edits about a "trivial" edit to articles. Wikipedia is for everyone to edit, don't contribute to articles if you can't accept changes. (I know there is some guideline that clearly states this a bit better than I just did). I would like to point out: Henchman continues to threaten me by saying "stop or I will have an admin block you from editing". That type of thing isn't good faith: Assume good faith is a pretty good read. RobJ1981 20:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is essentially a content dispute not an WP:AN issue and I suggest you guys try dispute resolution. I will also say that reverting on a content dispute and calling it "vandalism" is not a good idea.  I will also say that an arbitrarly, incomplete, unsourced list of mini-games probably doesn't belong in the article.--Isotope23 21:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of uncited information doesn't qualify as vandalism. I second the opinion that this is a content dispute. Try WP:RFC or WP:3O and try to keep things calm. More hype of this sort could land you at WP:LAME and that's not a good place to be. Durova Charge! 22:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Proabivouac passed due date
Requests for comment/Proabivouac was never certified and is quite past the 48 hours allotted for certification. Instructions state that such RfC's should be deleted. Could an admin please look into this. --BostonMA talk 20:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 10 days, no certification - vaporized. 〈 RED VEЯS 〉 21:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

68.88.167.155
Despite being warned several times before, 68.88.167.155 continued to vandalize up until here. I have just reverted everything that was unconstructive from this apparent IP user and I shall double check if I had missed any other pages that were screwed up by him/her. Please block this person for being a dick. Thanks! Power level (Dragon Ball) 22:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, will no one block this person? Power level (Dragon Ball) 03:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not suitable for this page; use WP:AIV instead. Anyways, this user hasn't vandalized past the recent test4. If he does, add the user to AIV. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

subst:irony
Just noticed that subst (the friendly userpage note reminding people to subst: their templates) still mentions test rather than the wizzy new uw-test1. I was about to change it when I saw, irony of ironies, that very very very many pages are using it unsubstituted. Changing it could wreck the servers, I'd imagine. Anyone got a bot handy that would like to subst: subst so we can change subst without incurring the problems that subst:ing templates is meant to avoid? 〈 RED VEЯS 〉 22:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no substitute for good irony. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I just made the edit. Unless a change has occurred in the time between your post and mine, I don't see much of a problem. Many of the pages in what links here just link to Template:Subst rather than use the template unsubstituted. And even still, there are fewer than five hundred pages. --  tariq abjotu  22:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Question about open proxies
I know it's against policy to edit directly from open proxies, but is it against policy to edit with an account over an open proxy?-- Azer Red  Si?  22:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand open proxies are block on sight. Any editor who finds one shoudl report it and it should immediately be blocked. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * from No open proxies - "Users are prohibited from editing Wikimedia projects through open or anonymous proxies..." --pgk 22:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Tuff luck China. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Monobook
I have recently adopted User:Boswell and he would like to add navagation popups to his monobook, however, there seams to be a problem with it and as I'm not an admin, I can't edit his monobook. Could someone possibly add exactly what is written on my monobook to his monobook? Also, please could you remove what is in his monobook already. Thanks Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 23:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers for sorting that out, its greatly appreciated Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

TfD with low chance of being closed
I'm active on TfD at the moment, which usually means that other admins ignore it. (I close ~90% of days within a few hours) However, there's a fairly technical TfD which I dont understand at all here, and I need another admin who actually knows what half of it says to deal with it. Thanks in advance and best reagrds, RyanGerbil10 (Упражнение В!) 01:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

CAT:CSD
There appear to be well about 500, including images, in this category (over 400 though without images). Could somebody please work on this? Part Deux 02:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I just created the page "William Edmondson"
and it really was supposed to be William Edmondson (no "quote" marks) and I am not quite sure what to do about it and, since I am concerned about overworking the knowledgable folks I usually go to, I thought I'd post here. If nothing has happened by tomorrow morning, I'll try. . . ....... something else. Carptrash 02:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The move button at the top of the screen allows you to rename pages. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the redirect for you as well. :) Cbrown1023 talk 02:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Chris is me's RfA
User:Chris is me has left a note on his RfA - Withdrawing, don't know how, too busy in r/l to look up. Can an admin close to save him further pile on. --Steve (Slf67)talk 05:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We need a b-crat. Khoikhoi 05:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really. --210 physicq  ( c ) 05:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought only bureaucrats can close RfAs. Khoikhoi 05:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not in cases of withdrawal or WP:SNOW. The latter reason, however, is to be used sparingly. --210 physicq  ( c ) 05:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

JuJube's annoyances
This user (Danny Lilithborne (now JuJube)) has to be stopped. A long time ago, we were having a long argument about heights and weights of Street Fighter-characters. There are many different versions of the heights and weights of these characters. Now JuJube has removed these Heights and Weights because this is too difficult to verify. Other users have asked him why the heights of these characters have been removed and JuJube blames me and says that these things have been removed because of my "constantly editwarrings". But to me, he said that the heights have been removed because this is too difficult to verify. Well, JuJube harasses me and I'm afraid that if other users would add the heights and weights to these Street Fighter Characters that JuJube would blame ma again and I'm also afraid that he would add a sockpuppet-shield to those users who would add the heights. And these problems are very frustrating for me. Please do something against JuJube and I'll be very happy. Thanks. Sergeant Gerzi 11:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * About my old username. Well worked under the username and then I've created a new account because it was too difficult to understand the "changing username" link because I'm from a foreign country and my English is not very well. Well, I've created a new account because my old username is a name of an existing character and everytime when I type my old username into the google-web machine, my contributions also appear and also JuJube's sentences about my old username also appear. Please don't forget to tell JuJube that he should use my current username in any cases. Well, I've left you a comment because JuJube has to be stopped, as I mentioned. Sergeant Gerzi 11:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm also helpless and I can't defend myself against JuJube because I'm from a foreign country and my English is not well. So I ask you to help. Sergeant Gerzi 11:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * JuJube has been here a long time and he has a point about the difficulty of verifying these figures. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Height and weights doesn't seem to be verifiable. I agree with JuJube on this one issue. Savidan 04:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They're often in game or in manuals. Similar to TV plot summaries, can't you just reference those?-137.222.10.67 20:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if they are verifiable, they're ultimately unimportant (and address the character in a decidedly in-universe fashion). We got rid of them in the Mortal Kombat articles a while back, and they're all the better for it (they were often at the center of mild edit wars). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 23:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And guess who started many of those edit wars? In any case, I already addressed this at WP:ANI, so as frivolous as it was then, it's even more so to do it again here. JuJube 07:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else see this as a possible misuse of the userspace?
User:A Study of Wikipedia appears to be soliciting interviews on his/her userpage and Helpdesk. I have not contacted the user yet; just wanted to see what the general thought on this was first. To me this is pretty clearly against WP:NOT.--Isotope23 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, everything this person is doing is about wikipedia so I'd be inclined to leave 'em alone. Besides, I wouldn't want to guess how it would impact the book if they got booted. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen surveys, and polls done on Userpages before rather successfully, and personally I don't see any issue with it, nor can I think of any better way(off the top of my head) to get interviews of Wikipedians. It may be in some measure against policy, but I'd leave it.  Canadian - Bacon  20:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the argument is that it doesn't further the goal of building an Encyclopedia. I disagree with that sentiment... I think both public relations and research both have a indirect but real effect in furthering our goal. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 20:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In principle, I think it's a bit of crystal-ballism to say that this will further the goal of building an Encyclopedia; it might... or it might be an absolute smear job (or it might just be something that never goes anywhere). That said, I don't have any plans to start unilaterally hassling the editor over this.--Isotope23 20:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's very true... but if its going to be a smear-job then I'm not sure why they would even bother with a survey. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose it could possibly be defamatory, but unfortunately I doubt we have a way to figure this out beforehand. I however, am still willing to AGF on this case.  Canadian - Bacon 20:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am strongly against using Wikipedia for commercial interests -137.222.10.67 20:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed Crud3w4re 06:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as mis-use (or at least not serious enough to hassle the user about it). It was claimed this is "not part of building the encyclopedia", yet it might well be part of building it up in the long term. Regardless, I don't see there being a high level of harm being caused by this or even a significant possibility of harm existing. Mathmo Talk 06:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What your user page is not states that a user page is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion. User page states that Wikipedia provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in the project.  Webspace provides that user pages may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia.  Review: User:A Study of Wikipedia appears to have plans to utilize user space to solicit and store content (editor opinions) for a commercial enterprise (the book).  Wikipedia's user space seems to make collaboration for the commercial enterprise easier by facilitate communication among participants in the book.  This internal spamming, self-promotion, and lack of project/encyclopedia purpose seems to be at odds with What your user page is not and User page.  Oddly, the information proposed to be collected and stored would seem to have some relevance to working on the encyclopedia (were it to be use for that purpose) as indicated by Webspace.  By posting at Help desk, the person behind User:A Study of Wikipedia seems to be proceeding cautiously and sincerely in requesting assistance to accomplish their commercial goal without violating Wikipedia policy. -- Jreferee 18:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

ED discussion page
Could an admin please review this page that I created and decide if this is appropriate content for Wikipedia. I would like to help organize an effort to have lawsuits filed against the owners of Encyclopedia Dramatica for their blatant violations of others' privacy (e.g. posting 's e-mail addresses), but I'm not sure that legal discussion such as this is considered appropriate on Wikipedia. Thanks.-- Azer Red  Si?  01:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely sounds like WP:NLT might cover this. 01:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this would definitely best be hosted on your own webpage somewhere. Otherwise you're essentially involving the Foundation in your legal effort against their will. Chick Bowen 05:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I normally dislike WP:IAR. However, since ED is trying to ruin the lives of many notable Wikipedians and has succeeded somewhat (e.g. harassing MONGO enough that his good judgment was messed up so he started to overreact and therefore caused him to be relieved of his administrative duties in the Seabhcan arbitration case), this is one of those rare cases where WP:IAR should trump WP:NLT this time. Since that site coordinates attempts to abuse Wikipedia, which could be considered computer crime in a technical sense, Wikipedia should take steps to defend itself. Maybe a police complaint should be filed about ED. Jesse Viviano 00:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't stoop to their level; it would just make Wikipedia look bad. There are people out there with entire forums devoted to whining about Wikipedia and how they're going to sue us some day; they all come off as a bunch of losers.  So do we if we do the same thing.  If ED is doing something illegal, take appropriate action; otherwise, it's best to just ignore them; they probably crave attention. *Dan T.* 00:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure (MFD?)
Would these pages be candidates for MFD? Regards, Navou   banter  19:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. --Rory096 20:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything there...  . V .  [Talk 23:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Check the logs; they pointed to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Masky/Quests/Quest1Index. James086 Talk  12:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Socionomics

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It might be that this needs to be procedurally closed since the article is currently subject of an ArbCom case, which wasn't mentioned in the nomination (and probably not know to the nominator). I already participated in the discussion, so someone else, maybe with more ArbCom experience, should look at it. ~ trialsanderrors 23:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would not mind, if you can show policy to that effect. I could not find it on my own.  Also, there is no temporary injunction on the case page preventing changes, deletions to the article.  Regards,  Navou   banter  00:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm asking here. I have no idea what the protocol is wrt articles that are under ArbCom review. I hope someone knows, otherwise we probably have to let it run. ~ trialsanderrors 00:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, barring intervention from the arbcom, it may just have to run. I don't know if there is even a precedent for this, but I'll look.  Regards,  Navou   banter  01:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I notified one of the editors who voted "Delete" that the article was part of the RfA one full day before the RfD was filed.
 * Also, the editor who nominated the article for deletion knew of the arbitration case within a few hours of submitting the RfD, and said as much on the main page of Articles for deletion/Socionomics:
 * "Response to Rgfolsom -- who is, it should be noted, a paid member of the 'Socionomics Institute' … [his] response is cut&paste from an RfA he's involved in…"
 * I also respectfully ask the administrator to read the nominating editor's comments -- and my remarks under "This AfD is 'out of process'" -- and assess if this AfD was undertaken in a spirit of fair mindedness and respect for the community. Thank you.
 * --Rgfolsom 01:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like there is no policy or it's so obscure that no one knows about it. So I guess we can close this. And to User:Rgfolsom, I recommend you stop insinuating sinister motives every opportunity you get. ~ trialsanderrors 05:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Process is not a reason to close something by itself. The arguments in the AfD seem to me to be strongly favoring deletion. I'm going to wait a few more hours and if no one else objects or closes it by then am going to close it as delete with an offer to undelete and place a copy in my userspace if anyone needs it for assistance in the RfAr. JoshuaZ 05:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, the AfD was started on Jan 27, so it should run a couple more days if there's no procedural issues. ~ trialsanderrors 09:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keeping or deleting the article is a content decision. There is no conflict with the arbitration case, which considers behavioral questions. It is possible our remedies might affect the articles, require conformity to policies while editing them, etc. Fred Bauder 16:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Per the Arbitrator; there is no conflict with the arbitration case. Navou   banter  21:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The solution to the IRC problem
It seems to me that the crux of the perennial IRC issue is that people complain about the lack of accountability there, and the apparent fact that it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the ArbCom. The solution, then, seems fairly straightforward: Create a new IRC channel that IS accountable to the Wikipedia community. Have a clear and concise ruleset for this new channel (e.g. being nasty gets you kicked, some process for making channel ops, and some lightweight way of asking access). And ask the admins to consider using that instead. No, it won't stop The Cabal from talking to each other through other means, but you don't seriously expect to be able to legislate that, now do you?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A good ideam but suggested a little late in the day - meanwhile, people are being driven off, and will not return Giano 10:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Great theory, but note that IRC is a different system necessitating a different culture. (Your proposal might easily become like implementing finnish culture in saudi arabia, ;-) or vice versa, if you're not careful). I'd like to invite you over to freenode to discuss! :-)


 * The problem is that some of the irc channels have in fact not always been administered properly by *any* culture. Not by some major failing really, just that there has been a dearth of active chanops in certain channels.


