Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive127

Unblock request

I received the following unblock appeal by e-mail, with permission to post it. What does the community think? Durova^Charge! 23:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Please don't indulge these people. They've been trolling us consistently for at least three years and are continuing to do so by having people post their messages here after being rebuffed by OTRS and unblock-en-l. Their most recent socks have just be rooted out and blocked after a lot of work both on and off site by administrators and checkusers both on WP and other non-foundation projects and their IPs shut down by checkusers. See the ANI thread on Solumeiras for Lar's description of their longterm abuse and his description of the discussions among checkusers. Also note Matt's comment from 18 months ago that I linked to on ANI. Once again, these people are playing us for fools. They may have been 16 when they started, but they continued until as recently as yesterday. If they want to have their ban reconsidered they need to go away for awhile and stop trolling us on multiple fronts first because we've heard, "I'm sorry, I've learned my lesson" before. Many times before. As for forgiving Willy on Wheels, well, that's rather telling as there are admins, CUs and foundation people who believe that these are the kids behind the WoW abuse and it's rather ironic that the sockpuppet Sunholm happened to be the one who removed WoW from the list of banned people claiming that WoW was welcome here. Please, don't be sucked in by these people. Sarah 02:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the email because I think they've manipulated Durova into posting on their behalf because yesterday a checkuser hardblocked their IP. If anyone wants to see the email it's here. Sarah 02:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hell no. They've been saying the same things on the BJAODN wiki. I don't trust them at all. And there's evidence that they've run XRumer, via an account and one or two IP addresses. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above, everytime we track down and block we get the same sob stories, claims of aspergers, claims of autism, mental illness, it's x and they've had their web access remove, the original from the sunholm/sunfazer days along the lines of "it was a public ip, but my friend who is the network engineer has reassigned it to me" etc. etc. It's long past being old. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I wasn't manipulated. I received a request and put it to the community for discussion. Durova^Charge! 19:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no interest in (nor has anyone demonstrated any reason to) unblock(ing) this account. This is another example of someone who is paying the price for abusing the community's trust. - Philippe | Talk 19:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, I was, and am still, trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. I know that you have a standing offer to do this for users who have sat out a reasonable time (is it 6 months?) without using socks to evade their blocks and bans and causing other disruption to the project, but this person was caught using socks just the day before they emailed you this request. They have literally just been banned and we've just cleaned up after and blocked their recent socks. And the only reason I could think that you would post this for them was if you were manipulated and not aware of the facts. Their emails are full of lies and I'm not prepared to waste time refuting all their blatant lies other than to note here, for the record, that the people who were emailing OTRS, unblock-en-l and various editors and admins, myself included, under various pseudonyms to complain about the blocks and to protest their innocence and so on were using the IP 82.42.237.84 and this just happens to be one of SunStar Net/Solumeiras's IP addresses. They've been trolling us for at least three years, causing the most unbelievable amount of vandalism and disruption, and they are continuing to troll us now. I still have Matt Brown's words from eighteen months ago ringing in my head: "The person/people behind this IP are playing us for fools; don't let them do so again." Sarah 00:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And seriously, there's no need to respond in a heated manner. I have not supported this bid for reinstatement. Just because I have a standing offer under certain conditions doesn't mean every request I relay comes with any endorsement. Durova^Charge! 02:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm being heated. Not in the slightest. I'm just having trouble understanding why you're doing this given the circumstances. That is all. Sarah 02:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

USACASNATIONAL (talk · contribs) block review

I originally blocked this user for 3RR, content deletion, potentially libelous statement reasons. However, after seeing their comment to me on their talk page after I left the block notice, I changed the block to indefinite. The editor has also used UKC CASSA (talk · contribs), CASSA (talk · contribs), and 74.78.174.145 (talk · contribs). Finally, the editor is part of a WP:COI/N notice here. If anybody has an issue with my escalating block to indef, feel free to comment or reverse. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, harassment and disruption aren't on at all. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"Next time it will be kids". Gahahahaha... JuJube (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Newbie admin needs a bit of advice

In response to this report at WP:AN3 I blocked 88.64.91.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 12 hours for edit warring on Futurama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). However, the individual has a dynamic IP and returned minutes later with a new IP and a few personal attacks for good measure. So I blocked 84.56.0.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for edit warring and personal attacks.

Predictably, the individual returned again to revert war on the article with a new IP. What is my best course of action here? I've considered:

• Blocking each IP in a game of whack-a-mole
• Semi-protection
• Full protection (since there is an underlying content dispute)

However, none of the above seem satisfactory to me. Thanks. CIreland (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If they seem to be targeting one article, the first step could be semi protection, which I have done here. Then you can either block individual IPs or try a range block, depending on the situation. Crum375 (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response. CIreland (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The dog ate my homework

I’d like to start a discussion about dealing with accounts who respond to accusations of sockpuppetry with “It was my roommate, we edit from the same computer and have identical interests. Why, is that not allowed? No one told me, I had no idea.”

The current policy at WP:SOCK already addresses this, (even more so after Jehochman’s recent addition) and notes that it can be treated the same as sockpuppetry. However, the “Why, is that not allowed? No one told me, I had no idea” part of this means that what will actually happen is an accusation of sock puppetry, followed by this defense, will result in the user being “notified” of this provision, and told not to do it anymore. One free pass, as it were.

Yes, I know about AGF, and once in a blue moon, I suppose the dog really does eat the homework. But no teacher automatically accepts this excuse, and says “well next time, keep the homework away from the dog, but you don’t need to turn your homework in this one time.” At least none of my teachers ever did. Giving puppeteers one free pass before there is any consequence greatly increases the likelihood that this gambit will be used by everyone accused of sockpuppetry.

In cases where the existence of a similarly-minded roommate is a distinct possibility, I’m resigned that the solution above is the best we can do. If I had any great ideas, I’d propose them, but I don’t. Instead I’m asking for a discussion to see if anything can be improved, and Jehochman suggested AN might be a good place to discuss this.

The only thing I’d throw out there is a suggestion that in the future, we might consider actively attempting to disprove the excuse whenever possible, and imposing much more severe consequences on those who abuse it, so that others aren’t encouraged to try the same thing. In other words, at the very least, I suggest we find out if the student actually has a dog or not. --barneca (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The other problem is - why _isn't_ it allowed? We are, in these cases, holding two adults responsible for one another's actions with absolutely no basis. Assuming that it really is two different people, why are two different people who live near each other and have similar interests not allowed to both edit? Checkuser data interpretation techniques have gotten more sophisticated and I've noticed that the checkusers have been getting more confident in saying they are sure that it is or is not the case; so if we are in fact reasonably sure that it is two different people, why should these be treated any differently from two people who are geographically remote than one another? —Random832 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Two separate people most definitely should be allowed to edit from the same computer, as long as they either disclose their interconectedness, or avoid editing reverting edited for clarity per Lara's comment below the same articles or voting in CFD's ditto. I think that's what most people have always assumed, and that's what Jehochman's clarification of WP:SOCK a few hours ago puts into writing. I'm more concerned with this being a free pass to sock with no consequences. --barneca (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The comment I'd have is why can't there be a warning when a person registers that their IP is tracked and they shouldn't edit the same topics from a common computer. MBisanz ^talk 18:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

When the edits are coming from the same IP, it's not so much an issue that they're editing the same articles, as long as their not backing each other in conversations, or avoiding 3RR by alternating reverts, etc. At that point, it doesn't matter if the accounts are one person or two. Sock or meatpuppet, either way is unacceptable. Am I wrong? Do you block people who share an IP and only edit constructively? Lara❤Love 18:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well no, the concern is abuse (or what looks like abuse), not erecting a wall between people that live together or know each other in real life. But a Checkuser wouldn't really be run on two editors only editing constructively, so this shouldn't be an issue. I'm not interested in knowing about anybody's personal life, I don't need to know it it's a friend, roommate, partner, etc, or if the user lives in a dorm with one IP, or anything. A short "This user, and User:Foo share an IP address and recognize the requirements of WP:SOCK", placed on User:Bar's page, should do it. The question is, whether something can be adjusted to make it more difficult for one person to rely on this explanation to shield him from consequences the first time he's caught. --barneca (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember a case where 3 people worked in the same office with a common IP subnet. They agreed not to edit the same articles and declare the common IP, which was acceptable. Barneca makes a good point that a checkuser wouldn't be run unless something suspicious was going on, so 2 editors not-meatpuppeting and making constructive contributions, probably would go un-noticed. MBisanz ^talk 19:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The checkusers also have some discretion here. Two accounts who both trace to the shared IP of a large university or corporation may very well be independent. Two accounts who tandem-revert a single obscure article and trace to a single residential IP are violating WP:SOCK, regardless of whether there are two people taking turns at the keyboard or one. It probably ought to be intuitively obvious that this is gaming the system, even if it's two people, particularly when they see their "adversary" blocked for 3RR. As has been noted, this was not an innocent case of two people with shared interests, but a case of overt tag-team edit-warring. The bottom line is that our policies are intended to facilitate the goal of writing a collaborative encyclopedia. This sort of editing is disruptive and counterproductive whether it's one or two people manipulating the accounts, and it should be dealt with accordingly. MastCell ^Talk 20:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest a template notice is rustled up that people can put on their user pages if they are aware that their IP is shared with other users (be that a community, corporate, university or household sharing). There is no need to explicitly name those other users, unless there are other reasons to make the community aware of such connections between accounts. In other words: a notice for checkusers to read and be aware of information they need to interpret the checkuser data correctly. If people are unaware that their IP is being shared, then they will have learnt a lesson the hard way. Or a similar notice can be displayed for people to state "as far as I know, the IP or IPs I edit from are not shared with other users". Carcharoth (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested Moves

Can we get some help at Wikipedia:Requested Moves? There is a backlog going back a full month. Any help would be appreciated. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a crack at the backlog, but I need to head off for the day. If someone else could jump in, it would be appreciated. Vassyana (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding

This Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision may be reviewed through the above link. Further to the relevant findings of fact, Waterboarding and all closely-related pages are subject to article probation (full remedy); editors working on Waterboarding, or closely related pages, may be subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, whereby any edits by that editor which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, may result in a block. (full remedy).

Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block length shall increase to one year (full enforcement). Before such restrictions are enacted on an editor, he or she must be issued with a warning containing a link to the decision.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The last link should be linked to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding#Enforcement by block rather than Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Enforcement by block (which is to a non-existent anchor). x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for that—thank you for noticing. AGK (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

WT:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License - image/logo

The correct, already uploaded image

GNU logo: finally uploaded!

I am aware that on WT:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, some people have been wanting an image of the GNU logo. Well, it took me a while, and I had to look on the source coding for [1], but I finally uploaded the logo (at right) and would like to put it on the page. Unfortunately, the page is full-protected; could someone put the image on there? Please? Flaminglawyer (talk · contribs) 17:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, never mind, it was already uploaded (already uploaded on left). But can someone still put it on the above mentioned page? Flaminglawyer (talk · contribs) 18:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, are seriously suggesting that the logo of the GNU free documentation license is actually non-free? A few things: 1) the image is already on the Wikimedia Commons, it is a free image. 2) Image:Gnu-head.png is a free image as well, so you mistagged your image, and you can remove the non-free rationale as well. 3) If it was non-free, it wouldn't be allowed to be placed on WT:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, per WP:NFCC, but since it is free, it can be if someone wants to put it on there (but more than likely they would be putting Image:Heckert GNU white.svg on there, not your image). — Save_Us † 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a little hesitant about implementing the suggested change, above, primarily because I am unsure of the legal status of that page. Whilst I would not go so far as to say adding an image to the page could, in some way, compromise the page's text, I do believe we need to use some discretion in applying the Wiki ethos of "be bold" to the sole copy of this site's license.

I do believe the page's function is to be an exact replica of the license itself. The image may be interpreted as a cosmetic improvement—something that will affect the text of the page no more than, say, changing the skin with which an editor views the page. On the other hand, it may indeed raise a few eyebrows. Perhaps we should simply avoid any problems altogether, and simply leave the page be? AGK (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Experienced user who fails to give edit summaries

There is an experienced editor (who I won't name, but has been around since 2004 and has nearly 17,000 edits), almost invariably fails to leave edit summaries (other than automatic ones). Polite requests have been made about this going back for some time (two years!), but none of these requests have ever really been acted upon. Although this is only a nuisance, other editors find it rather frustrating: in general, can anything be done about this behaviour? Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We could ask the user to change their preferences so that they will be reminded to provide an edit summary when they try to save a page without one. That's what I do, and I have had edit summarys 100% of the time since I changed it. J Milburn (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If the user is amenable to change, that's a good suggestion, but if they've been asked before and don't care, you can't really make them. I mean what are you going to do, block the guy? Using an edit summary is not required by policy. —dgies^t_c 20:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec with both the above)I've come across a couple of editors of varying length of service who are non-summary people. I've tried asking, pleading and threatening, but to no avail. These people are often very poor communicators - that would explain the lack of summaries and the lack of response (or promises to change that are not followed through). The problem is that trying to make an otherwise good editor use summaries is unenforceable. We don't have access to their preferences to turn the summary-demand thing on; there will be no support for blocking a good editor with poor communication skills just for the latter problem. I suppose we could add Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Force edit summary alternative to their monobook.js, but would there be a consensus of editors that forced behavioural modification is something we should be doing? And we'd need to protect their monobook.js if they just reverted us, which could be a drama magnet. Perhaps we just need to be a tad pointy and keep hitting them with {{Summary}} until they get sick of it and start using them? ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 20:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The "bad communicator" assessment is probably right: of the 17,000 edits in question, only about 400 are to talk pages of any kind, and only about 40 in the Wikipedia: namespace. --RFBailey (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So, if the editor in question made 16,600 edits, +400 talkpsace edits, and doesn't use edit summaries (which is annoying, but meh), what's the problem? Are the edits vandalism? Are they disruptive? If an editor has stuck around long enough to make 16,600 edits, I don't imagine I'll need an edit summary to know that he/she is doing good work for the betterment of the encyclopedia. If any one particular edit is in question or possibly conroversial, it's only one extra click on the "diff" to see what the edit was exactly. This seems a good faith post on AN, but it also seems to be a solution in need of a problem. You are know 2 cents richer. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is no. If they don't want to, they don't have to. WilyD 21:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, I agree with you (except about the "solution in need of a problem" bit - I see no solutions in this thread, problem-seeking or otherwise). I can't speak for RFBailey, but when you have a non-summary editor who is editing across your watchlist, no matter how well you know of them, you're bound to click (diff) just in case. If it's ten edits across ten articles, all saying [Corrected foo to say bar], you will look at the first one then move on. If it's ten edits that say nothing, you will check all ten. Similarly, if you every have reason to look at their contributions - say for an obvious good-faith but nevertheless dubious edit on one article + curiosity - if there are no summaries, it's hard not to examine every edit; if the "dubious" edit is marked [Corrected foo to say bar because of foobar] and all the others are too, then you know that the AGF you're naturally feeling is correct and don't check. In other words, not using edit summaries wastes editor time, due to editors here being, by and large, human beings. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 21:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I Overspoke there. There is no solution in need of a problem because, really, there is no solution. It really comes down to recognizing the dedication of a user I suppose. Anyone that has made 16,600 mainspace edits, IMHO, deserves community trust. I don't anticipate that I, or any other editor, would have the time to find 16000+ edits to be, in your words, dubious. But I completely understand the frustration. I use edit summaries always and I greatly appreciate them from others. But, what can you do? (Rhetorical question, doesn't require an answer) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Keeper76. You take the good with the bad with every editor. If the good is 16,000 edits and the bad is zero edit summaries, that's pretty good overall IMHO. I assume the person knows that a lack of edit summaries increases the risk of getting reverted. If s/he is aware of that and decides that's an acceptable risk, there's not much you can do. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ask really nicely. Maybe offer to give a barnstar after the first 1,000 edit summaries.Wikidemo (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries are nice, but not required. It's not like it's a blockable offense to not use them. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a means of avoiding scrutiny. Ironically, it may also be attention-seeking behaviour, as outlined and demonstrated by ➔ REDVEЯS. Not using edit summaries is highly disruptive, at the time of the edit and as part of the page history/ cygnis insignis 05:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Or they're just a little lazy, or think their contributions can speak for themselves. Either way, assume good faith please. I wouldn't call good faith editors making thousands of quality article edits "extremely disruptive" simply because they aren't using edit summaries. Mr.Z-man 06:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither would I, please don't misquote me. It should be obvious that I am describing how the behaviour might be disruptive - I'm not assuming anything! The options you present are probable and frequent causes, but not justifiable in a long term contributor. Until one knows otherwise, by checking the unexplained contributions, the editor remains unknown - multiply this by the number of watchlists they appear on. This could be self-serving and arrogant behaviour or an ignorance of the advantage to others in using summaries. It should be policy, if it is not already. cygnis insignis 08:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, just to nip this silly "anyone with tons of edits is probably a good editor" thing in the bud, I don't see a need to assume this. Obviously, I can't judge without knowing who the hell everyone is talking about, but I've seen editors who'll make hundreds of edits a day that each constitute no more than adding a single word or punctuation mark (to the same article!). So yeah...don't be silly. And yeah, always assume good faith, blah blah, etc. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I must own up to being a culprit in this regard myself - I have a few more than 17,000 edits (five times that many - I need a life), but don't give that many edit summaries. In my case part of the reason is that many, if not most, of my edits are minor, and in a lot of cases, I don't see no-summary minor edits as much of a problem (and, given that it often takes longer to write the edit summary than make the edit, can be very time consumikng when you're on a "batch-job"). With non-minor edits, though, I try to make some sort of effort, though I do often forget (probably because of the minor edit thing). I know we now have an automatic edit summary added for new articles (where the edit is given by the first line of text added in). Perhaps something similar could be done for edits to exiting articles, adding an automated summary showing the first line of text changed? That might at least make things more transparent to watchlist-readers. Grutness...wha? 08:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What a good suggestion! I don't do many 'batch-jobs', but I sometime use a 'paste note' function in my browser with the appropriate edit summary. cygnis insignis 08:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I love that suggestion. Anyone know a way to get enough support that the devs would actually listen to it? Someguy1221 (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As something of a background note, the Arbitration Committee looks unfavourably on editors who fail to use edit summaries (viz. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis#Edit summaries), and I personally agree with that. Edit summaries are nothing more than common courtesy, and there is no reason for them not to be used at any time.

