Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive37

Proxy/anonymizing IP

Please, add the following proxy IP to your banned IP list: 65.19.174.35. According to http://cqcounter.com/whois/, this IP is that of the email anonymizing company Primedius (http://www.primedius.com).

E-mail aonymizing, therefore not a open web proxy. Mike _{(T C)} 01:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not an open proxy, true, but still a proxy. People can hide behind such proxy IP, vandalize Wikipedia, act irresponsibly under cover of anonimity. It should therefore be banned along with all open proxies.

If it doesn't proxy HTTP traffic (and it apparently doesn't), it's not an issue for us. If you find evidence it does proxy HTTP, let us know. Superm401 - Talk 03:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I wish we could allow anonymous proxies. Maybe it'd be a good idea to disable non-logged-in editing and enable open proxies. I think that'd be better. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 17:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It would certainly be better in terms of promoting the posting of content which is illegal. Whether than would improve Wikipedia is another question entirely. Often illegal material is an improvement, I admit, but more often it is a disimprovement. Moreover, the majority of uses of anonymity have more to do with offensive behaviour than with unlawful behaviour. A wiki version of rotten.com might have a use, but I would prefer not to go there myself.Aminorex 14:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Should wikipedia be given this face?

The article Windows Genuine Advantage has been brought to my attention by another wikipedian of bringing not only illegal cracks about windows to wikipedia for no reason, but it gives explicit instructions about how to carry the hack out. I have no problem bringing the cracks to public attention in the article but I think that it is a little overboard to give intructions on how to carry them out. I recommend that this section in the article be deleted.-- Damien Vryce 17:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend discussing that on the article's talk page. Blackcap (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have, but it is getting no where. Firefox suggested that I place it here. I thought that this place was for such instances....-- Damien Vryce 17:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You may want to note that Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, so legal or otherwise, it probably shouldn't be there. Blackcap (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete the info off the page for the above reason, but I don't see why we can't keep external links to how-to sites. VegaDark 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The spamlinks blacklist

How does one suggest a new entry for the automatic spamlinks blacklister? A variety of anonymous editors have been repeatedly adding http://www.datasheet4u.com to many of the electronics articles and a variety of registered editors have been reverting them right back out again; it may be time to consider putting this site on the blacklist.

How is this done?

And how would I have learned how this is done without asking here? ;-)

Atlant 13:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe you need a steward to edit it into m:spam blacklist. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 13:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

No, just a sysop on meta. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, wasn't sure, I'm not able to access that page from school since some keywords on the page are filterd. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 14:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

A cruel irony to have a blacklist for bad words blacklisted. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 14:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

To answer the first of the original questions: m:Talk:Spam blacklist --cesarb 19:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all!

Atlant 11:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Main page tab

See MediaWiki_talk:Monobook.js#Main_page.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 16:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral admin required for decision

I'd like an uninvolved administrator to have a look at EffK's account. He came to Wikipedia about a year ago, I think, and had the name User:Flamekeeper. He did not feel comfortable giving an e-mail address to Wikipedia, so when his computer rebooted, and he couldn't remember his password, he had to register a new account - User:Fiamekeeper. He lost computer cookies again, so he registered User:Corecticus. Then he registered as User:Famekeeper. Then he registered as User:PureSoupS, and finally as User:EffK. It was not at all a case of decitful sockpuppetry. He never tried to use multiple accounts to violate 3RR or to vote twice; nor did he attempt to hide his old identities. Each account was abandoned as he moved on to the next.

He had a theory that Pope Pius XII had actively collaborated with Hitler (not just that he hadn't done enough to condemn him), and kept making really long, incoherent posts about how Pope Benedict should order Pope Pius's body to be exhumed so that Pius could face trial and be excommunicated. He antogonized not only the "loyal Catholic" editors, but also those who felt that Pius had been negligent, and those who were not Catholic at all. He also engaged in numerous personal attacks, particularly on the editor User:Str1977 - "the brother of the murderer . . . a deep despair hiding in your Catholic soul . . . your morality is highly objectionable . . . you read Hitler's mind and reveal his thoughts, and they are yours . . . shocking . . . sinister . . . a source of moral pollution . . . you will have to be controlled . . . a lost sheep . . . on the point of mental sickness", etc. The talk pages of Pope Pius XII, Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Pope, etc. were flooded with thousands of words, which were often so incoherent as to be almost impossible to understand. He also attacked User:Robert McClenon, telling him something like "Go wash out your mouth with soap and say a hundred rosaries for your lie to Wikipedia." In fact, SlimVirgin gave him a warning for that post.

He began to post things on Jimbo's page, about how the Vatican was trying to take over Wikipedia and the world. Jimbo quite kindly advised him to leave Wikipedia while he still could, with his head held high, and his dignity intact, as he seemed to be the kind of editor who would be banned eventually. He left then, for a few weeks, but came back, calling on Wikipedia to ban Str1977 as a Vatican agent. (He thinks that Str has been commissioned by the Vatican to join Wikipedia specifically for the purpose of opposing him.) He would also post things about how his own life would be in danger if anyone on Wikipedia discovered his identity, as the Vatican agents might have him pushed out of a train.

I think that Str1977 generally treated him quite kindly and patiently. I couldn't help liking him, in spite of my (wiki-)friendship with Str1977, who was the main target of his attacks, and in spite of the fact that he attacked me a few times. Eventually Robert McClenon filed a request for Arbitration. Str1977 gave evidence, and I did as well. The result was that EffK was banned from Wikipedia for one year, for his personal attacks. He was banned indefinitely from any articles dealing with the Catholic Church. And he could also be blocked by any administrator for causing disruption to any article.

He then joined Wikinfo, and began to make long posts there.

http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=User_talk:EffK

After a while, an administrator decided enough was enough, and banned him indefinitely from there.

The next thing I noticed was that he had joined the French Wikipedia

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:EffK

I don't think he is interested in editing. He just wants to use it to promote his theories.

While the ArbCom case was going on, he kept making long posts. Sometimes he would copy an entire section of several thousand words to a different and unrelated talk page; sometimes he would just post a short sentence like "I am excessively offended by this arbitration". He frequently referred to Str1977 as a Vatican agent (commenting on the fact that Str started editing Wikipedia just after the election of Benedict XVI), and to Robert McClenon as his side-kick. Eventually one of the arbitrators got impatient and reverted one of his long posts.

After he was banned, he was still technically able to edit his talk page, and continued to do so. Sam Korn said that it could be protected if he continued to use it as a soap box, so after he had engaged in a few more attacks against Str1977, Str applied for protection, and Woohookitty protected. I felt a bit sorry for EffK, as I knew this would cut off all means of communication (as he refuses to give Wikipedia his e-mail address), so after a few days, I asked Str if he'd mind if I unprotected, after giving EffK a warning that it would be reprotected again if he continued to use it that way, and that it would remain protected. Str said he was more than happy to give him another chance, and he had never intended to cut off communication completely, so I warned EffK, and unprotected. I also sent a note to Woohookitty.

After the unprotection, EffK behaved himself for a while. Str welcomed him back, and answered some of his questions. But then, he began to indulge in the long soapbox posts again. For most of the time while he was on Wikipedia, nobody at all sided with him, because his behaviour was so extreme. Even those who thought that Pius XII was negligent would have nothing to do with him. However, just approaching the end of the arbitration case, User:Bengalski joined forces with him, and began to complain about the way he had been treated. Bengalski made no mention of any of the personal attacks EffK had made, but criticized those who had brushed him aside. Sean Black replaced the lo-o-o-o-o-o-o-ong contents on EffK's user page with a notice saying that EffK had been banned, and Bengalski reverted it as vandalism. Sean reverted it again, and Bengalski complained at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration. He then copied EffK's version of the EffK user page to his own user page, presumably as an act of solidarity, and edited EffK's page to say that the contents could now be found at User:Bengalski. More recently, Bengalski edited EffK's page to make it look as if EffK had been banned simply for trying to include information that was critical of Pius XII, when in fact he was banned for greatly disrupting the talk page of almost every article he ever went near, and for engaging in numerous personal attacks.

If anyone looks though the history of his talk page since I unprotected (with warning) on 16 February, he/she will see that he's just been clogging it up, and using it as a soapbox. I have given him a few more warnings, and told him that I really didn't want the page to be protected again, but that I could see that it was going in that direction. Bengalski archived it for him (which I'd have been happy to do), but it's still a massive clutter. He got very offended recently because of a remark I made at the talk page of Hitler's Pope. Someone was accusing the Catholic editors of POV pushing, and I pointed out that a high average of edits per article indicated an agenda, and Pius's defenders had a lower average than his critics. That drew the following outraged comment. He threatened me that I wouldn't get away with blanking his page, because Bengalski was watching me, and made eight demands of me(scroll to the bottom of the diff section). I tried, reasonably successfully, to calm him down, but now he's making more attacks on Str1977, and is asking Bengalski to copy more of his material onto Bengalski subpages.

Would a neutral admin be so kind as to look into the history of the page, and if you think you need to blank and protect it, please do so as gently as you can. I think the poor guy is completely sincere in his belief that Wikipedia is full of Vatican agents who are planning to take over the world, and his extremely eccentric and obsessional behaviour can be partly excused on those grounds. Nevertheless, his behaviour, at least on the English Wikipedia, has been highly disruptive, and I can understand that the arbitrators couldn't allow it to continue. Also, I'd like feedback about Bengalski putting the contents of a banned user's page onto his own page. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 10:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Poor guy. I feel sorry for him as well. I'd say just ignore him and leave him in his sandbox. But if people are actually reading and cares enough to take offense of what he writes and want it locked down, I can't see we have any choice as it clearly is against policy. But if leaving him alone on his talk page for now is fine for those involved I don't see much harm in it, despite soapboxing rules etc. Silently ignoring someone is often most effective. But he should really just get a blog somewhere. Shanes 13:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a rather one-sided account, and as I'm mentioned a few times here I feel I need to make a few comments. First: personally I don't understand why Ann has such a problem with EffK continuing to post his views on his talk page - what harm is it doing? Ann has said before that she is concerned he is wasting server space, but I disagree that this really an issue.

Second, it's not the case that EffK is using his talk page just as a soapbox. If you look at it you will see that most of what he's been doing there falls under two categories. Mainly, he is using it to communicate with me about my edits to pages he is interested in. As an active editor on those pages, I find his notes useful. The other thing he's doing is protesting what he sees as the injustice of his ban. I don't see why this is a problem for WP, and nor I think did the one arbitrator who answered my request for a comment on that at the arbcom discussion page.

Third, Ann is quite right that EffK was banned for, amongst other things, personal abuse. I don't dispute that. What she doesn't mention is that EffK also had a positive contribution to make to wikipedia. The dispute between him and a number of Catholic editors began over his trying to include information critical to the catholic church in the period of the rise of Nazism. In particular, he had found writers who argued that there was a 'deal' cut between the Vatican and the Nazis in which the German catholic political party voted for Hitler's dictatorship (the Enabling Act) in return for Hitler's agreement to a treaty (the Reichskonkordat giving an official concessions to the Church. EffK's claims were treated unfairly, labelled as conspiracy theory by biased editors, and the dispute degenerated from there. Now I am not defending all of EffK's conduct after that (maybe it's true I'm not attacking him for it either, but then he's got enough opponents doing that). But for me it is important that he was trying to include verifiable information and being blocked from doing so by a group of editors pushing a strong pro-Church POV. I note that most of EffK's 'conspiracy theory' claims are now included in the relevant article (Pope Pius XII), after other editors got involved and I found further very respectable sourcing for them.

To sum that up: EffK was making substantive, verifiable claims which are not at all lunatic conspiracy theory; they are points which I, and other editors, are still working on - and I still find it valuable to communicate with EffK about them; the conduct of the editors who deleted and dismissed EffK's points also should be considered. I haven't been acting out of 'solidarity' alone: I genuinely believe EffK has a contribution to make, and yes I have used my own userpage to help him do that. I think I am entitled to that choice.

