Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:14, 7 August 2006

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Visual archive cue: 54

Tasks

The following backlogs require the attention of one or more editors.
NPOV disputes, Images on Commons and Overpopulated categories

CAT:NS

CAT:NS among other other image cats are backlogged by five days. Should be directly link these cats from the speedy deletion page to speed things up? It seems lthat a great number of admins are not aware/intimidated by image deletions. Perhaps this is because Orphanbot does the tagging, so people don't touch them until they have to be deleted.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General

Ahrarara = Panairjdde

User:Panairjdde has returned now in the form of User:Ahrarara. He or she is stalking every single article from my contribs list right now and deleting AD anywhere and everywhere. Please stop or warn him or her. Thanks. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was blocked again, thanks, but note that he is currently wreaking havoc yet again with an edit warring anon, User:151.44.81.169, on the very same articles stalked from my July contribs, multiple 3RRs here ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loath I am to do it, I have blocked the entire 151.44. range for an hour -- which affects not only the editor formerly known as Panairjdde (TEFKAP) but some 65,000-odd other people. However, he has been stalking or edit-warring not only with Codex Sinaiticus, but at leat 2 other editors. I'm gambling on the fact that the users of an Italian ISP aren't interested in editting an English Wikipedia, & as long as no one complains, we can repeat this until TEFKAP gives up. (He has also used the 151.47. range -- but let's wait until we see what kind of trouble I've caused before blocking that one also.) I won't protest if another Admin reverts the block. -- llywrch 23:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny

ok, you've had your laughs--AOL account 14:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's not a joke, it just seems like one, my mistake--AOL account 14:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's ok, we all make them. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Shapiro

All debate now consolidated at WP:DRV, these discussion sin the linked document at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 31/Shapiro

Block that should probably be lifted

While User:Mattisse may have accidentally broken some rules, it seems pretty clear to me that she has not had any bad intentions; part of the problem, as can easily be seen from her talk page and from her interactions with my on my user talk page, is that she's not very savvy on Web culture (she says she's a woman in her mid 60s, and I am inclined to believe that is true). She's apparently been accused of operating sockpuppets; she wrote to me saying that User:Orangehead is not a sockpuppet but is her junior-high-school aged granddaughter, who is staying at her house. Either that is true, and something is being blown far out of proportion, or that is not, and she is perpetrating fraud. I'd be inclined to presume good faith: I don't see any evidence that she is out there wreaking havoc. (It is possible that she was at times "coaching" her granddaughter; I don't think that is necessarily out of line, unless it is an ongoing pattern over time, especially insofar as it becomes a doubling up on votes.)

I have a feeling a lot of this had to do with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent-Meridian High School, where Mattisse, operating under her former account name KarenAnn, made what seems to me to have been a reasobable nomination for deletion; someone definitely spammed to get a rush of inclusionists into the discussion; several people then improved the article, making edits that demonstrated notability; then several people, notably User:Capit, made ad hominem attacks on her for nominating it in the first place. User:Metros232 appropriately cut the discussion short, since with the changes the article was a clear keep and the AFD had no further use other than mudslinging.

Wikipedia needs to be a welcoming environment for people other than just 20-something geekboys (BTW, I'm not by any means a 20-something, and not particularly a geekboy). I think some benefit of the doubt needs to be extended here, and possibly some mentoring, but I think there has been an overreaction and some "piling on". - Jmabel | Talk 17:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that Capit is also a sockpuppet of KarenAnn/Mattisse. This apparently puzzled Mackensen as well and he spent more time than usual checking it, plus he asked for review from another checkuser, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Listerin. If KarenAnn created a persona to attack herself, it is not out of the realm of possibility that she also created a teenaged granddaughter. Also note that Orangehead has about 120 contribs, mostly to AfD, which hardly seems like typical behavior for a teenager. At this point, Mattisse is editing again. If she wants to create a second account to keep AfD separate from her edits, that's permissable as long as the streams don't cross (quoting Mackensen). Her granddaughter can create a new account, same principle applies. Thatcher131 (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting too weird for me. - Jmabel | Talk 16:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good block?

blocked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.200 (talk • contribs • WHOIS)

Looks fine to me. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks out-of-line to me. There is absolutely no justification for this block and it should be overturned if it's still in effect. Grue 22:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not still in effect. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No more preteen category/userbox

Following the CFD on "Category:Preteen Wikipedian" Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 25 , I nuked the category. But by common sense, and being bold, I also killed Template:User pre-teen due to the same arguments used to kill the category. Just so people know and don't accuse of me being rogue. -- Drini 23:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I missed the discussion on deleting this category. I think perhaps we ought to reconsider. The discussion mentioned concerns that it violates the Childrens Internet Protection Act, but it doesn't -- that primarily involves filtering on public computers (e.g. libraries) to get public funding, and ensuring that personal identifying information isn't disclosed deliberately or accidentally [1]. There's no good reason not to let kids self-identify on Wikipedia; it's not like we're a hotbed of preteen activity, and we're actually safer than most places since there is NO personal information anywhere, not even through hacking into the site (unless someone actually POSTS it, which could happen anywhere). (Last week Congress extended CIPA limitations to chat rooms and social sites like MySpace, which I personally find grossly excessive. Let's not jump on the paranoia bandwagon. One of our main tenents is "assume good faith.")

WIkipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social ntworking site. You've just proved my point about the possible exploitability of it. -- Drini 20:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously if an individual is using WP primarily as a chat room/bulletin board, we'd want to step in. And having the preteen category would actually make it easier to check on those user pages to make sure that's not happening.

Oh, and for what it's worth -- I'm 40 years old, so I don't have a vested interest :) --Bookgrrl 12:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another point is that unlike MySpace or other chat areas where pages are open only to "friends," anything posted on a Wikipedia user page is open to the public; that would certainly discourage any potential child stalkers/abusers from using them as a way to contact potential victims. --Bookgrrl 15:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. They could still contact through Wikipedia email which leaves no public record. JoshuaZ 15:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen attempts at pedophilic behavior, but the users are almost immediately banned and the changes are oversighted out. alphaChimp ^laudare 15:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I DISAGREE. A healthy amound of preteens were there. I,myself used it as a messaging system of sorts to contact and recruit people to join User:Wizkid357/Wiki Preteen. Our goal was to get to know each other more and collaberate. Threre were probably 20-50 preteens on the list. I just thought we'd like to know each other and stuff. Not really give personal information but collaberate. Meh, hopefully we can make this work out. Julz

*sigh*, the discussion said "It may not necessarily violate the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 in the United States, but it is still a rather convenient list for unscrupulous individuals to potentially find and exploit minors". So it says the opposite of what you say". The discussion says that it possible does violates the act, but still a bad idea. I acted according to consensus and thus it's gone. -- Drini 18:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly - and the lack of concern for their safety and a proper discussion of precautions to take by the participants confirms to me that this is a wise decision. --Trödel 19:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I misunderstood, my mistake. Anyway, it's fine, noones really exploiting us. My safety is fine, I'm not going to talk to some random guy exploiting me. Julz

Sorry, I just saw the discussion about it. Well, if that's your verdict... people keep rejoinin the list anyway. Julz

There are other categories under Category:Wikipedians by generation that might work. Powers 12:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admins working on untagged images: Please read this

A user has been making POV insertions of {{unknown}} into 2 images of the Nanking Massacre, which caused one of them to be deleted by an unsuspecting admin. The two images are Image:Body everywhere.jpg and Image:Nanjing ditch.jpg. Fortunately I discovered that recently media file undeletion has been enabled, so there was no permanent damage. If you are working on untagged/unsourced images, please keep these 2 in mind and refrain from deleting them. Thanks. -- Миборовский 01:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we don't actually know what the copyright status of Image:Body everywhere.jpg is, or much of anything else about the image. The second one is also at Commons, ~~so is not in danger of image cleanup procedures here,~~ and is also tagged as lacking copyright information there. Jkelly 16:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything published in China more than 50 years ago is PD. There is no question about the licensing of these 2 images, though many could have a field day arguing whether it's authentic of Chinese government propaganda or whatnot. -- Миборовский 01:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We know for certain when it was first published? Jkelly 01:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Male Domination?

During my time on English Wikipedia, I’ve come to realize just how male dominated it is (I myself am male). Seriously, how many Wikipedians are female? If these legendary creatures do exist, they would be classified as “rare and endangered”. But perhaps they are more common than I think, as it is difficult to tell and we tend to assume the user is male. But I digress; Female Wikipedians are few and far between. Unfortunately - we need Female Wikipedians, to continue effectively as an encyclopedia, as they can offer insights that males cannot. Male/female insights and interest differ radically. Compare:

The truth lies within the Article quality. How can we overcome this?

If I am wrong, and every second editor is female – correct me. I also apologize for stereotyping and generalizing. I am also unsure of how Wikipedia’s Homosexual community rates in this.