Implementing a technical measure which makes edit summary usage mandatory is something I would strongly support. Whilst it is indeed possible to get round it (e.g., by using an edit summary of "+", as I see a number of editors using), such behaviour really is something that we need to tackly user-by-user; mandatory usage of summaries may not solve this problem, but it will be a start, and I would very much like to see it brought in. AGK (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

First it needs to be made mandatory as a policy, which unfortunately will never happen. One user saves 10 seconds of his time skipping the edit summary, then a lot more other users have to waste their time on this diff. Alas. —AlexSm 03:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"+" is a prefectly legitimate edit summary: Wikipedia:Edit_summary_legend#Addition_of_text. Daniel (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm another one of the users who doesn't use edit summaries as much as others might like. I do it when I think that the edit does not speak for itself, or if the change is significant in my opinion. I don't bother if it's just a spelling correction or something minor. I also don't bother when I make many consecutive edits to the same article after the first edit. There have been cases (many months ago) when I wrote a nonsense edit summary just to fool mathbot into thinking I used edit summaries. If I were "forced" to use edit summaries, I would do that again. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Does this actually conform with policy? User:Dorftrottel 01:28, February 17, 2008

Meaning what? Clearly a better place would be Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser under criterion F. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Meaning private information not voluntarily disclosed. User:Dorftrottel 01:44, February 17, 2008

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 17 - Malformed entry

Clicking "Edit this page" on the AFD log for today shows a proper entry, which seemingly has been done wrong. There is also a delete vote right at the very bottom of the AFD page, which also seems malformed. D.M.N. (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the delete comment from the bottom and informed the user on their talk page. I guess it's related to the listing where the subpage content has been added direct to the AFD not on the subpage, but am not certain. I can't create the subpage, but you just need to create the subpage, copy the stuff across from the AFD page and then update the transclusion to use the subpage. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have also removed the malformed entry for A.M. Juster. — Edokter • Talk • 12:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

BetaCommandBot and NFCC10c - New discussion page

I have created the folowing page Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c to attempt to centralise discussion on BCB and specifically its NFCC10c tagging operation.
MickMacNee (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Main page linked article protection

If an article linked from the main page is undergoing heavy edit warring/vandalism, is it usual to fully protect it? I was under the impression that we keep MP-linked articles open to editing. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unless the vandalism is at an extreme level and it cannot be dealt with barely, then semi-protection for Today's featured article would be considered, but otherwise, the regular protection policy applies to articles not on the Main page. Qst (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Pending deletion script (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a bot account unused since 2005 and it appears to have admin powers (there are logs of it deleting things although there are no rights logs for it). I think it would be a good idea to desysop/block this account. -Nard 02:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The name "script" indicates it is probably part of one of the Mediawiki (the software running Wikipedia) update scripts, that was used in a previous update (possibly the Phase III update). There is no need to touch it. Also see User:Conversion script. Prodego ^talk 03:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The user page says its a holdover from when Admins couldn't delete articles. Its controlled by User:Tim Starling, so I'd start there if I had questions. MBisanz ^talk 03:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It does not appear to have administrator rights, although it does run with a bot flag. Nard, did you intend to say that its userpage gives the impression of it being an administrator account? AGK (talk) 12:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That takes me back--there were a few articles we couldn't delete because of some odd bug in the database. The bug was fixed ages ago; I'm pretty sure the account is dormant. Mackensen (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:MediaWiki default is another good laugh. :-) Anyone have any more? Carcharoth (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

SNOW Request at AFD

A WP:SNOW request is requested by another administrator to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2 Girls 1 Cup as it has no chance of passing. — Ocatecir^T 06:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Any user, not just a admin can close an AfD as keep per WP:BOLD. I went ahead and closed it as such. Tiptoety ^talk 06:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I substantially disagree with this extremely premature closure (little more than 24 hours have passed since its nomination) and have reverted it. There are substantive arguments made for the deletion of this article, and AFD is not a vote. FCYTravis (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The SNOW request is not due to the number of votes but because the article clearly meets Wikipedia's policies and the AFD does not have a snowball's chance in hell of passing. — Ocatecir^T 09:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

We have deletion discussions for a purpose, we gain community consensus as to if an article meets wikipedia's standards (including the inclusion standard which can be somewhat dynamic) and in the process our polices, guidlines etc. develop. We don't let one or two people just decide --81.104.39.63 (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And no one is trying to let one or two people decide. But when you have one editor trying to force an issue through despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and the nomination has no chance of passing and is clearly way off mark, that is the criteria for a early closing due to SNOW.— Ocatecir^T 15:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"when you have one editor trying to force an issue through" it's best to let one or two others push it the other way? There are several editors indicating that it should either be deleted or redirected (not a such an AFD outcome, but certainly an opinion that it doesn't warrant it's own article), it isn't merely one person, this isn't a speedy keep. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there are users who disagree with WP:SNOW closer, than it does not meet WP:SNOW standards. We should let it continue. Apologize for the "incorrect" closer. Tiptoety ^talk 05:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:DawnOfTheBlackHearts.jpg

I must recommend that Image:DawnOfTheBlackHearts.jpg be added to MediaWiki:Bad image list since they may be attractive to vandals because of its explicit nature. — Save_Us † 19:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest not to; it would be a violation anyways to add it anywhere else (since the image is fair use). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting vandals care about fair use policy? :) — Save_Us † 19:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, linking to a fair-use image is not a violation. But I think vandals can find better images to do their thing then some graphic album cover. — Edokter • Talk • 20:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly my eyesight isn't the best, but it just looks like a heap of smudges to me. What is it supposed to be a graphic image of? --Tony 20:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like some kind of vaguely gothic massacre. Mackensen (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Oi, I would get your eyes checked and your close Mackensen ;) This image is of the album cover of Dawn of the Black Hearts, showing the real life suicide of Dead (the musician), having slit wrists and a shotgun wound to the head, brain matter coming out. Understand why I recommended it? In reply to the above, sure vandals can find other images, but I would rather them not have the chance to use it, likewise with other graphic images. — Save_Us † 20:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I see the imagery, but I just don't see it worth adding to the bad image list. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the amount of squinting and background research required to produce a "shock" response, I would have said that the scenario you described is beyond the outskirts of likelihood. However now that you've brought it up on WP:AN, nothing would surprise me. At any rate we have apparently been advised "for performance reasons" to keep the bad image list "fairly short, say less than 10 KB", so we should probably not be adding everything that might (in the most imaginative sense) be used for vandalism. And trust me, there are a lot of god-awful album covers out there [2]. — CharlotteWebb 20:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you'd think I would have done that for a shock response from editors, unfortunatly it's true. — Save_Us † 21:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, sounds like you are assuming that I was assuming bad faith. Actually I was referring to the potential of the image (if ever used for vandalism) to shock passerby readers, which is low when the mind can't quickly and easily determine what the eye is looking at. — CharlotteWebb 21:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I know your not. It's just my eyesight is pretty good (darn :P) when I stumbled across this image again and that is why I came here to recommend it. If the majority of you feel it shouldn't be added, then it shouldn't be. — Save_Us † 21:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't even sure WHAT it was until Save Us described it. It looks cutesey enough to be a painting, almost surreal – it isn't a graphic, unedited, real life photograph of Dead that immediately shocks me. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikileaks

I'd like to request another set of eyes at Wikileaks. The main site is offline, supposedly because of legal action, or a fire at a hosting company, or both, or something. Nothing in the news that I can find, but various anonymous IP addresses keep adding back unverified tendentious speculation in one form or another. Mackensen (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've semiprotected it for a few days, to encourage these things to be brought to the talk page in case there are actual reliable sources somewhere. How does that sound? MastCell ^Talk 22:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. If there really is a court order it should be easy enough to substantiate. Mackensen (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Mass tagging ip ranges with ISP tag

Can this be done? I tagged a few manually but figured maybe an admin has the ways to mass tag. IP 165.21.154.XXX are from singnet. see Template:Singnet.--165.21.154.92 (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like we used to have a bot that did it ... --Kralizec! (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo indepedence

Kosovo has declared independence.[3] This is obviously going to lead to additional heat in an already very heated area of the wiki. Keeping a few extra eyes out in related articles is probably going to be needed. Vassyana (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that sure didn't take long. Going to be some crazy editing for a while. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the user as well and have gone ahead and watchlisted the article. SorryGuy  Talk  00:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The inevitable edit war has started. I'm headed out for the night ... I don't think this has reached protection-needed status yet, but I would be willing to bet that it will soon, for any who are watching it. - Revolving Bugbear 00:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see also WP:KOSWATCH for a public watchlist of Kosovo-related articles. Problematic editing is affecting more than just the Kosovo article. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that link has been useful. As for the actual article, though, it seems to be getting worse with the introduction going back and forth. SorryGuy  Talk  01:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding article probation, request for admins to watchlist it

Reminder/request: Please watchlist Waterboarding. Due to a recent RFAR at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding#Article probation this and all related articles/pages are under indefinite probation. Discussion is underway for a US-centric fork of this, and at long last activity has resumed, sliding right back into the same old circular arguments with the same people again pushing certain points of view. Please watchlist this page. Uninvolved admins have a free hand due to probation to enforce things liberally here. Thank you.

Resumed activity primarily takes off at Talk:Waterboarding#Dispute_resolution. Thanks. Lawrence § t/e 00:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Countdown to a tell-all book begins now

Read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence presented by G-Dett.

Gary Weiss is a writer and some people here question whether or not he is capable of talking as if he were someone else. Well, duh. Writers do that all the time. Gary is an investigative journalist. Some question whether he would lie or be sneaky. Well, duh. That is a prerequisite for being an investigative journalist. Some wonder about motivation. He has written books. To sell books, you need a topic people care about (like wikipedia) and a hook or two.

"Tombstone’s most famous tourist site is the Boothill Graveyard, where many of its legendary gunslingers and historical personalities are interred. Boothill has within it a Jewish section, which went unnoticed for over 100 years; a memorial was added in 1984. [148] [149] The small Jewish burial ground has no remaining headstones, and only one grave – that of a child. [150] He died in 1889, when he was one year and four days old. There is still a small stone marker for the child in the burial ground today, next to the memorial. His name was Sam Harris. I would like to be able to say that User:Samiharris was created one year and four days after Mantanmoreland was created, but he wasn't. He was created – for what it's worth – one year, three days and ~three hours after Mantanmoreland.

You guys were so set up. He's gonna make a lot of money with his next tell all book called Corruption at the 'Pedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know this guy. Are all his books this thin, with mostly blank pages?--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Who are "you guys", other than all of us, including you? You seem to be very pleased about all this, WAS 4.250. Do you have a stake in Corruption at the 'Pedia or is this just Schadenfreude? ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Long story short. It appears that a long running feud between a group of administrators, and folks who were banned here on WP, is about to boil over the stove into RL, and it's now a matter to see whose hands get burned. SirFozzie (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just giving a "heads up" to those who started with AGF and wound up with an "us vs. them" attitude. Maybe he'll name it Shootout at the OK 'pedia. In any case, people need to remember what all they confided to an investigative journalist and act accordingly. WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The ones whose hands get burned are always the ones who don't know when to let go. That's true here, and in RL. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User 203.206.217.223

Resolved

 – Blocked

This user needs a blocking. Had a final warning before vandalizng Herbert Hoover. Footballfan190 (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 3 months. This IP is only being used to vandalise. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Replacing WP:ACC with a mailman list

I've proposed that WP:ACC be replaced by a mailman list, further input would be very helpful. The thread in question can be found here. Thanks, SQL^{Query me!} 03:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding drama with Betacommandbot during March 2008

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Avoiding drama with Betacommandbot during March 2008. 15:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Page move / delete cleanup

This is a list of all pages in the User: namespace that don't have a corresponding user in Special:Listusers. Some of the pages are deletable under WP:CSD#U2, however, it seems that most are users who mistakenly created a page in the wrong place. User:Zizai:LY18 vs. User:Zizai/LY18, User:EricRodenbeck vs. User:Ericrodenbeck. Seems other pages are from when the Rename extension wasn't able to move subpages. Some of the other pages are apparently attempts at users "renaming" themselves. Still some other pages are tagged with "sock" tags, however, it's pretty difficult to have a sock puppet account if you've never created an account with that name. The last category of pages seems to be people who "created" doppelganger accounts (however, without registering the account, creating just a user page is pretty useless).

Quite a large mess. Any help cleaning up the list (specifically appropriate page moves and deleting the newly-created redirects) would be great. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel like this would take forever. --PeaceNT (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Goodness me :) AGK (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. I went to the link, and I was too overwhelmed to even start doing anything (for now). Who has motivation? We need you! нмŵוτнτ 19:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, I had to click on the links at random and fix them one by one, and there're nearly 4000 of 'em. Are there any tools that can help? :-S --PeaceNT (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh my. Each one is practically a unique case. The first set, the "^pirate" pages, are leftover from a username change, but it's depressing to track this down to find the user had a change of view on WP. Gimmetrow 03:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking we're gonna need to come up with some standard procedure here, like maybe a bot notifying anyone whose ever edited these pages that their going to be deleted at X date? Or a bot that compares page names to users and guesses who it belongs to, and copies it to their userspace? MBisanz ^talk 04:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Two ideas:

• I'm reluctant to move monobook pages. The users who created them often have such a page, and if not the misplaced one may have bugs. The original creator can get a notice. I thought the software wouldn't let anyone edit a .js page in another user space, or does it check if there is a user? Seems like a potential security issue in various ways.
• Could automatically move a page if the user who created the page has over X% of the edits. That could clear a good amount. Gimmetrow 04:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, only admins can edit code pages outside a user's own space. CSDWarnBot uses a similar system I believe to decide who it warns of a CSD nom. I'd say any user whose made more than 25% of the edits to a page, assuming no user has made a higher percentage of edits, should be the one to "get" the page in their userspace. Shall I file a WP:BOTREQ? MBisanz ^talk 05:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

So any .js page must be from when the user of that name existed, before a username change? If so, then the user either didn't want it, or copied everything useful. On the percent, I was thinking more like 50%, and the first cut needs to consider the page creator heavily. I saw one page which had a ton of bot edits. If that doesn't catch enough, then start dropping the cutoff. I don't have time to write such a script, so go for the botreq if you want. Gimmetrow 05:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Request filed at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Userspace_errors, feel free to edit the request requirements. MBisanz ^talk 06:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that the monobook pages would be there because the original owners couldn't do anything about them after getting their names changed, not because they didn't want to, because they couldn't edit them. For example, my old one is on that list. (Anyone who wants to delete it should feel free). I can't move it, mark it for deletion, or do anything else to it.--Dycedarg ж 20:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted! --Stephen 00:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I would think it would be quite reasonable to delete all .js pages for nonexistent users. After all, they don't work, so they serve no usefulness, and they can't be missed, because they're not doing anything now. If any user later goes looking for an old one, it can be easily undeleted and moved to the correct name. Chick Bowen 06:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

They can be read and copied. Does it hurt to leave a note for the original owner before deletion? Gimmetrow 06:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No; I'm just saying I wouldn't lose sleep over it if it simplified the process--I doubt very many of them are missed. I wrote that before I read MBisanz's bot request, which makes it fairly simple, though. Chick Bowen 06:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Kahooper (talk · contribs) and links to hisher website

Kahooper (talk · contribs) has linked to his website, FantasyLiterature.net, repeatedly, despite the link being removed by multiple editors. Kahooper's opinion is that it should be included because of the review content on the page, done by individuals identified only by initial, with no evidence that they are notable or professional reviewers. I have mentioned this to him on his talk page, and placed a {{uw-coi}} on his page, but I thought a broader input from administrators might be more convincing - that several individuals have moved the link does not seem to be indicative of a problem to him. If I'm being overzealous, please let me know, but I think my interpretation of WP:EL is quite mainstream. WLU (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Kahooper is a woman, actually. I am one of those who have been deleting these links, which have been inserted in multiple articles by both User:Kahooper and User:139.62.165.173, whose IP resolves to the University of North Florida, where Kahooper is an adjunct faculty member. Kahooper has admitted here that she is the owner of the Web site in question, and I view this as a clear case of linkspam and have treated the links accordingly. Deor (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Which was my reading too. To date, apparently neither myself nor Deor have been sufficiently convincing. WLU (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviewers are identified by name, city, occupation, photo, and other information on the website (http://www.fantasyliterature.net/reviewers.html). They were all invited by me because they are well-educated and write excellent and thoughtful reviews. Most of them are also writers. They are not random idiots. And, this is the reason I started the website -- to have a resource where people could find reviews that are interesting, informative, well-written, and neutral (i.e., not Amazon).