Fourth: I am all for neutral editors taking a look at this. Though I don't think it should be just admins: if, as it looks from Ann's post here, there is going to be an ongoing dispute between us on this issue, perhaps we should take it to an RfC or even mediation. If that happens though neutral parties need to bear in mind that Ann also has a clear bias here. She has as strong an agenda as anyone else concerned with these pages, and has actively engaged in edit warring to support her POV. I don't think it's a bad thing to have opinions - I certainly have some. I do believe a first step towards overcoming that in our work here is to be honest about it.Bengalski 21:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on EffK. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Maintenance

I'm not sure what the deal here is, but this user keeps moving Gilles de Rais to uncommon spellings (such as Giles de Rais [1] [2] and before that Giles de Retz [3] without even pursuing discussion. Suffice it to say that Gilles de Rais is overwhelmingly the most common and proper spelling in both French and English. SouthernComfort 13:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

His userpages make my headspin. Mike _{(T C)} 21:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a new admin, so I wouldn't feel comfortable doing this myself just yet, but shouldn't we indef block some of those accounts as usernames that are too similar? ~MDD4696 23:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My head is spinning too. We've got User:Maintenance which seems like a regular account, but it redirects to User:Maintenance., which then redirects to User:Maintenance,, which then redirects to User:Maintenance;. As far as I can tell, the redirects are all not accounts. User:Maintenance just moved his user page several times. Ugh. ~MDD4696 23:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL I know i'm just getting over a stomach bug and I honestly was going to puke trying to figure it out. Mike _{(T C)} 02:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

ACK. I've speedily deleted all of the User: pages there that did not belong to a User account, as well as the then redirectos to nonexistant pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope it didn't cause you any undue mental distress, its something so simple yet confused the heck outta me once I got into the pages. Mike _{(T C)} 00:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

A public challenge: Can someone make a copyright problems bot?

I really enjoy hunting down copyright violations on Wikipedia but one thing that neither I, nor any other admin, likes doing is dealing with the Wikipedia:Copyright_problems backlog. The reason I know that no other admins like working this page is because the work is incredibly tedious, resulting in a two-week backlog. Very few of the copyright problems on the page require any insight--they are blatant violations with the original url in the copyright violation template. Because of this, I'd like the challenge the very industrious programmers who make all the great Wikipedia bots to see if someone can create a bot that would examine pages with the {{subst:article-cv|Article Title Here}}, compare the copy on the page with the link to the supposed original page, and then either delete the article if there is a match or remove the copyright violation template if there isn't. Any articles that are not a close match could be left for a human admins to examine. However, if the bot could catch most of the 80-90% of copyright violations that are extremely blatent, we admins would be able to get a handle on this extremely important issue. As an incentive, I will publically award a "Grand Poo-Bah of Bot Designers" award to the first person who creates a workable copyright violation bot. Any thoughts from other people?--Alabamaboy 00:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

My immediate thought is that I feel very uneasy, to the point of objection almost, at handing a bot deletion powers on any of our deletion processes. Indeed, I feel uneasy at handing a bot any kind of admin powers. (Yes, I know Curps has just such a bot, but I don't feel completely at ease with that, either.) A better challenge by far would be for admins to go to WP:CP and so some of the (easy) work that is available over there. -Splash^talk 00:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would be somewhat easy to create a bot to do it, its the accuracy / potential for error that is the problem as is giving a bot sysop access. Splash has expressed concerns about any bot having admin access and I'm leaning to agree. We do have an idea on how to execute it and it would likely be possible but I don't think speedy by bot is a good idea. I'd be in favour of a db tag which would be a quick look / hit delete by a human but I don't think the community at large will support an 100% automatic bot. Most of the problem is all of the Wikipedia mirrors and forks, some are (illegally) not showing gfdl / source notices and we wouldn't want it deleting based on those sites -- Tawker 00:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps there is some solution that would have sufficient parameters to aid in the backlog but not worry people. The problem is that as the number of Wikipedia users rise, the number of blatent copyright violations are also rising. At one point not too long ago the copyright problems backlog was one month. As I said, a bot could easily (depending upon how difficult the programming is) compare the source url with the article and see how closely they resemble each other. Perhaps the bot could then give a percent grade on how similar the article and source material are. A human admin could then look at that data and delete using another mechanism (preferably one in which large numbers of articles and their percent similarities can be evaluated quickly and deleted as needed). Personally, I think we have to do something drastic like this because under copyright law we can be found liable if our backlog keeps growing and results in a months-long wait for deletion.--Alabamaboy 00:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've been chatting with Joshbuddy about it and its in the works, I've even gone so far as to register TawkerbotC (thanks Curps for not blocking me in 30 seconds :) - we'll start some work on it. For this to auto delete, its going to be QA'd for a while and we're likely going to have to have a vote on giving a bot sysophood if its going to delete (and I'm not going to give the bot access to my account) so I'd appreciate a debate somewhere about it, a vote will also be necessary sometime. For now I'll be created to make a report, not delete the pages -- Tawker 00:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Tawker, you say you "lean to agree", but you've already made an account that explicitly declares itself as "for [your] copyvio bot". Hm. -Splash^talk 02:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Defensive registration of the username only, Tawkerbot's have had a "fan club" of sorts that like to make impostors, I'd figure I'd grab it when I can. I'm not planning on making any fast requests, this bot is still (literally) on paper, no code has been written. Besides, even if I want to work on a "flag bot" it really doesn't fit under either Tawkerbot (1, flagged bot) or Tawkerbot2 (vandal revert-o-bot) so a unique username is necessary -- Tawker 03:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent news. Any help I can give, such as testing or feedback or dealing with combative editors, let me know. In fact, I'd be happy to handle the debate and vote aspects of this when we're ready (I assume that before we go that far people would want to know exactly how the bot will work). Anyway, thanks again. Anything that would speed up this tiresome process is greatly appreciated.--Alabamaboy 00:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a large window for missuse. Anyone could potentially create a website, copy and paste the article to it, and wait for the bot to look at it, and delete since it's a 100% match. There is no way for the bot to recognize when the website was created, to know if it was created for the soul intention of deleteing the wikipedia page. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 00:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Or it could just be one of the many wikipedia mirrors. I've found new mirrors dealing with stuff at WP:CP.Geni 01:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Alabamaboy, please do not treat those who disagree as dismissable "combative editors". -Splash^talk 01:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say people who disagreed were "combative editors." I just meant that to refer, with tongue-in-cheek, to editors who insult people instead of taking part in discussions like this one. Apologies for not being more specific. I don't see anyone in this discussion being combative. best,--Alabamaboy 13:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion by bot is not a good idea. Most cases are easy, but some are not. Some are copy-pastes of public domain websites, some are GFDL'd (rarely), many are forks and so on and so on. There are two good solutions: fix CSD A8 to actually be more than the worthless piece of verbiage it is at the moment, and to educate and encourage admins to clear WP:CP. Doing it by bot is to do it by laziness, and that's really not good. We have never, to my knowledge, handed a piece of code the right to nuke articles. Just because it can be done, does not mean it should be done. In the area of copyright problems, a human's common-sense is needed more than a senseless bot. We have so many bots crawling around this place doing useless things that there is a tendency to bot-ify every tedious task. Some tasks are tedious, but still need the tedium to be gone through. -Splash^talk 01:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What about, instead of a bot to try and sort out the current backlog of copyvios, a bot that looks at new pages, picks out a few sentences from each (relatively large) new article, and uses a search engine to see if these have been copied from somewhere. If it matches, then the article could be flagged for quick deletion (or even automatically deleted by the bot, if it were to have that ability). This won't help clear the backlog, but it would reduce the amount of additions in the future, hopefully. MD87 02:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The part of this that amounts to "any article which has a few words in common with something on the web" is the germ of a good idea insofar as it would expand A8. Obviously it would need to be much better than this. The bot doesn't need deletion powers if we do it by improving the speedy criterion, since admins are easily on top of CAT:CSD at most times. -Splash^talk 02:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say that the bot would use a few sentences as the search terms, then retrieve matching webpage(s) and compare the text properly (either by just comparing the two texts, or by calculating the Levenshtein distance or something similar). When it determines a match, it can mark it for speedy deletion as you suggested. MD87 02:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion - first write a bot to identify copyright violations from Special:Newpages (and tag and list the pages at WP:CP). Do the QA there. When the bot's accuracy reaches 100% then consider letting it check and delete articles after their listing period. --Duk 02:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with doing it after the page has been created, though, is that there are likely to be mirrors/other sites using wikipedia content. If the bot is patrolling Special:Newpages then we can be sure that anything it finds was around before the WP article. Checking articles after they've been created means it would have to deal with possible mirrors/other sites using WP content. MD87 02:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Not always so, splitting articles for example. --Duk 02:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. It depends how the algorithm was written, I guess. If the article contents are a subset of another page, then someone would have to check; but if the article contains all of the content from another page, then it's probably copyvio. It's something that would have to be played with if/when the bot's developed MD87 02:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. —Encephalon 07:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't either. When I very first started editing here, one of the first things I did was bring over some information on the Irish language that had been on an old webpage of mine that I no longer had access to. Someone presumably on new page patrol found my original page and left a note on the talk page of the article pointing out the similarities and asking whether the information I was adding belonged to me. I said that yes, it did, and because I was dealing with a human being I could explain the situation. If a bot had just come along and replaced the text with a {{copyvio}} tag I would have been annoyed, frustrated, and as a then-newbie frankly bitten. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Add me, I don't think this is a good idea. The current speedy deletion criteria is for commercial content providers only, i.e. those we don't believe will contribute to wikipedia. Beyond that there are lots of possibilities, websites where the content is licensed in a compatible way, just without such a notice listed on every page, sites whose owners decide to contribute it to wikipedia, upon seeing the copyvio message add details to the article talk page etc. etc. To my mind there are too many conflicting possibilities for any simple algorithm to compute, start building more complex alogorithm and the risk of error rises. --pgk^(talk) 07:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

We aren't talking about this bot working under speedy deletion copyright violation rules. We're talking about the bot dealing with the Wikipedia:Copyright_problems backlog. These articles go through the process of a human editor flagging the article, providing a url to source material, and then listing the article on the Wikipedia:Copyright_problems page. If a bot could make it easier for an admin to go through the large number of possible violations listed on this page and let the human admin more easily determine if a violation exists, then I don't see a problem--especially if the human admin remains the one to delete the article.--Alabamaboy 13:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

How about instead of flagging article using the normal copyvio template, the bot just adds a template to the article or its talk page? Something that signals to a human editor, 'Hey, there's a strong similarity between this new article and that web site. Can someone have a look, please?' Explain in the template that the message was generated automatically, that the matter will be reviewed by a human being, and that the editor should add an explanation – if any – on the talk page.

I think such a compromise would resolve most of the concerns about newbie biting and inadvertant deletion of non-copyvios. The major cost of such a change, of course, is that it would slow down the process—we all know that the vast majority of apparent copyvios turn out to be genuine copyvios. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I see this bot working in conjunction with human editors dealing with the copyright backlog (while I originally raised the issue of a bot deleting some articles, since there is strong opposition to this I would say this is not a feasible option). A human editor would still have to identify an article as a copyright violation and tag the article and provide a url to the original text (which is the current copyright violation process). Then if the bot could analyze the article text and the original text and give a percent similarity (50%, 90%, 100%) a human admin could come in and look at a large numbers of these articles and their percents and urls and delete those that rise to a certain level. If an article didn't rise to a certain level, or if the url was to a mirror site or something, the admin wouldn't delete without first examining the situation. As I see it, the bot would not be deleting the articles but merely aiding in examining the copyright problem. As it is now, the huge backlog is a problem that must be dealt with before it grows even bigger as Wikipedia grows. After all, we don't want to be found libel under copyright law for allowing copyrighted text to stay up on Wikipedia for long periods of time.--Alabamaboy 13:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see hot the bot giving a percentage really helps. Even if it is a 100% copy you still have to go to the source and determine if it is a possible copyright violation. So what time is saved? Kotepho 16:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if the bot gave a 100 or 90% rating and the url wasn't to a mirror site, I'd say the admin could safely delete the article. That's where the time saving would come in.--Alabamaboy 18:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That seems like an over simplification to me, if you go to the site and it says licensed under the GFDL? or that the author release it into public domain? It might be a 100% copy but certainly not eligble for instant deletion. Similarly I'm sure how you would recognise for sure it was/wasn't a mirror without visiting the site itself. --pgk^(talk) 19:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think where a bot would be useful is in finding probable locations of copyrighted material, and tagging the article with the apporpriate URL. I don't think this would be a terribly difficult task, and once my work settles down a bit, a task I look forward to taking a shot at. joshbuddy^talk 00:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be sweet. I've been finding a lot of copyvios as we get to the dregs of each month at Category:Articles that need to be wikified. There is usually a very large percentage of copyvios in the category, but when you get down to the last few for that month, it's even worse. They also tend to be harder to find, since the easy ones are picked off first.