User:Dfrg.msc File:DFRG. MSC.jpg 07:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, how many Wikipedians are female? The recent New Yorker article claims 20% -- not parity, but it could be worse. Consideration of these sorts of issues, by the way, are not new, hence Wikipedia:Countering systemic bias, not to mention a variety of other Wikiprojects that have sprung up to attempt to fix gaps. Check those out. --Calton | Talk 08:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wikipedia tends to attract really non-typical populations. Lots of technogeeks as some people would say. And many of them are male. Although this is important to consider, I'm not sure if this is the place to do it. Maybe write an essay in your user space on the issue. The Ungovernable Force 08:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm the only one, but "Who cares?" If women aren't as geeky as men that's not our problem to solve or be concerned with. --mboverload @ 09:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this is dfrg.msc attention-seeking again. Just zis Guy you know? 13:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have several female admins, and several female editors who are not admins. I do, however, agree that several more female editors would be a good thing. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several... we have more than 1000 admins, and a LOAD of editors. "Several" isn't a lot. -- Миборовский 01:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gender isn't specified and is not necessarily revealed so there is no way of telling the relative proportions, nor can one rely on names. Don't forget the small number of "non gendered". Tyrenius 01:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The post was actually put up on the Village Pump [2] 19 minutes before the one here, but without the admin bit. This is not necessary here and would be better on RfA talk. PS I haven't checked, but I expect it's there already as well. :)Tyrenius 01:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite possibly lots of wikipedians who don't go around advertising whehter or not we are female and we frequently get mistaken (wrongly in my case) for being male. I also don't tell everybody what television show I watch or which way I vote, or even how old I am. I expect to be judged on my edits and the content I add should be able to measure up against wikipedia's policies - nothing more or less. There is probably a dispropritionate number of Australians compared with say people from Kazakhstan - the nature of an English language resource using technology. Since people can and do mislead others on the internet, I would say we have no way of finding out what the proportions are. Not sure it would be useful anyway - there are all sorts of biasses - income level, against those who are too time-poor to contribute or don't have access to the technology as well of course based on language and country.--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the thrust of what you are saying, but I think the examples could be better - the F-35 is to my mind clearly more important than Madonna, (if you buy market economics for example, the way the cost overruns and albums sales are going, a single F-35 will soon be worth more than she is :-). While I play netball and I am certain that soccer IS NOT football, RUGBY is, even I can see given the relative size of the two sports, soccer deserves the bigger article, (marginally, and it should be rewritten to explain it is a form of Irish dance cum competitve amatuer dramatics death scene acting, in which no one ever scores :-). Winstonwolfe 03:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, to illustrate your point that there are small numbers of female editors here, you compared the quality of articles on stereotypically male and stereotypically female interests? I imagine you'd find that there are more women here than you think, but their distribution of interests is not so identifiably "female". (This also is a bit of an odd place for this discussion, but oh well.) Opabinia regalis 16:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Return of User:Crabcan?

Hmm, wasn't sure if blocked users were supposed to be able to edit at all, so this made me wonder [3]. And the IP edits over here too may be related. — MrDolomite | Talk 13:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked users can edit their own user-talk pages; otherwise {{unblock}} would be useless. --ais523 14:28, 3 August 2006 (U T C)

Signature transclusion

Developers stopped signature transclusion to some degree, but it is still possible to get around it. User:Adam the atom uses User:Adam_the_atom/signature, which currently looks like:

adam the atom T E C

Generated from:

'''[[User:Adam_the_atom|adam the atom]] [[User_talk:Adam_the_atom|T]] [[Special:Emailuser/Adam_the_atom|E]]&;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Adam_the_atom|C]]'''

To me this is excessive (especially the cursor change), and I have told him so. He hasn't changed it, so I am opening it to the floor - should he change it or does it not matter? violet/riga (t) 15:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is one of the longest signatures I've ever seen and is a blatant violation of the signature guidelines. Also having it stored in the user space and not substituting it instead is likely to cause unnecessary server load.--Andeh 15:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely over the top. It actually slowed down this computer to load it. Would it be improper to enter his userspace and change it to Adam the atom? alphaChimp ^laudare 15:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it would be improper, it'd be a little invasive. Best approach would probably be to link them to signature guidelines and quote exact parts from it which his current signature violates.--Andeh 15:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. I suspect that he already knows the guidelines. Transcluding your signature and getting around the signature limits suggest some degree of Wikipedia knowledge.alphaChimp ^laudare 16:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ergh. I never did find an existing bugzilla report on this, but I mentioned this a couple of weeks ago; CrnaGora has been doing the same thing with the forward slash transclusion, to less egregious effect. -- nae'blis 16:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed this signature -Tony Sidaway 19:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.18.13.80 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Heads up

A copy and paste move of MDAC was done to Microsoft Data Access Components. The editor who did this was most likely not aware that they were destroying page histories, and killing the histories of talk pages for that matter, but can admins please keep an eye on those articles? I did a considerable amount of (largely unrecognised) work on those articles, and I was quite suprised to see that my hard work in the history had been largely hidden from view! - Ta bu shi da yu 15:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sneaky vandalism

It seems like there are some sneaky vandalism by two users here, who wanna claim fake things to Norway with no sources for it. I'm pretty new here and don't know how things work yet and how to deal with this kind of vandalism here on wikipedia. In the article "Normans". The two Norwegian users, Inge and Barend keep putting Norway or Norwegians in the article from no where. I have asked them like 5 times in the discussion, what the sources are. Of course they refuse to answer, since there are is no source for it. Here the fake claiming started. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Normans&diff=27008966&oldid=26282705 Thanks --Comanche cph 15:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not an incident, it's a non stop norwegian pro-claiming. Look at the history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Normans&action=history Thanks --Comanche cph 16:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Comanche cph is a long time problem user and has the tactic of accusing anyone disagreeing with him of vandalism as part of his repertoir. Please see this entry at the incidents page and [edit history]. Any long term administrator involvement is highly welcome (short peeps have not been effective). Inge 02:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really. Funny that Inge don't answer the simple question then. WHERE IS THE SOURCES. You need source for editing on history pages. Else it called vandalism. This is a part of Inge's attacking moves again me, tcamouflage the simple question about sources Inge refusing to answer. --Comanche cph 07:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions have been answered exhaustingly and sources have been given. Inge 11:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No they haven't. The Hrolf Gange theory is not a answer to this issue. This is about who the Normans was. And you need source for your history rewrite. So what is the source??? --Comanche cph 14:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add my voice to Inge's complaint. Comanche_cph seems utterly unable to conduct a reasoned debate about points of contention, instead he resorts to constant reverts, ad hominem attacks, and abuse, as most recently evidenced on the discussion page for the article on Normans. --Barend 15:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip the Moose / Airport Vandal

The new thing in AOL denial of service work. They create multiple socks, and always create at least one AOL autoblock per block, usually 20 or 30 minutes after they're blocked, they seem to be deliberate dos vandals. Only without the long string of autoblocks, no one seems willing to believe that they are indeed causing massive amounts of AOL Collateral damage.--64.12.116.200 16:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

btw, you may notice a string of anti vandalism coming from this AOL range, that's because I'm running Lupin's anti-vandal tool while logged out, as best I can, given all the autoblocks--64.12.116.200 16:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should use this page to create a list of all sorts of blatent vandalism that I can't roll back due to a nice big random Airport Vandal autoblock--64.12.116.200 16:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've turned into an anti-vandal bird dog, I can see the vandalism, I can see the vandals, but all I can do is bark and point at them--64.12.116.200 17:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 user + a dozen autoblocks, people come running to remove them

A dozen users + 1 or 2 autoblocks per user, nada, I'm stuck reporting vandals here, instead of reverting them--64.12.116.200 17:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV...jr.

(I can't edit the real thing due to an Airport Vandal Autoblock)

Tommy the Dragon (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) AOL collateral--64.12.116.200 17:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disgruntal Northwest Airlines Employee (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) same--64.12.116.200 17:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Billion Dollar Air (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) same--64.12.116.200 17:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much everything recent in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Philp the Moose--64.12.116.200 17:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:TWA Flight 800

I just noticed this user name registered. Is it appropriate? See TWA Flight 800, it was a plane crash in 1996 that killed 230 people outside New York City. Metros232 17:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

indefblocked at 17:49 for username. Syrthiss 17:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, weird, it wasn't coming up in the block log for some reason, maybe I just missed it somehow. Thanks, Metros232 17:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Stephencolbert

The evening of the Colbert Conflaguration, a group of admins working the question of what to do about User:Stephencolbert got together on teh sekret irc and we came to a quick consensus on how to handle one element of the event, the existance of User:Stephencolbert. I have realized, upon reflection, that we may have failed to document our findings on the wiki (unless it's on another page that I don't monitor), an oversight for which I apologize. As has been covered elsewhere, Tawker blocked the user for possible impersonation (not incitement, a popular misconception). We met on #wikipedia-en-admins and agreed that while it was possible that it could be SC, the nature of the internet and the visibility of the situation made it appropriate to block and request external confirmation. Tawker emailed and called the Colbert show and left a message requesting followup, and to my knowledge, has not yet received a response. We hashed out the message that is currently on User_talk:Stephencolbert (requesting confirmation). Our intention was to provide a clean, unified response if it _was_ SC. Jaranda's welcome message was left up, followed by our request. Since then, a number of folks have worked together to keep the page in its current form (ie, removing "zomg i luv you steeeeephen!" messages). Ryulong suggested yesterday that we semi-protect the page, and at the time, I demurred, saying that the workload of reverting it wasn't high and that if we semi'd it, the actual user wouldn't be able to respond there. Time has passed, and I now feel that Ryulong's idea is sound, especially considering both the volume of traffic to the page as well as the fact that other means exist for the user to contact us. As such, I'd like to semi or fully protect it. Thoughts? I'd like to request that we put the issue of whether or not we think this COULD be SC aside for now, I move that the standard of evidence on this must necessarily be higher than mere possibility. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, when requesting confirmation emails from such folks, it's much better to have them email WP:OTRS on [email protected] - that way the request is handled officially (I'm guessing a famous person will be rather unwilling to correspond with some hotmail account), it's archived (so if the real SC came along in six months and said we'd allowed an impersonator, the foundation could pull out the email from him - they can't do that if the email just went to Tawker), and it's handled in accordance with the foundation's privacy policy. We need a boilerplate template for this, which says essentially what your note to him does, but also mentions WP:USERNAME (which is the underlying policy which allows you to block such cases). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The message we used actually _does_ link to WP:USERNAME, but the OTRS link is an excellent idea. We provided Tawker's email address because he had already launched a request mail, but I support updating the text to make appropriate use of OTRS if we can confirm that whoever is on the other end of the mail will recognize the confirmation when it comes in and let us know. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Stephen Colbert is playing a character (described by Colbert as "an idiot") whose advice to vandalize Wikipedia articles was purely satirical. I seriously doubt that he would register an account and act out this one-off comedy bit in real life.