The main reason I think the links belong is that for most of your articles about fantasy authors there are links to several sites that are less informative than mine. Many have google ads (or other ads) and I saw one or two that were even portals (e.g., RealityEnds.com). Many have links to Amazon or other book sellers. It seems that the real rule is "no NEW links" and that some editors are zealous about reverting people's contributions. I am not meaning to sound obnoxious, but I really am trying to be reasonable. I am not promoting products and the website does not make money. Rather, I am, in good faith, trying to offer a resource that it useful for people who are interested in these authors. We have spent hundreds of hours preparing a resource that we feel is unique. We honestly review fantasy literature and just as often as we promote a book, we warn against another. We very often suggest borrowing books from a library, or PaperbackSwap.com and NOT purchasing them. I consider "spam" (as you call it) to be for the purpose of making money. Again, we are NOT making money. The small amount we receive does not cover our expenses, so I resent the implication that we are trying to sell products. If you take a look at the link I gave above, you'll see that this is not the case. I realize that you don't know me and that there are a lot of people who abuse Wikipedia, but I have good faith intentions and sincerely believe that the links fit the content and your guidelines. Kahooper (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)kahooper

I've briefly looked over the site and do not see any especial issues in external links to it. Mangoe (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPAM states: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed" (emphasis added). The standard spam template advises the recipient to ask on an article's talk page for the link's addition if they have a conflict of interest with respect to the Web site in question. I came upon this situation while RC patrolling. Do you really think there's no problem with a site's owner's creating an account and immediately using it to add links to her site to multiple articles in quick succession and then, after being warned, doing it again as an anon IP? Deor (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What occurs in other pages is irrelevant to this page - if anyone objects to the external links in those pages, they can correct them. The problem isn't so much the initials as it is who the reviewers are. Are they professional reviewers? Are they paid? Are they recognized for their ability to review the books, beyond on that particular website? Otherwise, how is it different from linking to any publicly-editable websites or fora, which are not allowed. Who is responsible for editorial oversight? Is it you? In which case, what is your claim to expertise in this area? Are you a professor of literature or professional reviewer, with experience and recognition for your reviews? Is it the authors, which would mean the web page faces considerable conflict of interest from their oversight body. In order to be included when the addition is disputed, there must be indication that there is merit to the page, that there is a good reason to link, that something noteworthy is added to the page. Otherwise, we will be linked to every single individual with a fan page, book reviews and a web fora, which on the rather stubby fantasy author pages, will quickly overwhelm the actual text. The COI concerns preclude you, Kahooper, from adding the links, but the comments I am making here would restrict anyone from adding them. We don't link to amazon.com for pretty much the same reasons - it's a sales site, and the reviews there aren't professional ones, they're essentially random opinions. Reviewing your list of reviewers, I see a lawyer, a former high school teacher, a real estate broker, a masters student, a guy working for a financial corporation, Kahooper (an PhD in psychology), a national guardsman, an undergraduate student, the owner of a photography studio, another lawyer, and another master's student. None are professional reviewers, only a couple have education in literature or english, only one appears to be published in any way (and it is not his reviews that are published) (and most criminal of all, I see some positive reviews for Terry Goodkind and Christopher Paolini : ) shame on you!) Interviews to authors can be linked, but the reviews can not, in my mind.

Here is a partial list of other sites that we would open the door to linking to if Kahooper's were added, five out of six million showing up on a google search:

• • • http://www.geocities.com/fantasticreviews/
    • http://www.fantasyreviews.com/
    • http://www.fantasybookspot.com/
    • http://www.booksforabuck.com/sfpages/sfreviews.html
    • http://dannyreviews.com/s/fantasy.html

There are a lot of book review sites, a lot of people who manage to get interviews with authors (I've corresponded with Ms. Wurts myself, about her wikipedia page. Nice lady, very appreciative); as a minimum for WP:EL, I usually look for WP:RS-type concerns - "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Your webpage might be third party, but it's not published beyond it's page, I don't think it would be considered reliable, and fact checking and accuracy aren't much of a concern on a review site. But still, there must be an element of professional recognition. Anyone can publish anything on a web page, WP:EL helps determine what is worth linking to. WLU (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm commenting on the content of the linked site, not the ownership. The interpretation of WP:SPAM as forbidding one from linking to a site that one owns/participates in is incorrect. So what I think is that Kahooper was badly bitten. The discussion should be redirected towards a civil discussion of the contents of the contested site. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mangoe's interpretation of this situation. I think Kahooper is just unfamiliar with all the intricate little guideline hoops and such that we require people to jump through, and people removed the links simply because they were added with summaries like "adding link to my site". I checked the one added to the Brandon Sanderson page, and found no reason to exclude the link to the book reviews. I think people need to assume good faith here and assume that Kahooper is actually just trying to help the articles improve by providing additional reviews. The site seems to be reasonably extensive, and it never hurts to have additional, decent reviews. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In context, Kahooper repeatedly linked to her site, on a number of author's pages, and after the links were repeatedly she re-linked them. This is after having warnings placed on her page. It took a while to get her attention. Further, the discussion on Kahooper's page seems civil - though re-reading my own comments, they could have used less bolding and been more elaborate. I shall try to adjust accordingly in further discussion, thanks for the prompt Mangoe. WLU (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

--

First, I did relink the pages that were removed and explained my actions on a couple of talk pages and often in the edit summary. I used a different IP address when I was at work, not to try to fool you (I’m a webmaster – I know you can see where it comes from), but because I was at work and it didn’t automatically log me in on the computer I was using in the classroom where my students were taking an exam. While I have used Wikipedia for years, I did create the account (which sounds like my own name) in order to add the links properly. I have not tried to be deceptive as you have implied. I sincerely didn't realize that this would be considered "spam."

Second, while this may not matter, I reiterate that the reviewers were chosen for their excellence for the purpose of creating a superior review site. A couple of them are highly ranked reviewers on Amazon and participate in their special reviewing program (Vine) there, one is paid for reviews in fantasy literature magazines (I can provide evidence), a few of them are published writers of short stories, two are lawyers, one is an English teacher, one is an English Literature masters student studying to be a literature critic, and I am a published college professor who teaches scientific writing. About Goodkind and Paolini, please see the pages and actually read the reviews before you “shame” me! We – shall I say it? – hate Terry Goodkind (I couldn’t even convince any of them to read the last book) and the only one who likes Paolini is the one who reviews for children and writes from their perspective.

Third, I understand your point that any review site could link to Wikipedia (really I do), and I completely understand and sympathize with your desire to link sites with merit. But, since one of the guidelines for external links is that reviews SHOULD be linked, I am hoping to convince you that we have more merit than most and ARE worth linking to.

Fourth, the question of whether I’m actually allowed to put in links for my own site is a different and legitimate one. According to Deor, I am not allowed to do that, but according to Mangoe, I am. I find it hard to believe that, if this is a rule, it is actually enforced. But, if we all agree that it is, I am willing to ask our readers to link to the site (if you’ll allow the links). I know that some of them have, but I’d rather do it myself so as to have them all consistent and make sure pages are linked correctly.

Lastly, I actually admire your desires and efforts for creating an excellent encyclopedia. I wouldn’t have the stomach for doing what you do. But, I think I have been perceived as being in bad faith and now I’m paying the consequences. I do not have much experience editing Wikipedia (though I use the site a lot), so I realize now that I did not use the proper procedures. I hope you’ll see that this was done out of ignorance of the culture, not out of bad faith. Kahooper (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)kahooper

• We understand, don't worry - it's a very common newbie error. I'm sure that you'll have learned from this and I hope we can encourage you to add content to articles, which is what we're here for after all. I would strongly encourage you not to add your site to articles, but you are welcome to suggest a link on the talk page of any article, if you think the link satisfies our link guidelines - the content linked should ideally have some evident authority, be subject to some kind of editorial review process, and contain information of a level of detail inappropriate to a general encyclopaedia. In other words, it should support and extend the reader's understanding of the subject, and that should be evident to independent editors reviewing the link. As long as you let others do the deciding, and focus on expanding Wikipedia with content supported from reliable independent sources, you should avoid future problems. Guy (Help!) 17:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wild ARMS

User Norse_Am_Legend has been repeatedly vandalizing the pages for the Wild ARMS games, with his unproven theories that the games take place in seperate worlds. Various parties have contacted the game makers, who have confirmed that there is yet no correct answer to that belief, making it nothing more than a theory. I deleted these, saying that, but he continues to undo my edits and is threatening me with banning. I don't know if he can actually do that, but it worries me, especially as he is the one who is doing the vandalizing. It took us months to get the Wild ARMS pages back on track after the last time people pulled stunts like this, and some of their are still in need of a lot of work. Someone, please, do something!24.3.180.166 (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is you who is misguidedly removing random amounts of information stating flimsy reasons that amount to original research and complete nonsense. I'd also like to note that you have no idea what a talk page template is, and that you claim to have helped "get the Wild Arms pages back on track" when only a handful of users, most notably Nall have even touched them, and I highly doubt you're him seeing as how you're removing information he put in. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no original research. If you can provide proof of your claim that the games take place in different version of the world of Filgaia, instead of the same one, please, provide it. The game makers themselves will answer anyone who asks the same way-as of yet, there IS NO OFFICIAL ANSWER TO THIS MYSTERY. Thus, those are nothing more than theories and should not be there. If you can provide proof, then fine, but if you cannot, you have no right to keep claiming your beliefs as fact.24.3.180.166 (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You guys should take it to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I would personally suggest WP:3O. Let a neutral third-party see it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Jasonsingerling

• Now, this user has only been here a few days, and I would normally be able to grant him that, but he keeps causing problems with New Edition-related articles. He continually removes maintenance tags without improving the article, and he copies already existing articles and putting them under virtually the same name but copyedit-ed (for example, if a person copied the Around the World article and pasted it into a new article called Around The World). Comments and warnings have been left on his talk page from users (myself included) as well as from bots, but he still continues what he is doing. What can be done here? Anthony Rupert (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Start with the warning templates, if he moves into 3RR, report him at WP:AIV? That's the typical procedures. If you want help here, you have to much more specific (which articles, diffs, etc.), because, personally speaking, I'm not going to bother to even try to figure out what the world of New Edition-related articles could correspond to, and where in that he is messing around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • What does it correspond to? Just look at his contributions (as well as his talk page). Anthony Rupert (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

AFD closure script

I have developed a script which can be used to close an AFD discussion as keep, and remove the AFD notice from the corresponding article, in just a few seconds by pressing a single tab, under the following restrictions:

(1) The script is only known to work under a Mozilla Firefox browser

(2) Only one article is being considered for deletion, and it is directly linked via the code produced by substitution of the standard Template:afd2, or is otherwise linked by the first instance of Template:la in the AFD discussion (if multiple articles have been nominated, the script will only remove the notice from the article identified by the first use of Template:la)

(3) Presently, the script does not prompt the user for a closing statement, and should therefore only be employed where the rationale for the tenor of the closure is obvious. However, with a minimal modification, the script could produce an additional tab that would display a dialog prompting the user for a closing statement before effectuating the closure.

The script is found at User:John254/AFD closure/monobook.js‎, and can be installed either by adding importScript('User:John254/AFD_closure/monobook.js'); to one's monobook.js file, or copying the code directly. The code for tab placement found in User:John254/Addtabs/monobook.js is a minimal modification of a script written by User:Voice of All. The functions for AFD closure themselves are loosely based on User:Voice of All's User:VoA/monobook.js script (which, of course, was written for an entirely different purpose). The AFD closure script is activated by pressing the "keep" tab which will appear while viewing an AFD discussion. A slight modification of the script would allow its use for the closure of AFD discussions that will result in deletion. John254 04:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It also appears that the script should not be used to close AFD discussions whose page titles contain any non-latin characters or accent marks, until its parsing of unicode characters submitted as url parameters is improved. John254 04:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And it adds a parameterised {{oldafdfull}} to the article talk as well, I believe. --Stephen 07:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Where does the "keep" tab go? I can't seem to see it. нмŵוτнτ 07:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The keep tab should appear at the top of a window, only when viewing an AFD discussion, assuming that one is using a compatible web browser. It may be necessary, however, to reload one's main monobook.js file after installation to activate the script, which can be accomplished by pressing control F5 while viewing the monobook.js script. John254 16:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that it removes the sort template by deleting the "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AFD" plus four characters (for the |, the code, and each "}"), but does it catch if there is a non-standard input in the category? For example, if the category code is "B", there wouldn't be a problem - but if the nom put "Biographical" instead, as happens frequently, would it cause the script to hiccup? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The "len - (matchstring.length + 4)" figure is simply a boundary in the search for the category template. Once the template is actually found, the script ascertains the location at which the template call is closed by means of the following code:

         n = 0;
         for(k = j; k < len; k++)
         {
           if(t.value[k] == "}")
           {
             n++;
           }
           if(n > 1)
           {
              break;
           }
         }

The final value of the variable k is used to specify the endpoint of the string being removed. Thus, the script will remove any text between the opening of the template call, and the closure of the template call as indicated by two "}" characters. John254 16:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work, but the above was (no offense ;) clearly coded by a C programmer. there are more efficient ways to do this in javascript. —Random832 18:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Need some comments

In an effort to allow readers (Note, not editors) to have easy access to an "in universe" view of various fictional article, while also attempting to discourage "fan-craft" I have created a new template. It is in my userspace at the moment, and I have only put it on one article. I wanted to get some opinions on it. The main reason I created it is because people come here (to the wikipedia) expecting the find the sum of all human knowledge, as Jimbo once said. I understand that we cannot provide in-universe details for the fictional items, so this seems like an good half way point that satisfies readers as well as editors. Apart from the example on the Everquest 2 page, here is another (For a star trek article):

What do people think? Fosnez (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the intent, but I'm concerned that it's basically giving undue prominence to a given external link. Also, I'd suggest that the village pump might be a better place than here to propose this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please place all further comments here Fosnez (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:WikiProject Karabakh

I'm in two minds about this WikiProject, so I've come to AN to see if we can get consensus on what to do with this WikiProject. I forcibly shut it down a month ago (redirected it to some other WikProject) and then protected the redirect for said month. The issue here stems from WP:ARBAA2: what we have here is a de facto independent republic, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, de iure part of Azerbaijan, that this WikiProject is dedicated to promoting. The population of NKR is, by and large, composed of ethnic Armenians, and so is our WikiProject. NKR is a very hot-button topic in that part of the world: Nagorno-Karabakh War explains why. It's not hard to see why this project is a red flag for our Azeri users, and we've had quite a lot of conflict over NKR already. My gut instinct is to say the project is a bad idea - certainly as currently set up, seems designed to stir up trouble. I'm rather inclined to shut it down again, albeit permanently. Or is that not acceptable? Thoughts? Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...}

And I already know what the participants in the Armenia-Azeri wars think, so please don't contribute to this discussion, you chaps. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Onion

How true! BTW it was actually this guy who works for Hearst-Argyle Television. Jimmy Bimmy (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And this guy did the "was". Jimmy Bimmy (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay I have to admit - that's funny. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And I'm actually the third person to congratulate the IP.... Relata refero (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Best read today, thanks JB! 18:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by R. Baley (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ClueBot V

There is a BRFA for ClueBot V and Martinp23 has asked for community input. Please take the time and take a look at the BRFA and comment. Thanks. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 22:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested Block

Resolved

 – user blocked

Spot the difference! User:Police.Mad,Jock this account has obviously been made to make me look bad by users confusing the two, chances are its a sockpuppet. Would it be possible for this user to be blocked idenfinatly? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Username blocked. Keegan^talk 17:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I really appreciate that =). Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Growing penis picture uploads (npi)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – People uploading pics willy-nilly? Politely explain WP policies to them and don't be a dick about it. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if this has been discussed before.

Problem: Wikipedia allows individuals to upload uncensored images of themselves, including pictures of genitals and sexual practices. Wikipedia allows people to be contactable through either their talk page, or the email mechanism. Wikipedia therefore provides the basic features of online services such as AdultFriendFinder, whose primary focus is not in writing encyclopedias.

Tentative proposal: Any account that uploads pictures of their own genitals or those of their partner, or themselves or their partner engaging in sexual practices, should have their email, user page, and talk page disabled. If the user then opens another account, they may not, under threat of blocking that new account and deleting the appropriate edits, make it clear that they are the uploader of the controversial content. Ditto for previously existing accounts. This way, users can continue to upload pictures, some of which may be encyclopedic, but Wikipedia cannot be used as a vehicle for arranging exchanges of sexual services.

Further study: We need to consider limiting uploads for certain categories, probably including penis pictures, which may grow out of control and beyond usefulness. A rating system operated by trusted users could help, but would require a development effort that cannot be met with current resources. I hesitate to endorse rabid deletionism w.r.t. controversial content that may be useful, but we're going to be faced with this problem, and will have to deal with it.