If you want to find possible copyvios, you could get a bot to look for articles with extra spacing between paragraphs, indented paragraphs, huge sections of text with no paragraphs, three or more spaces between words or after periods, no spaces between parentheses and text, articles that start a new line of text without a <br>, colon, asterisk or pound sign, and articles that don't start new lines before asterisks. Obviously, an article would have to have several instances of one of these or a combination of them to avoid marking a lot of non-copyvios for human review. The articles would be added to a possible copyvio category and people who like finding them could identify the source, or mark it for cleanup or wikification for non-copyvios. -- Kjkolb 02:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Metehan1992

This user has posted ridiculous material on the article O. Henry. I havn't reverted his edits, but please keep an eye on him. 19:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

urgent call for help

Foekervenflemer (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has been edit warring over the Roadblocks in the North Western United States article for over 2 days now, and has made multiple personal attacks, and is now on his ninth revert in 48 hours, that's like an 8RR violation, user is also spitting out racial slurs left and right, and is clearly too hostile to remain an editor here on wikipediaPokipman 22:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The first step for you is to give the correct username, as that user has no contributions.

The second step for you is to give the correct article name, as that article does not exist. --Golbez 22:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I know what this looks like, but it is in fact a serious problemPokipman 22:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• you're a fucking a liar, I hope they all know that--Foekervenflemer 22:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like they're bringing a flamewar here from somewhere else. I'd suggest blocking both of them and deleting Roadblocks in the North Western United States --Carnildo 23:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold and done all that. --Golbez 23:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It's probably the troll who likes to report nonexistant wars here. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please delete this

I put Syd Barret's address on his article by accident, please remove it completely (deletion) as it's notoriously secret and should not be on the internet - 84.9.99.252 00:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 00:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, last time I go near wikipedia wasted... until next week, probably - 84.9.99.252 00:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed up everything now. Interesting attempt at fixing everything when my cache wasn't clearing properly, but I think everything's done now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ZAROVE

The Arbitration Committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ZAROVE case. ZAROVE is prohibited from editing Acharya S or any related pages, and from making any comment on any page about her or her son. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

DieYuppieScum (talk · contribs)

I came across this chap as he was editing a subpage of his—the charmingly titled User:DieYuppieScum/Hey terrorists, terrorize this! The block log informs us that MarkSweep (talk · contribs) blocked him last September, some 5 months or so after he signed up and began contributing with admirable industry to numismatics-related articles on WP. However, two minutes after placing the block Mark unblocked, with the summary legitimate contributor with unfortunate username. I concur entirely that he is a "legitimate contributor" and that he has an "unfortunate username"; I'm not so sure that the correct response to this is to let it be. Perhaps someone with more experience with the policy and technicalities of username changes might be willing to look into this? Regards —Encephalon 06:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, he is certainly a good contributor, as the article in that subpage is a request in WikiProject Numismatics. That said, you can surely ask him politely if he'd like to change usernames to prevent further username blocks by admins who stumble upon him and think he is violating Wikipedia:Username. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Tito, I know. I was simply hoping that someone who knows off the top of his head what the technical requirements are might go do it—you know, like bright, enthusiastic bureaucrat nominees who have this stuff at the tips of their fingers.;-p But never mind, I've gone and read that page now, so I'll do it. —Encephalon 07:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, the title is a joke -- a line from action-movie parody Team America: World Police. I don't even like these guys and I recognized the line (it's in the trailer, that's why).--Calton | Talk 02:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Admin reserves/Acting Admins

This will help you guys to handle future problems. You create what is known as a Admin reserve. These will be "acting Admins" who are users who will be Admins for one month at the time, can be decommissioned AS admins by the real Admins for just cause. These reserve Admins are to come from long standing Wikipedia citizens. It'll take 2 real Admins to decommission a Acting Admin for just cause, teach the citizens about what being a Admin is all about, and if they do a good job,for one year, these will become regular Admins. The "Acting Admin" is to have a timer placed on the User page, have no means of resetting it, except by the real Admins. These "acting Admins are to be appointed, not nominated, elected. Is this a good idea ? Or a lousy one ? Martial Law 20:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC) :)

I have been attacked by a Sockpuppet bug. Heading to the appropriate area NOW !!!! Martial Law 20:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC) :)

If those acting admins are to be recruited from long-standing Wikipedians (with good reputation, I presume), what would prevent them from running for an actual admin post and get elected instead? I guess I don't quite understand the purpose of having two kinds of admins.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a emergency reserve, just like the reserves in the US Military and some US police forces, usually not entitled to run for political office while in the reserves,( while the citizens can run for office), because they can be called to active duty if the need arose, just like serving in the military or the police force. Martial Law 20:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Like all who hold power, they are to know this: With power comes responsibility and accountability. Martial Law 21:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Still not seeing why we need a second type of admin, and I'm not a big fan of the whole "admins-as-police/military" analogy some people seem to be so fond of. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Temp admins can be appointed IF needed but there are so many admins on english wikipedia this is not only not needed but seems like a large waste of time and resources. My feeling is if they can be trusted with powers for a month then can be trusted forever. Mike _{(T C)} 00:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The Administrators' Noticeboard is not for new policy proposals about administrators. Ral315 (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Links

Have I found all of the links in Wikipedia ? I've been using them as a quick access reference to different Wikipedia protocol. Martial Law 01:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Look, Martial Law, could you please stop posting questions on the Admins' noticeboard that people like Bunchofgrapes have already answered? It's not the place for them, and you won't get anything different than what you've already been told. This page gets long enough just from relevant questions. Bishonen | talk 01:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC).

Will do. Martial Law 02:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Gaffe

Er, I think I have made a serious gaffe deleting Human nature which when I looked at the edit history I though was just a redirect to Human Nature (disambiguation), but checking afterwards there were 190 edits. I can't quite seem to restore them, please help! Tim! 09:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The one that should have got nuked was Human Nature. Tim! 09:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It still exists as I can see it here just the history doesn't show up when I hit the tab. Tim! 09:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the redirect of Human nature, all looks good now. Martin 09:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks a million! Tim! 09:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a word of warning

Don't know for sure, but figured I'd rather be safe than sorry. Over at Wikibooks, we had a WoW-type vandal, Im In Bed, moving things to "article name in bed". Just thought we might like to keep an eye out for more "In Bed" type names here as well. And pardon me if this is already well-known. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Be careful... Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I am being careful... but thanks for the reminder. ;-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

lol --Syrthiss 11:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Videofreakboy91

Videofreakboy91 (talk · contribs) has spent most of this morning uploading unlicenced images and promoting an unofficial videogame Halloween: Awakening. He's ignored warnings about image copyrights (keeps uploading unfree pics after notices), has removed warning tags on image pages (eg. [4] [5] [6] among many), and twice removed an AfD tag on his game's article ([7] and [8]). Seeing as how I've just been undoing his nonsense edits for about an hour now, could another admin take the necessary step of blocking this user? Thanks. Harro5 01:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Your wish is granted. Looks like this user has been blocked indefinitely. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that block is quite harsh, so I've changed it to 1 week. Sceptre didn't even leave him a note on why he was blocked. I'll give him one more chance after his block expires, and after that I think an indef would be justified. ~MDD4696 14:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Doboszenski Farmstead

Could someone close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Doboszenski Farmstead? It seems to have slipped through the cracks. I looked for it on the AfD page that it was supposedly supposed to be relisted on, but did not find it. -- Kjkolb 16:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Closed. It's not listed at any daily AfD. I'll check what happened. - Liberatore(T) 16:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It was delisted from the AfD of March 26, presumably by mistake. I have relisted it. - Liberatore(T) 17:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Special page "dead-end pages" hasn't been updated.

For a few weeks the Dead-end pages section hasn't been updated even though links have been put into the mentioned documents. Myself and quite a few other people are trying to clean this up but it hasn't updated in awhile so it is hard to see which ones need attention. Please help; no one is responding to the talk section of the page. --Unreal128 18:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There's an editable version (i.e; you can remove the titles taken care of) at Wikipedia:Dead-end_pages --Calton | Talk 02:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Category deletion

Do you delete "Category:Images with no copyright tag as of 2 April 2006" or similar (older than seven days) when you have gotten rid of image that don't have a copyright tag? Thanks, Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 15:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, why not? User:dbenbenn 17:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Once that kind of category is emptied, it can be speedily deleted. ~MDD4696 17:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

FreddySmith, Bobtherandomguy

I was emailed a little while ago about FreddySmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and judging by the sender's email address and name tag, I assume it was sent by Bobtherandomguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Sir/Madam I please request that you do something to the User FreddySmith he has mercilously edited the wikipedia and I do not beleive he knows its function if you may I plea that you will block him from editing anymore becausew I know him and he will not listen to reason or inteleggence hostile action must be taken

I looked at FreddySmith's contributions, and came to the conclusion that FreddySmith's account was created not for creating an encyclopedia, but instead for attacking other users (probably his real life friends), and adding nonsense on their userpages, and so blocked him indefinitely. I started clearing up his mess, (including, admins: User:Oboon0206) but soon realised that this was more than what it seemed. I don't know what's up, but between FreddySmith and Bobtherandomguy, they created a whole lot of mess. I would appreciate anybody who could look at the situation, see if my block was called for (and possibly if Bobtherandomguy needs blocking too), and to feedback on the best way to clean up their mess. Thanks, — FireFox • T [18:00, 15 April 2006]

FYI - I've CFD'd Category:My_Best_Friends_pages because it doesn't qualify as a CSD. --M@thwiz2020 19:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedied - obvious crap doens't need a CSD. --Doc ^ask? 21:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You speedied it by "being bold" - well, someone had to, I guess. --M@thwiz2020 21:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Reporting to WP:AN a bad thing?