Of course, while the likelihood that this username belongs to a misguided fan of "The Colbert Report" is roughly 99.9%, the attempt to contact the show for verification is entirely appropriate. —David Levy 19:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um...Why not just let them be? Karmafist 22:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not SC, then this is a violation of WP:USERNAME. All we're requesting is confirmation. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"especially considering ..... the volume of traffic to the page" <-- I do not understand why every edit of the page is being reverted. We only need to revert vandalism, right? I think many people are watching this page and if only vandalism were reverted then there would not be a "problem". --JWSchmidt 22:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I apologize if I wasn't clearer above, what I meant to communicate is that the admins that got together during the firestorm decided that on the off chance it _was_ SC, we wanted to keep the page limited to the welcome and the 'why you were blocked and how to fix it' message to maintain a single unified WP response. This is why I have brought this here as followup, to make sure that admin consensus on this extends outside of the immediate group that worked the issue initially. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: Per my initial message here, I've protected the page for now. If there's any objection, go ahead and unprotect, just doing it because I haven't seen any "AARGH NO!!"'s yet. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there has been some vandalism of both User:Stephencolbert and its associated talk page. However, with respect to User talk:Stephencolbert, some of the edits appear to be attempts by Wikipedians to communicate with User:Stephencolbert and some of these edits have been reverted as if they are obvious vandalism. I will be watching these pages and I am available to revert vandalism, so I will probably try taking off the page protection. I believe that Wikipedians should be allowed to edit User talk:Stephencolbert according to normal policy. --JWSchmidt 01:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miniclip - minor legal threat

An anon is displeased that the Miniclip article mentions hostile code reported by two security firms in Miniclip's downloadable games. There's been a minor legal threat at Talk:Miniclip:

Nagle, if you now re-post this inaccurate article of yours, you would now knowingly and willingly, with reckless disregard, publish inaccurate material, making you (and any associates) automatically liable and obviously severely degrade your reputation as a publisher on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.7.31.54 (talk · contribs).

There are sources for the reports, and they've been in the article for months, but the anon remains unhappy. He occasionally removes the reports, and I or someone else puts them back.

This probably doesn't require action, but because there was a legal threat, I'm putting a note here. --John Nagle 19:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article watched --mboverload @ 20:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a legal threat, then the user should be blocked until the threat is withdrawn. (User is currently blocked for 3RR.) However, at the moment, strictly speaking, it reads as a caution, not a threat, as there is no statement of intent to act, even though that might reasonably be taken as the implication, especially regarding the legalese. Tyrenius 01:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like pseudo-legal language used by someone who doesn't know much about the law. Winstonwolfe 00:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incongruousness

User:Ageo020 claims to be an administrator, but he appears neither on the regular list nor the other official sysop list. Are the lists incorect, or his claim to adminship false? Dar-Ape 19:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using Interiot's tool, it lists him as a member of 'user' and not 'sysop'. I understand that Interiot's data is no longer 100% accurate for EN, but unless he is a recent new admin, this suggests that the claim is false. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind that, he's got less than 500 edits. Nobody would get adminship with that amount of edits nowadays. --Lord Deskana (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on the user's talk page. I suspect that the user made his user page based off of someone else's and included that userbox accidentally. JoshuaZ 19:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just remove it? --mboverload @ 20:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He actually invites people to remove things that are out of place on the page. Removed. alphaChimp ^laudare 20:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In retrospect, I realize I should have just posted on his talk page, waited, and removed it if he didn't answer. Next time. Dar-Ape 20:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link problem at Wikipedia:Copyright problems

I think there is an error in the embedded link for "Go to today's section and add..." instruction on the Wikipedia:Copyright problems page. If you click the link, it incorrectly takes you here to make your addition [4]. I don't want to try to fix it in fear of breaking it further. Can a familiar admin fix it? Thanks. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've inserted a workaround. Luckily, this is the English Wikipedia, and in English the genitive for 'August' is the same as the nominative: 'August'. In other languages we wouldn't be so lucky. --ais523 07:42, 4 August 2006 (U T C)

Will someone please get rid of this image?

Image:Delhi ITO Bridge Traffic Jam.jpg used under fair use, but it clearly fails point #1 of the fair use criteria: it's just a generic photo of a traffic jam, one that anyone in the area with a camera could replace. The problem is that all my attempts to get it deleted have been reverted: the uploader believes that the only requirement for fair use is that it be low resolution and credit be given, and has actively removed all attempts to tag the image as "no rationale", "fair use disputed", "speedy delete", or "ifd". --Carnildo 20:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it with the following deletion summary: "Fails WP:FUC #1, no fair use rationale provided, and is being replaced into articles while licensing status is disputed." Jkelly 20:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted it again, and left a friendly warning at the uploader's talk page. Eugène van der Pijll 21:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Derek_Smart#Why_I_reverted

I feel that User:Supreme_Cmdr may have reached an unacceptable level of incivility and/or personal attacks on this talk page, but am not in a position to issue warnings myself. Could someone else have a look and see if they agree? Stifle (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a quick read of that section, I saw some exclamation points and whatnot, but didn't immediately see any real incivility or NPA violations. Could you provide some specific examples? It might help in reviewing this situation. If it's obvious and I missed it, I apoligize and will have my glasses prescription adjusted. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

articles by User:Iasson

Hello everybody. As Jkelly advised me, I would like to hear your opinions regarding my course of action against the articles created by the sockpuppets of user:Iasson, a user permanently banned for his endless creation of socks (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iasson). This user for sport, not for any agenda, appears to take pleasure in creating through his always reborn socks much false info and many new articles. After discussing the question with Jkelly, I'm oriented to delete all the articles he has lately created by his socks; but while a certain number of these accounts have been ascertained as socks of Iasson by the Checkuser, others have been blocked without passing through checkuser because it was quite obvious they were socks of Iasson. Now, regarding the obvious but not ascertained socks, would you find it correct to delete the articles so created, as I and Jkelly believe as the only measure to stop Iasson and banned users like him, or have you some doubts. Please tell me your thoughts.--Aldux 20:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we're certain enough to block the accounts, we should be certain enough to delete their articles. JoshuaZ 20:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Tyrenius 21:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prodded one of them, however, as a way of detecting his next sock, if he's imprudent enough to unprod. This may be sufficient. Septentrionalis 21:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but probably best not to advertise your tactics to the enemy! :) Tyrenius 01:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

admin aid needed

user- 88.155.198.100 has removed several information sections apparently out of personal reasons he has ignored requests for talkpage usage and broken the 3RR rule. the majority of his removals have been under the casualty section of the Battle of Bint Jbeil. where he removes the more recent casualty counts provided by msn cnn ny times (as recent as aug-2) and replaced them with much older information from websites, and insists that the newer cnn sources are "BULLSHIT" with out giving details. as a inexperienced editor I need some sort of admin help with this. his frequent removals have brought aditions to the page down to a halt.--68.211.220.109 00:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

88.155.198.100 was found to be in the wrong, but had not been properly warned by the other anon. As 88.155.198.100 had stopped editing, at least for the moment, I simply issued a stern warning rather than any punitive action. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 01:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it's me the same guy as before and I would like to say that, the edit waring does not stop. the major news outlet suported stats are either removed or listed as being only values claimed by hezbola. it also seems the 3rr rule may have been broken--68.215.134.176 04:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any additional editing by said anon, so I'm not clear what the specific further complaint is. If any single edit has reverted more than three times (including via sockpuppets if you have reason to suspect that), please file at WP:AN/3RR. Given that this is such a topical issue, protection doesn't seem like a good option, and presumably you'd not be too happy were it semi-protected... Alai 04:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personaly bellive that User talk:Flayer is a sockpupet of 88. if semiprotecting is all you can do go ahead (even if it locks me out.) so long as you do something about the sock pupets. (I'll get a named user acount as soon as this is over.)

That seems a far from an obvious conclusion to make, and even if true, doesn't appear to be a clear-cut 3RR. I suggest resorting to the article talk-page to convince other editors your presentation is the superior one. Alai 06:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The articles flayer removed were from sources that included MSNBC, CNN& the Guardian, so their removal was cerntanly unjustified. aditionaly it seeems flayer has gone about removing information he dislikes(but is sourced.) in other pages.--208.61.16.41 16:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve seen what’s happened in that page my self Flayer appears to never use the talk page, or answer to requests for dialogue, so talk won’t work. He also goes about removing information without leaving a suitable message. (often nothing or, done under the guise of NPOV.) and replaces the information with dubious claims, or removes it totally. A quick check to his talk-page User talk:Flayer, (and contrib. page.) shows that he hasn’t just defaced Lebanon related articles but also articles as unrelated as house keeping. I strongly advocate that an administrator take action. (.BTW a look at the time data on the articles in question does seem to reinforce the view held by 68.215.134.176 that he operates a sock puppet under an IP address around 88.155.198.100.)--Freepsbane 19:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets aside he has broken the 3rr rule (after I've already warned him.)

for mor info see :http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Bint_Jbeil&action=history --Freepsbane 20:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take that to WP:AN/3RR. alphaChimp ^laudare 20:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can you do it for me.--Freepsbane 20:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stamps wrongly claimed as Fair use: serious copyright problem

This is not a small, but quite serious problem regarding fair use guidelines. I noticed that Category:Fair_use_stamp_images has close to 500+ images of stamps, all tagged with {{Stamp}}, and are supposed to be under Fair use. However, the fair use criteria as defined in WP:FAIR#Images clearly states that this usage is only allowable "for identification". Furthermore, the guidelines in Category:Fair use stamp images state that "stamp images in this category should not be used solely as a cheap way to illustrate articles. In addition to the problem that images are often altered for artistic reasons and thus may not be factually accurate representations of their subject, Wikipedia:Fair use criteria does not allow for it."