Regards,

Samsara (FA • FP) 17:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that this is being used in this way? This sounds like a solution (and not a very good one - forbidding making it clear that they are the uploader, in principle, violates their right to attribution under copyright law) in search of a problem. —Random832 17:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NOT#MYSPACE cover this well enough for me. People who use Wikipedia for social network get blocked, whether they network with their genitals or not. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware that we can monitor their use of the email function. Samsara (FA • FP) 18:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The technical aspects of such a limited upload system would be interesting. I could upload an image named "left shoe.jpg" that might emphatically not be a left shoe, for example, and I might upload it on a page that does not typically deal with, er, "left shoes". We can compare uploaded images bit for bit with other images, but I don't know that there's an easy implementation of a "penis filter" that would catch an image of that type as it is uploaded. We can't filter for flesh tones, as we'd probably get too many false positives (a headshot would probably have the same proportion of flesh to non-flesh tones as... well, as other parts of the body, for example). I concur that both WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NOT#MYSPACE cover the problem for now. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your concerns. What is wrong with a user uploading an "adult" picture and is then contacted on his or her talk page? Would you have the same problem if someone said on their user page "I like cars" and someone contacts them ("Hey I like cars too") and they get together. Wikipedia is not a social networking site and I have no problem blocking accounts created only to socially network. But this does not mean that a user cannot leave a message on another's user page that is not strictly "encyclopedic". Why do you think that users who upload "adult" images are more likely to only use the accounts to socially network? has that been your experiences? can you cite examples? Jon513 (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If these images are being uploaded specifically for the user to network themselves, then there may be an issue with that particular user than we need to address. But to make it a starndard that constructive editors can't upload such images is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. There's nothing that says constructive editors who contribute to the encyclopedia cannot form relationships, sexual or otherwise. List an example of where this has been an issue, perhaps it (if it exists) is something to deal with. Otherwise, I don't see a necessity to make any changes in operation. Lara❤Love 18:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that editors' relationships, acceptable as they are, need to be based on the characteristics of their genitals. Leaving that aside, the problem here is that we may not be aware of this going on, until someone leaks it, and sombody else goes to find some evidence that we weren't aware existed. This has the potential to be Wikipedia's biggest scandal yet. I've made a proposal above that does not limit people's ability to participate in the project, but makes it a little safer for everybody. Let's not argue about whether parents should be supervising their children etc. You know it goes wrong sometimes, and you know we don't want to be involved when it does. Samsara (FA • FP) 18:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

All joking aside, your proposal _does_ limit people's ability to participate in the project (they cannot, under your proposal, upload images to illustrate a certain category of articles while also making edits in other areas and expect to receive credit for their work in both categories under a single identity). And you haven't explained how it is a safety issue at all, even any hypothetical for the children!!! argument (which you haven't actually articulated) doesn't work because you're not proposing banning the uploads entirely. —Random832 19:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Some people really do make a big thing out of nothing dont they. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Police,Mad,Jack (talk • contribs)

I agree. This all does seem to be getting blown out of proportion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be better to archive this discussion before someone violates WP:DICK. Black Kite 18:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This whole thread is about editor's violating other editors', well, er, um. You said it first. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see this as a situation we need to get our hands dirty with. It seems like a lot of work for nothing, really. If this is something that's going on, and it leaks, then that should be cleaned up on an individual basis. Lara❤Love 19:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you have some experience handling these types of sticky situations. Ronnotel (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I dont try to blow my own trumpet about it. But yes Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Police,Mad,Jack (talk • contribs)

Okay, okay. This is getting out of hand. Lara❤Love 19:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not in my huge experiance in this area. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Police,Mad,Jack (talk • contribs)

Thank you for all rising to the occasion with your responses to this thread. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's always a pleasure to help fellow editors deal with the really hard issues. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For the love. Will someone please archive this? Pretty please? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

When you say "hard" I assume you mean hard as in difficult? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Police,Mad,Jack (talk • contribs)

Ha! Best AN thread ever! Mike R (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Shrine of Fire

Resolved

 – User left unblocked, Tiptoety ^talk 23:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've very recently blocked and then unblocked this user for what I perceived as a derogatory use of the term "Jew" both here and here. Other than those diffs, I don't seem to be able to find anything that would warrant a block (hence unblocking my own block). Now that I think more about it, I think more admin eyes/opinions are warranted. Any thoughts about a reblock? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Have left a civility warning. His userpage is a little confrontational, but I think he needs to go a little further yet. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Rod, user at least needs to be warned before blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 22:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I quickly unblocked and apologized. Thanks for the additional input, much appreciated. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

Resolved

Could somebody please fix United States presidential election, 2008? I could not figure out how to. Thanks. --John (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think American elections are usually fixed during the election, aren't they? (Sorry, couldn't resist). Black Kite 22:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• • That was funny, thank you, and thank you to whoever fixed it. --John (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

URGENT: Template hacked

Resolved

The template Template:Cleanup-rewrite has been hacked. I've tried to reversed the edits, but it's still hacked. It's causing articles like Fidel Castro to be uneditable. The vandal appears to be User:Ruddigger. Fix immediately!! ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fidel Castro appears to be editable again, but the template continues to be vandalized with words like "NIGGA GOT OWNED" and pictures of penises and of a black man hanged. ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like User:Kurt Shaped Box got it taken care of. - Philippe | Talk 22:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless it's just a cache issue on my side, Jim Henson (same vandalism) is definitely going to disagree about his being resolved. --Onorem♠Dil 22:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the problem is still there. Tiptoety ^talk 23:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Henson looks fine to me...- Philippe | Talk 23:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem seems to be gone now, but it is very unsettling to know that administrators apparently cannot figure out what caused it. ☆ CieloEstrellado 23:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, its gone now. Tiptoety ^talk 23:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(After 5 freakin edit conflicts) All you needed to do was purge the cache of the page, if you don't, template vandalism will still be there. — Save_Us † 23:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, see here: [4]. Tiptoety ^talk 23:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And the thread directly above that one. — Save_Us † 23:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to CieloEstrellado, we do know what caused it. The template was vandalized, causing the text/images to transclude onto a bunch of articles. The vandalism was reverted, the personal who did the vandalism was blocked, & everything is fine now. What do you mean? нмŵוτнτ 01:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Number of hits

Resolved

Is there a way of telling how many visits, or hits, an article has had?

203.164.55.8 (talk) 09:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a website but it seems to be having troubles. Another one that might be relevant (but only gives you statistic by the month) is [5]. This seems to be a question more suited for the Help Desk though so if you have any questions like this in future, please ask there. James086^{Talk | Email} 09:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That site gives day by day break downs, not just by the months. However, it only launched mid-December and the creator commented on an external site that the February stats weren't done yet, so at the moment it only covers half of December and January. Natalie (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A small request

Resolved

 – Whoever you are, thanks. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean, whoever I am? Sure. You are welcome, again. El_C 17:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

For reasons I can't begin to fathom, Wikipedia talk:Requests for oversight is a protected redirect. Is there something wrong with "discussing" the Requests for Oversight process?

Anyway, I was going to suggest adding an interwiki link to the equivalent page on Hebrew Wikipedia. Please add the following to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight: he:ויקיפדיה:בקשות ממפעילים#בקשות מחיקת גרסאות מסוימות

Thanks. 129.98.212.66 (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to login. Maybe it was just s-protected. Let me try again. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Done. El_C 16:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it was fully-protected. El_C 16:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The talk page in question is a protected redirect to make sure no one thinks they've filed a request for oversight when they haven't, and that oversightable material is not discussed on-wiki. There are lots of other places where the process can be discussed. Chick Bowen 17:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How to handle the WMF non-free image deadline

I'd like to start a discussion on how to handle the upcoming Wikimedia Foundation non-free image deadline. I've notified various people and posted a notice at WT:NFC. Please see the WMF resolution here. Despite the unclear wording there, it has been confirmed by others that the deadline of 23 March 2007 does apply to project with an Exemption Doctrine Policy (for Wikipedia, the EDP is WP:NFC).

The relevant wording is: "As of March 23, 2007, all new media uploaded under unacceptable licenses (as defined above) and lacking an exemption rationale should be deleted, and existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists; if not, they should be deleted as well." and "By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted"

What I want to get clearly laid down here is how things will change after this deadline. What I don't want to see is mass bot taggings and deletion of non-free images without discussion. Please note that the license resolution uses the terms "unacceptable license" and "lacking an exemption rationale". Betacommandbot (to give an example) is incapable of determining whether an image lacks an exemption rationale. It is capable of determining the quality of a possibly existing rationale (ie. whether or not it names the article the image is being used in), but that is not the same thing.

My basic question is this: Is it possible to determine which images should and should not be deleted after 23 March 2008? I fear that it is not possible to do this, and that chaos may ensue if people see the passing of the deadline as some free license (pun intended) to arbitrarily delete non-free images because they feel that they are "unacceptable" or "lack a rationale" (when the definition of "lack a rationale" is disputed).

Thoughts on the central question (bolded above) and how to manage this and avoid huge amounts of drama? See also the section below, but please comment in this section as well! Carcharoth (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this 23 March 2008 deadline even exist?

these comments split off under new title. Carcharoth (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What you've quoted in the "by March 23, 2008" section is from point #6 of the resolution, which is expressed as applying to projects which do not have an EDP. We do. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I know. I pointed this out many months ago. Others have pointed it out. But it seems that the resolution was poorly worded. Point 5 only has a 2007 deadline. I suspect it should have had a 2008 deadline as well, otherwise the "discussion" bit is essentially open-ended. If you really want to get agreement that there is no deadline, and that the last year of drama has been a misunderstanding, please get some official word on this. I've written to various people with no responses. One example is at: User talk:Mindspillage#Licensing policy clarifications ([6]). I've left another note as I think she was away at Wikimania the time. Any suggestions as to who else to write to would be appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Notes left for WMF Board of Trustees - Please see here, here, here and here for the notes I've left for the people listed here (Is that up-to-date? I've linked to the current version). The en-wikipedia page for Jan-Bart is not active. Looking at that list, I now get the feeling that I should actually be contacting members of the staff. Who are likely to be more responsive to this plea to clarify the deadline, the Board of Trustees or people like Sue Gardner, Erik Moller, Cary Bass and Mike Godwin? Who should I be asking my questions to? Carcharoth (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've notified Erik Moller here, as I believe he was on the Board of Trustees at the time the Resolution was passed. Carcharoth (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Commment. It seems to me that our deadline passed as of last year. We should also be enforcing very strict limits on the use of non-free images, as expressed in the Foundation policy and at WP:NFCC. Images uploaded after March 23, 2007 without a valid EDP license (appropriate non-free license and rationale) should be deleted. Images uploaded before that time should be given a chance to be placed under an appropriate license and have an appropriate rationale, if they fit under the limited circumstances. I believe a lot of the "drama" has more to do with a serious resistance to heavy limitations on fair use images, than anything else. There may be some ways to minimize the problems, but the underlying issue is simply that some users are (to be kind) reluctant to adjust to the Foundation's policy. Short of changing people's minds, there's not a whole lot that can be done to ease the pain and drama in the community. Vassyana (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually tend to agree. So why does Betacommand (and others) have 45 days left at the top of his (their) user talk page(s)? Carcharoth (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is because of a misunderstanding of the policy, specifically accounting the deadline for non-EDP projects to EDP projects such as en.wiki. As an additional thought on the whole matter, I think that in the interests of minimizing drama that we have been exceptionally lenient when it comes to points 8 and 10 under "Policy" at WP:NFCC and on point 3 of the Foundation licensing policy. I tend to think that is a mistake, as instead of reducing drama, it appears (to me) to have muddled the issue and weakened the community perception of the policies. Vassyana (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You say "Images uploaded after March 23, 2007 without a valid EDP license (appropriate non-free license and rationale) should be deleted. Images uploaded before that time should be given a chance to be placed under an appropriate license and have an appropriate rationale, if they fit under the limited circumstances." - so why is Betacommandbot not discriminating between the two? The older images are being given the same amount of time as the newer images. I think any images uploaded after the 2007 March deadline should get only 7 days to be fixed, period. Everything else (the older images uploaded before then) should be tagged now and given until 1 April 2008 to be fixed. And Betacommand and others should be told that after 01 April 2008 things will not change dramatically. The way I see it, the tagging and 7-day deadlines for newly uploaded images will still apply indefinitely, and this 7-day deadline will now apply to older images as well. Carcharoth (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the answer lies in the lack of distinction in local policy and missing/disputed rationale templates. There's a lot of misunderstanding about the Foundation policy and the local EDP. A solution might be to make variant tags for images uploaded before March 23, 2007 and to work out consensus language regarding the distinction between "old" and "new" images either at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Implementation and enforcement or in the policy itself at WP:NFCC. Vassyana (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've found an old discussion I had with Durin here and here. If this is a misunderstanding, it extends all the way up to Board level! I don't know which Board member Durin was referring to. Carcharoth (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be simply be that the document is very poorly worded, but as worded our deadline was last year, not the upcoming one. I agree it would be good to receive clarification from the WMF. Vassyana (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've also rediscovered a clearer way of putting this, which I will quote here:

"The matter of this deadline of April 2008: I had a closer look at the WMF Licensing Policy, and it looks like the layout of the document is confusing. The deadline is the third subclause of bullet point 6, and thus appears to be only referring to projects without an EDP. Bullet point 5 contains a date for projects with an EDP, but the date only refers to the point from which the policy applies to new images. There appear to be no deadline for the discussion of old images. I'm convinced this is a layout typo, but it is rather sloppy." - Carcharoth 22:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As I've said above, I have contacted four members of the WMF Board of Trustees. I would like to contact those that actually discussed and voted on the Resolution, but who voted on this resolution is not clear from their documentation. I hope there is some response from the Board, and I would like to ask those with accounts on meta to leave the Board members brief notes about this discussion, or those subscribing to the WMF mailing list to leave a brief note there mentioning this discussion, if possible. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Couple points: the resolution wording is weird because if you read it strictly as written, projects without an EDP in place before the resolution have to get all their images in appropriate order by March 23 2008 (Clause #6), but with those with existing EDP effectively can be read to have no deadline (clause #5) which is extremely unbalanced. One could argue that en.wiki, while having a written EDP, did not have one that was enforced or possibly failing #2: Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users., and thus en.wiki is subject to #6 as well. (The act of BCB going through to validate article names gets us some way to start #2). BCB did discriminate between older images and newer images in that he only recently took off the bot's restriction that only looked at articles after a given date, thus giving the older images the time outlined in the resolution (but of course, this is why BCB is getting so many complaints now).

Regardless, I think even without a deadline, we should bite the bullet and allow BCB to continue, allowing for more time for correcting the rationales for this period only (14-21 days if we allow BCB to burn through the rest of the images before the end of Feb). Once we get that done, the amount of noise that BCB will generate thenon (in maintaining such a state) should be very minimal and we'll never have to worry about it again. If we allow BCB trickle its way through the images, we're going to get a BCB once a week until he's done. The only thing I would change about the process is to make sure the BCB message points to the image help desk, make sure that's a box, very top of the page "If you have received a notice from BCB, please review the following..." to cut down the number of the complaints that are generated. --MASEM 14:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the question of who voted the resolution, the answer is "absolutely everyone" (Kat, Erik, Anthere, Jimbo, Oscar, Jan-bart, Michael). The resolution was in majority written by Erik, with rewording by Kat and Oscar. It may be indeed unclear, sorry about that.

When things are unclear, it is good to try to see the spirit of the decision. I tried to take a step back, and if the wording is unclear, to read beyond it, the substance of the concept. The way *I* read it, in march 2008, non free content on project without EDP must be deleted. Non free content with no rationale on a project with an EDP must be deleted. It does not matter really whether it is old images or new images, the one year delay was mostly to 1) get people used to the idea, 2) give the time to discuss and adopt an EDP, 3) give time for uploaders of old images to think about adequate replacement or rationale.

My two cents Anthere (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. See my reply below. Carcharoth (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Deadline does exist (spirit of resolution)

Thanks, Anthere, that is very helpful. One other small request: would you be able to make sure the other board members I contacted (and Erik) are aware of this, and possibly the former board members you mention if you think they would be interested)? I know some of them may not check their en-wiki pages very often, and I don't have accounts on the other projects. Anyway, I take this to mean that there is a deadline of 23 March 2008 (or 1 April 2008 in some interpretations) for en-wikipedia. But this still leaves my question above unanswered: Is it possible to determine which images should and should not be deleted after 23 March 2008? I think the only practical way to do this is to use the current system where images are detected by bot or humans and tagged with a seven-day deadline, and then deleted at the end of that period. What I fear is that people will take the arrival of this deadline as some excuse to go on a deletion spree and unilaterally decide what is not acceptable and use speedy deletion criteria to just delete stuff as they find it. I think keeping the seven-day waiting period will still work - after all, it has worked OK so far this year. My worry is that people may start to use (or increase their use of) WP:CSD#I7 (the 48-hour clause) for images missing a rationale, when they should be using WP:CSD#I6 (the seven-day clause). 48 hours is not really enough time for experienced editors to become aware that an image is about to be deleted. If an experienced editor has the time to become aware that someone has uploaded an image without a rationale, they may be able to fix it and offer the uploader advice on how to handle this in the future. Anyway, I will leave you with my question, which I would love to get a clear answer to:

Is it possible to determine which images should and should not be deleted after 23 March 2008?

Anyone? Carcharoth (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll send a message to the board. Regarding delay... to be honest... I do not think there is much harm in waiting 7 days rather than 2 days. Anthere (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope others agree with you. Carcharoth (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently working through Category:All disputed non-free images adding backlinks to justifiable fair-use images under the assumption that unless it gets done, everything remaining in the category is sure to get deleted on or shortly after March 23 if not before. I'm not sure if I'm right about this, but I don't want to see thousands of decent images erased. English peasant 19:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer Carcharoth's question, it doesn't seem possible. WP:NFCC 10C is not decidable. The bots (not only the troublesome beta) cannot solve the issue. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer Car's (I can't even pronounce your name, but look who's talking) question, I'd expect that on March 23, all images in DFUI more than 7 days are hosed by a deletion script run by a admin. On a going foward basis, items spend 2 days (I think) in DFUI and are then deleted per the warning template. I'd be ok with extending it to 5 days, since, from a legal point of view, I don't think a jury would ever say "You kept the image 72 hours extra after you questioned its copyright and did 10,000,000$ additional in dilution damages". MBisanz ^talk 21:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The 2-day deadline is for newly uploaded images. What I don't want to see is old images (those not uploaded within the last few days) tagged for 2-day deletion. Those should be done with the 7-day tag or be taken to WP:IfD. What I am most concerned about is that people may use this deadline to try and force through some CSD allowing "invalid" images to be deleted on sight. That would be a disaster. There are a variety of possibilities, but the reason I'm bringing this up a month beforehand is to get people thinking of the possibilities and to decide on something now, with discussion, rather than argue about it later in the heat of the moment if some people get the idea in their head that the passing of this deadline means things are changing and deletion will be "easier". I also kind of hoping that the amount of disputed images will be small enough that it is possible for everyone to review every non-free image if they want to. In other words, have people and bots working together to patrol the new images, much as people patrol new pages at the moment. Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for Special:Unwatchedpages

I am a relatively new admin and wanted to use Special:Unwatchedpages to add (at least) unwatched Pennsylvania and Ohio municipality articles to my watchlist. Without giving away too many details, I found it less than helpful in its current state. My suggestion is to split it into multiple subpages based on the first character of the article: i.e. one for each letter of the alphabet, one for each number 0 through 9, plus whatever special character(s) would be needed (all in one page, one page for each?). After discussing this at Wikipedia talk:Special:Unwatchedpages, there were two other excellent suggestions:

1) A page or pages of unwatched Biographies of Living Persons. If the article is unwatched and has Category:Living people attached, it makes another protected list (from Nmajdan).