The one time I tried to use this to get administrator assistance I was condemned for "escalating a conflict." The "conflict" being one user continuously following me around harassing me, with blatant incivility. I'm curious, when is reporting an incident to WP:AN discouraged? Or is this just a joke? KI 18:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you'll have to be more specific, the only thing I can find is this, where the response certainly doesn't codemn you for anything, the admin in question says they've responded on your talk page which is [9] which again doesn't look to me to condemning you for anything. --pgk^(talk) 19:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Can someone delete this

I created this page in error. Can an admin delete it? Thanks. Batmanand | Talk 22:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Next time, just tag it {{db-author}}. Kusma (討論) 22:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah... forgot about that. Sorry, and thanks. Batmanand | Talk 23:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Goodandevil (talk · contribs)

Goodandevil (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has been making tendentious edits to the article on partial birth abortion for some time, in support of his (strongly anti-abortion) POV. I've warned him more than once to stop, GTBacchus has been along to endorse that, he has again reverted to his preferred wording, so I have given him a 24 hour block to cool off. The article is subject to low-level vandalism, but G&E seems to be the main problem at present. Just zis Guy you know? 22:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Bad user pages

Commons:User:Duesentrieb has provided me with a list of user pages for users who don't exist. There are about 2800 entries in the list. Many of the pages ought to be deleted; many others ought to be moved elsewhere. If you're looking for something to do, and you're tired of RC patrol, please come help out! User:dbenbenn 23:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you want to do with the list? Entry one, User:Anarres, looks like it is a user (Special:Contributions/Anarres). Are there more like that on the list? --M@thwiz2020 00:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

On the first ten, #1,3,5,7,9,10 all have contribs. --M@thwiz2020 00:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hm, very interesting. There's obviously something bolloxed in the database, because the database really doesn't think that User:Anarres exists. At the user page, there's no "User contributions" link in the toolbox, and at Special:Contributions/Anarres the user name (For Anarres) is greyed out. User:dbenbenn 00:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, we could ask Interiot for a quick report on the Toolserver... if it was up. :( This is the second time since the Toolserver went down that I've needed it for a project! --M@thwiz2020 00:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The toolserver is up, just not getting updates; the replica of the database there isn't that old, and it could be used to check what's up. --cesarb 00:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears that many user accounts have simply been deleted (or lost). For example, User:Ķûŕṕś existed on January 7, but doesn't exist now. Oh well, I guess that makes the list pretty useless. User:dbenbenn 00:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait a little bit. I recall something about contributions from before Phase III sometimes appearing without any user account (because the conversion from Phase III wiped the accounts, or something like that). This means that there's nothing unusual about a username with contributions from 2001 (which AFAIK means before phase3) not existing as a user account. And the unicode one might be a mistake by Curps; perhaps some software of his got confused by some unusual use of Unicode. Unless someone can find a username with a normal name (no Unicode abuse), with recent contributions (after phase3 was installed), and with no account (no Special:Contributions link from the user page), there's no need to worry. --cesarb 01:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

And, by the way, if someone wants to check with the toolserver replica, the contributions would IIRC have a user ID of zero in these pre-phase3 cases. --cesarb 01:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Further proof that the cause of the issue is the conversion to phase3: [10] shows the presence of the Conversion script.

I've only been on wiki since Feb 05, so what's Phase III? --M@thwiz2020 01:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying that, CesarB. I haven't really been able to find any recent users with contribs who don't exist. Perhaps MediaWiki used to allow you to block non-existing users (hence the confusion with User:Ķûŕṕś). I found a user that contributed in December 2005 and no longer exists, but that's probably a special case.

So, the list does show plenty of pages that need to be cleaned up, for example wrongly done user subpages, or user pages created by people who misspelled their own names (example User:HarrimanHikers. User:dbenbenn 01:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

New instances regarding NPA violations

Please see the following instances regarding Apostrophe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see [11] above for history): makes no sense whatosever, piss me off, pointless.Netkinetic 04:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Kris10le

User:Kris10le has been adding unsourced images (depsite warnings on talk page) to various pages, and is now engaged in adding irrelevant large images versions to other various pages (including disambig pages). I've tried to clean up so far, but could do with admin help! Heycos 23:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks to to those who dealt with this - looks to be under control for the time being! Heycos 23:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Accusation made against me

I have been accused of being a sockpuppet of Hamish Ross, presumably by JPS. Please verify that the only username that I have logged into is Gypsy Eyes, and further verify the good faith nature of my edits. Further, please look into the actions of User: The JPS regarding the articles Hamish Ross and, more paticularly, Fred Moss. 83.146.55.85 14:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You should place a request at WP:RFCU to verify to anyone that you are not a sockpuppet. I will check on User:The JPS. --Durin 18:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• After a cursory review, I don't see what User:The JPS has done to merit concern. I do note that you made three reversions of Fred Moss within 24 hours, which butts up against WP:3RR. The first and best way to work these things out is via the talk page of the article in question rather than engaging in reversions. --Durin 19:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I went past the 3 reversions, but I thought I only did do 3. I think we're currently being a bit more civil at the moment about it, but I would like more feed back on the request for undeletion thing. Posted about being unsockpuppetted as well, cheers 83.146.55.85 19:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• That's great! Just to keep in mind; WP:3RR doesn't mean you're allowed to revert 3 times in 24 hours. It's just a metric for showing when a revert war is getting out of hand. Many people ascribe to a one revert rule. If you get reverted, start working with people on the respective talk pages. The revert wars just tend to inflame angers, even if you're strictly speaking within the bounds of WP:3RR. --Durin 21:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Now Hiring created

I created WP:HIRE. I thought some of you would be interested. :) cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 21:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thankfully someone had the sense to nominate this nonsense for deletion Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Now Hiring. We are NOT mercenaries. --Doc ^ask? 11:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This would be a good thing. It's worked fine, as far as I can tell, on the German edition since last July. We should not dictate the motives behind those working on Wikipedia (some argue that utter selflessness is the goal). We only need to worry about whether people follow policy. — Matt Crypto 11:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

OK (and I realise that I started it) but let's have this discussion at MfD and not here. --Doc ^ask? 12:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism and insult

I would like to call to your attention the article "J. Allen Hynek" which I have completed (additions, sections, chronological order, sources) and which now is attacked by an anonymous user who reverts to an old version giving no reasons and calling me names. (I suspect it is a certain German who harasses me re the Hynek passages in the German Project Blue Book article in the same manner. This user has never contributed to the article here, i.e. the IP No. is not to be found anywhere in the history.) I did not really know how to react, so I don't know whether my answer was appropriate. Could you please perhaps have an eye on this? I would be very grateful. Bwilcke 03:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hamish Ross

Two admins, mushroom and the JPS are abusing their priviliges regarding two recently created articles, Fred Moss and Hamish Ross. They keep blocking anyone who attempts to edit them, on the basis that they are sockpuppets of a previous vandal account, Hamish Ross who was blocked permanently a few days ago, and then revert their edits. Please do not allow this abuse of privilige to continue. Work on these two articles is being hindered as a result of it.--84.68.71.31 01:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

And now MikeHobday is maliciously adding sockpuppet tags to any account that deals with this. This is extremely unfair. Also, another user just deleted Hamish Ross. Please can someone restore it?--84.64.33.168 13:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted for nn-bio, and validly so. It said: "Hamish Ross is a magistrate in Cambridgeshire has ever seen. He is known for the harsh sentences he passes down upon Irish Travellers." What on earth could that mean? enochlau (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that whole thing was an unholy mess. All the socks that have editied the Fred Ross page have been permanently banned. I've perma-banned User:Hamish Ross, deleted his attack image and attack sound file, and deleted and protected the Fred Ross page. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I did almost all the work on the Fred Moss (not Ross at all), and none of that article was an 'attack' article. It was all backed up with sources, and we were even reaching a consensus on the image. 83.146.55.85 15:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The above anon is attempting to open up a request for mediation in this matter (of course ignoring the dispute resolution process). It is clear that this guy is a sock of one of Hamish Ross and/or the one perpetrating the above mentioned nonsense. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring? You act as though I'm supposed to know about every damn process on wikipedia. I am no sock of Hamish Ross, and as you've already made up your mind of course you should have nothing to do with this. How the hell am I supposed to see this as anything other than a conspiracy against me? DID YOU EVEN READ THE ARTICLE? HOW THE HELL IS IT AN ATTACK PAGE? 83.146.55.85 16:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The media files associated with it were attacks. The page itself was deleted as NN-Bio, non-notable biography (see WP:BIO). Additionally, please see also WP:DRV to request a review of the deletion (although I'd reckon other admins have already had a peek at it). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The media files associated with it were perfectly valid. This is all a major conspiracy.--Judge Wiley Stroker 18:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

External linkwarring

On the Keyra Augustina article, anons and new accounts are frequently changing the links back and forth and back and forth... [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. Semiprotection of the page over this would be going too far but what can be done? It's surely not ideal to keep changing the external links back and forth every few hours. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 14:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a problem here. There are only 1 or 2 changes to the article per day and the article editors seem to be handling the situation okay. I will state, though, that the page appears to be in copyright violation for the images it uses. You might want to see if you can address this concern.--Alabamaboy 15:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll check the images, thanks for the heads up on that. The linkwarring doesn't seem too bad really, I guess, but it just seems unnecessary to me for them to edit it constantly. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 17:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Watch the blanking warnings

Hi everybody. Just a note to ask people to watch out when reverting part-blanking of articles: there may be a bug (affecting me and at least 2 other editors) that means the full article is not loading into the edit window.

If you see an edit that cuts the bottom off an article, of course revert it. But revert it manually - it's not vandalism - and above all don't warn the editor with a template. Write to them personally, perhaps to point them at Bugzilla #5643, but don't warn or block for it without good reason! Thanks folks. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

...I've never seen anything link this... so far. Howver I did see it, but I am certainly sure it was vandlism; I did warn him/her. Thanks, Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 19:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Kherli

User:Kherli has carried on a campaign of advocacy starting at an article titled m/z misconception, that is now deleted and then at mass-to-charge ratio. Mediation has failed. Currently the article only has factual inaccuracies, misleading information and disproportionate representation but that is after an extended period of being corrected by myself and other users, incl. moderators about advocacy. He has learned that to push his POV he must appear legit. Also not his user page which is a diatribe against m/z.

--Nick Y. 22:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Fred Moss

A group of rogue administrators have been conspiring to prevent the creation of the Fred Moss article. The page survived votes for deletion, but since then this small band of vandals has deleted the article and has been using terror tactics to prevent its re-creation. Those who edit the page or even so much as argue for its existence are tagged as sockpuppets of a vandal, Hamish Ross and are then blocked unfairly. All their edits are removed and messages are deleted so no-one can read the valid arguments. They also claimed that an uploaded .ogg file version of the Fred Moss page contained vandalism, even though they offered no proof. Something has got to be done about this, it simply isn't fair, they are abusing their admin priviliges.

Here is the list:

• Bishonen
• CanadianCaesar
• Ciphergoth
• Enochlau - I have nothing to do with the Fred Moss article. I speedily deleted the Hamish Ross article, which I maintain was correctly speedily deleted under nn-bio. enochlau (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• FreplySpang
• Jeffrey_O._Gustafson
• Knucmo2
• Mdd4696
• MikeHobday
• Mushroom
• Prodego - Actually I just made a mistake, sorry about that... Prodego ^talk 23:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• The_JPS
• Titoxd

Please someone help me to prevent this despicable behaviour from occurring on wikipedia.--Judge Jew 22:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Those guys...? That's not a small band of vandals, that's the Rouge Admin Posse. Seriously, I've reviewed the history of the deleted page, and you don't have a toe to stand on. And where is this votes for deletion page for the article of which you speak? I can't find it. Bishonen | talk 22:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC).