However, *most* of the images under the category are being used for identifying the *subject* rather than the stamp itself. This is, as described above, not allowable under the fair use criteria.

I did check some of the images, and found that almost all of them (save a few used in philatellic articles) are being used in biography pages, or pages related to the building or the thing shown in the stamp. This is not fair use, and it should be dealt accordingly.

Since IANAL, could others with knowledge of the US fair use law clarify whether the usage of stamps in this case is ok or not? If the usage of stamps in biography or other such pages is not fair use, then the stamp images should be removed from those articles. If it IS fair use, then the criteria should specify this.

Since copyright is a big issue, and according to the recent zero-tolerance policies about non-licensed or non-sourced images, we should take care of this immediately. A related problem is the {{Currency}} tagged images. I found today that Grimm brothers contains the image of Image:1000-DEM-OBV-178x83.jpg i.e. the 1000 Deutsche mark, claiming fair use. I don't think the claim is valid. --Ragib 01:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re. stamps, it's not fair use to illustrate the subject of the biography, unless the biography specifically deals with the fact that the subject has been honoured with a stamp. Ditto currency. (Unless in both cases there is anything like US Federal PD in operation.) Tyrenius 01:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, you mean, adding a sentence to the biography page saying that "A commemorative stamp on <insert personname> have been issued by <insert country name>" would make it fair use? --Ragib 01:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more context as to why that stamp issue was intersting would also help the fair use argument.--Peta 01:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping I would see a bunch of incorrectly-tagged pre-1978 US postage stamps and pre-1956 Canadian stamps in that cat, but most of these stamps seeem to be very recently issued. There seem to be a remarkable number of Indian and Irish stamps. It does look like a big cleanup job. Jkelly 01:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to remove the non-fair use of these stamp images, but after cleaning up 10 or so, I have to give up. It sure is a huge cleanup job, as most of the 500 or so images are improperly used as fair use images in biography pages. A little help would be great. --Ragib 20:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure orphaning 500+ images by hand is something that one or two admins can expect to get done in a reasonable amount of time. I'm going to ask User:Carnildo if OrphanBot can do this, and then we can hand-revert the cases that comply with policy. Jkelly 21:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can do. I'll get to it in a few hours. Should OrphanBot tag the images as "orphaned fair-use" while it's at it? --Carnildo 22:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better that than doing it by hand. We can remove the template when we reinsert the compliant ones. Jkelly 22:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bot's running now. If the category really is around 500 images, it should be done in about two and a half hours. --Carnildo 01:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check the mainspace contribs and make sure that any actual postage articles have their images replaced. Jkelly 01:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do we request a person to review the fair use claim on one of these stamps? Gimmetrow 02:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: What if I wanted to mention that the Greek state wanted to honour Panagiotis Kanellopoulos by issuing a stamp and wanted to show the Image:Kanellopoulos.jpg of the stamp in the Panagiotis Kanellopoulos article? Thanks. Dr.K. 04:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link to a the website of the copyholder if it is just to help readers see what the stamp looks like. If you're discussing the use of subtle shading in philately and how it was radically altered for this memorable stamp, claim Wikipedia:Fair use and show that change. Jkelly 04:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your fast reply. Dr.K. 05:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot's done running now. It had the usual problem with special requests, where it didn't realize it was finished, and kept going over the category again and again. --Carnildo 06:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This OrphanBot is a real PITA for editors like me who are using stamp images correctly as fair use in article about postage stamps. So do I have to go back and reinstate each one AND remove the orphan tag or is User:Jkelly really going to do this for me? The only listed possible tag for use one these fair use stamps is {{Stamp}} and I already had tagged the appropriate images with this tag as per policy. ww2censor 05:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the inconvenience. I've replaced all the images in articles about stamps and stripped the orphaned template from them. Jkelly 17:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About how much of the category was valid? --Carnildo 19:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I touched fourteen image description pages to remove orphan tags. Some stamp articles were using the same image because it was a particularly important one, so that is less than the number of clickthroughs. Another dozen or so had already been done before I began. I did not replace unfree stamps in "List of people appearing on stamps" articles, so the total number of articles I edited was nine. Again, there were also articles that had already had their stamps replaced before I began. Jkelly 19:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa Nelly that was bold. But my ongoing process of reviewing fair-use stamp images individually was going slowly, so can't complain... :-) Stan 13:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allende stamps

I don't know the answer to that, but I think Allende stamps makes an interesting test case for where the border of fair use might lie on this issue; it's probably right on the border for fair use, in that contrasting Cuban and Chilean stamps were being used to illustrate different commemorations on the 10th anniversary of the 1973 Chilean coup. I'd be interested to hear whether people think that was fair use or not. The (somewhat stubby) article makes no sense without the illustrations, but perhaps that is an argument against having the article. - Jmabel | Talk 03:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That article is just a list of unfree images with a little prose, but there's no reason why it couldn't be a real article. It is a curious case. Probably best to merge any WP:V information until such a time an article can be written that does some real analysis. Jkelly 04:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another case: Image:GLKStamps.jpg. These stamps were issued by a micronation. Fair use rationale was given in the image description (why doesn't OrphanBot parse for that?), and the article text mentions the assertion of the micronation that the stamps have philatelic value. Is this fair use? Also, some editors want to remove the claim of philatelic value as advertising, leaving only the statement that stamps were printed. I think that leaves fair use of the image on shaky grounds, and would like an outside opinion. (Original uploader thinks these stamp images are public domain, but I have been unable to verify that and am doubtful.) Gimmetrow 12:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot doesn't check for a fair-use rationale because it can't tell the difference between a valid rationale and a bunch of words that somebody once heard used in the context of copyright law. --Carnildo 19:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could however check the description for a validly formatted rationale with a section header containing an article name, and not remove it from that article. WP:AGF. Gimmetrow 19:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith doesn't work here. I believe that almost every rationale put on an image description page was put there in good faith. But it doesn't change the fact that upwards of 95% of all fair-use rationales don't cover the points they need to cover, and of those that do, many aren't correct. --Carnildo 20:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spahbod

I was idling in #wikipedia-en and a rather flustered person came on asking for help with a problem on his User talk page (User talk:Fullstop). On it was a discussion going on between Fullstop and Spahbod. It seemed that Spahbod was unhappy about certain changes Fullstop has been making to a certain article, resulting in an edit war. Since that edit war, it seems Spahbod has been stalking Fullstop and reverting most changes. When I last checked, 7 of 10 changes to the Wikipedia mainspace that Fullstop had made had been reverted by Spahbod, on claims of vandalism, NPOV, and in 2 cases, the only rv reason was "sad". It seems that every time someone counters his points, he accuses the person with accusations of incivility, personal attack and more interestingly sock puppetry. I've check the diffs, and Fullstops edits have been far from Vandalism, nor NPOV. The diffs of the unsubstantiated reverts can be found on Fullstop's talk page.

I regret, now, joining the discussion in this conflit, as since then I have been twice accused of Incivility, once for Personal attack (see the history for WP:PAIN), and also for sock puppetry (you can checkuser me if you want, I only have one other account which I stopped using before I created this account).

This isn't the only incident involving Spahbod. He, at the moment is part of an Request for Arbitration, in which he is defending himself with uncited accusations of incivility.

Please can an an administrator resolve this issue. Fullstop is at a loss on what to do, and I believe it is unfair on Fullstop as an editor of Wikipedia to have to deal with this.

Many thanks, --T. Moitie ^[talk] 01:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has been blocked. Yank sox 11:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:T. Moitie "and/or" User:Fullstop

A few hours after User:Fullstop reported me and i reported him to the Personal attack intervention noticeboard for personal attacks and vandalizing(deleting categories and removing sourced material), without receiving any post from Fullstop or any other user, or having edit or been in any of the articles which he or me worked on, Moitie sent this post on Fullstop's talk page: [5], words taken out from it is: Spahbod. It is very clear to me that Fullstop has not been Uncivil to you in any way. You however seem to be using sarcastic, somewhat childish remarks to counter his/her statements. Then again: That is childish. Afterwards he actually reported me for personal attack, the very same behavior Fullstop showed. It is very clear that T. Moitie which made his/her account on 18th July 200(just a day after Parsi article revert wars began) is a sockpuppet of Fullstop.