2) A page for recent changes in unwatched articles, i.e. Special:Recentchangeslinked/Special:Unwatchedpages - at this point, to actually _watch_ them, you'd have to either add all the pages to your watchlist, or make a page with links to all of them (which would disclose the list) (from Random832).

Despite the excellent work of RC patrollers and bots and other anti-vandalism measures, I catch a fair number of minor vandals just through my watchlist. I know there are unwatched articles I would gladly watch if it were just more practical to find them (and assume others would do the same). What do others think of this (and what must be done to implement these changes (if they meet with approval here)? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This looks to me like a request for a new feature in the software, see WP:BUGZ for how to request it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll just throw my two cents in here, speaking as a non-admin who does not have access to Special:Unwatchedpages, but is serious about editing. These are exactly the kinds of pages I would gladly add to my watchlist; I'd probably add a couple hundred of those pages tomorrow if I could. As with many of the other articles I have on my watchlist, they'd be my pool of pages to work on when I don't have a specific objective in mind - add a reference, do a bit of copy editing and so on. Bottom line, though - I'm not willing to subject myself to an RfA for the sole purpose of keeping an eye on articles that are susceptible to vandalism because nobody's paying attention. Non-admin rollback seems to have gone far more smoothly than even its most ardent supporters would have predicted; perhaps it is time to consider a similar process for non-admins to have access to Special:Unwatchedpages as well. After all, we outnumber admins by a ratio of...whatever it is... --Risker (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's for a larger discussion elsewhere, but for the record, my irrelevant opinion is that the unwatched pages list is almost useless without a search function. I'm not an admin on here, but I am on several Wikias (woo hoo), so I know how the page works. Cheers, SexySeaBass 06:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think a whole new process to grant access to one page that isn't very useful by itself is necessary at all. Although many will disagree, I don't really see how we will benefit from continuing to hand out parts of the whole package. IMO, it should be all who get access, or all who don't, however, this isn't the right place to discuss it. To non-administrators: it's not a very useful tool without a search function, and at the moment it only displays article space pages. As for the BLP list and the Special:Recentchangeslinked/Special:Unwatchedpages suggestion, it sounds like a great idea. I'd be looking forward to see it be implemented. Spebi 06:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

An idea could be to have a bot run by an admin parse the list and check the categories, then put them in a deleted page to prevent non-admin eyes ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

For those non-admins who have an account at the Test Wikipedia, you can satisfy your curiosity there. I had a look at the source, the only parameters it takes are a limit and an offset (as in what index to start looking at). It's Bugzilla time, see also bugzilla:12272. MER-C 07:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any particular need to be coy about why the page is useless - it only has 1000 titles on it (going past 1000 says "no results"), which, as you can probably imagine, doesn't even get it to the A's. —Random832 18:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I will open a MediaWiki account and try a Bugzilla report / request (or three, since it seems each suggestion would be separate). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, the requests are in at bugzilla:13062, bugzilla:13063 and bugzilla:13064 - I have never done this before, so hopefully these are OK. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

203.161.75.161

This user needs to be blocked. Had a final warning before vandalizing Lent. Footballfan190 (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In the future, please go to WP:AIV.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked troll, User:AFI-PUNK continuing to edit via IPs

I had received a message from User:Timmeh regarding disruptive editing by that particular editor via multiple IPs on several articles. The editor via multiple IP addresses was repeatedly changing the music genre of several articles without explanation. The account was blocked for sockpuppetry after a Checkuser was made. However, on the message I've received, he is still doing the same edit pattern via IPs address from Deutsche Telekom AG which has a long IP range. Among the articles targeting were Papa Roach and AFI but looking at contributions from some of the IPs used by the editor, it was several other articles that were also affected at varying degrees. I did re-protected Papa Roach and eventually if he continues on the same pattern, we will have to contact the network provider, so we will have to watch the 79.xxx contributions for now--JForget 18:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been dealing with this serial vandal since about the time they were blocked in May 2007. AFI-PUNK's user page has a lot of evidence on it but if individual diffs are required then I'll provide them.

I know that AFI-PUNK has been indefinitely blocked and not banned, but I have continually reverted their edits on the basis that they are disruptive vandal edits. I hope that my course of action has been appropriate. The question that I have been considering is, "How do we deal with a recurring vandal, who has been indefinitely blocked but who is not formally considered banned?" Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 19:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, we would have to wish (either if a user is blocked indefinitely or banned) that the user will one day stop - one day he will be tired of doing disruption (just like the Quebec vandal).--JForget 15:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Teamwork

Right. My core skills are diplomacy, tact, a light touch and a friendly demeanour.

Oh,wait, those are the skills I'm lacking.

So: who here is really good with being warm and fluffy to people? Who here is really good at spotting patterns?

Applications are invited for a multi-skilled posse. Ideal candidates will be Wikiholics, European, ethnically diverse (I'm a WASP male). Some young, some old. I want William Pietri on my side and in an ideal world I'd have David Gerard.

I am serious about this. More eyes is good, but a tea that works regularly together will recognise and develop its strengths. Volunteers, send me enail. Ploughing a lonely furrow is a Real Bad Thing. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you're asking for here. I'm also a WASP. But I'm also fluffy. Where do you need help Guy? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And I'll add that I do not have email activated, nor will I in the near future. Still, I'm ready and willing to help with whatever it is you're actually asking for...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. One thing that is good to build up team spirit is to work on an article together. That way, when you are out in the trenches doing triage on articles and editors, you have things in common other than just wielding a mop. Carcharoth (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You lost me at the word right. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Unauthorized Bot

Saw this guy when I was looking through the sandbox history working on something totally related. Couldn't find anything relating to any sort of BRFA or approval anywhere, left him a message. Q ^{T C} 06:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It certainly looks like an unauthorized bot. The user that runs it has less than 50 total edits on their whole contribs history. Certainly worth investigating. Take some care; I have accidentally blocked a bot in the past that was actually grandfathered in (it was a bot run by a Dev even. I had egg on my face over THAT one). However, this one has a certain quacky tone to it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the bot as a precaution based on its creator's edits and talk page, its seems that he did inform [7] of the bot's existance but it never received the flag or at least no one told his creator if they did. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but on the other hand at the top of the page which he *should* have noticed was: All bots must follow the official bot policy. Q ^{T C} 06:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I know, he is new user so its possible that he tried to follow policy and botched it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

True, hopefully I get a reply from him to help steer him in the right direction. Q ^{T C} 06:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

He started a request for approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/kwjbot, but it's not linked from anywhere - can someone who knows more about the process help him list this in the right place? —Random832 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Next BCBot phase

One of the BCBot issues isn't getting enough attention. Please see:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Next BCBot Phase

I support this next phase in principle, but it does need to be discussed more. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for more admin eyes on an issue (RE:RfCU result)

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland.

Time stamp. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Broken process management on particular article

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Corey Delaney discussion

Time stamp. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

help please with category abuse

Hi, I'm not sure where to turn for this but Category:Chick Publications is set-up as a sub-category of anti-Catholicism. The articles in the Category:Chick Publications don't seem to provide reliable sourcing that they are indeed anti-Catholic but I'm not sure how to correct the situation. Chick Publications is a well-known US entity probably best-known for distributing thousands of "Bible tracks" so they could be a religious or Christian publisher. Jeff Godwin article was just gutted for BLP violations and I've just tagged Jack Chick for similar issues. Any help/guidance appreciated. Benjiboi 05:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Chick Publications is anti-Catholic and they don't make any secret of it. They teach that the Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon. Their tract list has a number of anti-Catholic tracts that you can read online should you feel so inclined. They are not representative of most evangelical Christians. --B (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

See "The Death Cookie" and "Last Rites". Does this count as "anti-Catholicism", though? Perhaps the category would be better named as "Criticism of Catholicism", which Chick undoubtedly fits into. Ral315 (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a "recovered Catholic" (born and raised, now SERIOUSLY lapsed), I'm gonna have to say referring to the Catholic Church's major sacrament as "the Death Cookie" pretty much counts as "anti-Catholicism". (I think I came across that tract on a CTA bus one day, and giggled all the way to my destination.)Gladys J Cortez 18:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be easy to substantiate Jack Chick's specific views with citations to the tracts and articles published on his website. All these tracts are widely distributed by his organization under his name, so there shouldn't be any BLP concerns here. *** Crotalus *** 15:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. If several reliable sources have called Chick's work or Chick himself anti-Catholic, we can put the category in, otherwise not.

I do hate these anti- categories. So prone to misuse. Relata refero (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well death cookies and Jack Chick aside, out of the 7 articles only four seem to readily support being anti-Catholic. The illustrator, Fred Carter (artist), for instance has almost no information regarding anything that he's anti-Catholic nor does Jeff Godwin whose article was gutted for BLP abuse. The Light of the World (film) is a film stub also with no anti-Catholic assertions. Benjiboi 19:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite block of Griot

Griot (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked for extensive and abusive sockpuppetry per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/71.139.36.105. All sock accounts have been indef blocked and tagged. All IP socks have been tagged and anon blocked for three months (with {{anonblock}} on the talk pages). See the checkuser case or Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Griot for a complete listing of socks. I am posting this so my actions may be reviewed by other sysops and to invite others to determine if a range softblock is warranted and necessary. Vassyana (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The block of Griot seems reasonable. 3 months for the IP's might be excessive since many are probably dynamic or WiFi and there may be some significant collateral damage. Instead of long-term blocks for the IP's, it might make more sense to consider semi-protection of Ralph Nader, which appears to be the target article, to limit collateral damage. Just my 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 19:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think MastCell is right--indef all the named accounts, but go w/less time on the IPs, and don't rangeblock because of the potential collateral damage. By all means watch Ralph Nader and Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns, and (semi-)protect if necessary; I'm not sure, but there may be long-term edit-warring by two "teams" of sockpuppets on those articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Griot was anon editing from those IPs and engaged in extensive sockpuppetry. As such, I blocked anonymous contributions and account creation from those IPs and placed an {{anonblock}} notice on their talk pages. I would not object at all if one of you (or another sysop) reduced the block duration on the IPs. I will place the Nader pages on my watchlist and semi-protect if anon users and new accounts edit disruptively. Thanks for feedback! It is sincerely appreciated. Vassyana (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I shortened the blocks on the IP's to 24 hours, as they appear fairly dynamic. If one in particular is a problem, it could be re-blocked for longer. I think semi-protection of target articles, if necessary, is the way to go since we're dealing with a pretty dynamic IP. MastCell ^Talk 06:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense. Thanks for your help and feedback! Vassyana (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet situation needing more research

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Smerdyakoff established that Standshown (talk · contribs) and Smerdyakoff (talk · contribs) are related in a case of abusive sockpuppetry. The time of creation for both accounts is indicative that they are both sockpuppets, rather than one being the sockmaster.[8][9] The older account demonstrated a working knowledge of Wikipedia early on. Taking the situation as a whole, it appears that the two accounts are sockpuppets of an unidentified sockmaster predating either account. Further research and evidence is needed to fully resolve the situation. Vassyana (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoever ends up checking into the situation should probably start with the following:

• Velebit (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Velebit

There are also a bunch of anonymous IP edits by this individual, but it would have taken forever to report all of them, since this is a very determined and persistent POV-pusher, sock puppet user and vandal. Spylab (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

With a namesake like Smerdyakov, what can one expect? :) MastCell ^Talk 19:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Help - user fighting to include original research in vacuum permittivity and other articles

Hello fellow editors, this is a plea for help.

If you look at Talk:Vacuum permittivity, User:Brews ohare has been fighting to get the following original research claims (or things that imply one of these claims) included in a variety of Wikipedia articles (from vacuum permittivity to vacuum permeability to relative static permittivity):

• That it is possible to measure the linear permittivity of vacuum (as opposed to its being ε0 by definition of the units, as sources like Jackson say); this is equivalent to the claim that it is possible to measure the speed of light in vacuum (which authoritative sources state as impossible because the vacuum speed of light defines the meter, and hence is c by definition).

• That there is more than one kind of vacuum, a "hypothetical" vacuum in which the speed of light is c vs. a "physical" vacuum in which the speed of light may differ. In particular, he wants to propose a (circular) definition of "vacuum" as the medium in which the speed of light in vacuum in c.

There are lots of logical problems with these claims (essentially, they are impossible to measure because there is no reference unit to compare against), which I tried to explain to him on the above Talk page, but ultimately the objection from Wikipedia's standpoint is that he is unable to provide sources, hence the above claims are original research. (There are, of course, references to the contrary, but he claims to understand electromagnetic units better than the referenced sources, e.g. better than Jackson, author of the canonical graduate textbook Classical Electrodynamics, or otherwise he redefines "vacuum" in a nonstandard circular way to claim that the references are irrelevant.)

The problem is, I can't keep up with him on my own (especially as I'm about to leave town on a trip), nor do I want to be in a one-on-one revert battle, nor can I continue to correct him without violating the three-revert rule. Please help, and look carefully at his [ohare|user contributions] to see the variety of places he is trying to insert the above (or things tantamount to the above).

(Another problem is that these issues are subtle and many readers will not notice the errors.)

—Steven G. Johnson (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. There is a separate argument as to whether the vacuum permittivity article should be called "electric constant". Standards organizations have begun to prefer the latter name, but have not stated that there is only one official name or that the older name (which they continue to list as a synonym) is deprecated or unofficial, and the former name (and variants) remain far more popular (as measured e.g. by literature searches). My understanding of WP:NAME is that, in such cases, our longstanding policy is to use the most common unambiguous name, but a couple of users (including Brews) feel we should promote the term preferred by standards organizations and have been changing all the links in wikipedia to point to electric constant. However, this is merely a matter of convention and terminology, so in my opinion it is not very important compared to the above question, which is a question of fact (of the mathematical implications of the unit/constant definitions). I mention it here only so that you don't confuse one dispute for the other. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think you probably need to bring in the Science Wikiproject team. Guy (Help!) 16:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• These worries are overblown. I am not trying to insert original research. I had hoped to clarify the way vacuum was used in these articles, and even exchanged e-mail with Barry Taylor (coauthor of the CODATA report on fundamental constants) at NIST on the subject. I quote his e-mail:

Dear John,

You raise an interesting question that I must confess I have not thought about previously, nor do I recall ever reading a discussion about it. Off the top of my head, I would say that Maxwell's equations in their SI form in vacuum apply to a "hypothetical" or "conceptual" vacuum where c = 299792458 m/s exactly, mu_0 = 4pi x 10^-7 N/A^2 exactly, and c = sqrt(1/[mu_0 x epsilon_0]) exactly. If one could achieve such a vacuum in practice, then one would presumably find, if one could actually do such an experiment, that the relative static electric permittivity of vacuum was exactly 1 (and similarly for the relative static magnetic permeability) of vacuum. On the other hand, we know that the modern picture of the vacuum is that it is a frothing sea of virtual particles coming into and going out of existence in times consistent with the uncertainty principle. Thus, in this sense, the "hypothetical" or "conceptual" vacuum can be viewed as not really a vacuum at all. With this view in mind, see my two brief comments in red below, but I would perhaps say that the key measurement one should make to determine if a given "vacuum" is really our "hypothetical" or "conceptual" vacuum is that of the speed of light.

With best wishes,

Barry

My view is that Steve has gone overboard on this one, and is forcing his personal agenda on the articles. In any case, I have no intention of pursuing this matter except on talk pages. Wikipedia is welcome to be illogical (one step worse than inaccurate). My latest edits on these pages are innocuous. Brews ohare (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you both need to start talking to the Science Wikiproject guys :-) But I don't see anything for the mop and bucket brigade here. Guy (Help!) 17:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

An unpublished personal letter is not a reputable source for Wikipedia, sorry. And as he says, he's writing "off the top of his head." I provided a Rev. Mod. Phys. reference that includes quantum electrodynamics effects and still states that the linear relative permittivity of vacuum is (exactly) unity.

The reason I asked for help here is that it was turning into an edit war, and by policy this is not something I can handle on my own (nor do I have time). —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• No idea on my part that unpublished source is suitable for Wikipedia. Does show though that a well-established expert doesn't find the idea of "vacuum" quite as Steven does.

In addition, reduction of the argument to whether "vacuum" has relative permittivity 1 is a complete misstatement of the issue, as I agree with this statement 100%. Brews ohare (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Brews, you "agree" with that statement by redefining "vacuum" (circularly), as I pointed out. And the question is not my opinion or your opinion or an unpublished opinion "off the top of his head" by a guy at NIST, but published, refereed work. And all of the published, considered analyses that I can find contradict what you are saying, nor have you been able to find any that agree with you. The problem here that you think we should base the article on your arguments rather than on published references, and you seem willing to suck up endless amounts of time in a pointless debate about unpublished speculation.

Guy, I did post a note on WikiProject physics as well. You're right that someone with physics training is better equipped to evaluate this case, but the pages on edit wars said to leave a note here, and it was turning into a clear-cut edit war where Brews kept trying to insert his opinion that he has been unable to back up with published sources.

—Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Nonresponsive and inflammatory. Brews ohare (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, you have all the answer you're likely to get: it's original research, it can't be cited as a source per policy, and it's directly contradicted by sources which can be used per policy. The burden of proof is always on the editor seeking to include disputed content, in this case you've failed to persuade so should stop inserting it in articles. You are of course at liberty to continue discussing it on talk pages, but do bear in mind that if you labour the point too long you may be seen as disruptive. OK? Guy (Help!) 22:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

CAT:CSD is highly backlogged again

CAT:CSD has over 120 pages currently, need help clearing it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Down to 15 now. Hut 8.5 17:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Getting a wave now of empty categories that are part of various wikiproject importance classification system. I clicked Delete on a number of them, but am now starting to wonder if that's the correct option. THese are part of a normal structure for rating of various articles. Just because a project has been efficient, and cleaned out their Unknown-importance category, does that mean that the Unknown-importance category should be subject to C1 speedy deletion? If the general opinion is no, these should not be deleted, then I (and maybe some others) have some undeleting to do. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with no it should not be subject to deletion, it seems a special case. Any time a new article is created and a project banner applied to the talk page, the category will be repopulated (at least long enough for the new article to get an importance review). ++Lar: t/c 20:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Most have now been deleted by another admin. If it is decided that these should not have been deleted, they can be found by any admin here. I'll go drop a note on any other deleting admin's talk page to ask them to come join this discussion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The -importance and -class categories should not be deleted. The ones that have been deleted need to be restored. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Gah! Restoring them all. east.718 at 20:44, February 19, 2008

I believe they have all been restored, maybe we should add something to WP:CSD#Categories saying these shouldn't be deleted in the future. – Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That backlog seems to come and go on a regular basis... Jmlk17 21:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I deleted some of those last time. Hm... tricky to say. Why to have an empty category? Just because that some articles may appear there some day? In fact, I don't object, if there are some categories with content and one without but fits in logically, it can stay. But then it would be nice to modify the CSD criteria so they don't get deleted again. --Tone 21:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:SSP

Would appreciate some help here, especially with Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Eliko, which I posted on Friday. In this case, the alleged puppetmaster was in an edit-war with another user, and an arragement was coordinated (on my talk page) in which the two editors agreed to leave the article alone until they agreed on a consensus, working from a sandbox version. If the sockpuppet allegation is true, then that arrangement is void. The other (non sockpuppet) user has been asking me if it is ok to start editing on the main article again, and I don't want to keep him waiting unnecessarily. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've agreed to avoid editing the article, and so far I've been obeying the arrangement. Is the arrangement void? Eliko (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote, "if the sockpuppet allegation is true", then yes. If not, then no. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: I've agreed to avoid editing the article, and so far I've been obeying the arrangement. Now, assuming that the sockpuppet allegation is false, a very severe question arises: if one party breaks the arrangement unilaterally (i.e. without getting the other party's permission) - is the arrangement void then? Eliko (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of this

Shortly after I happened to make an edit to Boy, the other day, I got an email via Special:Emailuser from User:Wikigender, letting me know that the OECD is starting a new wiki (of the same name as the user) and inviting me to participate. The email mentions it was prompted by my having "created or modified an article related to gender." Have any other users been getting similar emails? The account has very little on-wiki behavior, so I'm wondering if its main purpose may be sending such messages. Is this an acceptable use of an account? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to block the account and blacklist the site - it is only here for spam. --B (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds kind of dodgy to me. I'd be wary. No opinion about the above recommendations. --Haemo (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(Assuming no one else has already) I'm going to block with email disabled. They've got a couple of other complaints from people they've spammed on their talk page. As well, they shouldn't be using the username "Wikigender" when that is the name of the site they're promoting. All their edits seem to be in relation to promotion of their website. Sarah 03:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This was brought up at WP LGBT studies as well. I got the same email as did others in that discussion. Spam spam spam. Block please. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocking vanished users

On the "Right to vanish" talk page on Meta there's been discussion about indefinitely blocking and removing all user rights from users who exercise their right to vanish. It seems like a perfectly logical step to take. The right to vanish is a serious thing that should entail serious consequences. The discussion is located here.

I'm thinking that we should adopt a standard practice when someone exercises their right to vanish on en.wiki that includes an indefinite block (including e-mail) and having any user rights removed by a steward. Thoughts? (Feel free to comment below or on Meta.) --MZMcBride (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. How is this a problem? Admins have left and come back. There's no need to kick them out the door on the way out. Corvus cornix_talk 00:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is, I presume, only for users who specifically indicate their intention to permanently vanish, and request deletion of their user page, and won't be applied willy-nilly to users who simply haven't been heard from in a while but haven't expressed any intentions regarding the future of their account? *Dan T.* (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Only upon request (regardless of what our blocking policy says) could be considered part of the right to leave. But not when someone just leaves. The same way some choose to leave with wikidrama, others may choose to return in silence. If someone really, really wants to leave forever, he would delete the email preference and choose a long random password which, by all means, is the same. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry if there's been confusion. This is not for a {{retired}} template applied in a fit of anger or anything like that (inactivity, etc.). This is for the users who have their user talk pages and user pages deleted and have made a conscious decision to split permanently from the project. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I would only support this as long as the user makes i very clear that they wish to vanish, and that they understand their account will be indef. blocked and will have all user rights removed. I do not see what harm this can do. Tiptoety ^talk 00:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Go own yourselves more. catbus Steve Nash micronation --71.139.26.235 (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. Vanishing an account is no trivial thing; it should be done only when someone truly wants to vanish forever. If someone's gone (or at least left their account behind) forever, then there should be no issue with a block. And if they don't really intend on being gone forever, then they shouldn't be invoking the right to vanish. -Amarkov moo! 00:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Amarkov, you made my point for me. нмŵוτнτ 01:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and it sounds great on paper, but I think it happens way too often that vanished users come back. I'm unsure of the need for this, unless it is simply to emphasize that vanishing is a serious thing. I guess this would be ok, given that the user could still log in and request unblock on the talk page, but I personally, I'd have to think about this.. -- Ned Scott 01:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Vanished users should not be coming back under the same account. Period. The process of invoking the right to vanish involves destroying many records of bad behavior; how can we go back and undo all the edits replacing the username with "Former user X"? Vanishing and coming back with the same name looks far too much like a free user history wipe, and that is not good. -Amarkov moo! 01:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)I would agree with this as well. I think part of the reason is so that if they come back, they don't just start editing again, they'd be fully un-vanished first, to avoid people using RTV as a way to hide something by only vanishing temporarily. Mr.Z-man 01:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Where's the difference between a vanished user returning under his old username (with the bad behaviour records deleted) and a vanished user returning under a new username (with the bad behaviour records deleted)? The latter makes it even harder to spot any previous wrongdoing, actually. We would only make one of the two impossible if we'd block the vanished user, unless we treat such users as banned and block their new accounts as well. And I doubt anyone is trying to propose that. --Conti|✉ 02:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely support this. As Amarkov says, RTV should only be implemented when a user really is leaving....for good, so I see no reason not to block the account, and remove any user rights. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any need for or value to taking this step, at least in the absence of very unusual circumstances such as a user vanishing in lieu of an impending indefinite ban for serious case. Otherwise, I see this as a solution in search of a problem, and a deterrent to once-valued contributors, having become temporarily disenchanted with Wikipedia but then changing their minds, returning to us. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Giving people the option for a permanent RTV block could be a good thing, if they want to really cut the cord. If that happens, I can see also deleted their talk page and protecting vs. recreation. Gone with the option of coming back, vs. gone and gone for Good with a big G. Lawrence § t/e 01:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this is that there is no necessary correllation between how strongly a user believes that he or she wants to cut all ties to Wikipedia at the moment he or she is upset enough to vanish, and whether he or she might want to come back a few days or weeks or months later. People want to come and go for all sorts of reasons, both real-life-based and wiki-related, and if we eliminated from the ranks of Wikipedians everyone who at one point or another announced that he or she was leaving forever, we would be without the services of many, many decided contributors and administrators. Unless the "vanished" user had been a serious problem before departing, I don't see why we would want to add even slightly to the disincentives that face a departed user who is thinking about returning. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Though they can always request a unblock. Tiptoety ^talk 01:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

People should not request RTV if there is any possibility that they will be returning. -Rjd0060 (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Many unhappy users simply don't always think that way. People change their minds. We shouldn't discourage people from coming back unless there's a real reason to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Reading through the RTV page on meta, suggests it to be a permanent solution, as it should be. There are other options aside from vanishing. Users need to weigh them, and if they do decide RTV is the best way to go, that should be the end of it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I said above, there is a real reason to. Vanishing completely destroys records of user history, and that is not good if the user isn't really gone. -Amarkov moo! 01:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is permanently lost. If a user un-vanishes, the records are easy enough to restore. --Carnildo (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

NYB has it exactly right. There are plenty of irritating editors, there are a fair number who vanish, there may even be some who irritatingly vacillate between vanishing and appearing. If there are too many in the last category (which I doubt), send some of them my way and I'll vanish them and resuscitate them as requested (as long as it's merely a matter of bog-standard deletion and undeletion). I'll even welcome them back with personal messages, not tedious boilerplate. And I expect that I won't be alone in making such an offer. Meanwhile, no need to turn up the menacing tone and add to the drama. -- Hoary (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I like the idea of indefinitely blocking departed users, but I had always assumed that the removal of userrights was standard practice. An unattended account with rights is infinitely more dangerous than a fresh vandal account. I could very quickly do a lot of damage with a compromised bot account; more still with an admin account. A compromised bureaucrat, oversight, checkuser or steward account would, of course, be disastrous. Even something like rollbacker or autoconfirmed is potentially more dangerous than a fresh account; and if the editor was well known in the community, their edits are more likely to pass unnoticed in recentchanges or watchlists than an unknown new account. An unattended account is much more likely to be compromised than a used and monitored account. And if an editor does decide to return, his or her rights can easily be restored if they left in good standing. So if removal of rights isn't already standard practice, it certainly should be. Happy‑melon 10:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Many administrators or other users with higher-level user rights often give up their extra abilities upon resignation from the project, however, there has never been any solid rule that enforces all those with special rights to resign them at once should they decide to leave. I don't particularly see how an unused account has a higher probability to become compromised in any form than one that is actively used, and accounts that have been compromised have often been detected quite quickly, as prior situations have demonstrated. Spebi 10:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should rephrase: of course the chances of someone guessing/cracking the password of an unattended account are no different to that of an account in use. But an unattended account, once cracked, can be used indefinitely by an invader, until it is realised that it has been usurped. The most common reaction to an admin account being compromised is, apparently, to edit the mainpage to a large and usually obscene image: this is a fairly good indication that the account has been compromised, and the time for them to be desysopped is usually extremely short (I've heard 3 minutes). I imagine, although I doubt it's happened, that a compromised bureaucrat account would be used first to desysop Jimbo or similar. This crude and attention-grabbing use of compromised accounts naturally results in quick identification and blocking. There are much more malicious uses a compromised account could be put to if it is possible to have some preparation time. You might be able to put a penis on the mainpage for twenty seconds with a crude edit, but if you took the time to bury it somewhere deep in the transclusion structure it could be five minutes before anyone worked out how to get rid of it. Every time I put my mind to this question I come up with more effective ways to damage the site with a stolen admin or bot account: I can think of ways to irreperably remove all external links from all pages, to slow the loading of 95% of articles to a crawl, or to place a penis at the top of all our featured articles. But with time to prepare, to make a number of edits which don't appear to be nasty until you hit the one edit that drops the lewd image, you can do more insidious damage. The point is that an active account will notice these edits: if you look at your contributions and see something you don't remember doing, and don't understand why, you would get suspicious. If there's no one legitimatley using the account, that's not going to happen.

In fact, it's fairly immaterial whether the compromised account is used or unused by its legitimate owner. We all know that accounts with userrights can potentially be dangerous: that's why we have RfA, RfB, RfBA, etc. If the owner of the account has left, they are not going to be using their userrights for the benefit of the project, so it makes absolute sense for them to be reset. Why have more potentially dangerous accounts lying around than are genuinely necessary? I'm not saying that, once removed, those rights should not be restored if the editor returns - as I said above, if the editor left in good standing there is no reason why they should have to do anything more than ask. But leaving admin/bot/crat accounts lying around when we all know their potential for misuse strikes me as an unnecessary weakness. Take them away automatically as part of RTV, give them back automatically if they return. If their account is compromised in the meantime, they'll have to stick to ordinary vandalism. Happy‑melon 16:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was longer than I expected :D! Happy‑melon 16:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It was pretty on the button, though. I would concur that any inactive account with a good pedigree - with extra tools or not - is a prime target. The good faith shown toward a returning editor of some standing may allow some of the less obvious malicious edits to survive much longer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrats can't desysop people. Only stewards can. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree, strongly. We have admins who "leave" the project only to come back within days. Some repeatedly. We have rules against admins blocking themselves or other users for "wikibreaks" - why are we wanting to block a user for a "rtv", which is but the ultimate "wikibreak"? Why is this, of all possible admin actions and consequences, to be the one thing you don't get to change your mind on? Yes, it's a serious act, but it's wholly in the realm of that users concern, not the projects. Achromatic (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• The point in all this that seems to be being missed is that 'right to vanish' is serious. When people use it to make a dramatic, pointy, disruptive exit, they are abusing the right to vanish, and that abuse is doubled if they return later. Please, if you want to leave the door open for a future return, blank your pages and use the {{retired}} template, or leave some other sort of message. There seems to be a need to leave a 'message' by having your user and/or talk page links in signatures turn red. Instead of asking for pages (especially user talk pages!) to be deleted, you can leave dramatic messages and departure essays on your user page, but using 'right to vanish' as a standard departure method is wrong. Most departures can be handled other ways, and there need to be good reasons for exercising 'right to vanish'. The main one being that you really do want to vanish, or you need to disassociate from your real name. The only way, regrettably, to discourage frivolous use of the 'right to vanish' is to make much clearer that if you do return, that everything that was done to enable the vanishing will be undone, except the removal of user rights. Carcharoth (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• I could not agree more with this. RTV is not a form of "wikibreak." Invoking the right to vanish means the user wants to leave permanently. Vanishing to create drama, only to come back a couple days later, should not be an option. RTV is a serious thing, and it should have serious consequences. --L. Pistachio (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Somehow, I can't help but feel that this is a solution to a problem we don't yet have. (There are too many people out there connected to the Internet to say definitely that any specific behavior will never occur.) What about a compromise? On the second exercise of the Right To Vanish, the user is also blocked indefinitely. If we agree to this, then let's keep a count of how many of these kinds of blocks were given, then revisit the issue in 6 months or a year. If the number of these cases are few or none, then obviously doing this is overkill; if there are a lot, then we should consider blocking after the first time this right is invoked. (And yes, I am being vague about the numbers. I would rather give this approach a try then argue if too many RTV incidents repeated, than delay the experiment because we couldn't decided how many is too many.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• This sounds like a really good compromise, llywrch. I agree that RTV is probably not being abused much, but since it has the potential for abuse, it's certainly a valid thing to have brought up. I also like the idea of leaving it at blocking the second time for good, to catch only people that it's likely to continue to be a problem with. delldot talk 19:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I like this idea as well. Basically, you get one freebie vanish, and beyond that, it's "enforced" with a block. Should help get people's attention and cut down on the the dramatic exits. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Personally, I think that indef blocking on the first RTV could work, provided that the block is made without prejudice, something in the lines of a username block, with a notice on the RTV page that the account may be resumed on request, but that the user's deleted pages will then be restored. I rather like the idea of an RTV block, not just to make clear to users that it is a serious decision, but also to ensure that they don't just quietly resume their activity with a "clear record". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've noticed this problem, too. I'm a little bit concerned about adopting an einmal ist keinmal attitude towards something as serious as RTV. As Carcharoth pointed out, this is supposed to be a rare and grave request designed to help people who need, for well-thought-out and significant reasons, to utterly disassociate themselves from their Wikipedia identity. It's grave because it's permanent, and total and rare because you need a good reason; GDFL contributions are for good, you can't throw a hissy-fit and demand back the rights to your donated free-content (on The Free Encyclopedia). Bottom Line: It's a major WP:POINT violation regardless of whether the person really meant it right then. I believe those requesting RTV should be indefinitely blocked in exchange for our willingness to waive our rights under the GDFL by allowing you to Indian-give your freely donated contributions. Evidence of repeated use of RTV on multiple accounts by the same user should be viewed especially harshly. I simply can't see the value of it for anything other than real, honest cases; this isn't some web forum, and we're supposed to be building an encyclopedia, not playing games. If you're stomping off in a grand huff so everyone can say just how much they're going to miss you, I don't think you deserve to gut a bunch of good articles on your way out, or cover up a bad history. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 14:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the RTV is wholly different from a wikibreak or simply ceasing to edit. It's a formal announcement that one no longer desires to be part of the project and wishes to be expunged. The issue is less that of ease or difficulty of deleting pages as it is the intent behind vanishing. Though it's common sense that the RTV shouldn't be used to duck out of arb hearings or other binding resolutions, I'm of the opinion that it should be formally so. This is not an idle threat or promise, and the right to unvanish should be negotiated through at least admin oversight. WLU (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User JoshuaGrant12 sockpuppetry

JoshuaGrant12 (talk · contribs) has created some odd thing in the templates, categories and wikipedia namespace. Particularly, Category:Cireta need move pages, Template:Edit this page, Template:Tennis-poc, Template:Tennis-icon, Category:Curret Pages that has ridrects, and Wikipedia:Tennis-icon which redirects Wikipedia:Tennis icon. It's hard to discern the intent of these because of the funny language. They might be for personal use, so they may need to be userfied. Can and admin take a look at talk to this user? --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked a little deeper appears to be a sockpuppetry case with various usernames of joshua grant and maybe some ips like 70.236.8.153 (talk · contribs) . If you look at the contributions by those they are similar. I haven't actually dealt with sockpuppetry, so could someone give me a hand with this? --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 18:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi DeadEyeArrow, accounts JoshuaGrant1 to JoshuaGrant14 have now been blocked - refer to the note on User talk:JoshuaGrant4.--Addhoc (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. Do you think you could do something about the all the subpages and whatnot those user accounts created. They're mostly just copy and pastes of pages and are a waste of namespace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadEyeArrow (talk • contribs) 19:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

On clicking through the link to the Listusers, I saw that JoshuaGrant15 and 16 have popped up, so have listed them at WP:AIV. Next stop WP:RFCU to get the underlying IP blocked... _GB^T/C 13:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

JoshuaGrant15 and JoshuaGrant16 now indef blocked. Tonywalton ^Talk 14:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Lisa the Sociopath

Er, does anyone know what's going here with Lisa the Sociopath (talk · contribs)? --Calton | Talk 13:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A look at the deleted history seems to suggest she's using it as a personal journal and tagging it with {{db-userreq}}, then immediately starting it up again. Weird but not "evil". She's editing in good faith based on a quick glance of the article contributions, so I would say let it go. Neıl ☎ 13:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblock abuse

Resolved

Identityandconsulting (talk · contribs · block log) has been blocked for 1 week with the reason of disruption, and has since posted four unblock requests. I declined the third, but am wondering if this page should be protected and/or the block extended because of the further disruption because of the unblock requests? -MBK₀₀₄ 21:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the page, but I have not removed or declined the unblock request. I don't have time to review the situation in depth at the moment, but looking at the unblock request, it appears they may be fulfilling the request of the second decline. Someone please review this and handle accordingly. Lara❤Love 21:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It'd be handy if the admin dealing with this is fluent in both English and Spanish, since the user claims they are a native Spanish speaker. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 22:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Try a category intersection of Category:Wikipedia administrators and Category:User es-5, using AWB's filter options. That's what I did when I needed to find an admin who could read arabic. Happy‑melon 22:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Caribbean H.Q. speaks Spanish. --Agüeybaná 22:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I speak fluent Spanish and English. I have just looked at the case. The subject matter is over my head as I am not an expert in this subject. The user seems to be AGF with just a misunderstanding because of the language barrier and his lack of knowledge of WP's rules and policies. He has been pointed to WP:NOT and WP:OR and seems to have understood the gist of the problem as evidenced by his comments on having posted his essay elsewhere. I believe the block to be correct and the declined unblock requests to be justified. I do not know what I can do to help. I wrote to him in Spanish in his Talk page, which I normally avoid doing in en:WP so every other editor can understand the exchange, but it might help here. Basically said he can email me with questions and I'll try to help his understanding of WP's policies and maybe point him in the right direction once he comes out of block. Alexf⁴² 23:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reduced the time of the protection on the talk page to equal when the block expiry is (24 February). Lara protected the page originally until the 27th. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for that. My mistake. I was getting pulled away just after I started with it and I rushed, carelessly protecting for the length of the block, not checking to see how much of that block had elapsed. I was coming here to check up on it tho! :) Lara❤Love 02:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there some way to set the talk page so it only allows one unblock request? Or would that cause problems? HalfShadow (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't think it was possible with the software at hand; I shouldn't think it was advisable either - we allow two goes, bringing the user under the eyes of a total of 3 users in good standing (the blocker, the first denier, the second denier) and then sometimes a fourth in the person who protects the talk page when the next pointless {{unblock}} comes along. As many eyes as makes abuse difficult vs as many chances made available as makes disruption difficult. Two goes at appealing and three or four reviewers seems to cover that IMHO. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 20:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Indefinate Page Protection

Resolved

 – AGK (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaving wikipedia permanently, and want all of my userpage and subpages from my primary user which is User:Terra protected from editing, including this alternate user, i've left the Enable E-Mail user active if any user wishes to send messages, i'll be active though on other wiki-sites. Yun-Yuuzhan (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You're looking for WP:RFPP but someone will probably do it here. John Reaves 16:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, i'm returning but could an administrator remove the wikibreak script so i can fully access it. Yun-Yuuzhan (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. If you are going to use that script it's recommended that you don't change your mind. Hut 8.5 18:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, look on the good side though at least you haven't lost an editor. Terra ^{Who are you?} 19:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

McTrain editing around the block

User McTrain has a dynamic IP and frequently edits under it. This is most obvious in this edit [10] where he rewrites one of the IP signatures to clarify that it his own, though following the edit history of virtually every page he focuses on will confirm this.

McTrain is currently blocked for harassment of other editors [11] after being reported multiple times [12] [13] [14]. In spite of this, McTrain is still editing under the dynamic IP.

On Lucien Ruolle as 65.142.236.114 [15]. On O.A. Thorp Scholastic Academy as 65.142.236.114 [16] and 65.141.156.175 [17]. Edward321 (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Add 65.141.156.67 [18], User:Cancanit [19], and 65.141.156.1 [20]. Deor (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

and blanking the AfD selectively. I thought he was leaving? Travellingcari (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Heads up - protected a bunch of templates

Just to let you guys know that I spent my sick, rainy Wednesday going through Special:Mostlinkedtemplates and protecting anything that wasn't already locked in the top 500. i.e. anything with over 8,368 transclusions is now either semiprotected or full protected. I was surprised by how many weren't already locked! This is following a spate of silly vandalism to high-risk templates, which people tend to not be able to figure out quickly.

If you need anything downgraded to semiprotection (it's a bad idea to leave these completely unlocked, methinks) please ask on my talk or WP:RUP. If you just want something changed, please used {{editprotected}}. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 10:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's worrying that there are over 8,368 overly long plot summaries :/ Will ^(talk) 12:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

True. We don't need, for example, a blow by blow account of Deep Throat.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Blow by blow... budum bum (crash). Thank you folks, order the veal. He'll be here all week. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your work, Riana. However, it seems that something has gone wrong with at least one of the templates right about the time you protected it. Please see Template:WikiProject College football. The template has its spacing thrown off - similar to what happens if one puts a space at the start of a sentence - it throws the text into a box like:

 is part of WikiProject College football, an attempt...

This template includes other templates so the problem may be with one of the included ones. I am having trouble finding the problem. Could someone please take a look? Johntex\^talk 15:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• It was a rogue space, have fixed it now. Woody (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Excellent - thank you! That is what it seemed like, but I could not find it. Johntex\^talk 15:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Maxwell's Silver Hammer Cartoon

I'm not quite sure what to make of this article. Intervention by more awake admins gratefully received. --Dweller (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My brain just snapped. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 17:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty confusing. A quick Google search didn't pull up anything relevant, so I'm going to go ahead and AfD that. Natalie (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, I just looked at the edit history and this article has been here since October. The AfD is done and open to comment. Natalie (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How rude of me not to come back and thank you, Natalie. You, too, Jéské, for making a tired man laugh. --Dweller (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• When Abbey Road was released, "Late Night Line Up" commissioned a number of short films as accompaniments to the broadcast of the album in its entirety. I remember watching it. However, since no information seems to be available at present, there is nothing to support this article. It's not a hoax, however. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's good to know. Perhaps at some point we can find more information. Natalie (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Talkpage deletion

This is puzzling me a bit. Used on several articles is this file from commons. Its completely unsourced and I keep on having to remove it from articles. I'd prefer to warn any prospective linker that I intend to remove it. When you click through to the image page, it of course gives you the placeholder for the image in commons, with the standard copy of the description page from there. However, the last time I put a note on the associated talkpage with a reminder that an unsourced image shouldn't be used, it was deleted as an orphaned talkpage - and that's happened before. When I asked a deleting admin - Majorly - about it here he was singularly unhelpful. Does anyone have any ideas? Is there a standard approach to discussion about such images? Or a note on the talkpage telling people not to delete the damn thing? 18:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, commons and wikipedia are two completely different sites, with their own admins, policies, and editors. There are many people who edit both, but there is no action taken at Wikipedia that can or should effect commons files. Please try asking your question here: at the Commons Village Pump, where you are likely to get a more positive response. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I was not adequately clear. When you click on a commons image in articlespace, you are taken to a placeholder page in wikipedia, not in commons. Very few users click through that to the commons page. So I'm talking about the talkpage associated with that placeholder page - only the placeholder page doesn't exactly exist, so the talkpage shows up as orphaned.

As you can see, this has nothing to do with commons. Relata refero (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is a significant concern about an image meaning that it should not be used on the english wikipedia, I think that would merit a note on the image description page (the "placeholder page") itself. But, anyway, CSD-G8 _specifically_ does not apply to local talk pages of images existing on commons. I've noticed people are very overzealous in deleting any orphaned talk page despite the fact that there are numerous exceptions to the criterion. —Random832 19:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Placing community ban on User:David Lauder et al

The consensus is to impose a ban, despite this user's many positive contributions that partly mitigate the disruption. ArbCom may, of course, lift the ban if they consider that such a request should be honored. DrKiernan (talk) 08:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

This is to inform the community that I will be adding the above named user to the list of banned users, and to invite discussion or to see if there was any dissenting opinions to this. I will explain my reasons below for this action, and the timeline of this situation:

End of 2005- Beginning of 2006: User:Robert I was banned by ArbCom in the ArbCom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I (this ArbCom case was courtesy deleted by the request of the person involved in August 2007. I have restored it solely for this discussion), for legal threats regarding an article about a politician in the United Kingdon who was identified either as a "traditional conservative" or a "right-wing extremist", depending on your point of view. (This article has since been deleted and redirected.) User:Robert I also posted via IP addresses, and self-identified as this politician when he edited via IP addresses. This ArbCom Case closed on January 31st, 2006.

7 February 2006: The account User:Sussexman is created, and goes on editing much in the same way as User:Robert I

11 May 2006: The account of Counter-revolutionary is created.

20 June 2006: User:Sussexman was indefblocked for sending a solicitor's letter to legally threaten another Wikipedian, on articles, amongst other things, the since redirected article mentioned above. The solicitor's letter was signed as the politican above. You can see the ANI Discussion here.

23 June 2006: The account User:Chelsea Tory created.

29 November 2006: User:David Lauder creates a new account on Wikipedia

October 2007: User:David Lauder and User:Counter-revolutionary were involved in the very contentious ArbCom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles.

Yesterday: User:Sussexman, User:David Lauder, User:Chelsea Tory and User:Counter-revolutionary were all found to be at times editing in ways that contravene Wikipedia policy. The CheckUser's comment on this finding was: I can confirm that they (being David Lauder, Chelsea Tory, and Sussexman) have edited from the same computer, sometimes within a minute of each other. The first three are matched as hits.. the fourth, Counter-revolutionary, had edited from that same machine, but not as often. You can see the CheckUser result here.

At the time of the Checkuser User:Sussexman, User:Chelsea Tory was advocating that User:Sussexman be unblocked. User:Counter-revolutionary had previously advocated for the unblock.

So, this twice blocked user (once via ArbCom ban, once via ANI discussion, both for legal threats) has now apparently moved on to either using direct meatpuppets or sockpuppets to disrupt Wikipedia.

I am bringing this to AN to confirm what should already be obvious. The person behind this account is not here to build an encyclopedia. He first attempted to write a glowing puff-piece of an article about himself as a politician, and when that dream was sabotaged by other editors (including, admittedly, some people who had a bone to pick with his politics), he turned to legal threats and disruption of Wikipedia. He is therefore banned from Wikipedia, unless other administrators object. SirFozzie (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The person behind this account is not here to build an encyclopedia.

Just to be fair, under User:David Lauder this person has made substantial content contributions, including Lauder (where I has a run in with him!), George Lauder, Lauderdale, I could go on for a while. For all his misdemeanors he still deserves credit where it is due. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if true, his history far outweighs his contributions, no matter how laudable. SirFozzie (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not denying that of course, just trying to be fair. He can be perma-banned after all without a total Damnatio memoriae in addition! :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A couple of points; while I certainly endorse a community ban on David Lauder, given the evidence to-date, including the now-undeleted ArbCom case (I was completely shocked by that one), I'd like a little more clarification on "et al". Specifically, who else of the editors discovered during the checkuser case should come under this ban? If that includes User:Counter-revolutionary, I might have a bit of a problem with that as I see him as being guilty of collusion and meat-puppetry but not as a sock or a major player here. Indeed, I'm still concerned about his indefinite block. I'd also note that David Lauder had a substantive history of constructive editing so to say he "is not here to build an encyclopedia" is a little unfair - Alison ^❤ 01:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If Counter-revolutionary is willing to leave off using multiple accounts (when I talked via email to him, he was asking to RtV and promised not to use any of the other accounts he had), and not edit as a proxy for User:David Lauder, I see why no reason he shouldn't be unblocked. I will ask him directly via email, now.

The et all was to indicate that the accounts directly controlled (Robert I, Sussexman, David Lauder, Chelsea Tory) and any future accounts should be blocked. I wasn't sure what account to log it under, that was the et all. (and I note that a LOT of the positive contributions noted by Deacon of Pndapetzim were about things that he could have a COI about, if they are related to his real-life identity.) SirFozzie (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I support a ban on Lauder and his sock-puppets. Counter-revolutionary I am not so sure about. My understanding is that most people intimate with the details are of the impression that he is probably a different individual, albeit one closely involved with Lauder and who has engaged in some tandem editing in the past. Thats not cool, of course, but its not really that unusual among editors involved in and around the Troubles. Therefore, if he is a different person, then I'm not sure there is any good reason he should remain indef blocked, much less banned. Rockpocket 02:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I User:Robert I may well be Gregory Lauder-Frost, or he's definitely someone closely connected to him. When Sussexman was indef blocked User:Morven said "I also strongly believe that User:Sussexman is Gregory Lauder-Frost, given the similar tone found in the excepts of the letter Ed Chilvers received". It's established that Sussexman, Chelsea Tory and David Lauder have edited from the same computer, sometimes within a minute of each other. Counter-revolutionary has also edited from the same computer (but to a lesser extent).

As can be seen by my comments here, I was expecting "discussion on the other [Counter-revolutionary] possibly on TER, especially with regards to COI". I wasn't in favour of an indef block (although I wasn't necessarily opposed to it), more a possible COI restriction on the High Tory related articles he has a very close connection to based on his image uploads, in particular the images of Gregory Lauder-Frost taken in various countries over a ten year period (see Sussexman checkuser for details). Counter-revolutionary is not an "innocent bystander" in all this. He's clearly involved in the whole situation up to his neck, he knows what has gone on and who is who. If he's prepared to be honest and open about this I'd support an unblock under certain restrictions. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I support the ban of [politician]'s accounts. The David Lauder account has made useful contributions in Scottish history, as Deacon of Pndapetzim observed. There may be mild COI implications in his insistence on Victorian histories and genealogies as the last word on scholarly material, but I am uneasy with the notion that his contributing to Lauder, Lauderdale, etc., is ipso facto a COI — similar accusations have been voiced in Troubles-related cases, IMO more for the purpose of bludgeoning those foolish enough to reveal their real-world identity on Wikipedia that for any encyclopedic purpose. All that said, it's clear in retrospect that even before the checkuser, there's a remarkable convergence of editing interests between David Lauder and [politician]'s previous incarnations; I'm a little surprised no one familiar with the previous case didn't call for a checkuser long ago. Given the legal threats and various other unpleasant circumstances surrounding the original ban, compounded by the sockpuppetry and vote-stacking practiced by the current incarnation, I don't see any reason to lift the ban, even for positive and apolitical historical contributions. As for Counter-revolutionary, he's aided and abetted some quite disruptive quarrels on behalf of someone whom Wikipedia told to get lost a while ago. Blocks are not punitive, but any conditions for his return need to address his own COI issues and proxying. Choess (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I supported this block in the discussion at WP:TER, but there are a few things I would like to note here:

1. As Deacon of Pndapetzim noted, David Lauder (talk · contribs) did make many positive contributions. Sure, there were also some suspect contributions too and persistent unwillingness to consider world-views other than his own, but DL's misconduct should not be used to obscure the positive contributions he made, including writing several well-written and well-referenced articles.
2. Lauder insists on his talk page that checkuser is simply wrong. I understand that checkuser has some limitations, but it seems to me that changing IPs cannot account for the pattern of behaviour shown here. So I have two suggestions:
   • Can someone else with checkuser powers but who was not in any way involved in the Troubles arbcom case recheck Alison's tests? Personally, I have full trust in Alison, but for the sake of avoiding any accusations directed at her, an independent confirmation of her checkuser results would remove any scope for accusations of bias.
   • How robust is the checkuser system? It seems to me to be an inherently rather simple system (IPs are logged, database is scanned for IPs used by particular users, matches are reported), but given Lauder's outright denials, it would be useful to have confirmation that the code has been checked for robustness.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. For the record, I have absolutely no problem with anybody else running a checkuser on the accounts and coming to whatever conclusions they see fit, indeed I welcome it. In terms of RFCU work, it's a pretty straightforward case, really - Alison ^❤ 08:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"It's established that Sussexman, Chelsea Tory and David Lauder have edited from the same computer, sometimes within a minute of each other. Counter-revolutionary has also edited from the same computer (but to a lesser extent)." That section I have highlighted says a lot in my opinion. They are up to their gills in it, and should be treated the same. I don't mean to sound hard, but I'm sick sore and tired of the disruption this causes. They have made it difficult because of their carry on to assume good faith, when new accounts pop up (with a detailed knowledge of our policies) and start editing on Troubles related article. I been made to feel like a thick, the number of times I've had editors gang up on me only to discover it was the same editor. Thats just my opinion anyway. --Domer48 (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Lets get this clear. I am no saint - infact I am a sinner. My sins are wide and varied, I have caused a lot of trouble in my time and spent months blocked. There were plenty on here that wanted me out and only for the storng voice of a few I am sure I would be gone.

Must of my trouble has stemmed for arguements with a group of editors - usually the same ones, they appear to adopt the moral high ground and have got me in more shit than I care to remember. I always thought that I was dealing with a group of editors and this got me in a lot more trouble as on a number of occasions it looked like

The WHOLE Troubles arbcom would have been avoid if this editor was not editing for months from different accounts and that is what pisses me off the most.