 * This might have been partially caused by a number of ...people who aren't in channel very often... getting chanops making the numbers look rosier than they really were. This is something that's being remedied right now. Not quick enough for my taste (you can do this so much quicker ). But it's being remedied --Kim Bruning 11:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea, though I would replace "And ask the admins to consider using that instead" with "Compel them to do so by shutting down #wikipedia-en-admins". Moreschi Deletion! 11:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is all well and good but nothing is going to happen because the Arbcom have made it very clear they have no intention of addressing the problem. They obviously feel there is no problem. Giano 11:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Several arbitrators have indicated a willingness to consider misconduct on wikipedia that originated on IRC. A majority seem to feel that the existence of the channel is not under their scope. Thatcher131 15:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm doing my best here, at least. :-/ --Kim Bruning 11:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes you are but there is no point, the Arbcom have made their feelings widely known. They have no regard for the editors being driven off, probably because some of them and their friends are heavily involved.  Nothing is going to change because no one who has the power to change things wants to. Giano 11:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How about automatically copying IRC onto the Wiki. Then it would come under Arbcom, and everyone could see what was going on. Stephen B Streater 12:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good luck getting that past JamesF and Dannyisme. Though I do in fact wish you well with that. --Kim Bruning 12:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, the arbcom is somewhat divided, so what can they do? And when finally fixed, it's fixed, right? --Kim Bruning 12:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a thread about creating a new IRC channel. Please put soapboxing about existing IRC channels, or about the ArbCom, in some other therad. Thank you.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree this would be the best course. I suggested something similar in my comments on the proposed IRC ArbCom case. Specifically, I would suggest making a 'Wikimedia administration' channel, for all the English Wiki projects, which is open for everyone to READ, but not write to... easily done in IRC by making the channel moderated and giving the 'voice' setting only to those who should be able to write. In the rare cases where truly confidential business must be conducted (OTRS/legal/office/whatever) a private channel can be set up in seconds. Such a setup would allow everyone to see what was going on without filling the channel with tons of gab like the general channel. If an admin acted abusively their 'voice' could be taken away temporarily, or permanently for recurring problems... and any user could temporarily be given 'voice' to ask a question or participate in a discussion relevant to them. --CBD 12:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * combines all the worst parts of all possible systems :-/ --Kim Bruning 13:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me note that Interiot and I already set up something like this called #wikipedia-en-functionaries. Mackensen (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And someone else set up the (rather poorly named, in my opinion) #wikipedia-en-cabal, which apparently allows public logging. - Mark 13:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest people choose or create IRC channels based on their expectations, oh wait that is what we are already doing, that is how IRC works. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously what we need now is yet another IRC section so we can have yet another long meandering discussion. That said, I'm for anything that enhances accountability, except for public logging. The rule isn't specific to #wikipedia-en-admins at all, but is common to most Wikimedia IRC channels. If I have to worry about how not just the people in the channel, but how every single Wikipedian might misconstrue my words after reading a small excerpt of the logs, then I might as well have a preview button and not carry the discussion out in real time. (the same principle applies to real-time discussions at Wikimania, or to the Florida Wikimedia office... it would be intrusive to suggest everyone's informal conversations be recorded and be available for public posting) --Interiot 14:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On IRC I assume that everything I say is public. If someone posts a partial log, I take it as permission to post the rest of the log as well. Even so, I do understand your position as well. Not everyone is the same. Well, worst case, you could just not visit channels that allow public logging, I suppose. --Kim Bruning 14:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely. If you have a conversation at a large lunchtable, everything should be considered public because anyone is free to relay their own impressions of what was said.  But if speakers at the table were aware that the conversation was being recorded verbatim and that selective snippets could be replayed to anyone else, they'd almost certainly word their conversation more carefully.  That's certainly a good thing in many cases, but for people who are essentially good, it's also sometimes needless overhead.  For those who have lunch at work, how many would be willing to have their lunch conversations recorded?  How many people would be totally comfortable with having the audio in their workspace recorded by their employer, to ensure a professional demeanor at all times?  Yes, it's good to be able to have both logged and unlogged conversations.  And if we can make sure that IRC has adequate ways to deal with civility problems, then it's the place for unlogged conversations.  --Interiot 18:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think public longing is undesirable, especially given that a lot of the communication on IRC is personal material only tangentially related to on-wiki matters. However, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that what you say there isn't being recorded. Nor to think that what say there won't become public knowledge. In light of this, comments made on IRC that personalize disputes can be as detrimental to the collaborative process as comments made on-wiki, and to my mind ought to be regarded in more or less the same light. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Contributors to this thread may be interested in my statement at Requests for arbitration/Arbitrators' views regarding IRC. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Unprotecting salted pages
A quick procedural question. I recently salted a page - Flashes Before Your Eyes, the latest episode of Lost - that had been repeatedly recreated against policy. However, I knew at the time that the chances were that within 4/5 days the page would be able to be created as an article per the policy on future Lost episodes. I advised users at the time who were intending to recreate when verifable information came to light that they should go to requests for unprotection when necessary. However, when done so, the users were sent to deletion review.

Now, its important to understand that the users wern't requesting that deletion of the article be overturned; they wanted it unprotected so that a new article can be created. Would I be right in asserting that the requests for unprotection, rather than deletion review, is the correct place for that? Or have I misunderstood this one? The policy states "Re-creation of such pages can be requested at deletion review if the deletion was incorrect or circumstances have changed". However, it is not 'recreation' of the article that is wanted, it is the brand-spanking-new creation of a brand spanking new article; or have I got that wrong? --Robdurbar 15:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If it is a substantially new article then I don't think a DRV is needed. I would really depend on the reasoning of the deletion, if it was per crystal balling, then I think once the episode it out it is fine to recreate. In other words if the deletion reasons don't apply to the new article, then they don't apply. Unless I am wrong. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahem: that's not a policy, it's a group of lost fans agreeing that every episode, past or future, is of surpassing importance and must have its own article - maybe they think we are a mirror of Lostpedia or an episode guide or something. Just to be clear. Guy (Help!) 19:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, you're right the policy that Robdurbar is referring to is not policy on Wikipedia. However, it is documented consensus resulting from a mediation with a unanimous decision.  This discussion should not be focused on the justification of Lost episode articles but rather whether protected deleted pages should go to requests for unprotection or deletion review.  --  Wikipedical 22:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's tagged as a policy on the talk page. Maybe that should change. --Robdurbar 11:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I generally unprotect any salted page listed at WP:RFP without question if the original problem was simply repeated recreation, not vandalism or abuse, and if the article title is wanted for a different topic or circumstances have otherwise changed. There is no need to send these to DRV.  Chick Bowen 22:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A report on the Colbert Report
I went through the protection log and compiled two lists: one of fake articles that were salted, the other of actual content needing protection. Here it is. This'll be an inside joke reoccurring theme, as the Elephant vandalism never truly went away. If other sysops could please double/triple check the contribution histories of the deleted articles to check up on blocks and make sure those all went well. I'm not even going to dream of going through how many blocks we issued last night, they were going out like candy. I was even blocked briefly in the flurry of activity (Hi, xaosflux!). There's probably some body parts laying around that we need to pick up. Teke ( talk ) 17:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I was watching Letterman last night. What'd Colbert do this time? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luigi30 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Whoops, forgot to sign and got beaten by a bot. AFDs must be giving me carpal tunnel :( Luigi30 (Ta&lambda;k) 18:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It was a dirge on how reality is now a commodity, marketable and sellable, so go to Wikipedia and announce that reality is a commodity. Teke ( talk ) 18:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It was at the end of a piece on Microsoft and Wikipedia. See the last paragraph in this Signpost story: Microsoft's Wikipedia standards. --Quiddity 21:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've re-deleted the salted pages and disabled their re-creation via cascading protection at Protected titles/The Colbert Report. —David Levy 23:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah ha! I shoulda thought of that.  I'll provide entries there as well as the reference index I'm building on my subpage.  If anyone sees pages please add them to User:Teke/Colbert after putting in the protected titles.  BTW, I'm making just a couple of those protected Reality misspellings redirects.  I'd rather someone get pointed to where they are going then to find out why "Reallity" is misspelled.  Teke ( talk ) 03:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, that way we can use Prefix index to search. I am moving those I see over. Prodego <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  02:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Jersyko
Jersyko has recently improperly blocked two useres, Puppop and Elkwjdvc. Both had vandalized, but neither had since their last warning. Puppop was undergoing a WP:SSP trial and E only had one edit! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zbl (talk • contribs) 23:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Both were vandal only accounts, one the obvious sock of the other (they both moved Al Gore to Total idiot). I welcome scrutiny of the blocks here. · <b style="color:#709070;">j e r s y k o</b> <i style="color:#007BA7; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> · 23:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ever heard of don't stuff beans up your nose. I asssumed one gave the other the idea. Also, Puppop had not vandalized since his last warning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zbl (talk • contribs).


 * Since you posted this here, I see the Gore article's been moved to "total idiot" yet again by a user named Merlin'sfalcon. May I ask if you have any connection to these users? · <b style="color:#709070;">j e r s y k o</b> <i style="color:#007BA7; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> · 23:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but I think I know who Elkwjdvc is, that's all. Zbl 23:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you know who they are, I recommend telling them to not vandalize Wikipedia and to request to be unblocked on their talk page. · <b style="color:#709070;">j e r s y k o</b> <i style="color:#007BA7; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> · 00:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've fully move protected Al Gore. It's very very very very very unlikely it would ever need to be moved, ever.  Proto ::  ►  12:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

<Courtesy blanked>
This section blanked as a courtesy. Thatcher 20:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate
This arbitration case has been closed. GuardianZ and Skinny McGee are banned indefinitely from the article Midnight Syndicate. Dionyseus is banned for three months from Midnight Syndicate. No present or past employee or associate of the band Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana, or Monolith Graphics, under any username or anonymous IP, may edit Midnight Syndicate or associated articles (it is acceptable for such persons to make suggestions on the talk page; it is especially helpful if they identify themselves and the roles they play or played in the group). The complete text of the decision can be found at the link above. For the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad, Assistant Clerk, 00:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

ISOC (Islamic Society)
Just popped up again on my watchlist as a new page (and created by the same author that started the page the first time). I cannot see the deleted version, so could an admin please take a look to see if it's maybe a deleteagain candidate?  Zun aid  ©  ®  09:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a G4 so I sent it to AfD. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Second pair of eyes required
Not being a natural mediator, I have tried to do so, as it's something I feel I should try to do from time to time. I have tried to solve the ructions going on at Talk:Florian Gate. A number of users have been disputing whether this article should be at Florian Gate or St. Florian's Gate. The article has been moved back and forth, and a few shotgun moves have been carried out without consensus. An attempt to engage the Mediation Committee fell through as not all parties agreed to mediation (the user who had carried out the most recent move refused). As the only step they could think of was now to go to Arbcom over a full stop and a possesive 's, I have tried to step in.

I have a) per WP:NAME, moved the article to the original title until consensus is achieved, b) move-protected the article, c) suggested a consensus, and d) suggested WP:3O or the Mediation Cabal. Two questions - have I done everything I could/should have done thus far, and is there anything else I can do? Proto :: ►  13:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good, except technically you should have protected it on the 'wrong' version, but this one does match current policy, so it works out fine. --Golbez 13:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

A question about speedy deletion tags
If I encounter an article about some non-notable teenager whose bio only says "he's awesome", or some website or company which doesn't have any claims of notability, and I put a "db" tag on it, then the original creator removes that tag, what is my option? I don't want to edit war over it. Should I just go ahead and nominate it for deletion? Corvus cornix 00:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's a straight forward, non controversial A7, probably best to contact an admin. Look at the deletion logs and see who's active at that time. The JPS <sup style="color:purple;">talk to me  00:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll do that. Corvus cornix 00:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Restore it. The tag itself says that the creator of the page should not remove it. If someone else disagrees, prod it or AFD it. Hbdragon88 04:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's technically true, but it would be easier to contact an active admin, rather than wasting effort on an edit skirmish. --bainer (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Privacy issue
Aaron Pril contains a contact email - some admin may want to remove and remove from history. Natalie 01:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Been deleted. -- Majorly  (o rly?) 02:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Jobanjohn
Posting here to try and get an uber-speedy delete. The guy's posted his resumé online. Carson 07:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Underway. Carson 07:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done (again). -- Derek Ross | Talk 08:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User pages prod
I suppose this is as good a place as any (since this is where the impetus to look these over, came from : )

I've come across several edits by User talk:Calton - Template:Prod on userpages with only a few edits, claiming that they are not editors. Is this appropriate? Unless a user requests the Right to vanish, I presume that we don't delete their userpages/talk pages? - jc37 11:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Moved from WT:RFA MER-C 11:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason why these pages are being prodded are because Wikipedia is not myspace. The "editors" involved have zero encyclopedic contributions, have not edited for a long period of time and are merely using their user page for social networking purposes. MER-C 11:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just for furture reference: "encyclopedic contributions" means any edit outside userspace? And "long period of time" = ? - jc37 11:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, any edits outside userspace. And they are not being speedied, they are being prod tagged.  A user is free to remove the prod tag before deletion takes place if they do still use the account.  Proto ::  ►  13:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's appropriate. It's a recent change to PROD as a result of an influx of obviously-deletable user pages on MFD. The criterion is that a user has little or no actual contributions (e.g. only edits in his own userspace, or simple self-glorifying vandals, etc).  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam only account
User:Maximo_Decimo continue to spam jihadmonitor website on all the pages. See his contribution yourself Special:Contributions/Maximo_Decimo. He do not talk or edit anything useful but only adding this spam. It is waste of our time to keep reverting him. We have also given him warnings few times now (see his talk page). I think it is time to block him. Please? --- ALM 11:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Kusma (討論) 12:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Danke schoen. --- ALM

Warning removal wars - again
Following a fairly conclusive DRV discussion the old 'Wr' series of templates for telling people they could not remove warnings from their user talk pages were deleted. Subsequently a template was created with the stated purpose (and text) of telling people who habitually remove warnings that no offense is intended by them and giving links for possible discussion of the issues. That was iffy given the history, but seemed ok in principle. However, despite warnings not to do so, in practice people are often using this template whenever a single warning is removed... and they revert the warning back onto the page. Further, this has been cloned as, (which claimed removing warnings was a blockable offense before being changed to a redirect), and back to the old name. There is also now a which is used when a warning is first placed to tell the user they may not remove it. There may well be others.

My impulse at this point is to speedy delete the lot of them as G4 (recreations) / T1 (inflammatory templates) / just plain wrong... but I'm bringing it here for consideration. Is it worth trying to retain some sort of 'people place warning templates to help you' template or will it just inevitably be used as a back door to insist that users have to retain and display any 'scarlet letter' any random user decides to inflict upon them? --CBD 12:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would support speedying them. They serve the same purpose as the deleted ones (to try and stop people removing warnings), but in a more patronising way ("I'm trying to help you"). -- Steel 12:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have speedied them - they are clear recreations of deleted content. It was agreed by a strong community consensus that such templates are not suitable for Wikipedia, and rewriting them in a pseudo-patronising tone does not change the content or the intent of the templates.  Proto ::  ►  13:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done. Kusma (討論) 13:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Beat me to it. Well done.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A Man in Black
I am having a continuing issue with user, A Man in Black. He is deleting the image galleries for TV stations, WVBT, WVNS, and WUSA and citing rules WP:FUC #3 and #8, for which these pages are not in violation of. Most of these logos or images have been up for quite awhile. Some, in the case of the WUSA page, are former logos through their WTOP, WDMV, and now WUSA days...which is a along time. I have reverted the pages back to their previous versions, only to have them re-reverted. Have tried responding to A Man in Black to no avail. Assistance and advice would be greatly appericated.

Thanks....SVRTVDude 05:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is very unlikely that galleries of unfree images meet our Fair use criteria. It's really up to the user to make such a compelling case for claiming fair use that no reasonable editor would disagree with it.  Frankly, even if it was freely licensed content, it is not obvious to me how encyclopedic a gallery of logos would be, but I suppose that a case could be made.  Jkelly 05:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To no avail? I did reply to your comments on my talk page.


 * To those not familiar, articles about television stations tend to accrue galleries of non-free images of the station's previous logos. There is little to no commentary on these images (so they fail WP:FUC #8), and there's little need to have galleries of as many as two dozen images to identify a single station (so they fail WP:FUC #3).


 * I have made a practice of removing such galleries, for the last several months. It's just that there are so very many station articles. It's unfortunate that this necessary work amounts to undoing the good-faith work of others, but it is nevertheless necessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a logo or a picture, how much commentary do you need. "Image:XXX was the logo from XXXX to XXXX"...all the commentary necessary.  Unless other information is available, then in most cases, it is given...otherwise, that is all ya got.


 * I personally don't see how it is necessary by taking away images that have to do with the histories of stations. In some cases, logos that can't be readily found elsewhere.  If it is unfortunate that you have to undo "the good-faith work of others", then don't do it.  There is much more that can be done than taking out a couple logos here and there. SVRTVDude 05:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair use requires "critical commentary." This is most preferably done in a history section, where one talks about eras, histories, etc.; see LACMTA and how I intergrated a gallery of 4-5 images into the history section.  Fair use is a legal issue and this requires sweeping intervention; this is out of the domain of the regular grinding and slow progress of other issues. Hbdragon88 05:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It might have been a better idea to have instead of just taking it upon himself to axe every gallery with just a curt note saying "rm gallery -- fair use", to have (a) started a discussion at the project page with the concern, and perhaps tried to integrate the images better into the article if the article actually discussed the image. If there was 27 images, you could still go and delete all of the ones that didn't have any mention in the prose of the article -- that's what these discussion pages are for. A Man In Black managed to go about this in a way that could do nothing but provoke people, and the cavalier way he seems to dismiss the concerns that others have don't help any more. I absolutely understand the bind you folks are in with this, but reaching out could have stemmed this ill-will many people have over the removal of the galleries. SterlingNorth 22:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, if it is a legal issue, then how come I can post just about any logo or image I would like on my website (which by the way is a radio and television website) and have no problems what-so-ever. Am just confused...and sadly this is the second time I have come in contact with situation like this and it is slowly making me re-think updating pages and trying my best to provide accurate information and images for a site that obviously doesn't want them. So, if you would please, close this discussion as it is evident (sp) no good will come from it. SVRTVDude 06:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that the difference is that your website does not tell people that its content it is freely available for republication like wikipedia does. Your liability on your website ends at the site itself, which you can easily continuously monitor and ensure your use of images does not infringe on the rights of the owner.  On wikipedia, since the content is mirrored and included in so many external sites, it is not possible for wikimedia or the editors of wikipedia to police all that external use.  Therefore cerefully written image copyright guidelines have been established and are aggressively enforced.  Hopefully you can see that this is not an attempt to curtail your good faith edits, but rather to protect the encyclopedia.  Jerry lavoie 07:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't that we "don't want them"; it's that copyright law simply prevents us from using and redistributing them without the permission of the copyright holder. Fair use is a very limited exception to copyright law that varies by country. As far as your personal website goes, it's simply that either the copyright holder(s) don't care, or that you're not a big enough target for them to have even noticed. If your website happened to be one of the most visted websites on the Internet, you would have plenty of copyright issues. Fair use does not convey unlimited permission to use the work, or immunity from legal action: see Image:Crosstar.png for one instance. --Slowking Man 09:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * More than happy to support A Man in Black. Galleries of former station idents and logos need critical discussion to be worthy of inclusion under Wikipedia policy.  Your website does not operate under Wikipedia policies, but the terms and conditions of your provider most likely limit what you can display. Hiding Talk 00:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See the RFC at Fair use/Historical logos in galleries and my commentary at its talk page. There is no legal reason why we shouldn't be able to have historical logos in an encyclopedic article about the logo's subject; this is an entirely fair use of these images. When there is no legal issue, Wikipedia policy is supposed to be decided by consensus. And there is no consensus that Wikipedia policy forbids these images in this context. Given that, there is no good reason why these logos should be removed. Although the discussion has failed to reveal a clear consensus, the fact remains that these logos were added by hundreds of editors over the last few years, and now ONE single adminstrator has recently taken it upon himself to delete them all. Where's the consensus? DHowell 21:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Severe backlog at WP:CFD
WP:CFD still has a severe backlog. 13 pages of discussion still have discussions that need to be closed. The pages extend back to 7 January 2007.