Also Fullstop has not received one single warning for his attacks after my report with words like:Sad assertion, nasty piece of trolling, Spahbod's sad assertion, quite sad really. But i on the other hand recieved warning from another admin. --Spahbod ☼ 01:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disinclined to stick up for someone making such personal attacks, I have researched into the matter. I have been through 250 of Fullstop's edit summaries, and although not all have been filled out, none have had personal attacks. I have checked every talk page that he's edited since July 18, and as far as I can see, he hasn't been uncivil, nor said what Spahbod has just accused him of. Again, Spahbod hasn't given any actual evidence to back up his claim of Personal attack. --T. Moitie ^[talk] 02:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moitie wrote: I have researched into the matter. I have been through 250 of Fullstop's edit summaries Lol, there is no need to comment on that, i believe you just made my job easier once again by proving my point. And once again you left false and untrue statement about me not showing evidence, i showed you the link to his or your attacks on Fullstop's talk page, which is in the Parsi article, among many insulting and provoking words these words included: Spahbod's sad assertion, quite sad really, nasty piece of trolling. Then your own or should i say your other account's attacks which is on Fullstop's talk page: sarcastic, somewhat childish remarks to counter his/her statements

On top of that kind of behavior, he is constantly deleting categories like persian gods category from a persian god article: [6], changing the texts and removing wholes of sections like he did in the Parsi article.

Do i really need to say more, inspite of all this he actually goes around reporting me to every admin board, request for protection, personal attack board etc, there is. And even for some reason he thinks it will help him, he sends personal attack warning messages with numbers on them, on my talk page after i reverted his wrong doings lol :).

I am sorry for my long reply. I don't like reporting people for every problem i have, there has been many times people violated 3RR, i instead of reporting ask them to selfrevert, but i just could not stand while this guy goes around spreading false statements all over anymore. --Spahbod ☼ 07:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for transfer of adminship

I just want to notify you about the request to transfer adminship I posted on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 09:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is backed up

Just as an FYI to any administrator who may be interested, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion has some images that have been tagged for nearly two days awaiting deletion. BigDT 11:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A curiosity

I have been looking through Category:Living Traditionalist Catholic Bishops. Almost all of them are one-liners, bereft of any substantive encyclopaedic information. This looks like a directory dump to me, supporting the vocal but largely insignificant dissenting traditionalist Catholic minority. What do others think? Just zis Guy you know? 11:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first 2 or 3 that I went to were actually several paragraphs long. It's likely that the other stub information was just obtained from an external source, but it's probably not a commercial content provider. alphaChimp ^laudare 11:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most were created by the same user, but I doubt there is any copyvio involved. On the other hand, I think most of the one-liners (and a few of the longer ones) are not really notable. I brought this up on WP:BIO a while back without a resolution. Gimmetrow 13:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked template

I thought that the indefinitely blocked template {{indefblock}} should be put on a user page so that the account will be identified as indefinitely blocked and it will put the account in the indefinitely blocked category of the month. Also, I thought that the template was supposed to be added to the user page, not the user talk page. I am talking about choosing which one to add it to if you are only going to add it one, not whether there is no harm in adding it to both (Although I would think that adding it to both would be bad since it would create duplicates in the category. Perhaps a different template should be used for talk pages that would inform people the user was blocked, but not put the page in a category. I suggest {{indefblocktalk}} for the name). The reason that I am asking is that I have come across the user and user talk pages of indefinitely blocked users that are marked with a personal message, marked on the talk page but not the user page, and marked on both pages. Also, sometimes admins place a sockpuppet template on the user page and a indefinitely blocked template on the talk page. Most of them are placed or not placed by just a few admins. You can see examples at Category:Wikipedia users indefinitely blocked in July 2006. If I am correct, it would be sweet if a bot could put the templates on user pages of accounts that only have them on the talk page, remove them from talk pages, and possibly add a different indefinitely blocked template for talk pages. I am in favor of a talk page notice because it would help prevent people from unintentionally adding comments after the user was indefinitely blocked. -- Kjkolb 12:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right now we just have random users (Bigtop for one) running around adding indefblock templates to userpages. It would probably be pretty easy to have a bot add the block templates. Is it really necessary though? alphaChimp ^laudare 12:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I always add the template to the userpage because if it's added to the talk page, the blocked user can edit it and remove it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Intangible and recategorization of hundreds of pages

User:Intangible is in the process of recategorizing hundreds of pages, despite the fact that Intangible is in arbitration over this very issue. I have asked for a temporary injunction, See:request for injunction. I raise this here because so many pages are being edited, and I felt someone should at least glance at what is going on and decide if it is OK or not. I am obviously biased, and think the recategorization is POV, idiosyncratic, and ultimately destuctive of the work of scores of editors.--Cberlet 12:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit, I don't always agree with User:Intangible, but I've read your request for injunction, and I have to say, that could apply to myself as well. What is the specific problem? Category:Politics? Unless I'm completely missing something, it looks like Intangible cleaned the mess up. --Kbdank71 20:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe Intangible has acted improperly while an arbitration case is pending you should take this to Arbcom, by adding evidence to the case or making a motion that he be required to stop until the case is resolved. Thatcher131 (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz

Yesterday I noticed that some users have started adding "ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz" to many links on every Wikipedia page they visit. It has the effect of totally killing many of the external links on the page. Check out RonStoppable's 1st edit on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pradip Somasundaran. I removed the edits and reposted them without the url. His next edit, however, reinserted the url. RonStoppable was indefinitely banned for other conduct, but the ezproxy issue remains. I'm fairly certain that I've seen other users adding ezproxy links over the last 24 hours. My suspicion is that the addition is being done by whatever proxy software they're using on their computer. This whole thing could possibly be resolved by simply blocking their proxy.

In my time here, I haven't seen anything like this. I suspect that we haven't seen the last of it. It might be helpful to search for instances of ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz just to see how endemic the issue is. Anyone else seen this strange behavior? alphaChimp ^laudare 12:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:VPA#Proxying Wikipedia or mirror through URL-rewriting proxy server for a bit more on this. The proxy software must be pretty retarded to be blindly changing every link like that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Very interesting. Something is definitely going to have to be done about this, as nearly all edits by users under this proxy are screwing up articles. If we let this proxy continue to edit wikipedia, we're going to have to realize that every single time the edit button is clicked there will be collateral damage. alphaChimp ^laudare 15:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47 when I checked: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz is the link needed. (I think Linksearch was intended to combat spam, but it works well for this too.) --ais523 15:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Repaired all current occurences using user scripts: [7]. --ais523 16:14, 4 August 2006 (U T C)

Massive upload of possibly unfree image

User:Benzmit has uploaded over 100 images in the last couple of days[8], all with nonsense edit summaries ("cfgcjfld ew sfdsggvv", "qwqewdfdsaDADSA", etc.) and claiming to be the creator, when they look like copyrighted images... Those I checked were all orphans. Maybe some admin could somehow take care of this; I currently don't have the energy to put them all up at WP:PUI. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed those which have not already been tagged at WP:PUI (see Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images#August_4)and added {{PUIdisputed}} to all. I left a note on the user's page, although he had been previously warned about uploading images with incorrect tags. Several are prima facia not free, including a few trading cards. Most were highly suspect. Some non-image edits were probable vandalism. --TeaDrinker 03:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Abscissa

I do not believe that this user has been treating me with proper respect. The first incident of this that I can recall was during a nomination for deletion of the article "List of shock sites", which has since been merged with Shock site. He posted a comment which brought up the suggestion that I had nominated it for deletion simply because I was Catholic and found the content inappropriate. In my proposition for the article's deletion, I never once stated that religious had to do with my wanting the article deleted, and I think that it it was unacceptable for Abscissa to allege that my real reasons for wanting the article deleted were religious ones. (And also, after viewing the most recent version of his userpage, I find it somewhat ironic that he would accuse me of editing with POV.) Another memorable incident occured after a fairly recent situation in which I was blocked for creating accounts with offensive usernames and reporting them myself pretending that they were created by trolls (see here for details). Abscissa posted a provocative comment on my talk page, stating that he found the names "funny" after the "List of shock sites debacle" (why he refered to it as a "debacle", I do not know, as it resulted in the article being drastically improved) and another refering to what I did as a "vandalism fiasco" (which is inaccurate since virtually no edits were made whatsoever with any of the accounts I created, though regardless, what I did was completely inexcusible). And finally, here the most recent example of what I have been talking about.

Forgive me if I sound extreme, but I have come under the impression that this user is stalking me and I am tired of it. I ask Abscissa to please not continue to try to intimidate other users.--The Count of Monte Cristo ^Parley 19:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike18xx and the Allende article

I'm moderately involved in the Salvador Allende article, so I'm probably not the best person to facilitate matters related to that article from an administrative position. I'm in danger of losing my temper; I already more or less did once. It seems to me that User:Mike18xx has been involved in a lot of POV-pushing and that, just in general, he isn't "playing fair", in that he is holding others to standards of neutrality of sources that he has no intention of obeying himself. He seems to reject as politically biased any source that he characterizes as Marxist (and when I pointed out that "clearly your definition of Marxist is wide enough to embrace people who don't even call themselves such" he responded by saying "Most US Republicans are Marxist without knowing it…", a remark that I think speaks more about him than about the sources we are using); meanwhile, he cites David Horowitz's FrontPageMag, hardly a beacon of objectivity.