You have to love this, though... Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think someone didn't know we could still view deleted pages. :-) Prodego ^talk 22:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You can, others can't... ;) Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, speaking meaning 'we' as 'the admins' of course... Prodego ^talk 22:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Fred Moss and Fred Ross are not the same article, fools! Judge The JPS 23:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ummm.... whoops. Prodego ^talk 23:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Anything we can do about Judge Jew to stop this silliness?--Alabamaboy 23:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a RFM on the issue here, I recomend anyone interested expresses their argument there. Sorry about the mistake. Prodego ^talk 23:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This has only got silly because of rudeness and the complexity of following wikipedia's official procedures. You might want to think about that and why we (us judges [and I'm not claiming that evey judge is an individual, but there are more than 3 of us]) have resorted to this [hint: hopefully the publicity will spur someone into looking into the articles properly]) Judge IRN-BRU 23:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask that in future that you do not create 3 separate sections in WP:AN about the same issue? It makes it hard to follow. enochlau (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Very important Confession

User:The_JPS is a sockpuppet of mine. Please ban it. Judge The JPS 23:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I would like this to be my username. To prove it is really The JPS, I will not sign in in the next 20 minutes. Judge The JPS 23:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the double meaning of what I typed, and was in the process of fixing it when you blocked me, so well done for the quick reactions, I supposed Judge IRN-BRU 23:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that tit has blocked Judge the JPS for being an abusive sockpuppet. There is nothing abusive about this--Judge Oliver Mitchell 23:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, shouldn't this have been a username change? Secondly, Judge The JPS didn't really prove that he owned both accounts. ~MDD4696 23:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure I did, now please block Judge The JPS, im bored with that one--Judge The PDA 23:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I personally believe him or her_{you sexist pig}. Judge IRN-BRU 23:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism and harassment

I again would like to call your attention to J. Allen Hynek. Thank you very much for your help recently (see "Vandalisms and insult" above). And now I can see that my suspicion was true – it is my "special friend" from Germany. Because, you know, he deleted so many new paragraphs before only for the purpose to get exactly that one paragraph back, he had "re-reinstalled" again. I deleted it giving my reasons. The paragraph in question had been integrated in most part into the first one in the new section "UFO origin hypothesis" written by me, but he does not care. Now the paragraph is in the article twice. He doesn't care. And he placed it in section "Project Blue Book", where it does not belong. It's all the same to him. (See)". Could you help him to realize that he will not succeed with his senseless edit-war and harassment here? Or what else would you advise me to do? -- Bwilcke 21:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Apostrophe

Readdressing matter above which has not been responded to regarding Apostrophe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This editor was initially advised by administrator Stifle here to observe civility and please do not bite newcomers. Still, he has persisted in violating these and other policies in the following instances [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. This is only a small sampling of this user's persistently hostile attitude towards multiple editors. He is ignoring written warnings to modify his behaviour to conform with Wikipedia standards. Please assist, thank you. Netkinetic 06:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've given him a final warning. Superm401 - Talk 06:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much. Hopefully he'll respond favorably. Netkinetic 20:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 24 hours now, as he didn't choose to take much notice of the warnings. Stifle (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the next time he does it, block for a month. After that, indefinately. I have a feeling he'll still be rough when the block is up. — Deckiller 00:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see the following examples "you clearly have problems...the height of arrogance or irony" and "keep your own opinions to yourself".Netkinetic 04:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Because you were professing to give an authoritve opinion when it wasn't. I asked for an administrator's opinion, not of yours. What is difficult to understand about this, Netty? Indeed, I pointed out an observation about your haste to label opposing edits as vandalism, which has occurred with an anon and now over the Multiverse thing, which I don't particularly care about; that's a observation, not a personal attack. Regardless, you seem awfully intent on getting me into trouble despite me ignoring comic book articles for a while. Why? Do you feel the need to get back at me for the 3RR thing? ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 04:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Your question on your talk page did not address a specific individual nor specify a particular timeframe relating to your query, hence my response. That said, as long as you are civil in your edit summaries and comments towards fellow editors, I'm perfectly content with your contributions towards streamlining content here. Netkinetic 23:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Come on, ''s edit summaries are amusing. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 07:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

User not removing fair use images from userspace

On 14 April 2006, I removed a fair use image from User:Kingsean1's userpage (diff). My grounds for the removal of these images is Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy item #9. On 16 April 2006, Kingsean1 reverted the removal without comment or edit summary (diff). On 16 April 2006, I left a note on his talk page requesting that he remove the image in question as it was a fair use image ([26]). Since then, Kingsean1 deleted my comment from his talk page, ignoring my request for him to remove the image. I've no wish to engage in an edit/revert war with this individual, and am thus posting this here for other admins to comment and/or take corrective action. --Durin 12:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• A very similar set of circumstances applies as well to User:Shanedidona. Removal of images: [27]. Shanedidona reverts, calling it vandalism: [28]. Left message on talk page: [29]. User continues editing without removing image (see [30]). --Durin 12:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• And another: User:Max rspct. Removal of image: [31]. Max rspct reverts: [32]. Left message on talk page: [33]. Max rspct then responded, [34]. I responded, [35]. User continued editing after this, apparently ignoring the request. Also note the user had a mild confrontation with another editor yesterday who removed fair use images from Max rspct's userpage (see [36]). --Durin 17:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The editor in question was me. He used the edit summary "do not revert this" when removing the comments I left from his talk page but I just left it as the images had been removed [37]. He suggested I "check my civility" and "play with my own user page" [38] (The "check my civility" bit was because I pointed him to WP:CIVIL having had him say "Get off my userpage" [39]). To be honest, I just want the images removed and to totally forget about this. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 18:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I just had to revert again. It should also be noted that this user repeatedly blanks his user talk page to remove messeges left there. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Kingsean1 has made a total of four edits to mainspace, all back in November. The entire rest of the account activity has been edits to their userspace (and an article Talk edit). If this user continues to revert back to a userpage with unfree images on it, just block them until they agree to follow policy. Jkelly 19:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Max rspct is on the edge of incivility on his talk page in response to this. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Page protection is your fried here although it would be best to get someone else to do it.Geni 23:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Max rspct added a new image (public domain, according to its description). I gave a final warning to Kingsean1, warning him that he may be blocked or have his user page protected if he doesn't stop. My suggestion would be that if he does it again, we block him for 48 hours and protect the page. Ral315 (talk) 05:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't block just lock down the page.Geni 13:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; violating our copyright principles is something that can get us in hot water. If the user does not stop after being warned, a block is in order. Ral315 (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There's not a lot of difference between this and a user who keeps posting up copyrighted material in article space. I don't think a block is inappropriate. enochlau (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

User Talk:Cool Cat

I am having difficulty explaining user:MegamanZero that I want to keep that red link on my userpage which he sees as 'sillyness' ^[40]. I have warned him numerous times but I seem to have failed in reaching him. I was wondering if someone else would notify him to stop revert waring against me on my talk page. I do NOT desire MegamanZero to be blocked at this point. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 11:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

He's only done it once. If he continues, I will warn him. - FrancisTyers 12:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats probably the sixth time... --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Going back a month, I see at least 4 or 5 of these reverts, kind of a slow motion revert war. Doesn't make it right though, he should stop. Rx StrangeLove 18:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps create a "stub" page so the red link turns blue? Mike _{(T C)} 04:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Neutrality

User:Neutrality, an admin, has acted in a disruptive manner in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singapore. Specifically, he voted "object" four times in bold style [41] [42] [43] [44], including one edit improperly signed. This confuses the discussion and would later hamper the FAC closing. One user has suggested to him to consolidate his objections, [45], but to no avail. Such behaviour is hardly exemplary of a wikipedia-admin; if persist or imitated, this would disrupt processes in FAC, VFD, RFA, etc.. I hope to bring this to your attention. This is my first post at WP:AN, if this is done incorrectly, please let me know. Cheers. --Vsion 20:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a minor beef. In fact, he has done nothing beyond the pale, here. Nor has Neutrality misused his admin powers. AN is not the right place for this. This posting is completely innapropriate. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

FAC is one of the few processes at WP that genuinely isn't a vote...it makes perfect sense to me to add new objections to the end as they come in. This makes it easier for the nominator or other edits to address problems as they are identified. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia:Featured article candidates should be modified so it is clear that this is acceptable, since it is the opposite of AfD. -- Kjkolb 08:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Future TV shows

Is speculation on future TV episodes encyclopedic? Template:Future_tvshow seems to indicate the such content is allowable, yet the template contradicts just about everything at WP:NOT under the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" section. We currently have a policy for all Lost-related pages (located at the top of Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 2)) that states such content cannot be included. Can an admin who is not partaking in these Lost discussions give an unbiased opinion on the matter? Thanks. --M@thwiz2020 23:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

My opinion would be that speculation is allowed, if it can be sourced, and if it's not just one fan's rumor (i.e. semi-reliable). I would say that if a news source (not a message board) reports on a rumor, or at least the existence of a rumor, it doesn't violate the "Crystal Ball" principle. Anything else violates WP:NOR. Ral315 (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, current policy on Lost pages is to only allow speculation from "the ABC website, official LOST websites, official episode descriptions, and interviews with cast/producers/writers/directors." I guess that covers all the sources you said - a news source would be the ABC website or an interview, and none of the above contain message boards. So, do you think the policy is adequate? If so, should ? (Lost) and Three Minutes (Lost) be deleted as they are both articles about future episodes contain purely speculation from message boards, spoiler sites, etc. and no official sources? However, I don't see a qualifying reason for CSD - well, except for being bold, if that counts. --M@thwiz2020 00:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

{{prod}} it then. enochlau (talk) 03:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I added prod and it was removed so I have now added the db tag since it is a blatant violation of WP:NOT a crystal ball. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the response to a removal of a prod be a TFD rather than a speedy proposal?-Polotet 06:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Normally yes but since this is a blatant violation of an official policy it qualifies as a speedy. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it really doesn't. Please use {{prod}} or WP:AFD for things that don't meet WP:CSD's express, intentionally-limited criteria. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It does (did) because it was a violation of a clearly written and existing policy. I'll remove the redlinks that were created by this. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Just so there's no confusion I will be removing the redlinks on my main account and personally checkng and approving every edit. Mostly because it's not benign enough to do by bot and secondly I don't entirely trust a find and replace mechanism to do this correctly. For the record there were 94 instances of this template transcluded on other pages at the time it was speedied as per my request as a [[WP:NOT}] violation. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 07:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this template was in fact a violation of WP:NOT. The relevant section says, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." I don't know about all of the articles which used this template, but I'm sure that there are many individual television episodes which could be described as "almost certain to take place". Whether they are notable is another question, but since the larger issue of whether individual television episodes should have pages is still open, I don't see why an individual episode scheduled to air in two weeks is intrinsically less notable than an individual television episode which aired last month.

It is true that pages which use this template may be chronic violators of WP:NOT, but that's not the fault of the template. If anything, that's a reason for the template's existence: editors could use it to patrol such pages and make sure that everything in them is factual and appropriately cited (as Ral315 suggests above).

I also don't see a substantial difference between this template and Template:Future election, Template:Future film or most of the rest of Category:Temporal templates. I think that this deletion should have been discussed at WP:TfD before it was implemented. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Having just had my watchlist flooded with incidents of this template being removed, I've had to look on the template talk page and through the TfD logs before, via Pegasus1138's contribution history, discovering that the discussion, which seems to show a lack of consensus to delete, was here. Given that the template was very widely used, speedying it seems all the more inappropriate. The only criterion for speedy deletion of templates is "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory", and that clearly doesn't apply here - nor does it come under any of the "General" criteria. This should have gone to TfD. —Whouk (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have nominated the template for undeletion. --RayaruB 15:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I consider the manner of deletion of this template to be 100% incorrect. You don't just slap a speedy on a challenged PROD, particularly not when it requires you to invent a brand new speedy criterion on-the-fly, and respectable editors are telling you not to do it. Adam_Bishop (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) should not have deleted the template with such a ficticious speedy tag on it. I have, therefore, per the obviousness of the situation and the debate at WP:DRV reversed the deletion and Pegasus1138 mass-removal of the template from articles. Had I seen him removing them at the time, I would certainly have blocked him. Also, I should say that I used administrative rollback with &bot=1 to accomplish this to save both my time and RC-flood (the new option on watchlists also helps here). I dropped a note on Pegasus1138's talk page that I was going to proceed in this manner and made clear that I was not treating him as a vandal. -Splash^talk 17:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well if your willing to find a better way to get rid of things that blatantly violate policy then I'd be greatly interested in your proposal but until then we only have the tools available to us and I think it's unfair to act like I'm the only one who stretches speedy criteria to get rid of things that are policy vios. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 17:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You have WP:TFD that is able to delete template that break policy, and is actually fairly decent at doing so as long as they are not userboxes. This is entirely analogous to AfD deleting things like hoaxes etc, which WP:NOT but which we don't speedy. I'd therefore propose the use of such processes next time. -Splash^talk 17:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, since you appear to be one who assumes good faith (from my interactions with you so far) I assume you would have asked me to stop at (at which time I would have) and then blocked if it continued. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 17:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but when someone is going at 4-5 edits per minute, a 15-minute block to stop things quickly followed by a talk-page clarification can be the better way to go. (That's what I meant by block, btw, not a full-blown 24hrs or anything). -Splash^talk 17:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Not into the OMG ROUGE ADMIN style blocks? Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 17:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

As per the comment that I should get this done properly if at all I have put the template up on TFD. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 17:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 talkpage history

User:Musical Linguist deleted the revision history of User talk:Str1977[[46]] given Str's history of blanking unfavourable messages about his action and Ann's close relationship with Str I think it would be best if an unrelated admin would restore the revision history apart from what seems a revision that breaches guidelines (after checking that fact). Agathoclea 06:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This realates to WP:AN/I#Personal_information_posted_on_user.27s_talk_page_but_not_by_them and the revision requiring removal. I'll take a look and restore other revisions. --pgk^(talk) 06:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Agathoclea 08:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

New(?) vandalism problem - partial rvv

I've lately seen a vandalism which has seriously messed up two literary articles (the most recent Hamlet), in which an anon vandal made a series of changes, some valid, some not; but since the vandalisms were spread out (and sometimes another person would make a valid edit in between them), an admin would come along, revert the latest vandalism or the latest few vandalisms, but not all the vandalism the anon had done. After awhile, the vandalism would tend to stand because a casual admin wouldn't even realize it has been done.