This seems to be a frequent problem at WP:CFD. How can this problem be solved? Dr. Submillimeter 21:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It can be 'solved' if there were more administrators with the time to do this. Closing CfDs is frequently not easy.  When I do it, I need to have 3 windows open so that I can cut and paste to the various places.  Then there is the content that has to be reviewed.  Sometimes this is not an issue.  In other cases the various opinions require the administrator to closely read through the comments and see if they can find some consensus.  In one recent case, there was no consensus on a new name, so rather then just close this as no consensus, I closed as no consensus and relisted with a rename vote for the two options hoping for a consensus.  In some cases, I simply don't understand the discussion and have to skip it.  Also, administrators need to avoid closing discussions that they are involved in unless there is a clear consensus.  This sometimes keeps some administrators from closing specific discussions. Vegaswikian 21:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good points. Can we perhaps change the process to make it easier? The reason I don't close CFDs is because I don't have a bot to do the recatting/decatting.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Same here. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please dont let not having a bot stop you all you have to do is post them to WP:CFD/W and the bots will do the rest. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 17:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Space Cadet
Searching something on my talk archives, I noticed my exchange with. A click later I was on his userpage. One thing that immediately struck me was his military-like barnstar, along with a Polish description. With my knowledge of Czech, I deduced its meaning to be "For the war of justice and the wounds you have suffered in war (ban)". As this seems to be in reference to the user's frequent disputes about Polish articles, and some ban in relation to them, my question is, is rewarding behaviour contrary to the rules of the Wikipedia allowed? +Hexagon1 (t) 08:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Try talking to Space Cadet. It's been there since mid-2005 so it probably isn't too bad, but maybe he or she will refactor it voluntarily.  Durova Charge! 17:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Second. Try discussing the issue with the user first before bringing it up here, that's usually a good rule of thumb.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just interested in finding out if it's allowed, before rushing to Space Cadert's page and accusing him of breaking any rules. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not prohibited, but it's generally not a Good Thing to DoTM. ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 17:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Continued Problem
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #dedaca; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A user, not myself, made an attempt to add only 3 pervious logos for WUSA-TV in DC. User, A Man in Black, of course immediately deleted them, now stating they are not discussed in the article. I was OK with it being a "legal issue" even if I didn't agree with it, but now A Man in Black is now just picking a reason out of the air to delete any and all logos and images, minus the ones in the info boxes, for TV and Radio stations. I am not seeing this in his contribs in any other subject on Wiki. Help is needed, cause I personally feel that he is haivng a little too much fun with the delete key. - SVRTVDude 06:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Two of the images were part of a set of three that were minor variations on each other. The one that is the subject of discussion (and it isn't in the infobox, by the way) wasn't removed, although I tagged its unsourced commentary as OR. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I untagged it, cause it is quite impossible to reference something that came from a tape (more than likely) and is from the 1960s. With video (logos), I think we just have to trust what people put down and most people who add radio and TV information are normally right on the money, just with things of the past, there isn't much to reference. - SVRTVDude 07:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're watching the old videos and drawing conclusions, that is original research, and doesn't belong in this encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * YOU may no think it belongs here, but others might. Other people might want to see the former logos of a TV station.  Let other people decide what belongs here and what doesn't.  Not JUST you. - SVRTVDude 07:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't get to decide, our philisophies of fair use decide. Wikipedia is not a democracy; we do not vote on things.  See Requests_for_comment/Chowbok for a debate where the fair use trumped the views and thoughts of many other editors. Hbdragon88 07:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If anything, Image:EWNWUSA2004.jpg is the decorative image, while the other two are at least apporpriately inserted in a history section. Would not be opposed to removing one of the three logos in the history section. Hbdragon88 07:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, hell, I missed that ident image. Yeah, that needs to be removed, too. The other decorative images are already gone. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You missed the part about me believing that one of the two "decorative images" that you removed should be restored. Hbdragon88 07:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? It wasn't at all the subject of any commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh hell. Eyewitness News has 12 logos in its history section. Hbdragon88 07:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:EWNWUSA2004.jpg is NOT an ident. It is actually from the newscast open when WUSA switched from it's long standing "Eyewitness News" to "9 News".  This is what I am talking about....you take pictures down, saying they are idents and they are really newscast opens.  That one is part of the article and should be left up...unless you would like to pull another rule out of the hat. - SVRTVDude 07:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The way it was presented, it was just out there for eye candy. If it was intergrated in the history section, I might have seen the reason to keep it in, but in its current place it was not.  And if it was in the history section AMIB would have probably removed it before I saw it... Hbdragon88 07:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * AIMB removes ALOT of things before people get the chance to see them. I will give the history a once-over and find the line where it says about the switch...and readd the picture inside that line so there is no confusion. - SVRTVDude 07:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "WFOO changed their green logo to orange" is not sufficient commentary to justify the use of an additional fair-use image; it's just trivia. Make sure it's actually meaningful commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * sufficient to who? you?  How "meaningful" can commentary be when it is, as you put it, "WFOO changed their green logo to orange".  Would you like me to put "At 16hours on the 10th of October, the tempature was 57 degrees and a bus is passing by, WFOO has just switched their logo from a disgusting lime green to a nice pumpkin orange that gives me an Autumn feeling".  Would that work better for you?  Sheesh....logos are logos.  You look at the picture, then look at the text..."this was used from 19XX to 19XX but only on Tuesdays"....how much commentary do you need and want? - SVRTVDude 07:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Commentary published in a reliable source. If the logo change was so insignificant that no source ever felt the need to comment on it, then Wikipedia has no business being the first to comment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Meaningful commentary" is something like "As part of a corporate re-branding effort, in 1976 NBC replaced their long-time "peacock" logo with a stylized 'N'. Shortly afterwards, NBC was sued for trademark infringement, as their logo was virtually identical to that of the Nebraska ETV Network".   Don't just give the "what" and "when", give some background. --Carnildo 20:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A picture is about as reliable a source as any and WUSA's change from "Eyewitness News" to "9 News" was pretty big given WUSA had been "Eyewitness News" for some 35 years. - SVRTVDude 07:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Stating when they changed it without a source is original research. Hbdragon88 07:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * what kind of source do you all want, beside the picture? I don't think the Washington Post is going to run an article on WUSA's new logo.  They have better things to do.  Give me an example of a source that is found quickly and easily that is acceptable. - SVRTVDude 07:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's not important enough that any publication has ever felt the need to comment, why do you want this publication, one with a policy of avoiding original research, to be the first? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ooooook....that didn't answer my question....give me an example of a source that is found quickly and easily that is acceptable. - SVRTVDude 07:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. To be honest, I've yet to see anyone actually do any research to justify the use of a historical logo image. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I just went over to Academic Search Elite, a mutliple-subject database (one of the perks of being an university student), and found nil. WUSA doesn't appear anywhere... Hbdragon88 08:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe people don't do the research cause they know you are just going to come along and delete it anyway....or more likely as HBDragon88 just said...it doesn't exsist...then you have to go with the picture as the reference until an actual article comes along that it can be referenced to. Sometimes you have to go with a little known thing called trust.  More radio and TV geeks know what they are talking about and most radio and TV geeks who post on Wiki would provide references if they had them. - SVRTVDude 08:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they don't do the research because it violates two of Wikipedia's foundations: verifability, not truth (WP:V) and no original research (WP:NOR). Hbdragon88 08:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In reply to SVRTVDude
 * It doesn't work like that. We don't keep original research and non-fair-use non-free images until better content comes along. Eventualism is fine for many things, but not really policy violations.


 * More radio and TV geeks need to get themselves published elsewhere, so we can use their work as references. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am just curious as to the number of problems that Wikipedia has had with "fair-use" images....and please don't tell me the answer is none.


 * Am a little confused HBDragon88, are you saying that RTV Geeks doing research violates the Wiki foundations or the pictures? Cause if it is the former, than I am all kinds of confused.  AMIB, I have used my website as a reference on many of these pictures, so I am the reference and there is no problem...but it is still a problem...wondering if you would like to explain that one to me. - SVRTVDude 09:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So the reliable source for stuff you want to is yourself? Guy, that's pretty much the complete opposite of "reliable source". --Calton | Talk 12:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Calton, AMIB doesn't have an answer as to where I can find a source that is found quickly and easily that is acceptable so I can reference an article or picture, so using myself and my website (I use my website) is the next best thing until an article or such can be found and then I will reference it to that. Probably still get deleted by AMIB. - SVRTVDude 13:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless you are an academic who has written perr-reviewed articles or books on the subject, then it's original research and isn't allowed to be on Wikipedia. If you can find peer-reviewed articles, or even newspaper articles (from reliable sources), then those are acceptable.  I seem to recall several articles many years ago about the NBC logo because there was a controversy over NBC having spent millions of dollars on consultants to come up with their new logo, only to find that it violated the trademark of Nebraska Public Television, which had spent a couple of hundred dollars to create it in the first place.  If there's such an article history on the subject, then we can use it as sources.  But your un-peer-reviewed website is not a suitable source.  Corvus cornix 17:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If the threshhold of inclusion for information in Wikipedia were that it had to be published in peer-reviewed academic articles and books, you'd have to delete 90% of what's in Wikipedia. Fortunately, it's not. This is TV station history, not nuclear physics. I'm not aware of any academic institution which specializes in this subject (or many, many other subjects which are covered in-depth in Wikipedia). Newspaper articles can also be difficult to find, as newspapers are notoriously poor at covering what their competition is doing (unless it sells newspapers, ergo you can find TV listings and articles about popular shows, although even TV listings have been recently disappearing from newspapers due to on-line TV listing services and DVRs). DHowell 23:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to add my thoughts: I agree with everything AMIB is doing with regard to these articles and images. It's hard work, he knows it breaks hearts, but he does it because it's the right thing to do. I am not writing this because he and I spent a weekend in Cabo together. Because we didn't. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 21:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is where you all are losing me. You want research, but not original research.  If you do the research yourself, you know that you have searched the web and what you find is what you can find.  If "Bob" does it, how do you know he didn't just look at one site and call it research?


 * See, now we have WP:FUC #3 and #8, "Fair-Use", "a legal issue", "unsourced commentary", "not discussed in the article", "no reference", it's "decorative", "meaningful commentary", "reliable source" (though AMIB admits he knows of no place to find a source), "violation of two of Wikipedia's foundations", and "the right thing to do" as reasons given why these logos should not be up...each time, a different reason. All for a logo that no company has or probably will make an issue about.  It is easy for you to just delete something, have others do the research (that you are going to deny anyway) that you all know is almost impossible to find on older images, especially some recorded from over-the-air, then actually do the research yourself or just leave the image be.


 * I ask again, what is the number of problems that Wikipedia has had with "fair-use" images....and again, please don't tell me the answer is none. Like I have said before, I doubt Gannett, FOX, or any other company is going to come along and sue Wiki cause a logo from the 60's, 70's, 80's or whenever is up here.  If it is defamatory, then yeah, but if it is just for historic purposes, I kinda doubt they care. - SVRTVDude 22:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not about lawsuits. It's about having correct, reliable information. I don't know who you are. I don't know whether you are making up what you are saying. The only way we can be sure that what is on Wikipedia is true is to require that claims be sourced to reliable publications. So, "Bob: is out. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 23:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the reason we don't know of any sources for this information is that it is pretty trivial stuff. If you can find a source, great. But the burden is on you to prove that what you are saying is true by showing us where you got the information. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 23:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, fine...me and my site don't count...whatever. But people are using the actual station as their reference.  I do, on numerous occasions.  On the WWHC page, I went through Internet Archive and got an old logo from their old website...linked the Internet Archive page, so you all could see...still was deleted.  It is the station's own website...that is about as reliable and accurate as you can get without a signed piece of paper stating, "yes, this is an accurate logo". - SVRTVDude 23:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The purpose of WP:V and WP:OR is supposed to be to keep false, misleading, and unverifiable information out of Wikipedia. These policies are not an excuse to go around deleting factual information that doesn't cite sources because you think they are "trivial" or for some other reason. WP:V says "editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." But that doesn't mean you go around challenging normally uncontroversial and uncontentious material simply because you have some other reason to remove it. If I wanted to violate WP:POINT, I could blank everything in 4 (number) because that article doesn't cite its sources. Original research! Where is the reliable source that says that 4 "is the natural number following 3 and preceding 5" or that "Four is the only number in the English language for which the number of letters in its name is equal to the number itself"?! Now if I were to delete such things from every number article, you have a pretty good analogy to what AMIB is doing to the TV station articles. Except that TV station history is a more obscure subject than arithmetic, so the information is harder to verify (please note that "hard to verify" does not mean "unverifiable", and "obscure" does not mean "non-notable" or "trivial"). DHowell 22:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Ludvikus - proposed action for independent review
I am posting here disclosure of the action proposed in respect of, so that in the event that action is needed, the proposed action has had a chance to be examined by others in advance to confirm it is appropriate or otherwise, so that there is no dispute afterwards (if it does come to that) whether any such action was contentious or unsupported.

Naturally I hope it will not come to that.

Ludvikus has been discussed on WP:AN twice this month in relation to a possible community ban. See above for details or User:FT2/Evidence pages/Philosophy for background. He has been blocked three times now (two bans, one extended). The article has been protected twice now within a month. Article editors are near unanimously in agreement, and there is significant consensus amongst the majority of other editors and admins who have expressed views.

I have been given Ludvikus' word in email that he will henceforth utterly forgo certain kinds of inappropriate editing on all pages, in order that I can trial unprotect the article. He may be able to keep his word, he may not. I have posted a formal explanation that if there is further problematic editing contravening our agreement on his conduct then he may be treated as community banned based upon existing consensus, and enforced by block. I have posted a further heads up on his talk page to ensure there is no doubt. I do not consider further explanation needed since I have also given him explanation and advice multiple times that should be clear to any reasonable editor. (eg:  and email)

If the agreement is kept henceforth, then I will be glad. If the agreement is broken I would propose to post a WP:AN note to the effect that he is considered community-banned, and an indefinite block to enforce this, being consensus as best I can judge it. If anyone feels that this would be a breach of proper conduct or inappropriate use of access, or would be insufficiently justified on the basis of 1/ his block log, 2/ recent talk page, 3/ seriousness of actions, 4/ numerous warnings to date, and 5/ evidence page linked above, please speak now. FT2 (Talk 00:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks fair to me. In fact you're even more scrupulous than I was with Midnight Syndicate.  After problems brewed long enough there and other attempts to resolve the conflict failed I unprotected the page unilaterally and announced I'd open an ArbCom request if the disputants couldn't handle unprotection.  Maybe that was rouge, but they promptly demonstrated they weren't up to the responsibility and ArbCom accepted the case.  Durova Charge! 19:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Developers
Anyone know where I could find a developer to quickly (i.e. not wait 6 months for bugzilla) fix svn revision 18992? There are a few problems, basically:
 * 1) The block log displays a message when the auto blocker is enabled, the block list when disabled: list|log
 * 2) The log includes empty parenthesis when no non-default settings are added to a block..