Since his comments on that page and on his user talk page suggest a guy who likes to argue rather than discuss and who moves pretty easily over the line into personal attacks (both on authors of sources and on Wikipedians), I don't think I would help matters by trying to engage him further. But I think the situation is in need of attention. I'm very open to possibilities on how to proceed. - Jmabel | Talk 21:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User System Administrator

What's up with Template:User System Administrator? I deleted it from a non-admin's User page and he put it back, claiming he's a system administrator on another system, and therefore he has a right to use that template. I contend that only Wikipedia admins should use that template (although I don't think anybody should use all of this userbox nonsense, really), unless the template is changed to make it clear they are not talking about being a Wikipedia sysadmin. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the template should be changed, but I think it's rather clear the template is not referring to sysadmins on Wikipedia. For one, there is a rather large difference between a system administrator and sysop (sysadmins being Brion VIBBER, Tim Starling, etc.; sysops being you and I). There aren't nearly 500 sysadmins on Wikipedia, yet nearly that many use the userbox. It's also sorted under Category:Profession user templates, which would again imply that it's not talking about Wikipedia sysadmins. In either case, be it acceptable or not to use the template, I believe that User:Torinir was acting in good faith and should be unblocked. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like many other templates, this one does not help the project and it might cause problems. If someone wants to say on their user page that they have certain kinds of past experience with computerers, they can do that without using a template, --JWSchmidt 23:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked Torinir, as the block was based on an apparent mistaken assumption. I find the template harmless but irrelevant, personally. Friday (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The block was not blocked on a mistaken assumption. It was based on his restoring the template after I deleted it from his User page because he is not a sysadmin on Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what the userbox implies. You're misreading it. It's describing the profession of being a system administrator, not the position of being a Wikipedia system administrator. Georgewilliamherbert 02:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how is one supposed to understand that distinction, unless they knew the history of the userbox and its supposed intended purpose? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it's in the category of Profession-related userboxes, that it's used very widely by WP users who are not WP admins of any sort?

I think you're the first person who interpreted it as implying WP sysadmin status (I could be wrong but have seen no other cases). I don't think anyone thought that it had to be more clear.

This was a rather violently enthusiastic response to it... Georgewilliamherbert 03:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the passerby just happened to click on the userbox to go to the template page, and understood the category that it was placed in, they would have absolutely no idea that that userbox was even in a category, let alone a category that makes any sense. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that a random passerby might make that mistake holds water. That argues for changing the userbox to be unambiguous.

That does not explain why you (who are not a random passerby) didn't check what categories it was in and see how it was being used, in response to the claims made that it didn't mean what you thought and were asserting that it meant. Due dilligence? Georgewilliamherbert 04:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think the template needs clarity, I think Friday should have discussed the unblock with Zoe first, and I think Zoe should elaborate on this. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are expected to be a check on each other. Friday (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Wheel war: Wheel wars occur when administrators get too distressed to discuss something, or when an administrator takes it upon him or herself to undo another admin's actions without consultation. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see... hmm.. looks like we're talking about it here. Friday's the one who reversed your block and I see Friday's comment right above. So, what are you talking about? Ashibaka tock 03:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taling about being presented with a fait accompli and being told to lump it. Why is Friday so God-awful hurried to undo other people's actions? Avoidance of wheel wars is begun by talking about things before taking unilateral actions. This is not the first time that Friday has reverted one of my administrative actions, and not even the first time this week. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think she's Wiki-stalking you, that's a case to make in general, but it doesn't make this specific incident qualify as wheel warring on her part. Ashibaka tock 03:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's uncivil and a violation of WP:AGF. And a pattern of abuse on Friday's part. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Toronir were to push the issue, s/he has a valid case that you repeatedly vandalized his/her page for a reason which other editors and admins are without exception finding to have been an exceptionally aggressive misinterpretation. I grant you good faith, but claiming that pushing back against you on this particular issue was abusive is silly. The block and reverts on T's page were crying out for another admin to overturn. Georgewilliamherbert 03:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without discussion first? Undoing another admins action without reaching consensus first is the root of most admin conflicts that turn into wheel wars. FloNight ^talk 03:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin, however, I would have encouraged all of:

* Zoe to have warned the user about their interpretation of the userbox before editing their userpage

* Zoe to have warned the user prior to blocking

* Friday to have asked Zoe for clarification

* Friday to have notified Zoe before the unblock

However, those were all moot points by the time the wheel war threat hit AN/I.

In an ideal world, admins neither respond to each other without prior discussion nor use admin powers on users without prior discussion and warning. Georgewilliamherbert 03:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did warn Torinir that if he put the template back, he would be blocked. He went ahead and did it anyway. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sit corrected. You did indeed, on Aug 2. However, there's the rather interesting question raised by that exchange, wherein Torinir said "Hey, the userbox isn't used for that". And, was correct. What research did you do to convince yourself that T was wrong on that point, before applying the block? Georgewilliamherbert 04:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with you here. If even a single reversal of an admin action is wrong, you're saying that whoever happens to act first is by definition right- and that's insane. Friday (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friday, it is unlikely that you can fully understand the situation without speaking with the original admin first. You are only getting one side of the story. That is why discussion is needed. If you disagree with another admins actions, it is best to discuss it on AN/I or AN. Other admins may agree with you and then you will have consensus to reverse. This is a good preventative measure to stop wheel wars. --FloNight ^talk 03:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

however it slows down how long it takes for mistakes to be corrected and flys in the face of the "wiki way".Geni 10:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to me like the bold/revert/discuss model. A user was blocked, and the rationale indicated a misunderstanding. I'd not have done it myself but it is very hard to criticise Friday for unblocking a user whose block appears to have been the result of a genuine error. If, after discussion, we find that the user is playing silly buggers then we can easily re-block. I think everyone needs a nice cup of tea and a sit down, myself. Just zis Guy you know? 15:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A check, certainly, I fully agree. This did not seem to me to be a clear-cut case of an erroneous block; true, it seemed punitive and, true, there seems to be a presumption of guilt by Zoe, but the block was not clear-cut wrong, IMHO. In such cases, these things need to be fully discussed, rather than saying, "Zoe, don't hate me because I know we just talked about this, but I've unblocked" and taking on the appearance of taking over. We should be bold, but we should be sure. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user that is insisting that they were not trying to make anyone think that they were an admin is the one that made this edit, right? It is not obvious to me from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Hipocrite that there is no reason for concern about this user. Jkelly 03:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to understand why Friday thinks that my block of Torinir is inappropriate for claiming to be a system administrator, but at the same time, he's chiding User:MatthewFenton for claiming to be an admin. If, in fact, we are only called sysops, then MatthewFenton's actions should be completely appropriate. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This entire situation has escalated far beyond what I ever intended, and now unrelated situations are being brought up. I'd like to wash my hands of this, yet I stand by my actions, so I'm not sure I can. If anyone disagrees strongly enough to change things, let them do so. Friday (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At a wild guess, the distinctions between "chiding" and "blocking", and between "deliberating passing oneself off as a WP admin" and "using a potentially confusing userbox" both seem to be pertinent here. I think it would have been preferable had Friday explicitly consulted with Zoe beforehand, especially if there's "history" there likely to lead to friction from another such action? But: isn't review of the block implicit in the listing here in the first place? Or at least, shouldn't it have been, given how marginal the basis for it was in the first place? Nor was Friday the first person to express disagreement with the block, and that he should be unblocked. It does not seem like an appropriate block to me, if we're actually still discussing that aspect, as opposed to recasting this purely in "wheel war" terms. Alai 03:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the merits of the block (but noting that Zoe did not just fall off the turnip truck) none of us should undo another's admin actions without talking to them first. Unless this just had to be taken care of at once, it should have been discussed with Zoe before anyone unblocked. We need to presume competence - that the admin is probably not just being capricious, but has some reason for what she is doing. If I see an admin action that looks arbitrary, it is likely that I do not know all the facts. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't own articles you don't own blocks. generaly I take the view that if an admin undoes one of my admin actions whatever the problem that caused me to block becomes their responcibilty. Makes life a lot easyer.Geni 10:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any admin making a block is obliged to explain said block on the user's talk page. If there's an arbritrary-looking block, the blocking admin did not explain adequately. All admins should act as a check on each other, and this includes (occasionally) undoing unjustified blocks. If people don't consider it a proper admin function for me to act as a check on other admins, let me know and I'll turn in my sysop bit. I have no wish to cause disharmony, only to excercise common sense. Friday (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to you above. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a word to the template that should clear up the whole damned mess. --Carnildo 04:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen the template used as a way to identify admins. I think that it would have been prudent to check the template, where it can clearly be seen that it is in Category:Profession user templates. Also, unlike other admin identifiers, there is no reference to Wikipedia, such as the Wikipedia logo or a link the Wikipedia:Administrators. Since Friday thought that the block was a mistake, rather than a difference in opinion, I do not think unblocking the user was a big deal, especially because the user was right, it is a profession template. Still, according to Wikipedia:Blocking policy, it should be discussed with the blocking admin first, if he or she is online, even if it is believed that the block was made in error. I think that the user's perspective should be examined. An admin removed a template from his user page and blocked him for restoring it based upon the incorrect belief that the template is for identifying Wikipedia admins, even after he let her know that the template is not used in that way. That seems like a mistake to me. Should users be blocked for disobeying the directions of an admin when they are incorrect and the admin has even been informed that they are incorrect? We have not reached that level of insanity, yet, have we. ;-) -- Kjkolb 05:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember when admins weren't allowed to block people unilaterally for anything other than vandalism? The fear of incidents like this was the reason why. At the time, I didn't think the fear was justified. I'm sorry to see myself proven wrong. The original block was a travesty; a hapless Wikipedian, guilty of nothing as far as I can tell, steamrolled by an admin who misunderstood the situation and wouldn't listen to explainations. I find it amazing that Zoe is still defending her actions, and even attacking Friday for undoing the block. If she truly believes her actions were acceptable for an admin on Wikipedia, I would prefer she not be one. Isomorphic 06:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with user removing dispute tags