The most recent case I saw, on Hamlet, had the same vandal make a sprinkle of short valid edits, but removed two entire sections at two different times, without explanation. An admin caught the most recent and reverted two edits, but missed the earlier vandalism, which removed the section "Hamlet as a character." It was a very extensive section, and had a dead internal link to it, so I explored to see why it was removed, and then discovered the vandalisms.

So my point is: When you see a vandalism, especially on an article that's not watched closely (like literary vs. political) see what other edits the same editor has made. Otherwise we may lose valuable material for a period of time (with Hamlet it was a month) or for good. -- Cecropia 19:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent reminder; in general, one person who's vandalised will tend to vandalise more. Checking the contributions of the user is an excellent way of catching more vandalism. Always be vigilent. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This is part of a broader problem for prominent articles: there are so many edits nowadays that if a bit of vandalism slips under the radar it is quickly buried under a mountain of new edits. And then one day you read a particular article and notice a nonsequitur or bit of nonsense or a truncated sentence, it is a major time-consuming archaeological expedition to try to recover the original valid text out of the last few thousand edits (far easier just to remove the damaged text than to fix it). I have seen such damage in major articles like Oprah Winfrey and Osama bin Laden that persisted for weeks or months.

You'd think this would be less of a problem for prominent articles that so many people have on their watchlists, but in fact it's often worse precisely because of the very high editing rate, and the fact that what people are watching is usually only the latest diff and nothing more. -- Curps 22:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

delete history

Could someone help me delete my user page's history? (I am a registered user but not an administrator.)

Situation: I recently found about 50 userboxes and put them all on my userpage. But afterwards I decided they were too dangerous so I deleted them all except three. But the history of them is still there. Could someone delete the history for me? I'm worried about protecting my personal information. Jonathan ^talk 15:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Martin 16:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Jonathan ^talk 23:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Request

• PLEASE delete my name from User talk:Gamaliel his talk page. I have posted a request that he do so, however, it has not been done. I also would like Admin to delete this account and all contributions. I do not want my name associated with Wikipedia, I am considering it "publishing" of personal information. EMN 17:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

(moved from top of this page) Kimchi.sg | talk 18:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have posted on his talk page he has every right to keep your comments and your signature {presumably inserted with ~~~~) on his talk page, also accounts are never deleted and indeed cannot be deleted per the terms of the GFDL once they have made contributions. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 18:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That's understandable, between Gamaliel and the other user--I have not been involved with their conversation about me. They are "talking" about me on a page that's viewable by the public, if they want to investigate me and my activities, I would ask that they correspond between each other through private e-mail. It's only fair. EMN 19:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

They have every right to talk about you on one of their talk pages and I actually think it's better that they're doing it where it can be seen rather than behind your back and you can't really expect to be able to dicate where people talk. I also fail to see how it is unfair to you the method that they are using. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It's funny, I would have removed it had Eric been patient enough for me to get home from work and act upon his request. But while I was away from WP his brain apparently melted. Now I'm certainly not going to remove it without an apology for his racist remarks. Gamaliel 21:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's number one enemy?" You're not even in the top ten, Norcross. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

A possible end to Squidward vandalism

Over the last few weeks, while I was supposed to be on break :) , I have been receiving multiple e-mails from Squidward. After many messages back and forth (the current total is 50), we have come to some terms (I have not promised him anything, before you think I've been pretending to act on wikipedia's behalf.) He has stated that if his name was removed from the vandalism in progress page, as well as the links to other sites (he claims that we have implicated other people, "The Indianna Chess Club" for example) that all the attacks will cease. We could, alternately, delete the whole page, this is something he has been asking for which I thought a bit much, what do you think? I've also been receiving some angry e-mails from other parties whose sites have been implicated here. Apparently the names on this page, have particularly incited him, and I have his word (a vandals word yes, but I am inclined to believe him) that the attacks will stop.

From the e-mail exchange I've come to understand a bit about the background of his vandalist contributions. He started out as a 'normal' editor, but was branded as a vandal from the start. He saw himself as mistreated, and over-reacted to this by becoming what we know as the Squidward vandal.

In my humble opinion, those terms are reasonable and we have little to lose, however, it may be viewed as "giving in". What does everybody think? Banez 22:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Protect the encyclopedia. If the vandalism stops its worth removing it, if not it isn't. (usual not an admin disclaimer) Prodego ^talk 23:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think it really matters. His vandal attacks stop within seconds; the vandalism is reverted within a minute nowadays. But I suppose that's a reason in itself to take him of WP:LTA. --Rory096 23:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't think you would take it off WP:LTA as long as the subject still attempts to vandalize. i.e. WOW is still on WP:LTA but he is usually blocked in seconds Prodego ^talk 23:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If the user stops vandalising, there's no need for an Long term abuse page at all. I see no reason not to delete it in that case. We welcome all contributors, so helping them join the project isn't "giving in". :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 23:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. —Prodego ^talk 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

(4-time edit conflicted) Wikipedia should not "give in" to anybody, espically a vandal. Perhaps after six months of non-activity it could be archived. But for now, if the vandalism continues, there is no reason to remove the entry. The more open proxies that we get, the better. These attacks, while a nuisance, are easy to clean up and give us many IP addresses to block that could have been used for other types of vandalism. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well a show of good faith is always helpful, if Squidward continues, we just put it back. Prodego ^talk 23:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It isnt so much deleting the page (that was an option), he actually wants the name and links removed. Banez 23:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Six months is far too long, in my opinion; that'd be a significant fraction of Wikipedia's entire history. Perhaps delete after three weeks of inactivity, and remove the offending information immediately? We're not "giving in" by doing so; the LTA page is intended only to track vandalism. At the point vandalism stops, the page becomes useless. As Prodego says, assume good faith. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 23:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I was just throwing out a number, the time really doesn't matter, just as long as it stopped. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

We will have to wait and see what happens, but Squidward does appear to have grown tired of it all, and wants an end. Banez 23:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There was a fresh Squidward attack today. -- Curps 17:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure of that, your bot has, shall we say... issues--64.12.116.200 02:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

We do not negotiate with vandals and trolls, that being said if he's willing to stop then I'd suggest blanking and protecting the page which I think is a fair compromise and is also more GFDL sound since deleting things on request would if nothing else violate the GFDL and is a bad precedent. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 23:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I just went ahead and blanked it, on the assumption that he is going to stop. (Can't hurt to try.) If he attacks again, restore it. Ashibaka tock 23:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, since there was just another attack, I'm going to go ahead and restore it.--Shanel 19:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Squidward claims that his IP is huge and shared by many, and that he hasnt done any further attacks...Oh well, who knows... Banez 19:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That statement just proves that Squidward is trying to screw with us. There was indeed an attack, after the page was blanked, and it was in classic Squidward style. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 21:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I have come to that conclusion. I've got tired of getting 30 ranting e-mails a night from him, but yet he still insists that that attack which looked so much like him wasnt in fact him...I can't say I'm not a little skeptical. Banez 06:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a simple answer to that - send em and email stating that any further emails from em will be considered public, and you will forward them(without reading them) to wikien-l. Wait a bit for the wikien-l admins to request that you stop forwarding them, and then simply delete the emails. Simple enough. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I have a question regarding this topic. I have reverted tons of squidward vandalism from multiple users. And, when checking the pages for those users, many have been said to be computer programs designed to vandalize. Do you guys think that this is one person? There is so much squidward junk. I don't see how it can possibly be one person. Also, if it were one person how could he have so many IP adreses? I don't understand how stopping one squidward vandal will stop them all. Can someone please explain this to me. Thnaks. Tobyk777 22:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Collaborative editor

A minor problem over there, Davebrooky (talk · contribs) is pretty insistent on external links to large numbers of minor software products. I've reverted it a few times in the past, but they keep coming back. Davebrooky has now added the following to the start of the article:

Quote from WP:NOT 'There is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia'. Therefore please link to internal articles where they exist, and only to external articles where there are not internal ones (e.g. because the application is in alpha). Administrators have raised concern about this page, so please leave this note here for the moment. Please also expand the article, so that it does not fall foul of any 'merely a list' criteria.

Quite aside fromt he problem of self-reference in main space, I think most of us would recognise that linking to external sites for software which is in alpha is certainly not good. I have recommended that internal links are included where they exist, and other software is discussed in prose in the article body if it has some unique or particularly innovative features which need to be discussed. Just zis Guy you know? 21:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. Wikipedia is not a link farm, and I don't see how the links are benefiting the article at all. Stifle (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I also moved the article since most of them seem to self-describe as collaborative editors (without the real-time). Just zis Guy you know? 15:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

CubsFan2006 adding magzine covers

I am concerned about User:CubsFan2006 adding numerous magazine covers to athelete's article (contributions) in possible violation of fair use. User has been warned numerous times on talk page, but continues to revert and add these images. --mtz206 12:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Stale AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High-C

The AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High-C was started on April 12. It's now April 20, and it hasn't been closed yet. I think the debate has pretty much run its course at this point, complete with excessive legalism. In any case, it's been around longer than the 5-day period for AfD articles. Could an admin take a look at this and close it? Thanks. --Elkman - ^(talk) 13:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

High-C? We have no article by that name... Just zis Guy you know? 14:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Troublesome edits from 207.99.90.253

207.99.90.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s edit history is a mixture of clear vandalism, semi-literate bogus edits that might or might not be vandalism, and some apparently ok edits that probably ought to be fact-checked. Common theme is the Delbarton school. My guess is that the IP address is a shared terminal or proxy at the school being used by multiple students. The troublesomeness is that blocking a multiple-user address isn't so attractive. Phr 16:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to mark administrators like featured articles

Please see relevant discussion at [47]. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Luka Jačov

User:Luka Jačov has been soliciting votes on IRC for two weeks now. Today, he's trying to solicit votes on Wikipedia:Deletion Review#Dis-Connection over an AfD he lost. --VKokielov 19:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I was alerted by VKokielov on IRC just a few minutes about this, and I told him to post it here. If more of this (vote solicitation) happens, I'll block for disruption. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandal bombing

A vandal has bombed the O RLY? article with a gazillion pics of the "orly owl" and I can't seem to get rid of it. Looks like advanced vandalism to me; can any admins help us out with this? Thanks in advance. Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!.... 23:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, it's fixed. Thanks anyways. :) Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!.... 23:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If this happens in the future, try going to the article URL with "?action=purge" added to the end. It will clear both Wikipedia's and your browser's caches. Superm401 - Talk 18:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking of User:Prasi90

I have been asked by Prasi90 to unblock him/her. For background, this user has been indefinitely blocked by MONGO for alleged legal threats, as well as personal attacks etc. and has a very chequered history, with many abusive edits. This user also edited from an IP address, which is also blocked.

Prasi90 claims to have left this bad behaviour behind and wants the ability to edit constructively on Wikipedia once more. Earlier this month, there was a discussion on this page about Prasi90 accepting a probation and mentorship by Hamster Sandwich. Although Hamster Sandwich is on a Wikibreak at the moment, Prasi90 is still keen to enter into a mentorship arrangement.