Prodego <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  00:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Werdna is generally on top of things like this--try his talk page. Chick Bowen 03:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * On IRC, see WP:IRC. —Centrx→talk &bull; 03:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking. &mdash; Werdna talk 08:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

One issue fixed, the other one looks more complicated. &mdash; Werdna talk 08:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  20:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Extreme long-term sockpuppetism
It all started with a mini-revert war on Erdvilas, and article that I re-wrote from sratch using reliable sources. Then a user came adding the infobox and other information based on myths about Palemonids from Bychowiec Chronicle... But the edits it seemd strangely familiar, so I investigated further and what I uncovered is an extremely long-term sockpuppetism that I need an advice from from fellow admins how to deal with.

All these accounts is one person:
 * - main account?
 * - blocked ("Account compromised")
 * - a bit in doubt
 * - blocked per username and distruptive page moves
 * - blocked per username and distruptive page moves
 * - newest one
 * a bunch of IP that I did not bother tracking
 * and probably more
 * - blocked ("Account compromised")
 * - a bit in doubt
 * - blocked per username and distruptive page moves
 * - blocked per username and distruptive page moves
 * - newest one
 * a bunch of IP that I did not bother tracking
 * and probably more
 * - blocked per username and distruptive page moves
 * - blocked per username and distruptive page moves
 * - newest one
 * a bunch of IP that I did not bother tracking
 * and probably more
 * - newest one
 * a bunch of IP that I did not bother tracking
 * and probably more
 * - newest one
 * a bunch of IP that I did not bother tracking
 * and probably more
 * a bunch of IP that I did not bother tracking
 * and probably more

How to recognize? First edits are to userpage and usertalk page. Userpage is created by adding username, an image, or some random text (i.e. userpages are useless and do not give any personal info). No edit summaries. A number of unilateral unexplained page moves. Almost no activity this past November-December (active again). Fields of interest: dukes of Lithuania, Trubetskoy family, anarchism in Estonia, politics of Estonia, nacism... Loves obscure spellings.

S/he was not noticed for such a long time (contributing at least since early 2005) because contributions go to obscure very low-trafic pages. Those pages are not watchlisted and such edits escape unnoticed for a long long time. They are severly POV, usually unsourced, disputable. While going through contribs noticed just a couple edits to talk space. Haven't noticed Wikipedia namespace edits.

So it is not a classic sockpuppet brought to vote, but creating multiple accounts so that edits could not be traced. This is clearly disprutive. How would you advise to proceed? Renata 01:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand this may not be helpful if numerous, nonsequential IPs are being used, but have you tried a checkuser request on the socks? Perhaps it could knock out some of the underlying IPs, and hopefully there's a specific range involved. · <b style="color:#709070;">j e r s y k o</b> <i style="color:#007BA7; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> · 02:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I did not. But say I do request for checkuser and it confirms those are socks, what then? Renata 09:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Depends on the results. Write up the checkuser -- I'll run it. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've given Piotrus and Alex Bakharev a heads up. The content is in their neighborhood. Durova Charge! 19:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have never encountered any of those users, but sockpuppets are evil. WP:RFCU and then block all but the primary one if confirmed. Alex has more experience with such matters, though.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've set up the checkuser case myself. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * RFCU is cumbersome and is not full-proof of anything. Committed puppeteers can get around easily by posting from remote IP's, be those open proxies or simply accounts at remote computers. We have several known pupeteers whose socks are blocked based purely on their contributions alone either because they are known to post from IP's that always change or because RFCU takes a large effort to compile (a case needs to be brief and convincing for a checkuser who has no idea of the dispute) and are backlogged. So, if there is clearly a disruptive account that looks like sock and acts like sock, it should be blocked, especially if there is a known sockmaster with the past pattern. To not accidentally block legitimate users under vague suspicion is important though and the to avoid this, each case needs to be investigated very thoroughly. It seems like Renata did the homework and it would be best if Renata who is best aware of the situation makes the decision on her own because it is unlikely that anyone here will bother to investigate this matter as thoroughly as she already did. --Irpen 20:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, a checkuser doesn't take all that huge an effort to compile; it's tedious, but not difficult (click click click with an occasional cut and paste); work is underway to streamline the process. And there is no significant backlog; there's one case in which I've asked for additional information; and another in which the additional information just came in while I was doing the last one; and there is one outstanding IP check case. RFCU is quite helpful for less sophisticated puppeteers, of whom there are plenty; that it's less helpfu for the harder cases doesn't change that at all. RFCU alone shouldn't be sufficient to block anyone, because non-abusive sockpuppets are neither disallowed nor a problem to Wikipedia. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, has this user done anything "bad", other than use socks without declaring them and inserting POV material? Has anyone had problems with 3RR, etc? Appleseed (Talk) 20:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A bunch of pages moves. Because the articles s/he edits are very low-profile nobody got into revert wars (as far as I know), not counting few reverts on Erdvilas. Renata 20:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I also encounter some of these accounts and suspected to be a sockpuppet, but did not imagine that it would be in such scale! I also experienced massive page moves, without any discussion at all, distortion of established names, inability to separate encyclopedic facts from legends etc.; really disturbing behavior, and to solve these issue takes time and effort. Case indeed should attract proper attention.   M.K. 16:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser confirmed
Ok, so checkuser confirmed that those are bunch of socks. What's next? Ban all the sock and leave Bloomfield account open? (is so I suggest 1 week punitive block for him/her). Ideas? Renata 01:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I blocked confirmed accounts. The couple uncorfimed ones (due to stale data) are pending. Renata 02:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Salted articles
Has everyone seen User:David Levy/Protected page titles? A protected page with cascading protection enabled, prevents non-admins from editing or creating the linked (transcluded) articles. Now that's clever. Guy (Help!) 13:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sweet! Agathoclea 13:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, thats a clever use of cascading protection. :) Syrthiss 13:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To prevent discussion forking, I'd like to point out that this is currently under discussion at WP:VPR. --ais523 13:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:VPR − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Now runnning at Protected titles/January 2007 (until midnight...). Friends, this is a truly brilliant idea!  It will solve all kinds of problems for disgruntled deleted-article subjects, allow us to be kind and firm simultaneously and remove those ugly pages from special:random and from mirrors.  So many things fixed all at once!  Guy (Help!) 22:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So is thwere a set procedure for adding pages to this? Proto ::  ►  13:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Protected titles doesn't work since it's not excluded from view by the robots.txt, and thus will end up getting indexed and such. We might want to make it a sub-page of AFD, per this line in robots.txt: Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ -- Cyde Weys 17:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's give it a useful name and bug somebody to add it to robots.txt. Kusma (討論) 17:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Would that somebody be any dev? Doesn't seem like it should be a big deal. Chick Bowen 05:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Damn, that's a good idea... EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 05:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I filed a bug report:.

Image page not completely deleted
I nominated Image:NorwichOld71.jpg for speedy deletion as a copyright violation of this site and while the image itself seems to be gone, the page still seems to be there and valid. --Elipongo (Talk 17:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Happens sometimes when deleting images. Purging them fixes it. &mdash;Cryptic 17:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for correcting that and also for letting me know how to fix it myself in the future. [[image:SFriendly.gif|18px]]--Elipongo (Talk 18:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ian King
I fear I've made a mess of this. This article was vandalised, replacing the bio with nonsense. It was deleted as such when it should simply have been reverted. I restored the article to the pre vandalised status, however the edit summaries for the restored version have not been restored. Could someone tell me how to fix this (if possible). Sorry for my mistake! Mark83 14:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like you're fine. Edit summaries are tied to the edits, so if they're not there now that you've undeleted the edits, then they weren't there to begin with. —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b>  ¿?  15:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Improper page move
George Petrie (American Football) was just moved via copy/paste to George Petrie (American football) by User:ChicJanowicz. It needs the admin touch to undo the copy/paste and merge the history into the correct title (I assume the new one). Thanks,  auburn pilot  talk  15:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * fixed —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b> ¿?  15:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference desk/Computing
I'm somewhat confused - none of the stuff on this page would seem to have anything to do with building the encyclopedia. Are we meant to have pages jammed full of "Can someone please tell me how to fix my computer problems"? From a rather bewildered Moreschi Deletion! 18:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I mean - "I hear that Vista's graphics drivers will refuse to play high-definition protected content (from HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray disks) if your monitor doesn't support HDMI handshaking or if you use unsigned drivers. I'm pretty darn mad at this stupid situation and don't want my computer's functionality restricted in any way.. is there any way to disable these content protection drivers from the get-go and just live without watching protected content?" - is relevant to the encyclopedia how? Sorry, just not seeing it. Moreschi Deletion! 19:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, all the reference desks are like that. It's the same stuff you'd get at a library reference desk too. You could argue that WP:AN is essentially an onwiki chatroom that could be dealt with elsewhere, too. Logical2uTalk 19:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, actually. AN is about sorting out on-wiki problems. The vast bulk of stuff at this reference desk has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Moreschi Deletion! 19:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Any "reference desk" should be "I read this article X, and I dont understand concept Y, can you please explain?". ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 19:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Inasmuch as "[AN] is a message board for coordinating and discussing administrative tasks" and since this issue is one not relevant exclusively or even principally to admininstrators and is one relative to which administrator intervention is not required, might we do well to move this discussion to the village pump (or, I suppose, to the general reference desks discussion page with a link to such discussion at the VP)? Joe 20:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I really just wanted quick feedback on whether or not I was being incredibly stupid by thinking that much of the stuff at this place is inappropriate. Opinions, anyone? Moreschi Deletion! 20:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not stupid, much of it is. Questions should either be briefly 'Explain x', with a reply 'See article y', or 'I read article x, could you please clarify y?'.  There is, imo, inevitable spillover into discussion of these issues on Humanities, and intricate technical questions, that we could never have articles for, on Computing.  So for your original question, no we're not, but we do.  --Mnemeson 22:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * True, it shouldn't turn into a forum for discussion on various computing topics. It does seem that of all the Reference Desks, the computing one might spark the most discussion/debate/general talk.  I doubt anyone will get into a long discussion about Volcanic Ash at the Science Desk.  It seems generally fine for people to ask technical questions, but is there a point where things get too in depth?  Is that necessarily bad?  Does it then turn into something like people asking specific medical questions?  Of course it's not the same as medical questions, but the detail of some technical questions kind of reminded me of that.  This of course doesn't really answer any questions, but just some thoughts. -- Nataly a  02:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of article Alofa Time
I found the article Alofa Time while searching through orphaned articles. I often nominate such articles for deletion, but it seems the major problem is its lack of neutrality. Check the talk page also. Could you folks urgently examine its neutrality (urgency per WP:BLP)? YechielMan 20:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Marked for speedy deletion per WP:BLP. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleted as attack page. If it can be recreated with the care needed for WP:BLP and with proper tone and sources, that will be a different story. -- Avi 21:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

RFCs for deletion
I've just delisted two user conduct RFCs that have failed to be certified within the 48-hour period: Requests for comment/Rajsingam and Requests for comment/RobertG. Could someone delete them, please? (And for future reference, would it be amenable to tag them for speedy with an explanation of having failed certification?) Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that someone has already deleted them; would do the trick nicely in the future. Thatcher131 01:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated! Tony Fox (arf!) 02:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

User:SockingIt
Two in a row from me. Someone might want to look at the contribs of the above user, who is an admitted sock puppet, and who has thus far set up a user page generally taking a poke at the WP:SOCK rules, voting 'no comment per WP:SOCK' on several AfD and other discussions, adding a link to its page on the WP:SOCK and Sockpuppet (Internet) pages... looks a bit WP:POINTish to me. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any harm in a harmless sock. However, WP:POINT edits might be blockable.  I would say since s/he has recieved the warning on the talk page, the next point edit may be reported to WP:AIV with diffs.  Regards,  Navou   banter


 * Userpage admits WP:POINT, sent to AIV. Regards,  Navou   banter  00:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Cartoons Controversy
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #dedaca; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please remove the cartoons image and links to it.

One can argue on behalf of this artical as: >>The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions, or wikipedia is Secular bla blaa...

Now my comment will be inflamatory but you must degest it for the sake of argument. My comment will not personally insult an administrator but its a general metaphor for a person to give reasons.

If you allow your sister's private parts to be shot by photographers, does that mean It is obligation for me to let it do for my sister? If Christian allow the fetish cartoons and images about The Honored Jesus (PBUH) does that means Muslims must allow the ugly cartoons about their Prophet? (Even Muslims wont like Jesus (PBUH) to be portrayed). A Royal family does not comprise our faith. Faith is something beyond if you really are a Christian you must agree. If people do not mind their cartoons to be made then who allowed cartoonists to make cartoon of every person? How the hell a person make my cartoons and publish in papers without my permission? Its simply violation of my personal possessions and an abuse same as somebody can not print my picture. (there had been many cases of sue for taking and printing pictures) 1 2 3 If many people dont mind their cartoons then why take it as granted for every person of the world to make his cartoons? Just because those people think like this who allowed their own cartoons?

Thanks again for your time. VirtualEye 12:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's not going to happen. This has been debated at great length and in the end the view is that Wikipedia is not censored. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

VirtualEye 13:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that Wikipedia is not censored. That does not mean an OpenSource website starts to publish the Mircrosoft Windows source code on its website. If Muslims themselves do not want their Sacred Personalites be disgraced then who the hell are others? Just because Wikipedia's moderators and admins are not Muslims, does this make them free to abuse anyone's Faith? Faith is much more sacred than someone's father or mother, yet I would ask: Can I make abuses to your father? or can I publish his evil cartoons or will you mind it?


 * As Guy says, this has been debated loudly and for a prolonged time, and the result of the debate was that Wikipedia is not censored by anybody for anybody. And some of our administrators are Muslims - in fact, I think most religions are represented in our admins. Thanks. 〈 RED VEЯS 〉 13:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * there is always room for debate, even on policy, but this page isn't the right place for that. If you want to discuss policy, you need to present a proposal on Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not; if you want to make a proposal on the layout of the cartoons article, do it at Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. The last poll result is here, concluding in 200:16 against removal. If you have reasonable cause to assume consensus has changed since then, you may suggest doing another poll. If you find consensus is still against your position, you won't be able to do anything about it. dab (𒁳) 14:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate for me to go against consensus and remove those images. You could attempt to influence that consensus if you wish, but it's unlikely you'd succeed at this late date. Durova Charge! 17:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you all for your attention. I must say, what is a consensus? If some people just capture one person and sell him somewhere, will you listen to them on the basis of majority (Democracy/Poll) or will you look for the ethical possibilities? If 90% people want to abuse remaining 10%. Does it mean that abuse becomes 'OK' on the basis of Democracy, Policy or whatever?

Do you have to follow the ethics too? or just name the dog and kill on the basis of majority? An article on Wikipedia has to be scientifically written if you can call it a scholastic article (Given that the policy of wikipedia is secular then only scientific facts can be digested). While you admins might know better than me that any poll/edit conducted on the internet is never considered scientific but just an idea with and amount of doubt.

The situation of articles on wikipedia is like this: 1- you bring allegations then you ask the victims to disprove with references. 2- When victims say they are very few and dont have enough resources to prove their innocense. 3- You declare them guilty.

Pardon me but I see a lot of bias on many many wikipedia articles. Just because a huge majority of wikipedians are non-Muslims is an evidence in itself to make it a bias. Well, you might not agree with me on this, but I would ask, will a Christian like an Islamic point of view on a topic related to Christianity? NO. Will a Muslim like a Christian point of view on a topic related to Islam? He cant, simply because poll means 'all' here in wikipedia.

Any Christian can add whatever rubbish hugely biased link mongering the hatered against Islam and that is justified. A Muslim can not add a link even under that topic. Just take few examples: 1- Christian terrorism 2- Islamist terrorism

Try to compre the size and comprehenssiveness of both articles. Behold, In the topic Christian terrorism how cleverly a reader is diverted to a very minor example of 'one person' killing 'one other person'. How nice? In all 2 billion Christians in the world, only this stupid example is available? All Christians are pious? while this one murder is the biggest example of terrorism? How about I define the "Islamic extremist terrorism" as the killing of Dr. ABC by some Moron? Will you accept that example in the article? I am 100% sure that the so called majority will not let it place even at the end of article.

Now I give you my last example before you trash my arguments to the basket of wikipeida:

1- A leader of a group named "ABC" Claims whatever major acts he does is actually told to him by God. 2- That group is evident as daylight that it is doing mass murder of people on the basis of lies. 3- That hypocrite group ruins the people in the name of self-interest or democracy while totally forgets about democracy when some dictators help that group to achieve its goals.

Will you let that group cite in the wikipedia's articles related to terrorism?

But just because unfortunately that group called 'ABC' is the same one who certifies any organization to be terrorists, so 'ABC' itself can not be cited as terrorist in wikipedia source, right?

This group leader is Mr. Bush. Ok this is not what I am saying, this is cited here:
 * God told me to invade Iraq
 * News

'''I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.''' and their lies to the world about Iraq and invading other countries are evident to all except blind.

Will majority of wikipedians accept the acts of 'American Regime' as an example in the articles related to terrorism? NO, because majority rules and not 'POLICY'. Policy can only work to kick out those few people who are aggressively angry upon the hypocrisy.
 * Elaborative Example of Hypocrisy

My above points my look as random, but these are just to prove the points:


 * Majority rules and minority has no right. (Polls to decide)
 * Might is Right.

Thanks to you all for your time in reading my comments. VirtualEye 11:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but you've seen the discussion over at the cartoon article - even if this were the right venue (which it isn't) you have not raised any arguments which have not already been raised, discussed and dismissed. I suggest you simply leave the article and don't look at it if it offends you. Guy (Help!) 19:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are on a mission from God then sorry... Wikipedia is not the place for you to edit. As for the drawings maybe you should do as Guy said and stop looking at them. They are, after all, just drawings. MartinDK 20:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Consensus is not majority vote − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Guy! No matter my arguments are valid or not, how about I manipulate and publish the pictures of your mother having sex with some pervert? or her drawings? and then I ask you to not look at them? I know this is offensive (Pardon), but you gave very very dumb argument. Your argument is same as I tell someone "if I abuse you openly in public then just close your ears and dont listen but let me abuse you", is this right?

I am not on a mission here, You can be on mission from which source? what is your source of mission? conscience at maximum right? because you chose so. Now do I have the right to be on mission from God, because I chose so? Will you people dictate me which source of inspiration should I chose for any mission? And bye the way, did you even give a damn reading my post or just read first couple of lines and comment on them? VirtualEye 09:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Where do we have pictures of Mohammed having sex with perverts? I don't understand your reasoning here, VirtualEye. If Guy's mother was as notable as he is, we would have a picture of her. yandman  09:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia displays this image on its biography of Jerry Falwell. The text, which is readable in the enlarged version, describes a parody which accuses Rev. Falwell of having sex with his mother in an outhouse.


 * Actually, VirtualEye, your example to Guy is almost identical to Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. This resulted in a unanimous United States Supreme court decision about the limits of free speech.  Wikipedia is not biased against either Islam or Christianity by running these images.  Although they are profoundly offensive to some readers they are also notable.  WP:NOT specifies that this site is not censored.  Durova Charge! 22:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr. Durova, the case you are refering is under the U.S. law. Should I consider U.S. to be Master of all Coutries? and should I consider the US law to be the law of world? Keep your law to your country only and dont apply to the sacred figures of other religious people thousands of kilomerter away from you. Our Prophet' Personaly might be objected by some nonmuslims but we neither worship animals or rediculous objects that it can simply be justified to portray and make fun of. Secondly, the personalities which are made fun in the media not those who are totally accepted by one religion and being objected by the other. Those personalities are simply seen from secular point of view because they have nothing to do with the aspect related to religion. Faith IS SUPERIOR than you Freedom of Abuse. I would argue that bible is currupted by humans but I would never throw that to dust bin, I would rather give the bible due respect.

(Now please take my next comments to understand logic and not for the sake of offense) ok ok, even under your freedom of speech allows to intensively object or portray the negative part of someone's personality, does you freedom of speech allow to abuse anyone by portraying him as animals such as Pigs etc? If abusing someone is really that simple then please go to your parents and call them pig and bitch, right? will they enjoy your "FREEDOM of SPEECH" and Secular Policies, will you refer to them the Hustler Magazine's case? What you would rather do that you will talk in civilized way about the objectionable part of their personality, right? Because you 'Respect' them, right? When come your parents then you talk in civilized way because you respect them, when somebody else's parents come then you bring your "Freedom of Speech" and "Secular" policy of Wikipedia? and Prophet of Islam is much more respectable to Muslims as compared to their parents, their wives and even their own lives. VirtualEye 10:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the wrong place. Wikipedia still isn't censored. This is going nowhere. We're done now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Identifying the common owner of accounts
We have articles on a company and its owner/CEO that've been edited by several registered users and IPs who've identified themselves by name as the owner or officers of the company. The editors all seem to have been the same person. One account was banned for legal threats but several others have posted threatening or intimidating language. The editor has engaged in various edits which represented conflicts of interest, such as promoting the company in other articles, removing information from the articles of competitors, and trying to settle scores on behalf of his late father. In addition to violating WP:COI and WP:NLT, the editor has repeatedly violated other policies and guidelines, such as WP:POINT, WP:COPYVIO, etc.

A new account claims to have no relation to the company or its owner, but it is clearly the same editor based on his editing patterns, spelling mistakes, interests, etc. Outside information, such as the contents of a MySpace account, further supports the theory that the new editor is the owner of the company. Proving the connection to the owner serves to prove that the editor has a conflict of interest and that he's the same editor as previous usernames. So, given that the person has already made the revelation under a different account, is it legitimate to reveal a user's probable real name in the interest of enforcing Wikipedia rules?

(This was originally posted at Wikipedia talk:Harassment without any replies, so it was suggested to post it here as well. A previous discussion there indicated that it was appropriate in a similar case, but I want to make doubly sure.) -Will Beback · † · 23:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's also entirely possible these are separate employees ordered by management to post certain things on Wikipedia. Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 23:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There's little chance that it's an employee. The company is extremely small, and some of the edits concern the owner's father. Further, the new account (the one which claims no association whatsoever) has made edits congruent with postings by the owner outside of Wikipedia, and with the same spelling mistakes. -Will Beback · † · 23:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If the original account was banned for a legal threat then that would justify a checkuser on the suspected sockpuppets. If there were diffs in the description I'd comment in more detail.  Durova Charge! 00:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The earlier habit of the editor was to use a series of accounts and IPs, so there wasn't really an "original account". Those accounts are now all too old for checkuser. However, the current username occasionally edits without logging in (he has come back and fixed his signature to take ownership of the unregistered edits) and those IPs are in the same range, and geo-located in the same small area, as the previous users. Also, concerns about invasion of privacy would seem to be minimal because the the person in question promotes himself as much as possible and does not post his home info anywhere. So, if what I say is correct and if this action is for the purposes of policy enforcement, is there a problem with re-identifying a user who has previously identified himself, based on internal and external factors? -Will Beback · † · 01:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on your description, it sounds as if they could be blocked right off the bat for evading their original ban. While you have made a reasonable case that invasion of privacy is not a legitimate worry, how will identifying the editor help stop them from editing in the future under new usernames or ip addresses? If their real identity is connected with their earlier incarnation, this banned editor from however long ago it was, it seems like they'd try to keep the connection quiet, no? Picaroon 01:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * All of this is preparatory to filing a user-RfC, the requested outcome of which would be that the editor avoid articles where he has a conflict of interest. I agree that the user has engaged in block evasion, but since he has not renewed his legal threats I don't feel comfortable blocking him outright for that cause alone. While he could sneak back again, as he already has, his editing is pretty obvious due to the obscurity of the topics. He has been trying to escape detection with the new username by claiming, many times, to be totally unassociated with the topic and to have only a passing interest in it. Despite that claim, his strong interest and continuity of identity is apparent. I don't hear anything from Picarron, Durova, or Peter to indicate that it would be wrong to say "User X is the same as User W, who identified as Person Doe". If I read those comments correctly, we can proceed with the RfC on that basis. Thanks for the input. -Will Beback · † · 07:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

RFC may not be necessary if you present a convincing case that these are all socks of the same banned sockmaster. When I tracked down the Joan of Arc vandal I wrote up a report in user space that connected all the dots, then introduced it here to request a community siteban (he hadn't been banned until that point). Line it up with diffs and other evidence. The bit about trademark spelling mistakes interests me: since this will be circumstantial make sure your ducks are in a row. BTW the Joan of Arc editor disclosed his identity on his original account, which made it fair game for the investigation. I don't particularly advertise who he is but my summary discussed it in context. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 19:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Durova, thanks for the advice. I've posted the file to User:Will Beback/AMBC and will file a formal notice here once the editor returns from an announced wikibreak. If you'd care to make any comments about the file in the meantime I'd appreciate the feedback. I'd intended to simply ask for the editor to stop editing areas where he has a conflict of interest, but the block evasion and other disruptive activity make it appear that an outright ban would be more appropriate. -Will Beback · † · 03:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hasn't the parent account already been banned? If so then this is like my investigation of BooyakaDell.  Once we established a convincing circumstantial case that this was the same user as banned JB106, we banned the sockpuppet and then checkuser/banned all other sockpuppets.  He's still knitting more socks but we've got kittens pouncing on his ball of yarn.  Durova Charge! 17:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Embargo
The above user has a povocative user box on his user page which reads 'This user supports armed resistance against Israeli hostilities.' It also has a Hezbollah logo on. Above the userbox is arabic writing. This is the only thing that appears on hi user page. User:viridae remoed the from his page, to which he got a nasty message from Embargo. I have now asked him to remove the userbox, but he seams intent in keeping it. I don't want to get into a revert war with someones userpage, so I would appreciate an admin looks into it, regards Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It does not say that this user supports hostilities against Israelis though. I think most people would support resisting hostility, aye? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, however (I'm no expert in the subject by any means!), the israel and hezbollah situation is close to a war between the 2, is it really right that a userpage should be used to support a particular side of a war? I'm sure israel would reject the claim of hostilities Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 11:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It does not say anything about existing hostilities. Remember to assume good faith. If I put on my userpage "This user supports armed resistance against Jamaican hostilities", I don't think there would be a problem (although Jamaican hostility is something of an oxymoron). It might also be good to inform User:Embargo of this conversation. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: there has been previous discussion of this and other related userpages on WP:ANI. Viridae Talk 11:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * here. Viridae Talk 11:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally, and others have felt that "supporting armed resistance agaisnt israel is inflamatory, and does not belong in the userpsace per WP:USER. Viridae Talk 11:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have told embargo that it is being discussed here, I jut think his userboxes fail WP:USER and WP:NOT, I mean the group he is supporting are seen as a terrorist group by many governments (UK, US), and he supporting them using weapons. Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 11:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Only six countries officially list Hezbollah as a terrorist group. On the other hand, the US government is seen as a terrorist group by many groups. State which articles from WP:USER are being violated to back up your case. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's statement Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 11:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC) libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea
 * - Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder and leader


 * The guy's entitled to an opinion. He isn't libelling anyone. So what if you disagree with it? What about all the other userboxes supporting the US-led invasion of Iraq? If anyone's the victim of a personal attack, it's Embargo. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊  11:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It also fails Wikipedia is not a soap box and thats straight out of the horses (Jimbo's) mouth. To be honest with you, I really don't care if someone wants to support hezbollah, or the Iraq invasion, Wikipedia is just not the place to do it - hence WP:NOT Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 11:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think Embargo is being libeled. However, if there can be groups like Category:Wikipedians who support Israel, Category:Wikipedians who oppose the Iraq War, Category:Creationist Wikipedians, Category:Anti-communist Wikipedians which some users may not agree with, then why not Embargo's? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because they are there doesn't mean they should be, there are no precedants. If you think they have no right to be there, you are perfectly entitled to take it to WP:CFD. Viridae Talk 11:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * He is perfectly entitled to his oinion, but wikipedia is not the place to express it - as demonstrated in the above quote. Inflamatory material like that has no place in the wikipedia userpsace. Incidentally only 6 countries officially reocognise Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. The US is officially recognised as a terrorist organisation by noone. And userboxes supporting the invasion of iraq also have no place on wikipedia, but that is not the issue under discussion. Viridae Talk 11:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So why are you just attacking this one user? What about Category:Wikipedians who support the US troops, Category:Intelligent Design Wikipedians and all the rest? You seem to have singled this one user out because you disagree with his views. It whiffs of discrimination to me. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊  11:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Because, as you will have noticed if you read the reast of the thread properly, his userbox and other peoples userpages were brought to my attention with a thread on WP:ANI. There is no discrimination at all, I am not on a crusade to rid wikipedia of POV userboxes, this and others were brought to my attention. I would ask you to not bandy words like discrimination around without some support for your views. Viridae Talk 11:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note, that this user has previously been blocked for the same userbox being used (see the earlier thread to AN/I), I'm not trying to discriminate him, his views just fail wikipedia policies and have been discussed previously with the consenus that this should not be allowed Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Embargo was not blocked for the same userbox. The userbox he was actually banned for said something about denying Israel's right to exist. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It is absolutely acceptable for someone to support resistance to aggression, and this stance is certainly not inflammatory. If one says, "I support armed resistance to the US invading Canada", it is merely a statement of one's patriotism—even if it is not likely to happen. Remember to assume good faith. You people are forgetting that he does not say he supports hostility against Israel. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have never claimed that it wasn't acceptable to hold that viewpoint. Wikipedia IS NOT the place for potentially imflamatory comments/userboxes like that, especially considering the political situation surrounding israel and hezbollah. Viridae Talk 12:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Some userboxes considered harmful. The fact that it started this debate probably means it isn't quite neutral, na? Still kinda sucks for Embargo to be caught in the middle of it, of course. :-/ --Kim Bruning 12:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * True, being argued over cannot be nice, and I could have cited the relevant policies or discussion in my edit summary, however this most recent discussion was kicked off by a strong personal attack, not the userbox itself. That was supposed to have been resolved on WP:ANI. Viridae Talk 12:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also I started off this debate, and as was previously unaware of the AN/I debate until Viridae pointed it out earlier on, so this thread is neutral in my opinion. Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (Thanks for stuffing up the link to my userpage, I just found a redirect we needed - Viridae (virus family) -> Virus.) Viridae Talk 12:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have gone to bed, don't wait around for answers. Viridae Talk 12:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Every one can have their opinion, and may express them up to a point on Wikipedia. Supporting a resistence movement would be fine, but what I would NOT condone is supporting an armed conflict. Hence, the word armed is the keyword here and should be removed. --Edokter (Talk) 15:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do agree that 'armed' is the major problem here, but I still think the whole idea of supporting Hezbollah on wikipedia fails wikipedia is not a soapbox. To support any political party anywhere within wikipedia which is supposed to be neutral surely is a bad thing. It will also be highly offensive to Israeli's, they will not see themselves as causing hostilities. All in all, I think that this userbox is highly provocative and therefore should be removed. I've checked through all the pages the Hezbollah picture links to and can't find any other user with the same userbox  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Wa3ad7 has it, as well as a userbox stating "This user strives to maintain a policy of neutrality on controversial issues." I checked out his contributions, and they are all Lebanon-related issues. He has kept away from Israeli-related articles. Also check out WP:COI:Declaring an interest. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If you seriously believe people can't even show support (or dissent) for a political party in their userspace, then you should also be going after the following: − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Expatkiwi
 * User:Jewbask
 * User:TheKaplan
 * User:Dhimwit
 * User:DKong
 * Those listed here
 * Those listed here
 * Etc.
 * There is declaring an interest, and putting up a provocative userbox, I've already stated about israeli offence to it along with the issue of supporting armed responses that are bound to cause deaths. Wikipedia should not be the place to support these actions, another area that this userbox fails is Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site, if these users have these views - they should put them on their own personal website Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hebollah = murder incorporated user boxes should definately be removed as well! It will cause just as much offence to Hezbollah supporters Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As mentioned before, this one was brought to my attention, that is why it was removed, there is no crusade as you seem to want to make it out. Citing somones political stance as democrat or republican is far less inflamatory than stating someone supports a terrorist group involved in an armed conflict. If you don't see the difference, try and get a bit of perspective. Incidentally, User:Expatkiwi DID have something removed from his userpage at the same time as User:Embargo, as you will see if you look back at the history. You also seem to be forgetting, that in an environment where anyone can edit, saying "A is there so B must be allowed to remain" is not a solid argument, because B may also violate policy. It comes down to this:
 * Jimbo himself says inflamatory statements on someones views or ideals do not have a place in the userspace.
 * He is perfectly entitled to his opinion, but as it could be found to be highly offensive by some mebers of the wikipedia community he is NOT entitled to express it here. This is backed up by two policys: Wikipedia is not a free webhost and You do not own your userpage and it should not contain inflamatory content.
 * Declaring coflict of interest should really not be a problem on wikipedia if everyones follows NPOV. Your arguments lack any grounding in common sense or policy. Viridae Talk 21:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Section break
I just had a look at the userpages you mentioned, and although they all contain some sort of politics (seems you are the one singling out people who support israel) none of them declare that they support a terrorist group in an ongoing and very bloody conflict with another country. Or for that matter (that I noticed) any side in ongoing violence wether that side be the US or iraq in that conflict, or one of the groups involved in the sudanese civil war. You really don't know wether those that support the state of israel support a peaceful resolution to hostilities or an all out total war. It is because that these views are NOT expressed that the userboxes are not inflamatory. And yes, they, for xpressing political ideaologies still go agaisnt Jimbo's wishes as quoted in Viridae Talk 21:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is just nuts. You're saying that it's OK for users to describe Hezbollah as "Murder Incorporated" or to voice their support for the invasion of Iraq, but you think it's beyond the pale for someone to say they support armed resistance to foreign aggression. You said earlier that "there is no discrimination at all, I am not on a crusade to rid wikipedia of POV userboxes". So what exactly are you trying to do? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊  21:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Where exactly did I say I supported that? This userbox (and a few very controversial userpages) were brought to my attention, I determined that they were unacceptable under current policy and removed them. I said I wasn't on a crusade to avoid the accusation that would have inevitably come that I was. I am simply enforcing policy for some of the mroe controversial statements on usrboxes and userpages that were brought to my attention via WP:ANI. If you have a disagreement with the policy, I suggest taking it to village pump and seeing if you can get consensus to change. If not, I don't see what your argument is. Viridae Talk 22:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, you didn't actually say you supported the "Murder Incorporated" userboxes. But they have been brought to your attention, as have some of the other potentially controversial userboxes in use in Wikipedia. And yet you're only taking action against user:Embargo. Why is that? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊  22:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It was me that started this thread, and I did so because it was the only one brought to my attention at the time, since then, I have said that all the user boxes which seam to hurt both Israel and Hezbollah should be removed Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, i'm not on a crusade and I would liek this issue resolved first. I support their removal, but as I am at work, I don't have the time to do anything more than respond here. Go ahead and remove controversial ones and I will be quite willing to back you up if the issue comes here. Viridae Talk 23:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not singling out Israeli supporters. User:Ryanpostlethwaite said the pages which stated "Hezbollah = Murder Incorporated" should have these userboxes removed as well. I simply found the pages with this userbox and listed them. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I had also previously mentioned User:Wa3ad7 who has a userbox identical to the one in questionon User:Embargo's page. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe I should make it clear that I'm not arguing against Wikipedia policy here. What I'm angry about is the way this policy is being put into practice by you and others around here. There are hundreds, probably thousands of userboxes out there expressing similarly contentious opinions. And yet you went ahead and deleted this userbox without bothering to engage in any dialogue first. Since then, Embargo's user page has been deleted altogether, and the flag image he was using has been listed for deletion at wp:commons (on completely bogus grounds, by the look of things). Like I said, this all stinks. -- Sakurambo  桜ん坊  23:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies then, most of those pages had a vast amount of userboxes and I picked one or two that I could see common. I would remove them too if I wasn't at work. Viridae Talk 22:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message on this editor's user page encouraging this user to convert the user box into something less controversial. Am I alone in considering the policy side of this discussion premature? Let's communicate first. Durova Charge! 22:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggested change to Hezbollah userbox
I think many people support armed resistance to hostility. However, at the moment this specific case is a very sensitive subject, and I accept that this is inflammatory given the current political environment. If one were to put on their page "This user supports armed resistance against Hezbollah hostilities" (or "Hezbollah = Murder Incorporated") it would be just as inflammatory.

So we are going ahead with the assumption that Embargo is implying that Israel initiated hostilities against Hezbollah. Would any of these be acceptable: There is no mention of armed resistance in the first, which is apparently a big deal. There is no mention of Israel in the second and third, but they still show support for Hezbollah. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "This user supports resistance against Israeli hostilities"
 * "This user supports resistance against hostility"
 * "This user supports armed resistance against hostility"


 * I would personally support the latter 2, where israel is not mentioned at all. The problem with the 1st one, is that it still claims Israel hostilities. I think we also need to address the 'Hezbollah = murder.....' userbox, this is just as bad if not worse than the original being discussed Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * All of those are a bad idea, according to Jimbo. I don't we should be preciptating political userboxes in any form considering the furor they have created in the past. And to be honest, this is an encyclopedia and your ability to have userboxes is not important to its construction. Having inflamatory ones however can be very detrimental. Viridae Talk 22:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, I've been bold and deleted his userpage under T1. I think the spirit of it applies here. This is not the kind of thing Wikipedia should be getting involved with. -- Cyde Weys 22:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with this and have posted many reasons why it should not be accepted previously Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * On a vaguely related note, the Hezbollah logo in that userbox is probably a copyvio, and I've accordingly nominated it for deletion on Wikimedia Commons. Sandstein 22:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cyde. I was considering that myself, but decided that would just start more problems. Viridae Talk 23:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well that settles it for now. Essentially it didn't really matter since Embargo had already been scared off. The Hezbollah=Murder Inc userboxes have been removed as well, which I think is fair. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The term "resistance" might be a preferred term, but it implies "something is wrong which must be resisted". As opposed to (say) This user supports action against hostile activity. Reminds me a bit of the pedo-userbox issue: - a userbox that is inflammatory in that way by labelling Israeli activities as "hostility" and then supporting "resistance" (emo-plea for the underdog's "resistance") ..... I'm not sure that userboxes that pejoratively label others (especially others that are disapproved of) rather than describe the user, are helpful. That's probably a global thing -- "This user supports capitalism" is different from "this user supports destroying evil communism", so to speak. My $0.02 on userboxes generally. They comment on the user, and should not be a platform to express pejorative views. A pejorative of others can always be expressed in terms of a non-pejorative of oneself. Comment for future. FT2 (Talk 11:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion (2)
How about we create a guidline on the use of user boxes or include one within the scope of WP:USER Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 11:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Userbox back on
Despite having his userpage removed, User:Embargo has put the userbox back on (The original one, not one of Twas Now's suggested ones). I think we need to come to some form on consensus here but the original userbox (a we've previously disgussed) is way out of line and should be removed or at least substituted for a less provocative one Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not do something useful (such as encyclopedia writing)? I'm certain that would be much more productive. As far as I can see, there's nothing wrong with that userbox, what should it say? "This user supports the deaths of Arabs on Israel's say-so"? Thulium 17:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * User pages are not political soapboxes, and should not be used as such. ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 17:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't everyone just mind their own business ("live and let live")? Wikipedia isn't a scene for a soap opera either (although I see one evolving here). As long as the userbox isn't libelous, I have no problem with it. Thulium 17:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But lots of other people do, however, and keeping it around will be a source of a lot more long-term problems than it's worth. -- Cyde Weys  17:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The main problem is that given the focus of Embargo's work thus far, and the fact that his userpage contains nothing but this box, the most natural reading is "I have a point-of-view and I'm here to promote it." In general, userboxes like this are often put up by new users who haven't yet been involved in a serious conflict, and aren't aware of the fact that strongly indicating a personal agenda is likely to intensify such conflicts. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, the main problem is that people are using the enforcement of Wikipedia policy to support a witch hunt directed at a single user. If you want all political userboxes deleted from Wikipedia, then fine. But be systematic and impartial. And give Embargo a break. He doesn't deserve this. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊  19:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already suggsted this! All the provocative userboxes should be removed, which is why I am not stoppingEmbargo's current mini project of removing all politically motivated userboxes from there userpages. I've also suggested creating a userbox guidline, as this would quell any future issues regarding this as I seams to be quite a hotly debated issue. Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said multiple times, it wasn't directed at a single user, its just that this user reacted very badly with a personal attack, bringing himself and the issue to attention. Viridae Talk 21:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Take this elsewhere?
Now we've been filling the AN page with this discussion for some days now. I propose that you take this discussion to both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes, as these projects might have more incentive to systematically removed all inflammatory userboxes. There should be much discussion on what is considered inflammatory (personally, I do not consider "This user supports armed resistance to hostility" to be inflammatory). I don't plan on being highly involved with this issue, as it seems to affect my blood pressure. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I think we need to come to some sort of consensus on this because Embargo's userpage is currently fully protected and we can't keep it like that indefinately. However, I am sticking to my guns that his userbox fails what Jimbo says on WP:USER Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We need to come to a consensus, but you're sticking to your guns? What you're effectively saying is "everybody needs to agree with me". Here's a suggestion: Embargo's user page has been blocked for a week. Why don't you spend that time getting rid of all the other userboxes you find offensive. At least then you won't just be picking on one user the whole time. Perhaps you could get started on Category:Wikipedians who support Israel, Category:Wikipedians who oppose the Iraq War and Category:Wikipedians who support the US troops. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊  13:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That paints with a very broad brush, Sakurambo. Durova Charge! 17:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

CAT:PER is still backlogged
CAT:PER (Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests) has been backlogged for ages now, and has now reached over 20 entries. --ais523 11:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of those talk pages still have active discussion about the details of the change proposed, what is the best way to implement something in template code and so forth. I suppose the question is should the editprotected tags be removed when there is ongoing discussion about the proposed change, or should they stay and serve as an "advertisement" that a change is planned for a protected page? --bainer (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could do with a different template for the advertising purpose? MER-C 12:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove the editprotected. If there is no consensus yet for an edit, then there is no point in requesting an edit. If an edit is still discussed or waiting for feedback after announcing, editprotected can be added again later. Also, some edit requests for templates I have seen in the past are way too unspecific to be implementable. Requests for template edits should provide the new "code" for the template and a reference to the consensus or absence of opposition after due announcement. --Ligulem 12:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I remove the EP if the details haven't been worked out yet. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla
This case has been closed. Because Ghirlandajo, a main party to this case, has not edited since December 27, 2006, and because of an ongoing informal mediation attempt that occured prior to Ghirlandajo's absence, this case is temporarily dismissed. If and when Ghirlandajo returns, it would be best for him to resume productive mainspace editing, which it is hoped can take place without a recurrence of the disputes that led to this case. As appropriate, the mediation between Ghirlandajo and Piotrus can be resumed to seek resolution of any live disputes that might remain between them. Under the circumstances, the arbitration case is dismissed, without prejudice to a request by any party to reopen it in the future if necessary.

For the Arbitration Committee, – Chacor 01:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a sad day: the case got dismissed because Ghirla has been inactive since the day arbitration opened. He's one of the site's most prolific editors (way up in the top 100...top 50 even if you're the editcountitis sort).  I hope it's an extended Wikibreak rather than a goodbye.  I'd like to turn lemons into lemonade and am working on a draft proposal that might prevent future losses of this sort.  Will follow up with more details as appropriate.  Interested editors may post queries to my user talk.  Durova Charge! 22:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As the person who made the motion to dismiss that the ArbCom adopted, I agree with you completely. I would be very interested in seeing your policy proposal. Apart from this particular case, the overall rate of stress and conflict and burnout in the community, including from our most active community leaders and article contributors, has become extremely concerning to me. Newyorkbrad 23:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not so much a policy proposal as an experimental dispute resolution option I'll call community enforced mediation. For the present I'll host this in my own userspace.  Established editors could research past arbitration cases and voluntarily place similar restrictions on themselves.  Piotrus and Ghirla were agreeing to mutual civility parole.  I've worked out a proposal to cover the details.  This site lacks an alternative to ArbCom for content disputes with a user conduct dimension.  On a selective basis I'm willing to fill that gap if the community approves the experiment.  Durova Charge! 17:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Anything that can help resolve a dispute prior to escalation is good, and in this particular case we had agreed to defer the case to the informal mediation agreed upon. The best course of action, I felt, was to dismiss the case for now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 23:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is all such as shame, Ghirla was an incredibly prolific writer of thorough, quality architectural articles. Has anyone tried to coax him back? --Mcginnly | Natter 23:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move
I know that I should properly ask for this at WP:RM, but this really can't wait for the cycle time over there. Can someone please move Portal:Current events/Sports (with its talk page) to January 2007 in sports which is currently obstructed. If this is not done soon, someone will likely do a copy paste move soon which will then need to be cleaned up later. --After Midnight 0001 04:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems like a non-controversial move. Requested via db-move. Hbdragon88 04:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Teke ( talk ) 05:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of the WP:RM cycle time...
There's a heck of a backlog there, and any help clearing it would be greatly appreciated. I close all the requests I can, and I know a few other admins have been helping out, but the backlog is growing all the same. A lot of the older requests sitting there are judgement calls that involve reading lengthy debates about obscure or ill-defined naming conventions, but they still have to be dealt with. There are also a fair number of stray pages in Category:Requested moves that were never listed at WP:RM, if someone wants to take on that challenge... -GTBacchus(talk) 05:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Template to be removed when closing AfDs
I've noticed that there are several AfD discussions that are closed, but that still have the template REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD left in there. Since that template puts AfD nominations into a category, anyone browsing the deletion categories will see old, closed debates in there.

It should be possible to use AWB to search for any article that transcludes REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD and contains "Template:Afd top" (indicating that it's closed). Then, AWB can just delete the template text. I'm experimenting with it right now in AWB, and it looks straightforward, but I don't want to mow through the whole list. I get a little nervous about editing pages that say "No further edits should be made to this page." --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not impossible that I myself have left one or two of those in there--it's very easy to do, particularly when you're doing a unanimous AfD quickly. It would be a valuable service if you would do this. Chick Bowen 05:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am guilty. I have been known to leave the template.  An automated service would be helpful.  Navou   banter  17:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * One already exists. Look at Special:Contributions/Bot523 (sorry I can't run it more often, my Internet connection can be a bit dodgy, and I only run it about once a week). --ais523 17:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, note that at (the usual abbreviation for afd top) is normally used with subst (and in fact has to be for the bot to work). The bot works by requesting the categorylinks for Category:AfD debates from the database, looking for ones which have been categorized for over a week, then scanning them all looking for the substed version of at, and decategorising them if it's there. I'm not sure if AWB could generate a list of pages to edit going by substed versions. --ais523 17:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If I remember rightly, I believe that Ais523 has a manually-run bot that removes them. Yomangani talk 17:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Dream100
This user has made a high number of very offensive and racist comments, , and personal attacks on user pages ,. I've warned him and encouraged him to change his behaviour, but it seems to have had no effect. . Apart from the above, he is also reverting way beyond the 3RR rules, but I think these comments are a graver offence. JdeJ 14:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've not actually seen how many (any?) useful edits this user has made so started off with a 48 hour block, which should be extended if comments like this continue and/or if no useful edits have been made. Petros471 15:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's light, in my view, I don't think we need bigots in the project at all, so please, JdeJ, let us know if this resumes after the block expires. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I will. In the meantime, I'm 99% sure that this user is the same as Dream100. His only edit this far is to once again revert a page to the same version Dream100 has reverted to over and over again, a version without a picture of an ancient Iranian king, apparently in line with the user's negative feelings towards Iranians. Of course, that is not enough to prove anything. JdeJ 16:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Undid revision 105114740 by ..."
What happened to "Undo revision 105114740 by..", seriously, the more the developers tinker with the undo button, the harder it is to use--172.164.122.67 16:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a developer who made that change, but an administrator (J Di, to be precise). If you don't like the wording, you could place an editprotected request on MediaWiki talk:Undo-summary, and the matter can be discussed there. --ais523 17:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, didn't realize that was there--172.165.169.16 19:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiple copyvios
Could someone please look at the contributions from Owain.wilson please. This user has written dozens of dicdef articles, all copied from the same source (http://www.apm.org.uk/download.asp?fileID=362). I've tagged about half of them as copyvio, but I really can't be bothered to do any more. Thanks. – Tivedshambo (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I've got them all. Thanks, Tivedshambo. Sarah 19:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons...
I have asked on commons but as usual,i get no answer. Its slow there. The candidates for speedy deletion of all types (especially bad named) is building up. Any help appreciated:) Fethroesforia 20:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean csd on commons? en. admins aren't necessarily admins on commons. :/ Syrthiss 20:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but i just figured maybe a few are?its so quiet on commons..i get no reply half the time.Its building up on all speedy deletes! Fethroesforia 20:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleting things at Commons takes a really long time, at least as compared to en:, which is also typically backlogged in spite of having more than ten times the number of admins. One has to orphan the image from every project it is used by and check each project that the toolserver isn't accurately reporting on.  Images with bad names are one of the lowest priority deletion tasks, so it really isn't surprising that it's badly backlogged.  That said, Commons could use more admins willing to do this, so if there's someone here with some experience at Commons that was thinking about applying for adminship, please do step up.  Jkelly 22:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ohhh yeah! This is an ideal task for prospective commons admins. commons:Category:Incorrectly named and commons:Category:Duplicate have massive backlogs, as the deletion cannot happen until its orphaned the deletions don't happen much; it takes just too much effort! Fethroesforia, if you want faster attention on a specific image, the best thing you can do is replace the duplicate yourself - if it is orphaned its more likely to be deleted.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Some are unlinked(the three i put up are). im hoping to attempt to try and become an admin on here (eventually)..id happily do boring jobs (like cleaning out deleted image folders and things like that):) Fethroesforia 22:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Saying that..idhappily do any job:P(im using nextdoors internet right now..mywireless is down) so excuse any late replies:) Fethroesforia 22:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit needed for The Cheetah Girls 3
I have cleaned up a mass of related double redirects. However, this one needs an admin since the page is fully protected. Would an admin please fix the double redirect of The Cheetah Girls 3 by pointing the page to The Cheetah Girls (group), please? BlueValour 22:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done.— Ryūlóng ( 竜 龍 ) 22:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, great service, many thanks! BlueValour 22:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura
This arbitration case has closed and the decision is available at the link above. Richardmalter and all other accounts and anonymous IPs with the same disruptive editing pattern are indefinitely banned from editing Yoshiaki Omura or its talk page. They may be blocked for up to one year if they do so. Blocks, and any alternative accounts or IPs used, should be logged at Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura. Care should be taken with anonymous IPs to avoid blocking addresses used by other users. The remedies in this matter apply to any article concerning the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (BDORT or PMRT) under any title. For the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 23:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

YouTube and Viacom
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6326523.stm

Just a quick heads up, Viacom have asked YouTube to remove around 100,000 "unauthorized" clips from the site, this would presumably cover video clips of MTV, Vh1, Vh2 and the other MTV network channels along with Comedy Central and Nickelodeon and possibly Paramount and Dreamworks trailers too. I've dropped a note on WT:EL but thought I better mention it somewhere with more traffic. --  Heligo land   23:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How can this be? Surely we must assume that the copyright status of all YouTube links is as pure as the driven snow unless and until we see a copy of the DMCA takedown order uploaded in triplicate to Commons? Guy (Help!) 23:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh. I just read a broadcast analyst's interpretation that this is just a shot across the bow in the beginning of negotiatons between YouTube and Viacom to work out a deal like YouTube has with CBS and other content providers.  Corvus cornix 00:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "It's all about the benjamins, yeah" - Oscar Wilde. Teke ( talk ) 02:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC) (with a nod to uncyclopedia for that one)
 * Wilde said that? Who knew?  Corvus cornix 02:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Which brings up another question: If the content is placed on YouTube by the content provider (CBS, let's say), would it be, conceptually, ok to link to it if there were an article that the video might be useful for?  Or should we ban all YouTube links since some of them are copyright violations?  Corvus cornix 00:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If I watched an episode on CBS and they said the world is made of 100+ KM of iron, well then, I'm going to use that information in the most reliable fashion I can. Not only am I going to WP:CITE it properly as I've done here with the article on Chemosynthesis, but if I ever find an online version or even a fully downloadable version, (even if it may be illegal) I'm dam well going to put my link towards that easy access internet version. Similar to the coordinates you can find at the top of certain city articles, I see no reason we can not use external services. --CyclePat 01:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Corvus, if the video is officially sanctioned then it's OK.
 * CyclePat, Our policies specify disallow any linking to content on websites that is violating copyrights. Check out WP:C. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Husnock
The case has closed and the results are posted at the link above.


 * Husnock is desysopped without prejudice to his re-applying for adminship via a Request for adminship.
 * Husnock is cautioned regarding improper use of alternative accounts or inappropriate postings by alter egos.
 * Husnock is cautioned to conscientiously follow Wikipedia's No original research and image copyright policies when he returns to regular editing.
 * Husnock, who has been desysopped due to unblocking himself and apparently sharing the password to an administrative account with another user, is cautioned to strictly conform to Wikipedia policies should he again be entrusted with administrative responsibility.
 * Several of the users who contributed to the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive66 added comments which served to inflame the situation (such as this sockpuppet ) rather than resolve it on mutually acceptable terms. They are encouraged to be more insightful and helpful in the future.

For the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109 Talk 00:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

User abusing article talk page for the umpteenth time
Referring to this and subsequent warnings and blocks about the misuse of talk pages, it is happening again. At the very least, please can this talk thread be moved somewhere appropriate and the article's talk page left alone? Thanks, Malla  nox  01:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of 164.76.189.85
I checked upon a user that admin User:Can't Sleep, clown will Eat Me blocked for 168 hours, and the IP was from Eastern Michigan University. When I told him that the IP was shared, he removed my warning. People from EMU could be wanting to contribute to Wikipedia. Even though I am not an administrator, please check to see if the IP address could be from a shared educational institution, school, or business before blocking a user for vandalism. Thanks. <b style="color:#6495ED; font-family:georgia;">Real96</b> 04:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is zero evidence that this is a shared IP and I stand behind this block given the nature of vandalism originating from this address. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 05:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's shared. 1.) Go to the check IP page. 2.) Go to http://www.emich.edu  I am not trying to be rude, I am just trying to inform. <b style="color:#6495ED; font-family:georgia;">Real96</b> 05:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Some supporting evidence that this IP is used by more than one person at a time has been requested. The link you provide shows who owns the IP address, but not that it is shared as you claim. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 05:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) The IP might be shared, and be from a computer lab. What happens if another person, who hasn't vandalized in the past and who has an account in Wikipedia can't edit because the IP address is blocked from campus. It has happened often in the past. Also, check User_talk:66.165.21.153. Shared IP. I do agree that the IP itself should be blocked, but account creation shouldn't be. <b style="color:#6495ED; font-family:georgia;">Real96</b> 05:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We will have to agree to disagree then. I appreciate that you're trying to help, but the block placed on this IP was very deliberate.  Thanks, Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 05:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we make it anons only and add schoolblock to their talk page? Viridae Talk 05:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll defer to another administrator, as I've already stated that this block was deliberately placed. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 05:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the specific situation, but the fact that an IP resolves to a University should not be assumed to mean it's a shared IP. A computer in a dorm could easily be assigned its own IP--this is actually a very common way to do it for schools that have ethernet (as I believe EMU does). Chick Bowen 06:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hypothetical Situation: Users A and B live in the same dorm at X State University which has 1000 inhabitants.  User A is a good contributor, has 1000+ mainspace edits, etc.  However, User B is set to vandalize Wikipedia for whichever reason possible. I agree with the block, but how can a user edit from the banned IP if 1.) account creation is off 2.) can't log in, etc. <b style="color:#6495ED; font-family:georgia;">Real96</b> 06:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They can use the unblock template like their block message instructs them to do, say "this is a shared IP" and the block will be shortened. A 7 day block on an IP from which only vandalism has come from in the past 2 months isn't the end of the world and certainly didn't warrant a thread on AN... — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  06:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, well I didn't know about . However, I have heard of experiences where users who attend colleges and universities across the country (and who are regular editors by the way) couldn't have edited on Wikipedia due to their IP being blocked because of another college student vandalizing Wikipedia. That's why I consider shared and school IP addresses a big issue. <b style="color:#6495ED; font-family:georgia;">Real96</b> 06:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Improper blocking of user as punishment
Blocking users is supposed to be used as a means to prevent edit warring or other disruptive behaviour, not as punishment. In fact, the very second line of Wikipedia:Blocking policy states explictly and clearly that "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. They should not be used as a punitive measure." Today, User:Durova blocked User:Armon for allegedly violating WP:VANDALISM on Middle East Media Research Institute. Given that the MEMRI page has been protected for several days, I can't see how this block of Armon, for actions he took several days ago is anything but a punitive measure, in clear violation of official Wikipedia policy. As a side note, the allegation that Armon's edits for which he was improperly blocked were a vioaltion of WP:VANDALISM are tenous, to say the least. This is a content dispute, and Armon clearly explained his reasons for the deletion, arguing, among other things WP:RS, WP:NOTE and WP:UNDUE. As such, I don't see how this could possibly be vandalism. The block was imposed more than 4 days after the edit, after the admin was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durova&diff=prev&oldid=105156508 solicited to do so by another editor. ] Isarig 01:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about the background to this, or whether there are issues I'm missing, but I couldn't see any reason for Armon's block, so I unblocked. The edit in question was a few days ago, and it wasn't vandalism but a regular content dispute. I've left a note for Durova. If I've missed something important about the situation, I apologize. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 04:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was the other user, and it was not my idea to impose a block, but I think it was a good idea, as Armon was deleting sourced and relevant material without explanation. He didn't bother to explain his edits until after an edit war led to page protection (with his version of the page protected).  It was good that an administrator stepped in.  Users should not delete sourced content without explaining their edits and engaging in discussion.  This block appears to have been imposed to prevent edit warring, not as "punishment." csloat 18:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to ask SlimVirgin whether his decision to unblock Armon had anything to do with the fact that they are both Israel supporters? Abu ali 23:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This thread is a violation of WP:AGF. Isarig left a message at my user talk while I was offline and followed it up with an accusation of improper blocking here at this noticeboard before I had a chance to reply. It is unfair to speculate to the community about my frame of mind, and particularly so because my previous posts on the subject should have been sufficiently clear. Repeated deletion of properly cited material over several days, refusal to discuss the matter on article talk when requested, and attempts to mask the deletion of references by marking edits as minor constitutes clear reason for blocking...and I think it goes without saying that a brief block citing WP:VANDAL, the relevant policy, with a link to the first of that series of deletions is a preventative measure to remind that editor not to delete the references a fifth time once the article gets unprotected. My block notice even suggested two alternative means of resolving any conflict and explained the reason for the delay: I had been discussing the possibility of resolving the related conflict through alternate means. That editor has collected quite a few other blocks recently. I also went to the unusual length of placing an additional statement on the article talk page to clarify any policy confusion and recommend better solutions. No, the block was not solicited. This is gross misrepresentation. Durova Charge! 20:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Your action was already judged to be inappropriate, please don't compound it by misrepresenting the factual time line. I left a message for you on your talk page at 21:57 . You were clearly on line at the time, as you made several edits after that - including this, this and this. All three were half an hour after I posted the notice on your page, and before I placed the notice here. Isarig 21:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no basis for this block in the relevant policy, which states: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Unless the blocking admin can demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that Armon's edits constituted a deliberate attempt to compromise the quality of Wikipedia, WP:VANDAL does not apply. What I can see here is a usual content dispute, wherein Armon made good-faith edits, removing the material he saw as violating WP:NPOV. Good editors delete sourced material all the time, and well-sourced articles are often deleted, too. This is just the way Wikipedia works. There is no official policy Never delete sourced material and hopefully never will be. Beit Or 21:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * When the deletion of sourced material is made with deceptive edit summaries, mislabeled as "minor," without discussion, over and over, it is difficult to see them as good faith. Armon did later explain his edits on my talk page, but only after he was called out on them.  I did not call for the block, but I fail to see how the admin involved acted inappropriately. csloat 22:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * you have already accepted Armon's explanation of this on your user Talk page, and indeed, apologized to him for calling his actions 'blatant lying'. To come here now after you've accepted a good faith explanation for this and repeat the charge that that they were not done in good faith is disingenuous. And you most certainly called for the block as this shows. Isarig 22:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not call for the block; your use of evidence is extremely misleading. I suggested that if Durova thought a block of Isarig was warranted for his conduct that I think it would be a step in the right direction.  That paragraph was not about blocking Armon, and in fact when I mentioned Armon's behavior earlier I made clear that I only did so in order to explain why you attacked me.  I did accept Armon's apology, but I did so purely on good faith, since the evidence he used to support his explanation was completely misleading (he wrote "Read the edit summaries you are so obsessed with" and then linked "edit summaries" to a different one than the ones I had a problem with).  Frankly, I do not find his explanation persuasive at all, but I accepted it on good faith because it appeared he was willing to discuss the issue once he had been called on his deceptive and disruptive edits.  You will note that I continued to hold that those edits were deceptive.  Please do not call me "disingenuous" here; the evidence clearly shows otherwise. csloat 22:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Isarig appears to have a point about the timing: I was drafting a proposal and did not see my talk page. The notice would only have appeared during the four minute span while I was saving work just before I logged off.  For the record, my talk page also contains a disclaimer that my system has hardware problems and I may be unable to respond swiftly.  Please return the good faith by withdrawing the speculation and distortions posted above.  Durova Charge! 22:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I welcome your conceding of this point. What is that that you want me to retract? I did not assume that you were acting in bad faith, I fully accept that it is possible that you made a good-faith error in judgment. I apologize if you found anything I wrote to imply otherwise, and will happily retract such implication, which was not my intent. I did not post this notice here in order to get you scolded, I did it realizing that you may be off-line, so that other admins may review your actions and undue the improper block, which is what happened. Surely you don't expect your being off-line to be reason to hold off on any action? Suppose you had blocked someone inappropriately for 3 days, and then left on vacation? Would it be reasonable to wait for you to return before undoing your actions, just so that you will have a chance to respond?. I will not, however, retract my claim that your actions were a violation of WP policy, becuase I believe they were, and several editors here seem to agree with me. Isarig 22:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think those points are adequately addressed in my initial post to this thread. Durova Charge! 23:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And the moral of this story is: Never block or take action against a pro-Israel editor, however outragous their behaviour. Otherwise your actions will be swiftly cancelled and you yourself will be subject to attack on this page.Abu ali 00:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh... what? Should we break out the tinfoil hats? JuJube 00:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Abu Ali, please observe WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Wikipedia is not an ideological battleground, please stop trying to turn it into one using dark references to conspiracy theories. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * These assumptions of bad faith are inappropriate and disappointing. Durova acted in good faith in order to make sure the revert war didn't start up again when protection was lifted. I acted in good faith by overturning a block that I felt had no basis in policy. Durova and I have discussed it and it's over. I see that Beelzebarn who was reverting on that page too has turned out to be a sockpuppet of banned User:Marsden, which probably didn't help the atmosphere. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I object to speculations about SlimVirgin's motives as strongly as I object to speculations about my own motives. SlimVirgin has a superb reputation and I trust she would recuse herself if she felt political views might influence her decision.  All editors deserve good faith as a basic assumption; Slim has also earned that good faith many times over.  Durova Charge! 00:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