GJRFMorelligu (talk · contribs) has for weeks been uploading large numbers of images and when deletion, license, no source, or unfree image tags are added simply removing them. I have tagged dozens of them and tried to discuss the issues with him; however even that discussion has been removed and the actions continue. Could someone new try something? What is the current policy on removing such tags? Rmhermen 02:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess. I left a last warning and bot-rollbacked the image edits. The account needs to be blocked if the user continues. Jkelly 02:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this user also edits as 201.208.126.185 and Morelligu (though the latter account hasn't edited since the middle of April). —Bkell (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and blocked the account indefinitely; we ain't got time to deal with people like him. Just remove his images and eventually delete them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

harris salomon

the entry for harris salomon has been repeatedly vandalized with slanderous personal attacks. can you please protect it. the version of august 4(the first one) should be the one used. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.79.82 (talk • contribs)

Use WP:RFPP for page protect requests. alphaChimp ^laudare 16:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:68.99.19.167

He's been blocked for a week (second block), but I think an indefinite block may be required; he's vandalized hundreds of articles relating to religion, often in fairly subtle ways (PoV inserts and content deletions and modifications, removing images, etc.), and I've only managed to revert a quarter of his edits so far. (Going down the list, I managed to revert everything [sometimes with difficulty, due to later edits] down to 03:21, 29 July 2006, although that still leaves scores and scores of edits which someone will need to revert. --Emufarmers^(T/C) 03:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

we don't indef block IPs unless they're open proxies. Sasquatch t|c 17:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Arpaio history merge assistence needed

Earlier today, the article Joe Arpaio was tagged as a copyvio by Kaszeta [9]. I looked at the text and noted that the copyright violations were not too terrible and could be easily fixed. I noted this on the article's talk page [10]. I followed the instructions and created a new page at Talk:Joe Arpaio/Temp where I proceeded to work on the problems as outlined in the talk page. While I was working on these problems, Wikibofh reverted the copyvio tag and struck the copyvio entry [11]. At that point, I copied the worked I had done on Talk:Joe Arpaio/Temp into Joe Arpaio and tagged it with {{db-histmerge}} to merge the histories of the original article and the copyvio fixes I had done in /Temp. Later, FrancisTyers deleted the article under CSD#G6 (which is correct), but then nothing else has been done for several hours. I left a note on his talk page [12] but have gotten no reply. I assume he has left WP for the day. Essentially, the page has been deleted and needs to be recovered so that a proper history merge can be done. Thank you for your assistence. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 03:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I went to bed, sorry about that! :) - FrancisTyers · 10:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Francis! -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 16:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP address wrongly listed as zombie computer

66.99.246.226 is wrongly listed as a zombie computer. It is actually the IP of Cary Public Library. Because the library has about 20 computers with an internet connection, many different people use this address. But there are a handful of legit accounts using these computers. Please take note. Vuy 18:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public library machines can be zombies, and zombies can be cleaned up. Are we trying to track the status of individual machines, and why? Jkelly 19:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't a lot of the machines used by the Squidward vandal from public libraries? Perhaps this was caught under the umbrella of "block anything used by Squidward as a proxy/zombie"? Essjay (Talk) 08:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't used by squidward, but it does have port 80 and 8080 open, thought they are both currently password protected so probably a false positive on a proxy check. --pgk^(talk) 08:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TIME Magazine covers:similar issue as with stamps

They are usually used not, as proclaimed in the {{TIME}}, "to illustrate an article, or part of an article, which specifically describes the issue in question or its cover". For example, such a cover is the main image in the Ho Chi Minh article, although that magazine issue even nowhere mentioned in the article. They are also used in a similar way in a number of other places, inluding Julius Nyerere, Aleksei Leonov, etc. If our certain people were so strict to fair use stamps, even those of a defunct state (Soviet ones), then should we give OrphanBot one more "little work": dealing with problematic usage of TIME magazine covers? Cmapm 22:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that you should mention TIME magazine covers... Oh, and please don't call people "Nazis". Jkelly 22:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is funny, is this not a similar problem? I've heard that phrase a number of times here in Wiki, this word is quite widely used in such cases. Cmapm 22:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Godwin's Law is thusly proven. Q.E.D. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is easy, the comment may be refactored by people, who feel abused. But still you refrain from the answer to my question. Cmapm 22:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ec Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2. And calling people "Nazi" may be offensive to both the people you're addressing, who may not enjoy the comparison, and those that aren't happy about trivialising genocide. Jkelly 22:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provided, that such an issue already arose in the past, it's even more strange for me that the copyright tag's use don't correspond to its proclaimed purpose in {{TIME}} in many cases. Was that victory against overall remover a justification of all future copyright problems with the template? Cmapm 22:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not touching those images without a mandate from IFD, TFD, or the Foundation. I have no desire to be the target of a lynch mob, virtual or otherwise. --Carnildo 23:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did so, because I believe I've been a target of a virtual lynch mob, who removed 15 or so images of Soviet stamps, scanned by me, without a separate explanation in each case. It's much easier for me to give up uploading images at all, than do the work, that may be so quickly broken on somebody's request. Cmapm 23:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cmapm, do you want me to take a look at the specific images that you are talking about? Are they obvious in your contribs? I do suggest that people shouldn't invest too much time, energy or ownership in unfreely-licensed content. Jkelly 23:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you added two unfree images next to the "See also" section of Antarctica. I'm curious about why you did that, as you seem to be clear that is the kind of usage we just needed a bot run to remove. Jkelly 23:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. The Bulgarian image was not added by me and it seems to be a free one. The first image was readded by me after retagging it with PD-Soviet (as it is pre-1973) after your bot's task. Now I see, how all that decisions on bot's hiring are made... I see this not to be honest, but leaving it on that people's conscience. Cmapm 12:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need help

that about say it all, I need help reverting all the crap. The user is already indef blocked. Sasquatch t|c 22:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who helped clear it up :-) Sasquatch t|c 22:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old

There's a fair backlog at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, with one AfD over a week past its sell by date - a mass AfD of what looks like over three dozen articles which seems to have ended in your standard vague merge/delete result with no-one troubling to say what should be merged. Can't imagine why no-one's touched that - I recommend whoever closes it does a "redirect all and anyone who wants to merge can go into the history", personally, I'd do it myself if it wasn't the wrong side of half one in the morning. Most of the due days have less than 10 articles left - if everyone reading this does one it'll probably be gone by the time I wake up tomorrow.--Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note, article:Old actually exists, would the entire universe collapse into a supper massive blackhole if someone tried to AFD Old? Cats and Dogs living together, the laws of physics all backwards!! Or am I just being excessively melodramatic?--152.163.100.200 04:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. I always wondered what we'd do if someone made a notable film called Main Page. Obviously it would go at Main Page (film), but would we have to put a disambig notice at the top of our main page for all eternity? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Granger

I ran across this page which read like it was copied from somewhere, and found a page via Google which it was copied from. When I contacted the poster, User:GrangerLore, they claimed copyright ownership. I pointed them to Wikipedia:Copyright problems and how they can prove they own teh material, they absolutely refused to do so. I've communicated with the editor several times, and have explained that we need verification of copyright ownership, but they just keep claiming ownership without even making an attempt to provide any proof. I have in the meantime deleted the material. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with this. Anyone can claim they own anything. --mboverload @ 01:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, well done. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RealityBoy

This user is on a photo upload rampage. All of his uploads are copyvios from other websites and don't include copyright tags or other information. Despite being warned he is still uploading massive amounts of images. --Hetar 03:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Ryjgqm seems to be on a simillar rampage. He claims his photos are gfdl-self but they are obviously not. He has already been warned and shows no signs of stopping. Any help greatly appreciated. --Hetar 05:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RealityBoy was blocked indefinitely by somebody else. I blocked Ryjgqm for 24 hours, for now. I think that he or she should probably be blocked indefinitely. The user has uploaded 54 pictures, many of which are the same picture with a different name, and all of which appear copyrighted. Most of the article edits are to insert the pictures into them. The account has almost no useful edits. -- Kjkolb 08:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made the block indefinite. If someone disagrees, they can change it if they want to, although providing the reasoning would be helpful. -- Kjkolb 05:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

I'll bite, why is AN/i protected?--152.163.100.200 04:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not... Viridae ^Talk 04:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Says unprotect, so must be. --DanielCD 04:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, sprotect, same difference for me--152.163.100.200 04:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only admins can see that tab. Ask User:Antandrus, he did the protect. --DanielCD 04:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still see no sign of WP:ANI being protected at all...? Viridae ^Talk 04:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was sprotected from yesterday: I unprotected it just now (it's still protected from moves, of course) Antandrus (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still can' work out why it wasn't showing up as sprotected. Oh well. Viridae ^Talk 08:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlisting/blacklisting users as part of user sub page (unofficial wikiproject)

I just wanted to make a note of the page, seemingly a personal wikiproject, at User:AMbroodEY/Fundy_Watch. What concerns me is the venomous accusation and watchlisting of several users at the watchlist page of the project User:AMbroodEY/Fundy_Watch/Watch_List. Though the project states its goal to promote NPOV, the watchlists, and adjectives given to users (see diff) makes it appear otherwise.

The watchlist also contains phrases like "not really islamist but bible thumpers", "Has religious implications. Edited by ultra-right Christian fundamentalist HolyWarrior and dbachman, biased because I think he might be Witzel's student", "User:Dbachmann Potentially dangerous anti-Hindu. he is an admin! He has abused his priviledges to make POV edits to Michael Witzel article by removing all criticisms of witzel." etc. in relation to several articles and editors.

Also related is the MFD : Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AMbroodEY/Fundy Watch.