I have refused to unblock Prasi90 against the wishes of MONGO and NSLE unless there is overwhelming support for the unblock in discussions on the matter (i.e. here), and unless a replacement mentor volunteers for the position. Otherwise, I will not unblock Prasi90. Please add your thoughts on the matter. - Mark 05:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC) (Edited 07:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC) by Mark to point out the legal threat is disputed)

I am always for reform rather than blocking. My AC duties leave me no time to act as a mentor myself unfortunately however I support the idea. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

After reading the link given above, and seeing a similar mentorship case that fell flat of it its face, I must recommend: "fuck process, ban time-wasting trolls". — Apr. 21, '06 [06:08] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I recomend leaving the block in effect. His history is clear edvidence of intolerable behavior for the wikipedian community, and he's been given many chances. Given his circumstances, there's little reasoning to unblock. I'm making the assumption of good faith, but it seems he would rather be unblocked merely because he doesn't want to be blocked. And he also games the system. When he is blocked and his page protected from trolling, he sends massive amounts of e-mails to subvert concensus. -Zero^Talk 06:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As the admin most aware of this editors history, I have to sadly conclude that at this time, I see little evidence that he/she has any intention of contributing in a positive manner to this forum. I strongly urge that the block remain in place and not make myself and others drag this over to arbcom in which, the same end result will likely take place. Without providing links for the 4th or 5th time in explaination of the reasons for the block, I encourage all to visit the talk pages and block logs for Prasi90 and his/her IP...Prasi90 (talk · contribs), 202.177.246.3 (talk · contribs) and I bring this series of comments from his talk page as further rationale.

Here Prasi90, using his IP 202.177.246.3 refers to Americans as Nazis[48] calls U.S. troops neo-nazis[49] and in article space "perverted,sadistic mentality of American troops and Americans in general"[50], he blanked the article on the United States here to post his commentary[51] vandalized the same article earlier[52] redirects the Category on the United States to Sudan[53] and more vandalism[54],[55]. Prasi90 with his IP login asks how to make a template "anti-American"[56], there is a whole series of edits made from his IP to Prasi90 userpage [57], [58], [59], [60]. With the IP account, he states that the victims of 9/11 are "clearly rotting in hell" in article space[61] and when I first stumbled into him was after he added this lovely comment to my watchlisted article September 11, 2001 attacksAmericans being roasted to death even as they leap toward certain death-Kodak Moments. Ip then insults one editor on his usertalk about his sexual orientation[62]. IP adds information to the Rfc filed against Prasi90 [63]. Using his Prasi90 account, editor again calls Americans neo Nazis[64] tells another editor he has a mental deficiency[65]...oh the list goes on and on. I haven't even touched the rather hard warnings he gave some vandals that they would be blocked and yet didn't do even one vandalism revert that I could find. There is a series of opposition votes on Rfa's that served no purpose aside from disruption. There have been numerous threatening emails to myself and other editors and he has been asked to stop. I asked him why he posted a user:vandal template on his userpage and he lied and told me that he was reflecting that he was a student at the university of Idaho [66] and I ran three IP checks on his IP and they all came back as India. Anyway, a look at the block logs for the IP[67] and for Prasi90[68] demonstrate that this editor has been blocked by numerous admins and has been released from those blocks prior to their expiration after apologizing, only to return to the same disruptive editing pattern. I've listed maybe 30% of the edits that clearly demostrate this editor has disrupted, has vandalized, has harassed and has trolled his way around Wikipedia.--MONGO 06:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Block, and it's a freakin shame that editors can't be respectful towards american soldiers. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

User asked me to post links to this and this as samples drafted to prove good intentions. Wow, my first job delivering stuff in a while, no comment as to the block itself shall come from me -- Tawker 07:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I would rather have problem users where we can see them rather than hiding behind sock accounts, so would cautiously support an unblock and mentorship. Just zis Guy you know? 12:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, his IP is blocked so he can't currently create sock accounts. I can see no justification for bothering to offer mentorship just because he was forced by others to demonstrate his planned contributions. It's a smokescreen in my opinion and there have been numerous other editors that have produced far superior work and then still were banned due to violating policies. With the hundreds of new accounts that open everyday, I think our tie is better spent nuturing these newbies than wasting time trying to help a prolific vandal become a useful contributor, especially based on the severity of the disruption this editor has caused. Prasi90's block seems like a no-brainer to me.--MONGO 13:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This is what I wrote on April 6 on this page:

I've never encountered Prasi90 before, but his clear pattern of abuse, apology and recidivism, and the rather low quality and quantity of his article contributions in the time he has edited Wikipedia, suggest to me that he's a permanent block candidate. I've no idea why Hamster Sandwich thinks that mentorship will turn this editor into a useful contributor, but as long as it's understood that we'll stand for absolutely no more nonsense, I don't see any great harm that can be done by letting him give Prasi90 one last chance.

If Hamster is on a wikibreak and nobody else is willing to undertake mentorship, this editor should definitely not be unblocked. --Tony Sidaway 13:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The user has already been given a number of second chances, from what I've seen merely from having MONGO's talkpage watchlisted. Prasi will promise reform anytime, and so far it has meant nothing. He mounted a big campaign on IRC the other day for getting unblocked, and was told by me and others that his only option was to get MONGO himself to unblock him, we wouldn't touch it. We should stick with this. MONGO knows the case in detail, and AFAIC he had very good reasons for the block. Bishonen | talk 14:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC).

I'm offering to take up the mentorship, if anyone wants... --Sunfazer 20:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer an admin to so, but not mandatory. Post the standards you offer to Prasi90 and I'll unprotect his usertalk so he can respond.--MONGO 23:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sunfazer, I'm elated to see your offer for mentorship, but you're still revatively new to the wiki. I would suggest that a more experiencd wikipedian take on a mentorship, if at all. -Zero^Talk 07:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Copy vio, blocking of User:Ghirlandajo

Ghirla made this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Gross-J%C3%A4gersdorf&diff=49437984&oldid=49437431 which is clear a copy violation from the internet links that I've provided on talk page. I suggest him to stop and to Admins to block him. Thank you. --Deutsche 13:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This account is a sock of permabanned user:Bonaparte, who has used such accusations to troll before. Please check User:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry and block as speedily as possible. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) makes articles by copy violations. Is this allowed here? --Deutsche 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

They are not copyvios. I have blocked Deutsche for 24 hours for inappropriate use of the copyvio tag and it is likely that Ghirla's concern is legitimate. Can someone with checkuser (or someone who knows more about Bonaparte) please check if Deutsche is a sock, and if so, extend my block of 24 hours to one of 24 years? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sadly (because I like Bonaparte) I am pretty sure it's a sock. Not much to add, really. Just zis Guy you know? 20:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The sites given as the source of the content are mirrors of Wikipedia, in case anyone is wondering why it is not a copyright violation. -- Kjkolb 06:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Grammer

Could another admin do the kind thing and close this AfD debate? It says userfy and delete—but what is the exact point of doing this. Userfy the article and then delete? It's a big oxymoron! Thanks, Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I userfied the article, and redirected from William Grammer to the article on his film, which still exists and mentions him. Jkelly 18:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably, this means userfy the article then delete the redirect, which I thought was implied by userfy itself. Superm401 - Talk 18:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

User:'the JPS

This account ('the JPS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) impersonates User:The JPS. His first edits were to redirect his user and user talk pages to The JPS pages. The user has done some minor sneaky vandalism. Nobody caught it or warned him. Please take appropriate actions. Renata 23:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:AFC/T needs to be unmoved

It looks like someone accidentally moved Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/ (with the /). This is going to wreak havoc on the AFC system. Because the move put a redirect on the /Today page, it's going to take divine intervention to fix this. Requesting Administrator assistance to fix the page. Thanks -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 04:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

New remedy in the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed 2

For continued personal attacks, Xed is placed indefinitely on personal attack parole. If, in the judgement of any sysop, Xed has breached this ruling, he may be briefly blocked should he make personal attacks, for up to a month in the case of repeat offenses.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 05:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The Game (game) and its AFD

I made the rather unwise step of closing this AFD with a simple vote count, when there is nothing simple whatsoever about the AFD. I have reverted my closure and added notices to the article and talk page about the matter. I would like two or three uninvolved admins to go and investigate this discussion and state what result they believe has arisen from the discussion, ideally without viewing the history of the page to avoid prejudice. Thanks. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like no consensus at first rough inspection. - Mailer Diablo 13:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've favoured deleting this article for a while, and I might as well repeat my reasoning here:

1. The last in-process AfD closed as 'delete'.
2. Deletion review endorsed the closure despite the lack of numerical consensus, based on the lack of verifiability.
3. The argument for overturning the results of these discussions was an article in a Belgian newspaper. Very few people who 'voted' for deletion beforehand were convinced by the article into supporting its retention (for reasons discussed elsewhere). Most of the people who claimed to be convinced by the article appeared to be the same people who were happy not to have any sources at all.
4. Therefore, with little sign of significant numbers of people changing their minds, the discussion should have been closed the same as the last one.