I could go on and on about this issue but I wont as I dont really want to get involve but I just want to end by showing you this AfD which I believe was the kick off of the Troubles issue that roared for many months. If Lauder et al had been acting honestly and in good faith from the begining then we wouldnt have had the month and months of hassle with resepct to these issue and we would have saved a lot of editors and admins a lot of grey hair. ((The previous comment was posted by User:Vintagekits.. I'm surprised that Sinebot didn't get him)) SirFozzie (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks to be in order with me. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What we are discussing here is adding a community ban to an existing ArbComm ban. The first remedy in that ArbComm case, unless we have evidence that "all legal disputes have been withdrawn or resolved either by settlement or final judicial resolution including payment in full of any costs and judgment" then the user is already banned by ArbComm. We don't have any evidence that the multiple legal disputes are withdrawn or resolved. I don't know if we need to add a community ban to the ArbComm ban, but I don't object to doing so. GRBerry 14:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Someone below makes a good faith argument that the ArbComm ban may have lapsed. With that argument made, and the additional evidence I've seen since, I now support a community ban. At this time, it doesn't seem clear that Counter Revolutionary is a sockpuppet, so I would exclude that account. If the evidence on that question changes, so may the result. GRBerry 14:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I was closely involved with the article on Gregory Lauder-Frost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (see AfD and deletion review), and with Sussexman and Chelsea Tory as well as the numerous anonymous friends they brought wiht them. Personal legal threats were made to Wikipedia editors whose real identities were inferred, including at least one solicitor's letter. We fixed a serious problem with that article despite their involvement, not because of it. I don't know why they were not banned at the time, other than that a "fishing expedition" would have been rejected by RFCU. It comes as no surprise to learn that they are all if not related then at least working in very close collaboration. I suggest that interested parties ask William Pietri for input, as another closely involved participant in that dispute. If people want to question indefinite blocking in this case, I suggest arbitration - the sockpuppetry, legal threats and other abuse, including apparent ban evasion, would seem to me to be at the very least worthy of a trip to ArbCom. Guy (Help!) 17:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• I was only peripherally aware of the Troubles ArbCom when it was on, noticing merely that it seemed filled with some extraordinary bad faith. However, I saw at the time nothing to distinguish it from several other ArbCom cases involving difficult hyper-nationalist editors. Recently I began editing some of the articles over which these accounts have established a pattern of ownership, including Western Goals Institute and Lord Sudeley. I was met with considerable resistance and some great incivility, though I've been subject to worse. At some point one of the account left a 'note' on another account's talkpage warning them of the wild-eyed Bolshie who'd turned up to vandalise their articles. There was certainly a touch of tag-team reverting involved; and I was 'reported' for my 'vandalism' to AN/I - the complaint is still up there. (Where, entertainingly, it was speculated that I was someone's puppet.) It was only after I did some poking around in edit histories, discovering some puzzling deletions and so on that I asked a few discreet questions and discovered the history, which was plainly shocking. (Turns out there's an off-wiki mirror as well.) It was becoming obvious that these accounts were closely connected, and that they were using their artificial consensus to disrupt editing across a swathe of articles to which they had undoubted connections off-wiki. (Judging by image uploads.) This is unacceptable.

If an indefblock is considered too harsh, I would strongly recommend a community ban from editing any and all articles related to the right-wing of the Tory party, the House of Lords, and republicanism. If their energy can be redirected to safely apolitical genealogical research and COI-free articles of pretenders to Eastern European monarchies, it will probably not be disruptive. However, having viewed the ArbCom, I can certainly understand if we simply don't want this person - or two people, at most - around. Many - perhaps most - people who have been community banned have been banned for less obvious disruption. Relata refero (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support unblocking Counter-revolutionary, or well reframing his block to being something less than a month. I also agree with BHG that check user is pretty unreliable (and indeed should be overhauled but that isn't for here) but it is better at proving guilt than innocence. I would also support unblocking Lauder with the agreement that he doesn't edit political articles relating to the UK (which includes the Troubles, of course). Thanks, SqueakBox 20:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Lauder... heck no. he's been blocked/banned TWICE for legal threats (not just.. "If you don't do what I want I'll sue you". type idle threats on WP (which is bad enough), but actual legal threats from his solicitor, sent to an editor's home address. (See the Sussexman discussion linked above). Technically, as said above, he's already banned, because he never fufilled the first ban's requirements (a full apology and payment of any all legal fees incurred as a result of the threats) SirFozzie (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• support ban - after reading this and the ssp report I think a community ban is in order for the DL and directly related. I'm not sure about User:Counter-revolutionary, and would support topic restrictions and similar restraints discussed above. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Ban - This question pretty much answers itself. By the time you've gotten to the point of socking/meating to avoid an Arbcom block, you're as valuable to the Project as a hand-grenade in a china shop. Throw away the key and lets move on. As for counter-revolutionary, at best he's a WP:SPA and a Checkuser-proven meat-puppet of a disruptive indefblocked user. At worst he's just another David Lauder sock. Even his user-name touts his political agenda. How precisely does any of this indicate that we should give him the benefit of the doubt? Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 23:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Bans Certain individual(s) having been waging a campaign for over 2 years attacking anyone who gets in their way, all the accounts are inexplicably links --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 01:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban - two things say it all: "The WHOLE Troubles arbcom would have been avoid if this editor was not editing for months from different accounts" - VintageKits, and "Personal legal threats were made to Wikipedia editors whose real identities were inferred, including at least one solicitor's letter." - Guy. Lauder has got to go. I do believe that I also may have had some experience with this user (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Astrotrain; looks like I guessed wrong), and thought the user should be banned simply on this brief encounter (which, to date, no one has mentioned that I can see). You cheat this badly, for this long, then you are not responsible enough to edit here, and this block sure is heck is a preventative one if I ever saw one (for all the disruption caused). The Evil Spartan (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban As per my previous comments. In addition, they were already banned! --Domer48 (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose- Firstly Fozzie and Alison are biased against David Lauder. Secondly, I find their position strange given their support for the Vintagekits sock/meatpuppet account. Astrotrain (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support banAs per evidence provided. BigDunc (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Queries

As User:David Lauder is blocked and so unable to answer any of the accusations here at all, might someone point out to him:

• How anything he has edited has any connection whatsoever with Chelsea Tory & the blocked User Sussexman.
• If User:Counter Revolutionary was originally the same person/sockpuppet how is he not so?
• How is David Lauder suddenly responsible for 'The Troubles' ArbCom which was initiated by the indefinite banning of User:Vintagekits?
• User the checkuser can we be absolutely certain, looking at User:Sussexman's edits (and he has been blocked for 20 months has he not?) that David Lauder' ISP is exactly the same as Sussexmans?
• What would you say the actual connexion, offensive or otherwise, is between David Lauder and User:Chelsea Tory (who I see has now decamped)?
• How can David Lauder be connected with anything which happened on Wikipedia 18 months or more ago when it appears he wasn't with us then and has never edited anything in that political zone?

As I don't wish to be involved I am asking these questions generally. I hope you will consider them. 86.155.190.74 (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed by checkuser to be User:David Lauder evading block.  IP blocked - leaving questions up in the event anyone would like to address them - Alison ^❤ 07:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Taking each point in turn:

• "How anything he has edited has any connection whatsoever with Chelsea Tory & the blocked User Sussexman." Per the checkuser, David Lauder, Chelsea Tory and Sussexman "have edited from the same computer, sometimes within a minute of each other". Asking for anything else is a red herring, the connection is right there.
• "If User:Counter Revolutionary was originally the same person/sockpuppet how is he not so?" Per the checkuser Counter-revolutionary "has also edited from the same computer at the same time and place as the above [David Lauder, Chelsea Tory and Sussexman] but not nearly as often. This points more to collusion and meat-puppetry than they being the same individual."
• "How is David Lauder suddenly responsible for 'The Troubles' ArbCom which was initiated by the indefinite banning of User:Vintagekits?" - the confirmed sockpuppetry and evidence of off-Wiki collusion/meatpuppetry was a key factor in the whole dispute beginning in the first place.
• "User the checkuser can we be absolutely certain, looking at User:Sussexman's edits (and he has been blocked for 20 months has he not?) that David Lauder' ISP is exactly the same as Sussexmans? " - I won't comment on the checkuser side of things for WP:BEANS reasons, should a checkuser wish to comment that is up to them.
• "What would you say the actual connexion, offensive or otherwise, is between David Lauder and User:Chelsea Tory (who I see has now decamped)?" Per the checkuser, David Lauder and Chelsea Tory "have edited from the same computer, sometimes within a minute of each other".
• "How can David Lauder be connected with anything which happened on Wikipedia 18 months or more ago when it appears he wasn't with us then and has never edited anything in that political zone?" - Per the checkuser, David Lauder, Chelsea Tory and Sussexman "have edited from the same computer, sometimes within a minute of each other". David Lauder is connected, it's that simple.

I suggest that if David Lauder wants to appeal his indefinite block/community ban (delete as applicable) this goes to ArbCom, where I will be happy to provide evidence that I can't provide on-Wiki for privacy reasons. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

David Lauder using another block evading sock to chance their arm here? Why am I not surprised. Counter-revolutionary has also edited from the same computer at the same time and place as David Lauder, Chelsea Tory and Sussexman. They are just as much apart of David Lauder little mess IMO. --Domer48 (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Another look at this

There are some aspects of the current perception and solution, which I'm not comfortable with and which I raise somewhat reluctantly, especially in the light of David Lauder's intransigence in dealing with this matter. My comments are on the basis of Robert I, Sussexman, Chelsea Tory and David Lauder being socks of one user, which seems clear-cut.

1. ArbCom ban. The remedy was "Robert I is banned from Wikipedia pending resolution or formal withdrawal of all legal disputes with Wikipedia and its users. When all legal disputes have been withdrawn or resolved either by settlement or final judicial resolution including payment in full of any costs and judgment, the ban may be lifted." The ArbCom case was closed over 2 years ago. There are no ongoing legal disputes on or off wiki, so they are resolved. The ban only remains in place as a technicality and could easily have been lifted. Per WP:Legal, such a ban only applies while the legal matter is ongoing. The whole issue is moot as the material over which Robert I made the legal threat was deleted, along with the rest of the relevant article, nearly a year ago.
2. "he never fufilled the first ban's requirements (a full apology and payment of any all legal fees incurred as a result of the threats)". The ArbCom remedy does not stipulate either of these. The "payment in full" relates to the final judicial resolution, which is not relevant as no case took place (we would undoubtedly have heard if it had done).
3. ArbCom noted (Finding of Fact 7), "Robert I is a relatively new user who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia editing. Thus he has misunderstood certain Wikipedia policies and possibly inadvertently entered into a legal dispute."
4. The other ArbCom ban is "Robert I banned for one year from editing articles relating to Gregory Lauder-Frost". That is academic as the ban expired a year ago.
5. Apart from a technicality, there has not been a violation of a specific ArbCom ban.
6. A relevant ArbCom remedy was, "Robert I is required to edit only when logged in and to use only one user account". This has been violated.
7. If we take this to be a "ban", then the ArbCom enforcement is "Should Robert I violate any ban, he may be blocked for a short time, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year." This is comparable with the Troubles ArbCom enforcement.
8. Certain accusations about David Lauder are not just:
9. According to Vintagekits: "The WHOLE Troubles arbcom would have been avoid if this editor was not editing for months from different accounts." David Lauder was a contributing factor to the situation, but was not alone in his viewpoint, which was generally shared by a number of other editors, including Major Bonkers, Astrotrain, Kittybrewster, W. Frank, and the late Gaimhreadhan, none of them labelled as socks of David Lauder. The case involved problematic behaviour on both "sides". The Troubles ArbCom only started, when Vintagekits was indef blocked for "making clear threats regarding another editor's home address",[21] namely W. Frank's (nothing to do with David Lauder) and had previously sent a threatening email to Rockpocket. Vintagekits' attempt to exonerate himself and shift the blame is not very convincing.
10. "(David Lauder) is not here to build an encyclopedia". He's made 9,000 edits, and most of them have not been in dispute. He has contributed to many Scottish-related articles with knowledge and resources, some relating to personal interests, but this has not been problematic (since Robert I's early GLF legal threat debacle). George I, Earl of March, for example, is a sound achievement, almost entirely his own work. His other contributions[22] include subjects such as Warmia and Masuria plebiscite, Yalta Conference, Baltic Germans, Pyotr Nikolayevich Wrangel‎, Imperial Russian Navy and List of ships of the Austro-Hungarian Navy. He has, as some other editors have pointed out, made substantial contributions.
11. He has certainly used socks abusively, notably for vote stacking, as pointed out at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman. Even so, when everything is taken into account, I feel that an intermediate solution in line with the stipulated ArbCom enforcement would be more appropriate than a ban, which seems disproportionate, when compared to the enforcement applied to other users recently, such as W. Frank and Vintagekits (see WP:TER).
12. These comments are made on the basis of visible evidence (including deleted material), so if there's anything I'm missing, perhaps someone could email me.

Tyrenius (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking you're missing plenty based on the evidence available. Robert I was banned by ArbCom for legal threats, and by the look of it immediately created the Sussexman account which was indef blocked for more legal threats. So immediately you've got evasion of an ArbCom remedy in the ban until legal disputes were settled.

Sussexman and Chelsea Tory both edited articles "which relate to Gregory Lauder-Frost and his political activities", inside the one year ban. Further evasion of ArbCom remedy.

Per the checkuser "All of the three accounts below appear to have logged out to edit at various times", and that's in addition to the use of more than one account. Evasion of ArbCom remedy that Robert I is only to edit while logged in and using one account, which has no time limit.

Current block evasion with IPs - documented above.

Also the whole Troubles situation didn't start with the ArbCom, that was the end result. The battle lines were well and truly drawn during Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Diarmuid O'Neill, where the sock and meatpuppetry began. If VK hadn't been faced with a drawer of socks and associates acting in concert, everything else might never have occurred. That's when the articles became a real battleground. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Lauder should be unblocked to allow him answer these accuasations. Vintagekits was allowed the chance to answer his critics when faced with more serious accusations. Astrotrain (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, he shouldn't. There's a second checkuser confirming it's all true. They aren't accusations, they are facts. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the checkuser thing says, there are a whole series of accusations against various editors that need to be answered. The original checkuser was biased and unreliable, and now there is a second one- DL should be allowed to respond to the accusation. It is only fair that DL be allowed to present a response. Astrotrain (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. He's been caught bang to rights now and, like other abusive accounts, can stay blocked. He has the right to appeal to ArbCom, however he has yet to answer any of the direct questions put to him. He's been caught and caught twice now. Since he's been putting all the blame on "the Irish", maybe now he may look on it in a different light? - Alison ^❤ 13:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I also note Christchurch also voted in Giano's ArbCom election, in addition to votestacking in an AfD that David Lauder, Chelsea Tory (and Counter-revolutionary) and a David Lauder linked IP voted in. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) And for the record, I note that David Lauder voted NO in various guises in Giano's ArbCom election no less than four times in the space of about 90 minutes. Tell me that's not abusive - Alison ^❤ 13:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec):Thatcher has been absolutely uncompromising, and included User:Immanuel can't and User:Christchurch, which Alison originally chose not to mention because she thought they edited in separate areas. (Not sure that's always been true, though, according to this exchange.) I think the evidence is now overwhelmingly for long-term abusive sockpuppetry and harassment, and it seems hard to answer the case that this entire sockfarm should be banned. Relata refero (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If Lauder really has some excellent reason why these accounts are showing up as linked, he can email Thatcher with his explanation. I think that's good enough, unless Thatcher's also Irish, or Scots, or Polish, or some other unacceptable nationality. Relata refero (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

From a technical point of view, all 5 accounts are clearly linked. I generally take a dim view of the brother/wife/housemate explanation, and if he chooses to make such an explanation I would prefer not to be the sole evaluator of it. I also note that his talk pages are unblocked, so he (they) can post explanations there and his (their) friends can paste them or link to them here. Thatcher 14:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Its got to be better than that, right? Five housemates? And not college kids either, but rightwing Tories? No, that's why I said, it would have to be exceptional. Relata refero (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Are all of the accounts being blocked? --Domer48 (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

They are not blocked yet. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Immanuel can't and User:Christchurch, which Alison originally chose not to mention because she thought they edited in separate areas. (Not sure that's always been true, though, according to this exchange.)

Oh ... I should have known User:Christchurch was a sock. See comment in support of David Lauder made during a content dispute [with me] on Talk:Lauder. Not among the worst of Lauder's transgressions, but still I guess I now feel he's used sockpuppetry "against" myself. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• IMO, every ban should be evaluated as follows:

• Was there a pressing problem needing fixing, such as disruption or POV-pushing on multiple or high-profile articles.
• Was the user a ringleader or key fomenter of said debate.
• Will the encyclopaedia suffer from their loss, or will a source of bas be removed witout reinforcing systemic bias
• What's the possibility of reform? They should be given a review date. Arbcm typically does not impose enduring restrictions,
• Would an article ban do?

Make of this as muc or as little as you will. Guy (Help!) 00:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The possibility of reform is nil. Let's examine the evasion of remedies from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I:

• The original one year ban on Robert I was evaded almost instantly. Not only that, but he made further legal threats, which is what got him banned in the first place!

• The one year ban on Robert I editing "articles which relate to Gregory Lauder-Frost and his political activities" was evaded using the Sussexman and Chelsea Tory accounts, and doubtless some IPs as well.

• Robert I being required to edit only when logged in and using one account (which has no time limit) has been evaded, using IPs, and four different accounts.

And in addition to those you've got - votestacking in ArbCom elections, AfD debates and other discussions. You've got the evasion of Sussexman's indef block, you've got the evasion of David Lauder's indef block, you've got the vast amount of sockpuppetry that clearly isn't covered by WP:SOCK etc etc

This person has shown nothing but contempt for the way Wikipedia works, so is there really any hope of reform now? If you restrict his editing, will he accept it? He's never accepted any restriction yet has he? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have now protected David Lauder's talk page due to unblock abuse. As this relates to a previously banned account and a new checkuser block, he should appeal to ArbCom for redress at this time - Alison ^❤ 23:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Closure

Can I request an uninvolved, "non-Troubles" admin close this thread please and determine whether Mr. Lauder et. al. be community banned or not? The community as a whole needs to move on from this situation as old enmities are being rekindled - Alison ^❤ 23:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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