To all: Content disputes are not vandalism issues, the block was clearly improper, and it didn't help that one of the editors was a sockpuppet of User:Marsden, who was permanently banned by no less than Jimbo himself. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Stubbornness and POV are pointedly examples of what vandalism is not. I'm curious about the other point though; that this 24 hour block several days after the fact was an illegitimate use of blocks as punishment.  If Armon had committed blatant and indisputable vandalism, would this block have been proper, or would that be using blocks as a punishment?  Cool Hand Luke 02:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't have to clarify this yet again, but the deletion of properly cited material was what I defined as vandalism. I believe that's covered here:
 * Removing all or significant parts of pages or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus both constitute vandalism. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. See WP:VANDAL.
 * Any other supposed reasoning such as content disputes, stubbornness, POV, etc. are simply red herrings. I never claimed those as reasons for blocking and strongly object to spurious allegations of that nature.  The delay in action might be a valid reason for objecting to the block, but I believe I have explained what WP:AGF should have relieved me of any need to explain: during that delay I was seeking alternative solutions to the related problems.  I have already explained in detail why this block was not punitive and repeated claims to the contrary, which regurgitate points I already addressed, are inappropriate.  This seems to be a case of throw enough mud and some of it will stick.  If I have made an actual error I will gladly correct it, but I strenuously object to threads that proceed in the manner that this one has.  False accusations resolve nothing.  Durova Charge! 02:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem to be an example of removing "significant parts" of the page, and they seem to use edit summaries and the talk page which puts it into the "content dispute" bin as I see it, but the particulars aren't important. I'm sorry for attaching specifics to my hypothetical&mdash;I'm not accusing you of acting in anything other than good faith.  I want to know for my own reference what the consensus is on blocking someone a couple of days after they committed their vandalism. Cool Hand Luke 02:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In the past I've blocked for deletion of properly cited material in the context of an edit dispute and those blocks have been uncontroversial. What mattered was not so much the total quantity of material blanked but that the material had full citation to reliable sources and the deletion lacked regular discussion or consensus.  In making those decisions I typically weigh deceptive practices such as marking the deletion as minor and signs of uncooperative behavior such as repeating the deletions after requests for discussion - both of those events happened here.  I hadn't anticipated that to be construed as controversial because of the obvious implications: if deletion of cited material is unactionable within the context of a content dispute, then disruptive editors could generate the appearance of a content dispute on any subject and inflict great harm to Wikipedia's database.  That precept would be highly exploitable.  I agree my delay was potentially objectionable and welcome feedback on that point, or on any other legitimate basis.  Warmly,  Durova Charge! 03:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Advocacy - Checkuser?
The checkuser was used to block a someone I am advocating for. He believe there is important time sensitive information that needs to be gathered. I need access to this information for full disclosure so I can properly assist my advocee. If you are able to help out can you please contact me by first leaving a message here and then sending me an email. My advocee claims he has publicly attempted to contact his blocking administrator without success. Thank you! --CyclePat 01:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Try the blocking admin's talk page, or the talkpage of WT:RFCU. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your advocee can edit his own talk page, too. Thatcher131 02:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Pat, is this for Bob Fink? If so, as an advocate, you really should take the time to get him to understand our views on conflict of interest.  He has a serious problem with this.  For example, if you searcht he web for references to his book ISBN 0-912424-06-0, which he cites and represents as a major view in some articles, the only references appear to be Wikipedia and mirrors.  I can't see a lot of evidence that his view here is mainstream, for example the theories he puts forward do not seem to coincide with my music texts.  Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience reviewed a similar situation where a proponent of certain ideas was restricted from editing in respect of those ideas.  Tread carefully, eh? Guy (Help!) 16:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Guy, Nope it's not Bob! Why was he blocked? I'll see what I can do to help him out instead of all these other weird sock puppetry cases. But I actually went to the UofO library and I have his books right here! It is a legitimate work and the irony is I remember using it back in high school for a history project on ancient greco-romain history... music instruments. I don't know if I may be biased because of this but I think I've seen similar theory repeated in newer publication through my studies in music. (I guess they cited Fink!)
 * Well I might as well just say, for the block thing, it is user:Olivierd, Benio76, etc... and let another administrator check out the IPs. We have been emailing each other the last 2 weeks and I think this could maybe use a second glance. He has been trying to contact the administrator that blocked him. The reason I didn't want to say the names is because I myself usually like to tr and contact the blocking adm. prior to doing anything. Unfortunately in this case I have decided not to do so. He has a convincing evidence that shows that there are in fact two different people. The IP's, If I could see this... (unfortunatelly I can't because my RFA failed ... but I'm not bitter! lol) according to Olivierd should show that most edits came from another location. He did however say his friend was editing from his home a couple time. Anyway. In short I believe there where infact two people and I don't think the block should be indefinate, considering they both have their own seperate registered websites with similar names to their respective alias' they use here on wiki. Anyway, I'm not asking for much, just a quick independant review of the checkuser results that where used. thank you! --CyclePat 05:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, another editor on a mission. You certainly pick 'em.  You don't get an "independent" review of checkuser, because very few people are trusted with the checkuser tools, too much potential to violate privacy.  Admins cannot see the IPs either.  To all intents and purposes, what the checkusers say is gospel so you'll note they are quite cagey and even when two users edit from the same IP all we know is that they both used the same IP.  Guy (Help!) 10:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Unwarrented blocking by administrator (revisited)
See the archive page for the incident in full detail. It is not been addressed that the user Lar broke the "content dispute" regulation either. Lar, again, did not cite a SPECIFIC offense for the block as well, which is also against the rules. At this point, there is a bigger issue as to whether or not I broke the rules, an issue of protocol on Lar's part. This is why this incident must be further addressed.-- EnglishEfternamn  talk<span style="font-family:Tahoma, helvetica; color:lightblue;">contribs 02:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This noticeboard is for informal discussion of administrative action, at best (as it states in the header). If no one addressed your comments, then that probably means that no one felt Lar's actions to be sufficiently egregious to warrant much discussion.  If you have a dispute with him and feel that this is a significant, recurring issue, I recommend you follow the procedures for dispute resolution outlined at WP:DR.  If this, in the grand scheme of things, is not significant, than perhaps a polite message on his talk page explaining why you feel he acted inappropriately is in order and then letting bygones be bygones.  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  05:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A number of editors have reviewed Lar's conduct, and have concluded that his behaviour was appropriate. Your original block was discussed by a number of administrators at Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive189; in general the consensus was that you were let off very lightly in the hope that you would learn something.


 * You have already asked for a further review of Lar's block at least once (Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive190) where additional comment took place. Again, the conclusion was rapidly reached that the block was warranted (Disclaimer: I was one of the admins who reviewed at that stage.) If you persist in beating this dead horse, I will block you for making a nuisance of yourself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is un-called for, I am within my rights by discussing this.-- EnglishEfternamn  talk<span style="font-family:Tahoma, helvetica; color:lightblue;">contribs 17:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And we're within our rights to tell you to drop the stick and walk slowly away from the horse carcass. If you don't you'll find yourself blocked to protect Wikipedia from disruption. Thanks. 〈 RED VEЯS 〉 17:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You have the right to copy a Wikipedia database dump and create your own, you have the right to not use Wikipedia, that is it for Wikipedia rights, the rest is up to the foundation and the community to decide. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't believe what I am hearing. These are administrators here and they are basically telling me I don't have a right to try and resolve a dispute.-- EnglishEfternamn  talk<span style="font-family:Tahoma, helvetica; color:lightblue;">contribs 18:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You've been pointed to the dispute resolution process (WP:DR). You're able to edit now, I assume you're still in possession of your health and property, um... if the block has already been reviewed and found to be appropriate, then I don't see the point in asking the question again and again, hoping for a different answer.  I think your best course of action is to let it go, and get on with your editing and your life. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

But you're not trying to resolve a dispute. You're trying to keep open one that would go away if you put down the stick and walked away from the horse carcass. I've asked nicely that you do this, now I'm going to warn you on your talk page what will happen if you don't. 〈 RED VEЯS 〉 18:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Father Judge High School + Verifiability
(among others--but he is who I have talked with) has been adding original research, high school fanboy, and generally non-notable material to the Father Judge High School article. It started with the listing of "notable" members of the high school's Model United Nations team, which he confirmed were kids on the team when he went there. I have tried to point out that we have notability standards and it doesn't matter if what he says it true--that it must be verifiable. He has continued to re-add the material to the article and has removed my unreferenced tag. This isn't exactly a content dispute this is someone who thinks Wikipedia is meant to store interesting information even when it's not sourced and likely not notable. I don't want to block him (since I am involved) but I think it's clear that he should be blocked or at least have another admin attempt to explain the basic rules since he doesn't seem to understand from me. gren グレン 17:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Need two admins...
There is a protracted issue at Obligations in Freemasonry, and I need one or two admins to assist in dispute resolution. SeraphimXI has been an ongoing problem on a few articles (most notably Jahbulon and the aforementioned article). We assumed GF a long time ago, and that didn't last long, as she refuses to acknowledge the simple fact of what anyone says, because it's obviously "covering up Masonic secrets" (no matter how many times we say otherwise and show proof). When she cannot answer a question, she spins the whole argument back on itself by restating the history of the issue, or old arguments. This has become a persistent problem at this point, because we have a number of POV editors on this one article, and while I do not think that this can be resolved without an RFC or an ArbCom case, I am requesting admin intervention to try to avoid a protracted process, and I am posting here because, while I could ask a few of the "regulars", as it were, I would like an admin totally uninvolved with the Masonic articles to minimize any other nonsense. MSJapan 17:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This person might be a sock of Lightbringer (see WP:LB for more information). PTO 18:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Contribution history doesn't match Lightbringer.  Teke ( talk ) 18:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they're definitely separate people. If it was as simple as an LB block, I'd have RFCUed a long time ago. MSJapan 19:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with User:MSJapan's characterization of the problem. The actual problem is with three Masonic editor who are triple-teaming to edit war, deceive, and to demand that other editors adhere to some undisclosed personal standards of these editors above and beyon what Wikipedia requires. The will not take simple answers to question, but spin every answer as inadequate. So far they have put deceptive comments on the talk page claiming that quotes don't match the source when in fact they do, trying to remove them on this pretense. This is actually a WP:COI issue for these three editors. The best thing to do would be for an admin to mediate the discussion, and give these three feedback when they make unreasonable demands on other editors. 204.122.16.13 18:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, the three editors are MSJapan, ALR and User:Blueboar. The deception can be found here, and the persistant Wikilawyering type demand on other editor from there on down on the talk page. 204.122.16.13 19:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, aren't you a new editor from like two weeks ago (or so your contribs say)? How do you know what Wikilawyering is, and how are you so up on policy (especially quotes, which doesn't exist as such, and COI) if you weren't an editor here before, and currently hiding behind an IP so we don't know who you used to be? MSJapan 19:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Alas, your ad-hominem arguments do not invalidate my points. And since I am editing solely from this IP now, and not any other IP or account, I fail to see the problem. You are just as or more anonymous, unless you have opted to reveal information on your user page. 204.122.16.13 19:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Take this to WP:RFCU or WP:SSP if the IP's identity is the issue, otherwise suggest article content WP:RFC to address the article balance. Durova Charge! 23:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of empty categories declined?
I tagged the following categories for deletion last night (along with about 30 others that got deleted) and I wake up this morning to see that these were declined, saying "consider nominating at WP:CFD". The categories are:
 * Category:Wikipedian salesmen
 * Category:Army of Serbia and Montenegro
 * Category:Armenian photographers
 * Category:Wikipedians from Kerala
 * Category:Wikipedians who love Basset hounds
 * Category:Wikipedians who listen to LBC 97.3
 * Category:Wikipedians who listen to blink-182
 * Category:Wikipedians from Queensland
 * Category:Wikipedians in Bolton, Ontario
 * Category:Wikipedians in Brasília
 * Category:Wikipedians in Labrador
 * Category:Wikipedians in Merrimack
 * Category:Wikipedians in Papua New Guinea
 * Category:Wikipedians in the Isle of Wight

You can look at my deleted edits to see the slew of others that were deleted. All of the categories are still empty and they have been empty for more than four days. Also, the few that have a CfD tag at the top are long closed, just nobody bothered to remove the cfd tags. I realize that the speedy criteria also says "If the category isn't relatively new, it possibly contained articles earlier, and deeper investigation is needed" but does "deeper investigation" mean to remove the tag and ask the person who tagged it to nominate them at CfD? I am asking if these do in fact qualify for speedy deletion as I originally tagged them, or not. If not, I'd like to know the reasons so I can better judge what qualifies as speedy, I spend so much time tagging things for deletion I thought I had it down correctly, but perhaps not. VegaDark 20:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to add that I am one of the most active editors at User categories for discussion, where all but two of these categories would go, and I can't see any of the regulars there not recommending a speedy delete for every category above. VegaDark 20:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If they are completely empty then I can't imaging why we wouldn't want them deleted. *shrug* ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like these ought to have been speedy deleted per WP:CSD. But have you asked the person who removed the tag for an explanation?  It's usually best to talk to the individual user first.  -- SCZenz 23:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see that you did... good job! You should have given them a chance to reply before bringing it here, though. -- SCZenz 00:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) Well, it was obvious he is going to say that he didn't feel they were speedy deletable (for whatever reason), and I didn't feel much could be resolved in a discussion consisting of me saying I felt they were and him saying they aren't, since we both know the criteria so it looks to me like the only possibility is a difference in opinion as to one of the aspects of CSD#C1, which a community consensus is required to determine. As to what that difference might be I'm not sure, but I was talking with another administrator today and they were hesitant to delete the categories themselves because the CSD criteria says a category must be devoid of content, and they were unsure if that literally meant ANY content (i.e. a description at the top of the category would count) or if it simply meant category members, as I have been under the assumption of. If that is an area of confusion then it would also be beneficial to bring it up here as to determine which is correct, since I think hardly any categories would be speedyable if that were in fact what the criteria meant. VegaDark 00:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I replied to this thread. I removed the tag because these are very old categories and someone might have removed the pages to empty the category. So I asked to go for CFD. If they have been empty for four days then I do not seek any oppositions of being deletion. Regards, Shyam  ( T / C ) 00:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

IP with 37 edits and 12 vandalism warnings. Block refused
Where do I go to get a satisfactory answer about a block request on an IP address with 37 edits and 12 vandalism warnings. Here is the current dialogue. TonyTheTiger 21:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If it is a dynamic IP, then it is different people each time. We only temporarily block IPs that are actively vandalizing. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have tried to log in from blocked IPs at Panera Bread Company and Chicago Public Library. This IP is more likely to be one person because the 37 edits generating 12 warnings occured over 19 different dates, but were basically all non-sense, non-productive, problematic edits that got reverted. TonyTheTiger 21:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess the query above is to determine what is temporary? hours, days, weeks? If weeks, the address in question should be blocked? TonyTheTiger 22:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would recommend a month-long annon-only block with account creation allowed. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * IMHO a block would not be useful here and a long block would not be appropriate. As can be seen from the IP's contributions, there is relatively little activity from this address (about 30 edits since early May last year), meaning that any block would have little preventative value and, of course, should not be used in a punitive manner. As Tony points out, there has been further discussion here. Cheers TigerShark 22:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Redirect/Move Assistance
Recently, I tried to separate the School of the Art Institute of Chicago from the Art Institute of Chicago as they are two distinct corporations that operate independently of each other and should have separate pages, but I think I screwed up. I hadn't realized what a large undertaking it was and think it's become a circular mess. What should I do or should be done to fix it?--SquatGoblin 21:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I've taken care of it; I moved the page at School of the Art Institute of Chicago back to Art Institute of Chicago, where it originally was, which is where the text seems to indicate it should be. (In the process, the redirect page was deleted.) The history is now back at AIOC, and a redirect now exists at SAIC to AIOC. You can edit the redirect page at SAIC (click on the link in the small "redirected from School of the Art Institute of Chicago" to see the redirect and edit it) and create an article there. Let me know if that takes cares of things. (A note for future reference: you appear to have attempted to undo your move by copying and pasting the text; copying and pasting shouldn't be done because the history isn't moved. Instead, you can revert your move by moving it back to the original title.) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 22:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've re-sorted out the articles; you appear to have create articles at lower-case titles (i.e. School of the art institute of chicago). I've moved those around so that the proper histories now match with the proper page titles. No more moving or copying and pasting (which should never be done) should be needed. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 23:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all your help! No more moving or copying/pasting from me. :) --SquatGoblin 23:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently inadvertant spamming by User:Bill Clark
User:Bill Clark has been posting dozen (perhaps hundreds) of external links connected to commercial sites of cable companies. In a recent post he explained that he was unaware that he was violating any policy. Assuming his good faith, would an admin be able to contact him, explain the "no spam" policy, and assist him to remove all these commercial links?

See for example this change.

There may be hundreds of these in the last few days. See this list.

Would you be kind enough to look into this to lend him a hand? Spamreporter1 05:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Spamreporter1 already reported this, and was replied to, at the VP/A page. Let's keep any discussion in one place.- gadfium 08:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin assistance needed at WP:AIV
We need a administrator to look over and decide at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Thanks! --Extranet (Talk 09:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Empty already. Sandstein 09:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Banned user evading ban
User:80.192.242.187. This is a sock of a persistent ban evader User:Irate. This edit links him to the last confirmed sock account he used which was permanently blocked. Can someone please block? Thanks. MRSC • Talk 15:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I perused the contribs and blocked for disruption. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)