Good luck in finding two or three uninvolved admins. Are there any left? :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I was uninvolved until about 5 minutes ago.... - UtherSRG (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• It seems as though there is a rough correlation between time on Wikipedia and desire to delete this article. However, with WP:BITE in mind and no evidence of sock/meatpuppetry, it seems that a significant number of people find the newspaper article to be enough evidence of verifiability. When in doubt, we don't delete. I would have closed as no consensus. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Not me, for sure. For the record I endorse deletion (per last AfD and DRV) as unsourced & unverifiable. Just zis Guy you know? 13:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• WP:V has a flaw. Wikipedia is not allowed to be the first source to report on a fact; we have to wait until some other source that is deemed a verification source has already reported on it. We should not have to wait until there is a single "good enough" source. Having some number of Google hits should be good enough to say "yes, this is verifiable", even if none of those hits are good enough on their own to merit verifiability. What that "some number of hits" should be may need to be left up to interpretation. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • So you are saying all that a small but determined group of trolls needs to do to place Wikipedia's good name on a hoax is to create enough blog and chat page mentions to the hoax? A large number of Google hits is reason for a journalist or academic to begin an investigation of the subject, not verification that the subject exists as reported. News agencies and university departments are in a position to perform independent fact checking required to determine if the hits represent a true cross section of society or are just a smoke screen created by a handful of pranksters that know how to automate the process of spamming bulletin boards and usenet newsgroups. --Allen3 ^talk 14:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • That's why I'm saying that the "some number of hits" may need to be left up to interpretation. If there's X number of Google hits, but they can all be traced down to a handful of blogs, then it ain't good. However, if there's X number of legitimate hits, a large number of which are truely unique, shouldn't that be good enough verification? Perhaps something never becomes notable enough for a journalist or academic to begin investigation of a subject. Does that mean that the phenomena is not at all verifiable? Certainly not. Must Wikipedia wait until a journalist or academic has published something before we have an article about it? Certainly not, if there is some other reasonable level of verifiability. The Game (game) is a perfect case in point for this. I played it about two years ago, then wondered if Wikipedia had any information on it. Sure enough, the basic rules were here. Will The Game ever merit a journalist or academic write up? As just one of many social games, it may never get enough attention from the "standard" verification sources. This doesn't mean we can't verify it. Perhaps we can have a multi-tiered verification scheme: verified by journalistic/academic sources, verified by preponderance of data, and unverified (therefore deletable). - UtherSRG (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That is only a "flaw" if you don't understand what Wikipedia is supposed to be for. This is an encyclopaedia, not a blog. Just zis Guy you know? 14:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed. It's not a flaw by any stretch of the imagination. That is exactly what the policy is for. - Taxman ^Talk 14:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
      • No, I do understand that. That doesn't mean the definition of "verifiable" isn't flawed. There are many ways to verify something's existence. Wikipedia's definition is designed to weed out self-promotion and self-publication, but in the process it also weeds out legitimate phenomena that may take years before our current allowable verification sources to notice. We have the power and responsibility as a collaborative effort to examine all possible sources and determine verifiability. Strictly following the existing "legitimate" sources doesn't allow us to react to data from other sources that, en masse, are legitimate even if individually those sources are not sufficient for verification. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• In an encycloaedia, nothign is included unless it can be verified from secondary sources. The fact that a worldwide trawl for sources by a website set up specifically ot save this article could only find one mention in one Dutch language newspaper speaks volumes. We don't allow "teh Intarwebs" as a source fo good reasons; there are to many blogs of no provable authority. All people have to do is to cite one book on games which mentions this game. None has yet been cited. Much energy has been devoted to argufying, but no proper citations exist. Just zis Guy you know? 21:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm in favor of keeping the article and even I find the above ridiculous. Wikipedia should not report on new things. See WP:NOR, google hits are more an indication of notability than verifiability. Furthermore, AfDs are not the location to create new policy. (And as someone who spent a lot of time in the AfD arguing for it being kept based on the belgian newspaper, it is highly annoying to have all these bad arguments for keeping being brought up, since it contributes to a deletionary reaction. If one doesn't have a policy/guidelines based reason for keeping something, you should probably not say it). JoshuaZ 15:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Why would it be OR to say "These x thousands of Google hits describe phenomena XYZ" any more than "This book describes phenomena XYZ"? Why would it be OR to say "These Y Google hits contradict those X Google hits" any more than "This book contradicts that book"? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Because until we have reliable sources discussing it we can't be sure that it's covered neutrally. Just zis Guy you know? 15:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Let me put this another way. What is the purpose of verifiability? Is it to say "this data is verified, you can trust us, don't bother with the man behind the curtain", or is it to say "this data is verifiable, you can prove it yourself". I posit that it's the latter; we don't verify, we provide access to verification. Journalistic and academic write ups are certainly and will remain the dominant vehicle for verification, but any legitimate level of multi-source data should be a sufficient vehicle for the reader to judge whether the article provides the right information, of if the article needs to be editted or removed. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• While it may have been justifiable before to delete the article over a lack of consensus by invoking WP:V, the source makes it not at all clear now that WP:V can be invoked. This is more verified than most articles we have. Why not go with the result of the AfD this time, which is (as it's always been on this issue) "no consensus, so keep"? Trying to overrule the AfD again will simply create more hostility and another deletion review, and won't solve anything. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That there are other, even worse articles is never a reason to retain this one. It is a reason to go and fix the others. Drive standards up, not down. -Splash^talk 15:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• I'm uninvolved, give me a while to look at it. Prodego ^talk 17:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• I remember this was up for AfD awhile ago. I find it hard to google it since "the game" is like calling a book "the book", googleing it produces links to every game.I think that Stifle did the right thing, but thats my opinion only. By the way, everyone in this thread and AfD has lost "The Game". Mike _{(T C)} 17:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Well, it is notable, but it also not verifiable, so I thought I'd say Delete. But then I decided to check something, and found Bullshit (game), which is unsourced, possibly unverifiable. WP:V is a very poorly enforced policy. The language of a source doesn't matter, but is it a notable source, a trustworthy source? Ultimately, I think 'The Game' needs better sources, and should have an {{Unreferenced}} tag added. Give it a week, and if there are still no sources then, delete it. However that is a rather odd way to close an AFD, and since the article has been around for some time and still no source, I lean towards Delete. Prodego ^talk 17:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • • Poor example. Bullshit (under its bowdlerized name, "I Doubt It") is described in Albert H. Morehead's Official Rules of Card Games, now in approximately its zillionth printing since the 1940s, which is probably the single most authoritative reference work on card games in North America. "The Game"... not so much. --phh (^t/_c) 18:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There is however a different game that goes by that name at least in the UK.Geni 07:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

After new close

I looked into the newspaper source, I am now inclined to close as "No consensus". Prodego ^talk 18:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Closed as no consensus, breaking what I said on my RFA about controversial AFDs, but.... Prodego ^talk 18:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

  Just be prepared to explain about the decision you have made, whether contraverisal or not. - Mailer Diablo 01:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  Christ in a sidecar. Can I at least ask that you puts a bit more verbage in? - brenneman^{L} 02:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  Err... verbage? Prodego ^talk 02:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  I think he wants more action verbs in your description of your decision process. "looked"..."inclined"...closed"...they don't tell a very interesting story. I'd like to see something like "Hearing news of this deletion controversy, I rushed to the appropriate pages and pored over the evidence. Both sides presented quite convincing arguments, and I racked my brain but I could find no way to reconcile them.", etc. (Either that or he typoed verbiage and is asking for a longer description of your decision, but I like the first version better.)-Polotet 03:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

And I have now deleted it because an AfD cannot vote to overturn policy. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Err, AfDs exist solely to interpret policy. If all admins were allowed to make deletions based on their personal interpretation of policy, AfDs wouldn't exist. ~ PseudoSudo 03:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is a genuine policy disagreement here, whether or not the Belgian newspaper source meets WP:V. This isn't about some out of policy decision on an AfD but a lack of consensus as to how to interpret policy. JoshuaZ 03:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

And speedy deletion can't be used to zealously enforce novel interpretations of policy. Phil Sandifer 18:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have listed it on DRV, again. Kotepho 04:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't believe were spending this much time on such an inane topic. JoshuaZ 04:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If we are deleting articles that have been kept via AfD because of policy, there is something wrong with the policy. I think this deletion was in bad judgement and should be speedy recreated. VegaDark 05:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Its slightly more complicated than that. The issue at hand is how to interpret policy. Zoe who interprets WP:V as not being satisfied by this source insists that since she has policy on her side (or so she thinks) the AfD result is irrelevant. She might have been correct if the AfD had gone against policy. But because the issue is precisely how to interpret policy, her actions are incorrect. JoshuaZ 05:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, however, I feel that even if one does think that this page violates policy, it still shouldn't be deleted since it passed AfD. I think that something in the system is wrong if we are deleting a page that was voted to be kept in the eyes of the contributors because of a policy. VegaDark 05:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I very much disagree (though I also disagree with Zoe's deletion). Sometimes, AFD is wrong. Sometimes consensus is wrong. It is of the utmost importance that everything in the encyclopedia be verifiable, and no matter how many people vote keep on something that isn't verifiable, I believe that deleting it is the right decision. We're writing an encyclopedia here, and while process should be respected and generally followed, product is always ultimately the more important of the two.-Polotet 06:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

My comment is taking into account the assumption that the vast majority of users will vote in accordance with their own interpretation of policy, which in this case says that the page was in accordance with WP:V and the page should stay. VegaDark 06:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

While I'd like that to be true, many of the keep and delete votes were for pretty inane reasons, and a significant segment of both looked like they were just staying the course as their main reason for their votes and comments rathers than for any policy based decision. The policy matters almost got lost in the shuffle. JoshuaZ 06:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure at this point if we're really arguing or if we're just misunderstanding each other a bit, but I'll clarify what my opinion is. My experience is that AFDs and their voters will not always fully consider important policies like WP:V. For example, see all the fuss about HAI2U and List of shock sites, as well as many other examples. My suspicion is that at least some of the people voting keep in the The Game AFD would have voted exactly the same way without a verifiable source. While I'll certainly agree that the deletion of the article was wrong in this case, as there is an article which clearly backs up the WP:V claims, I won't agree that AFD always correctly interprets WP:V and that WP:V needs to change if it's leading to the deletion of articles kept by AFD.-Polotet 06:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC) (edit conflict with User:JoshuaZ and he says most of what I'm saying except he says it better)

Would someone explain to me how this is unverifiable? I can find LJ communities devoted to it, websites devoted to it, multiple posts to LJs over the course of months to the effect of "I lost the game." I am aware of people who play the game. There is clearly a game. What the hell standard of verifiability is being used here? Phil Sandifer 06:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

While I'm inclined to agree with you that verifiability even without the Belgian article should be clear in this particular case, allowing stuff on LJ to push an article past WP:V seems to me to set a rather dangerous precedent.-Polotet 06:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research exclude most of the sources you're citing, Phil. The Belgian newspaper is the closest, it seems. If a bunch of people on LJ (or elsewhere on "teh Internets") start talking about something, that doesn't suddenly make it encyclopedic. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoa. That's a novel interpretation of verifiability. It is transparently verifiable that the game exists and is played, and that this is not a hoax being perpetuated on Wikipedia. The existence of a LJ community, among other things, is very obviously sufficient for this claim. Verifiability is not notability. Phil Sandifer 17:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Novel? I thought it was standard. Read the first paragraph of our policy, WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources. So... I really don't think I'm going out on a limb here. I'm not disputing that The Game exists (heck, I'm playing it - and losing as long as this keeps popping up on my watchlist), I just dispute that information about it is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources. LJ != WP:RS -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What's interesting there is that the link to "reliable sources" is not nearly so publication-obsessed. Which is as it should be. Phil Sandifer 18:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, whether it's "publication-obsessed" or not, it's pretty explicitly clear that "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources," and, "Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources." I would say LiveJournal is blatantly of that category of sources. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we please not get into other sourcing again, please? The last two AfDs were full of claims about sources that didn't meet WP:V and WP:RS and I think a result of those claims was that the more legitimate source arguments got tainted by association. JoshuaZ 06:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Aw, but I love having the same argument over and over again in a variety of different places.-Polotet 06:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm retreading tired old paths. I'm new to this controversy, and baffled that Phil Sandifer seems never to have read the first sentence of WP:V. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Article editing bans on Instantnood

Because of Instantnood's recent disruptive editing, I'm implementing the following article bans under remedy 3 "Instantnood placed on Probation" and enforcement measure 1 ("Procedure for banning in Probation") of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3. As is my usual practice with arbitration bans, I am making limited term bans rather than the full probation term bans that are permitted under the arbitration ruling.

• List of bridges two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
• Macao, China two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
• Hong Kong national football team two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
• District Council of Hong Kong two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
• Guangzhou two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
• Community of Portuguese Language Countries two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
• East Asian Tigers two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
• I'm lovin' it two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006

The message is that Instantnood is still far too aggressive in his edits and he needs to revert less, discuss more and respect other people's opinions. --Tony Sidaway 14:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Extra eyes, faith in the system

Hi all. I'm currently involved in a mediation case with Ardenn (stemming from notices on WP:AN/I and WP:AN3 related to the Wikitruth article), and I'd really appreciate if some other admins could keep an eye on the case. I don't want to drag anyone else into this, but it's very difficult to keep track of everything that's happening.

• My immediate concerns:
  • Whether blocking WCityMike was warranted. Earl Andrew blocked him for 24 hours, Pgk unblocked him shortly thereafter.
  • WCityMike has lost patience and is considering going to the ArbCom.
  • Ardenn's escalation of the issue, and how we can quickly find a solution.
• Users directly involved:
  • Ardenn (talk • contribs • logs)
  • WCityMike (talk • contribs • logs)
  • Mdd4696 (talk • contribs • logs)
  • 128.226.198.45 (talk • contribs • logs)
• Users indirectly involved:
  • Gnetwerker (talk • contribs • logs)
  • Earl_Andrew (talk • contribs • logs)
  • Pgk (talk • contribs • logs)
  • Fasten (talk • contribs • logs)
• Otherwise involved:
  • Grace_Note (talk • contribs • logs)
  • Commander_Keane (talk • contribs • logs)
  • Zsinj (talk • contribs • logs)
  • Noosphere (talk • contribs • logs)
  • Jord (talk • contribs • logs)
• Mediation cabal:
  • 2006-04-21 MDD4696
  • 2006-04-22 Noosphere
• Request for mediation:
  • Gnetwerker

~MDD4696 16:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

To note I unblocked the user not based on if the block would have been a valid 3RR block but on the basis that the block came some 24 hours after the last activity in the 3RR, the blocking policy is quite clear that blocking is prevantative not punative, so given that the disruptive activity had long since ceased, and the issue was being perused through other means (mediation) such a block could only be seen as punative. --pgk^(talk) 16:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)