Thanks. --Ragib 06:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is anything on wikipedia that makes me annoyed - that does. What happened to WP:NPOV and WP:NPA. Viridae ^Talk 08:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV is for mainspace and templates --mboverload @ 11:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that and thats what I am talking about (look further at the pages). Oh and I forgot WP:AGF before (look at the watch list). Viridae ^Talk 11:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though then again It could be argued that I am in violation of WP:AGF with this one. Viridae ^Talk 11:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, it seems like voting on the MFD yields even more venom from the members of the group, who denigrate the voters with personal attacks like "Comment -- User:Ragib is in cahoots with one of the watchees ([[User:Holywarrior]).Bakaman%% 15:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)" or "Comment - Comment made by a supporter of Witzel. Witzel's views on Hinduism (lets just say they're negative) are documented. Timothy Usher's friend User:Dbachmann has threatened Netaji many times, and has made personal attacks. Usher still supports the wild admin. Bakaman%% 15:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)". This just proves the point once again. --Ragib 16:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: while this is under MFD, it has spawned copies of the "Enemies' list" in guise of "guilds" -- see Category:Patriotic Indian Wikipedian's Guild. --Ragib 05:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncategorized categories?

User:ProveIt regularily combs through Special:Uncategorizedcategories and tries to categorize the uncategorized, and he left me a note saying that the page hadn't been updated on its normal schedule. I suspect that it is a product of the quasi mystical (to me at least) developer beings, but thought I'd drop a note here in case I could help him out by going to some page and hitting a button as an admin flagged account. Otherwise, if its just someone on vacation / toolserver being down / reducing the frequency of the updates / someone's going away party where everyone had too much to drink and went back to snooze in their cubicles and it will be returning shortly, then not a problem. Syrthiss 11:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to whoever fixed it ... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro777

I've deleted a lot of material from this person's userpage as per this diff. I don't know if this person has any previous history of being discussed in this forum. Basically, he and some others claim that various admins are agents of the Israeli government or simply resolute Zionists determined to crush any criticism of Israel. I expect that I'll now be added to the list. If no one else is doing so already, could some others keep an eye on this user? Sorry if this is old news; I've been a bit out of circulation just lately. Metamagician3000 13:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested to him that the material is likely to be taken as an attack on Jewish and Israeli users, and asked him to remove it. He declines to do so. Any thoughts? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirosław Vitali

Was deleted as a possible copyvio. The creator of the article, User:Syrenab says it was his own work, based on his web site. Is there any way to get the thing undeleted? Thanks. :) Dlohcierekim 15:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless the contents of his website are released under GFDL. Assuming this is the website in question, the material is "Copyright © 2006 Syrena". He can either replace the copyright notice on that webpage with a GFDL notice, or rewrite the biography for Wikipedia, but as long as he holds copyright to it then he can't release it under the GFDL, and can't post it on Wikipedia. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The GFDL is a license; it does not relinquish copyright. If the material truly belongs to the user in question, they are allowed to release it under as many different licenses as they wish. There's no need to replace the copyright notice on the site. Isomorphic 18:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're a bit off the mark there. One can hold a copyright and decide to release the material under GFDL (or copyrighted free use or other free licences). Releasing material which the user owns the copyright to under GFDL in no way means he must change or remove a copyright notice from an existing copy of similar material. -- Infrogmation 18:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I undeleted it and reverted to pre speedy tag version. Article still needs cleaning up to Wiki formats. -- Infrogmation 19:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He still has to prove that he's the copyright owner, just claiming it is not verification. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, perhaps should go to WP:CP rather than speedy, I suppose. -- Infrogmation 23:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with speed deleting any copyvio on sight. If it's truly their information to release, they can do so and recreate the article. --mboverload @ 05:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting block review

I blocked Shakim67 for 1 month as it is an admitted sockpuppet account of Can't Nobody Step To Me, which was blocked for 1 month for personal attacks both on-wiki and through the registered email address both accounts share. It has been reviewd once and upheld. I would like some other admins to weigh in so that this user doesn't feel like the evil cabal is out to get him. Thanks. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 20:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It actually looks a little more complex than that, the account User:Shakim67 has previously been blocked for personal attacks, it was prior to that block expiring that User:Can't Nobody Step To Me was created (under a different name initially, but subsequently renamed). Can't Nobody Step To Me has now been blocked for engaging in personal attacks and now the user is trying to use User:Shakim67 to evade that block... --pgk^(talk) 20:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, there was User:Shinemygrillz, and a couple of other connected accounts which claim to be siblings. They keep leaving themselves logged in/stealing passwords/not keeping passwords secret. All of them have abused {{helpme}} and are very familiar to regulars of #wikipedia-bootcamp. I have felt at times like blocking them all for effectively being unauthorized group accounts.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 20:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes User:Shinemygrillz was the the pre-rename name of User:Can't Nobody Step To Me, I haven't kept track of all the others. --pgk^(talk) 21:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

forwarded from my talk

Please block User:125.236.44.42 Would it be possible to allow people to create accounts from this IP address, but to block people from making unsigned-in edits from there? That is a little less severe than blocking the IP outright, but even that would seem to be justified.

By the way, what is this - a school for delinquent kids? All of the edits that I looked at from this IP (roughly 40) were either acts of vandalism or fixing that vandalism. One only has to look at the User:talk page to see how rife the problem is.Paulgush 03:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that'd be possible, but I'll post it at WP:AN so other admins can comment -- Drini 03:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll bite. 1 month. [13] Wikibofh_(talk) 04:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibofh, does the block allow account creation, as requested? If so, should that be noted on the talk page? -- Kjkolb 05:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Template Idea

This is for the Comedy oriented vandal:

Image of a Triangle, "flourescent"/neon yellow background, black borders of said triangle w/ a ! in it, on the upper left of the template. Message: If you are here to be funny, take your act to Uncyclopedia, where your humor is appreciated. Link is www.uncyclopedia.org. This is a encyclopedia. Continued vandalisim will get you blocked, even banned.

Of course, it has to be proven that the vandal is doing so as a comic routine, if so, send them to Uncyclopedia. On there, they can create jokes to their hearts' content.

Is this a good idea ? Martial Law 06:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, we had something like this earlier, but was deleted. I would wait on making this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good idea to me. Why don't we have it anymore? The Ungovernable Force 06:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of humor, I was bored and did this. I like the template too, though. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 06:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft screenshots

Someone on IRC asked about a particular image (Image:Windows_Vista_5472_desktop.png, mentioning that Microsoft's licensing [14] specifically says you should not use screenshots of beta software. Do we care? Comments? --Golbez 10:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That means we don't have their permission to use the screenshots, but we don't have permission to use any of the fair use stuff we present. That's the essence of fair use - we're claiming we have an encyclopedic need to present a given image, in moderation, to support our article about its subject, and we do so without the permission of the copyright owner. If they really feel that such a screenshot is the fruit of someone breaking a click-through licence, let 'em write to the foundation - there's no need to prior-restrain ourselves on the theory that they might. We do, of course, still have to stick to our WP:FAIR policies properly (which, among other things, means we shouldn't be displaying the image inline here). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent: User:MagentaThompson is a sock of User:PennyGWoods and is threatening me...again

This is just a heads up. A few months ago, Penny was indefinitely blocked for personal attacks and (literally) death threats involving the Halle Berry page. Well in the last few days, she has returned as User:MagentaThompson. I didn't catch it until she used the exact same language and style as Penny. Here is an edit by Magenta and here is an edit by Penny. And here is a long convo I had with Penny in which she uses the same style as Magenta. Anyway, I blocked Magenta indefinitely since she's a banned user trying to get around the ban by starting a new account. She then she used an IP and essentially admitted that she was the same person. I'm writing this as a heads up since she extensively used sockpuppets the last time she was blocked, so please watch out for it. If we can get as many people as we can watchlisting Halle Berry and Nona Gaye, that'd be great. Thanks. --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. And she just gave me another veiled death threat. --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 682: / Line 682: @@
 : That means we don't have their permission to use the screenshots, but we don't have permission to use any of the fair use stuff we present.  That's the essence of fair use - we're claiming we have an encyclopedic need to present a given image, in moderation, to support our article about its subject, and we do so without the permission of the copyright owner.  If they ''really'' feel that such a screenshot is the fruit of someone breaking a click-through licence, let 'em write to the foundation - there's no need to prior-restrain ourselves on the theory that they might. We do, of course, still have to stick to our WP:FAIR policies properly (which, among other things, means we shouldn't be displaying the image inline here). -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 10:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
+== Urgent: [[User:MagentaThompson]] is a sock of [[User:PennyGWoods]] and is threatening me...again==
+This is just a heads up. A few months ago, Penny was indefinitely blocked for personal attacks and (literally) death threats involving the [[Halle Berry]] page. Well in the last few days, she has returned as [[User:MagentaThompson]]. I didn't catch it until she used the exact same language and style as Penny. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHalle_Berry&diff=68162132&oldid=68152323 Here] is an edit by Magenta and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHalle_Berry&diff=56038957&oldid=56037832 here] is an edit by Penny. And [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHalle_Berry&diff=56038957&oldid=54771013 here] is a long convo I had with Penny in which she uses the same style as Magenta. Anyway, I blocked Magenta indefinitely since she's a banned user trying to get around the ban by starting a new account. She then she used an IP and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Halle_Berry&diff=68176422&oldid=68176100 essentially admitted] that she was the same person. I'm writing this as a heads up since she extensively used sockpuppets the last time she was blocked, so please watch out for it. If we can get as many people as we can watchlisting [[Halle Berry]] and [[Nona Gaye]], that'd be great. Thanks. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(meow)]]</sup> 12:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
+:Wonderful. And she just gave me another [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHalle_Berry&diff=68177604&oldid=68176365 veiled death threat]. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(meow)]]</sup> 12:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards