Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Current issues

User:Defender 911

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to bring to your attention User:Defender 911.

At one point, Defender was an alright editor. However, he was blocked indefinitely in August for severe harassment and for disrespecting a fellow user's right to vanish. It was a widely endorsed block, and since no administrator was willing to overturn the block, he was banned.

Now, recently, he has requested for unblock, however it was declined. What I'm suggesting the community consider is something that I know may cause some amount of drama, but please understand that this is out of good faith.

I am suggesting we unblock Defender 911.

This is not going to be easy for the community to do. There was very serious disruption caused by this user, and it stemmed from disrespecting an editors right to vanish. However, what I suggest is that we keep a close eye on Defender, and place him on civility probation. Yes, I know this would be a tough unblock, but I'm certain if he really has reformed, he can be an asset once more.

After all, we all lose sight once in awhile. :) Maser ^(Talk!) 06:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I can't find where this block was "widely endorsed." I've looked through the WP:AN and WP:AN/I archives and I only found one spot where the indef block was even mentioned in passing. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the decision to turn the block into a ban after two hours[1] was decided by someone who had been editing wikipedia for three weeks, and quit the project a week later.[2] - Kendrick7^talk 17:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they'd been editing for a while using another account. Daniel 01:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly, strongly oppose Defender 911 being unblocked or unbanned. His actions just prior to his banning showed a serious inability to use common sense, showed how this user could be extremely malicious and a danger to good-faithed Wikipedia editors (in the interests of privacy for those involved I can obviously not provide details), a total disregard for established users' warnings both about his userspace editing and his harassment of other editors, and a general inability to be involved in a community environment without causing excessive disturbance. Sorry, but I don't want Defender 911 to be editing Wikipedia ny time soon, both to protect users who are far more valuable than him from his harassment and also to prevent other, less noticeable yet just as effective disruption. I strongly oppose unbanning. Daniel 06:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Could we have some diffs of the example behavior which caused the ban in the first place? It's unusual for someone to be banned on first offense, as it appears so here. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

From my understanding many have been oversighted. It would be inappropriate to rehost the harassment that resulted in the block, really. For some more tame stuff see the recent contributions (the last 100) — although, it must be said, that is only the tip of the iceberg and the end of the whole story. Furthermore, it was hardly the users' "first offence" — Defender 911 had so many warnings, so many conditional no-blocks (for a small selection see the last version of the user talk page before the block). Daniel 06:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Absolutely not. --B (talk) 06:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Just no. east.718 at 07:48, December 16, 2007

I don't see any reason he'd repeat the same mistake again. Since this was this user's first block, four months seems sufficient. He seems to have been helpful to the project -- received a number of barnstars, etc. Blocks are not punitive, remember? -- Kendrick7^talk 08:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to support an unblock as well. Unless there is some more clarity as to what exactly occurred, it is difficult to figure out the extent of his disruption. At the very least, some details from the admins who were directly involved would help. How about a temporary unblock to allow him to come here and discuss the issue? Anything more and it'll be clear to everyone. Would that help? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The extent of his harassment isn't evidenct from the contributions given the oversighting of certain edits. It is my personal opinion that this block should remain in place, both temporary and in the future, for the protection of all Wikipedians. However, as always, I bow to consensus. (He is free to paste messages on his user talk page to be copied here, as I noted in this message to him earlier.) Daniel 10:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Upon discussion, I think I better see the gravity of the situation and support the views of those who were primarily involved in the situation, and support continuing the block. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and asked for feedback at WT:OVER as to the extend of the oversighting here, just for the community record. -- Kendrick7^talk 11:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand that some of you might not want me unblocked, but all I wanted to do was help H. I did not expect a four-month block and the deletion of most of my user page space. I understand now that my disruption was wrong, and I hope that I can be reaccepted into the community. --Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 15:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

(This comment was copied from here by me) henrik•talk 16:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstars notwithstanding, I just don't know if this editor is worth the hassle. Looking at his contributions, it's hard to see that he understands we're here to build an encyclopedia. Out of 1159 non-deleted contributions, only 92 are to mainspace (a shade less than 8%) and most of those are minor (at least, they ought to be flagged as such). The majority of his contributions (more than two thirds) are to user talk and his user page. His contributions in Wikipedia namespace fall largely into two categories: edits to games in the Sandbox, and attempts to create extensive new Esperanza- and CVU-type organizations: [3]. (His deleted edits are largely to these sorts of projects and userspace amusement as well.)

While I think it's fairly likely that he's always only been trying to help, his over-the-top behaviour has done more harm than good. His bull-in-a-china-shop approach to 'helping out' an editor who had left due to harrassment showed terrible judgement, and is unfortunately consistent with Defender's approach to Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I just find it remarkable he received two three barnstars in the 72 hours before his block alone. I've never seen a user go from hero to zero in such record time. Perhaps he managed to make enemies just as quickly as he made friends. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This guy was a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppeteer, too. TheWikiLoner (talk · contribs) Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you link to the WP:RFCU thread? -- Kendrick7^talk 19:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that one was done privately via IRC. You'll either have to take my word for it (easiest course), get another checkuser to go through the CU logs, or take Dmcdevit's word for it (I think it was him). Really, I wouldn't tell such an obviously disprovable lie. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy's response to Wikiloner's unblock request casts doubt on all this, though I understand he may have only been speaking off the cuff. But since it appears the ban was out of process to begin with, since no one can point to where consensus was reached, he seems only stand accused of operating a sockpuppet of a blocked user, a somewhat less serious, and perhaps forgivable, offense. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Out of process? A person is community banned if they are indefinitely blocked and no admin is willing to unblock them. That is the process. I seriously doubt any admin is going to be willing to reverse this one. --B (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

and the block has received due consideration by the community per WP:BAN. That's the missing ingredient. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have received due considering here in this thread, whether or not it may have been discussed before. (Has anybody checked the WP:CSN archives?) A variety of administrators with first hand knowledge have supported the block, and none have stepped forward to recommend unblocking. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If it was discussed before, it wasn't discussed on anywhere in WP: space (what links here from WP to Defender 911). I don't know how relevant that is, though - if no admin is willing to unblock, the level of discussion is moot. Defender is, of course, welcome to make a request for arbitration and appeal his ban that way. --B (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that, if he wants to edit once more, he should bring it to ArbCom. I came here with good faith intentions for a user who behaved horribly, to try to suggest an unblock for someone who I wanted to give a second chance to, because I think everybody deserves a second chance; however, a consensus has to be built before we can do anything. It is clear the consensus is not to unblock at this time. Maser ^(Talk!) 03:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

My response to thewikiloner should not be taken as an indication of doubt cast on the CheckUser evidence, only as a statement that there was more tha one problem with that user, and addressing one problem would not fix the other. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this user treated Wikipedia as a social site. See this and this. I rarely see any mainspace contributions. I agree with the support to not unblockban this user. Miranda 03:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with the rejection of the unblock request. I think if he wants to be able to edit again, he needs to talk to ArbCom. Considering his disruption with trying to contact a user who was harassed off of Wikipedia, EVEN after being told that the person was aware of his desire and did not desire to initiate conversation.. not good. SirFozzie (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

But still, the attempt to contact such user seems to have been in good faith ([...]I'm sure your efforts to track this editor down are well-intentioned[...] and I don't doubt your intentions[...]); though he committed the mistake of not stopping when told, several times, I'm confident he'll be more careful in the future. ♠TomasBat 14:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this isn't a situation where even a "one strike and you're out" probation would be appropriate. Given the circumstances that forced H's departure, I can't support an unblock in good conscience. We learned the hard way a few months back what happens when we don't take violations of our colleagues' privacy seriously enough. As to whether a discussion was needed, it seems to me that ever since H was harassed off of Wikipedia, it's been well established that if you invade another Wikipedian's privacy, you're banned--do not pass Go, do not collect $200. I wouldn't object to taking it to ArbCom, though--but given the circumstances, I think it would have to be held in camera. Blueboy96 14:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• See the edit counts. This editor has fewer than 100 mainspace contributions, and appears to have played a significant part in driving away user:H. Wariness is appropriate. Guy (Help!) 17:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Saying he "played a significant part in driving away H" doesn't seem like a justified statement given that his apparent involvement in that affair took place after that user had already left, and consisted of foolish, but apparently not malicious, attempts to contact him unwantedly. The fact that he got indefinitely banned for that, and is still being treated as an unperson months later, is just a sign of the punitive vindictiveness some on Wikipedia show toward anybody who stumbled onto their raw nerves. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It turns out Daniel's claim was incorrect; there doesn't seem to be any relevant oversighting of this user's contributions, per WT:OVER#Oversighting of User:Defender 911's edits on 11 August. So there's no excuse not to be able to provide diffs here, even though they may be deleted ones from his user subpages, etc. I'd prefer someone just give this user another bite at the apple here, given he's sat out four months and we should WP:AGF that he won't inquire after user "h" again, and considering the very backroom way the quote-unquote ban was handled in the first place. However, if there's a pressing need to take up ArbCom's time on this, this user has been more than patient thus far. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm strongly opposed to the unbanning of Defender 911, perhaps even to the point of reblocking if a ban is enacted. This sort of behavior is unacceptable. He was given many second chances, and he was warned many times, by many people, to stop. Sean William @ 18:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, can you provide diffs? -- Kendrick7^talk 18:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No. I agree with the consensus to keep the ban for now, indef. Sorry, but this is reckless, as we know of a substantial risk that the offending user will only abuse us again. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

To try to bring a bit more sense and a bit less rush-to-judgment to this, the user in question was not the one who harassed User:H off Wikipedia; some above commentators seem to be acting like he was. Rather, this user made some attempts to get in touch with H after he had departed. These attempts were done for some reason likely fully known only to himself, supposedly for the purpose of helping H; however, this "help" was clearly unwanted, and the attempts to make this contact were pursued in an obsessive-compulsive way that got on many people's nerves. He even bit me on my talk page for noting the obsessive-compulsiveness of it at the time, so he's hardly a friend of mine. However, I'm against unfair vindictiveness being committed against anybody. This user seems to be one who did a silly thing a few months ago, not a serial harasser as he's being portrayed. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ehh - can we make criticism etc without delving into diagnoses of psychiatric disorders? I'm sure few of us are qualified to make that call, and speaking as a sufferer of (mild) OCD myself... I don't think that was Defender's problem. We just got trolled, and we dealt with it as we should have. I see no valid reason to overturn this ban. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Once the nomenklatura of Wikipedia decides somebody's a troll or a harasser, there seems to be no way out. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Mm, putting it on AN does indeed restrict discussion to a very small subunit of the community. Sitenotice next time, please. Seriously - some people have opposed the ban and some people have endorsed it. Enough with the tin-foil crap, y'all. ~ Riana ⁂ 20:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

All he seems to have done is asked a few users discreetly on their talk pages if they knew how to contact User:H; I don't consider that "trolling" as you've labeled it or "massive disruption" as it was called by the blocking admin, and in any case he's promised not to do that anymore. Is there any actual trolling you'd like to point out? -- Kendrick7^talk 20:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I second Riana here. As another sufferer of (pretty bad) OCD, I point out that there is a difference between obsessively stalking somebody and having OCD. Furthermore, it's really not an excuse for disruptive behavior. Anthøny 18:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not just the fact that he persisted violating a user's privacy - it's actually because of the comments he left on user talk pages. This comment on the talk page of WJBscribe is the type of thing that got him blocked. Maser ^(Talk!) 19:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, I know now that Wikipedia is no community; it runs itself like a corporation. Wikipedia's only goals are for itself, with no regard for the people who contribute to it. The administrators here are no better than I was four months ago, and, to be honest, I don't even think I caused enough disruption for a ban this long. The sysops I've met are the most hateful, disrespectful, power-hungry, unforgiving people I've ever met - and I've hardly met them! They have a stunning incapacity to experience forgiveness, but an equally stunning capacity for injustise, surplus punishment, and distrust. Don't take this as a personal attack, because this is exactly how I've felt for four months!!! I ought to leave Wikipedia; I'm not wanted here. Respond if you want; it hardly matters by now. --Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 20:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Status of ban

Since the current working definition of a community ban is an indefinite block where no admin is willing to unblock, and admins here are willing to unblock, Defender is therefore not community banned, and I have removed him or her from Wikipedia:List of banned users. I would humbly request that anyone interested please comment on the future definition of community bans at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Community Bans. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Who is willing to unblock? Sean William @ 21:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any administrators willing to unblock:

• Opposing unblocking (or not willing to unblock):

1. Daniel (administrator)
2. B (administrator)
3. east718 (administrator)
4. Ricky81682 (administrator)
5. TenOfAllTrades (administrator)
6. Miranda
7. SirFozzie (administrator)
8. JzG (administrator)
9. Sean William (administrator)
10. Bearian (administrator)
11. Riana (administrator emerita)
12. Raymond arritt (administrator)

• Promoting unblocking:

1. Maser (not an administrator)
2. Kendrick7 (not an administrator)
3. TomasBat (not an administrator)
4. Dtobias (not an administrator)
5. Blueboy96 (not an administrator)

I can't see the administrator willing to unblock that Ali'i mentions above. I see about a dozen administrators supporting a ban, but most importantly, no administrator promoting unbanning. That's a textbook ban. Daniel 01:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If I were an admin, I would not unblock without community consent. I just wanted to see what the community thought, as I was willing to assume good faith. I think AGF is one of the greatest things an administrator can have, but mmore important is respecting consensus. Maser ^(Talk!) 03:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

And after reading this discussion, I am beginning to change my mind. Maser ^(Talk!) 03:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(response to first post) The section is titled "[p]romoting unblocking" for that exact reason :) Daniel 03:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

True. And there are very, very convincing arguments that Defender shouldn't be unblocked due to the disruption he caused. Those who do not understand whether or not he was banned, please see Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community ban. It states that when a user is blocked, and no administrator is willing to unblock, that user is banned. There was plenty of considertion from the community, and Defender was blocked indef for harassment and disrespect of WP:RTV. No administrator is willing to unblock, and regardless of whether or not it was discussed, nobody really wanted him back. That is a de-facto ban, no matter how anybody slices it.

My intent was to see if he can become a constructive editor - he certainly has the potential to be one IMO. However, he has been disruptive to the point where the community considered oversighting some of his contributions. And after a close look at his last contributions before he was blocked, he looks to be far too willing to climb the reichstag dressed as Spiderman to prove his point. However, I don't think he'll do what he did again - at least, I HOPE not. Maser ^(Talk!) 06:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any convince arguments, and instead have been stonewalled when requesting diffs. Again, I hope you understand that there was no community discussion before this thread was begun, four months after the fact, which began with the false claims that he was already banned and that his edits had been oversighted. De-facto bans shouldn't be occurring in Wikipedia's back alleys, and when they are finally brought into the light for the communities assessment, evidence should be provided upon request. The community never considered oversighting any of his contributions; again, where are the diffs to support this assertion? -- Kendrick7^talk 21:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for this section. I read Riana's post above stating that "some people oppose the ban", and construed it to mean that there were administrators who did. E kala mai. --Ali'i 14:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Blueboy's suggestion

I supported an indefblock since it was initially thought Defender made some edits that required oversight in this matter. But since there weren't any, I don't think an indefinite block is appropriate. That being said, however, we're still left with someone who made repeated attempts to contact a user who expressed a desire not to be contacted. I really don't think we should allow someone back right away under those circumstances.

With that being said, since he has apologized, I propose this: cut the indefinite block down to six nine months, and allow him back in April--but with the proviso that he can be rebanned with the consensus of any three admins if he steps out of line again. Does this sound reasonable? Blueboy96 21:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the part about leaving this up to any three admins. The problem with the current "ban" is it never went through any community vetting, which seems to me all the more reason to go through the proper routine next time around. At this point, a simple notification here at WP:AN would probably result in a WP:SNOW in favor of a ban anyway if he engages in any future dubious behavior in the near future, so I realize it's only a formality, but it's what's right. Of course, all his block history could be brought to bear in any such discussion. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What I'm proposing here is basically a community probation ... but Kendrick does make a good point. It's obvious that this would be his absolute last chance. So strike out the idea of just a three-admin consensus, and simply note that if he steps out of line again, a simple note either here or ANI, he's done. Blueboy96 21:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify my proposal ... cut the current block to a nine-month ban, allowing him to come back in April. If he steps out of line again once he returns, he'll be subject to an indefinite community ban. Blueboy96 21:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite probation seems poorly conceived. He made one mistake, which only looks worse because he made the correct choice of discretion in a sensitive matter, and it is a mistake which, apparently after much thought, he has promised not to repeat, and many at the time even said he made that mistake with the best of intentions. I'd make the block retroactive to four months, starting from September 15th when he was caught attempting to evade his ban. I can't see at this point, since everyone just makes wild assertions and then clams up when asked for diffs, that he'd get a much different deal from ArbCom, whose time I'm disinclined to waste on this matter, but I would file a case on this user's behalf, and I believe they'd accept if only to clarify some of the irregularities involved here. If there are future problems, just handle them like this problem should have been handled in the first place, according to our policies, etc. No reason to insist this editor have to look over their shoulder for the next 40+ years because of one incident of poor judgment. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No adminsitrator seems willing to unblock, hence the user is banned. Take this to the Arbitration Committee, because you aren't getting any change here. Daniel 01:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Those calling to unblock might have a point if we were dealing with an excellent contributor who made a single goof. But we're dealing with a very marginal contributor who engaged in persistent behavior that compromised an individual's privacy. The ratio of expected benefits to possible costs is unacceptable. No unblock. No way. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the relative marginality of his contributions, those statements are way overblown. His "persistent behavior" lasted just a few hours, and consisted of asking for information (so any privacy violation would have been committed by anybody who responded, not by him; and nobody did respond with any privacy violations). A permanent ban is vastly overblown, and reflects the harsh, unforgiving culture that has unfortunately developed here lately. I don't particularly like the guy (one of his last actions before getting blocked was to snap at me on my user page), and I think what he did was silly, but I'm also for showing a logical sense of proportion. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Those calling to unblock might have a point if we were dealing with an excellent contributor" wow, that's kind of messed up to say. It's also a bit disturbing that no one is providing any diffs here, or evidenced of prolonged bad behavior. What happened to blocking being seen as a last step? If he gets out of line again, even just a little, block him again, but don't pretend like unblocking him is such a horrible idea. -- Ned Scott 09:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Did some more digging. -- Ned Scott 09:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I just want to stress once again that User:Defender 911, as all blocked and banned users, can appeal his ban to the arbitration committee by e-mailing any of the arbitrators or clerks. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I must confess, my position isn't too far off from those who say he should stay in the Wikibrig forever. You can't get around the fact that Defender tried to contact H several times after H apparently expressed that he didn't want to be contacted. That's a very serious matter--one which for me precludes reducing the ban to time served (as Kendrick and Dan T. seem to be suggesting). But at the same time, he's publicly apologized to the community for his actions ... something which is far, far more than I've seen. Which is why I say yes, he should stay blocked--but not indef. So my question to those who want him to stay indef'd--why not cut it down to a nine-month or one-year ban? After all, it seems pretty obvious that there are at least 12 admins who would be falling all over themselves to grab the banhammer if he slipped up again. I'm willing to change my mind if I see something that convinces me that indef is the way to go here, though--but unless something was oversighted, nine months to a year is appropriate for his misbehavior. Blueboy96 13:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Also should note that I've done some digging, and it seems we've given at least one "Last Chance" for an offense more egregious than this. This is what I'm proposing ... let the block stay until either April or September, than let him come back and if he slips up again, he's a goner. It should be noted that in the example I cited, Rbj wasn't forced to cool his heels for a few months before being unblocked, as I am proposing should happen with Defender. Blueboy96 13:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I recently had a chance to look at Defender 911's contribs ... and there is a fairly large gap between his last publicly viewable contribs between 8:39 pm on August 10 and 6:31 am on August 11. The latter time is after he was blocked--and the Oversight people say that there was a large number of contributions on or about the 11th that were deleted. Having put two and two together, I must regretfully withdraw my proposal and endorse the ban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboy96 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the deleted contributions, or oversighted ones (since Kirill seemed to believe there were no oversighted contribs)? To be precise, I see angry edits and this MfDed page (link to the MfD for non admins), both being ill advised (perhaps because of his age?), but not much warranting a ban... What am I missing? In the current state I'd say either unblock him now or don't do it, but I see no good in making him sit on the bench for 6 months. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There are no regular deleted contributions during that timeframe. Call me crazy, but I would bet there's at least a decent chance he was asleep for a good chunk of the time between 8:39 pm and 6:31 am. ;) It's possible that Daniel was simply mistaken about edits being oversighted and was confusing it with another case or thought some of the social networking pages that were simply deleted had in fact been oversighted. --B (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That was my impression, that he fell asleep and woke up to being banned, with no delay, no opportunity for discussion in the community, nor any evidence, etc. being presented to the community, or even an opportunity to appeal to the community since bans can only be appealed directly to ArbCom (and no one bothered to tell him that either, I gather). I wouldn't want that to happen to me. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope I'm not seen as flip-flopping here, but if there wasn't anything that merited his contributions being deleted, I don't see any harm in allowing him back sometime between April and September. I just want to do what's fair to everyone here. Like I said, considering the fact he engaged in conduct bordering on stalking and that he operated a sock, immediate unblocking really isn't appropriate in this case. Blueboy96 21:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify for the non-admins in the audience that Defender 911 has numerous deleted contributions, including many in and around the suggested time frame. Mackensen (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget that if the person behind the account Defender 911 has reformed and wants to make constructive edits to the encyclopedia, they can do so with a new account. Quite frankly, with the history behind this account, and the number of admins that would be hovering and waiting to block, this is what I'd recommend. Obviously, if the new account engages in the same sort of behaviour, it will similarly get blocked and maybe banned. And before anyone gets upset and says I'm promoting block evasion, note the reformed and constructive qualifiers. Having said that, I think the block was tweaked to enable autoblock, but I think, from reading Wikipedia:Autoblock (that's a page I'm glad I've never read before), that this always expires after 24 hours. Carcharoth (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a few things to say; firstly Carcharoth, I think your AGF is, without meaning to sound like I'm thanking someone who supports my cause, commendable. Secondly, the new start thing is extended to all but banned users, and he'd be blocked if he is found to have evaded his block/ban. Which is why I'm suggesting he gets unbanned. I honestly think we have to understand two things: 1) Every editor is human, no matter how rude, arrogant, or disrespectful they may have once been, and 2) People do change, and it's unlikely that someone who got banned will continue the same behavior that got them banned in the first place. That's my reasoning behind this discussion - one last chance to someone who lost sight of what is important. Maser ^(Talk!) 06:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Technically that is not quite true. If someone got banned under a pseudonym and started editing Wikipedia 10 years later (or even a few months later) from a different city, maybe even a different country (ie. different IP addresses), under a different account, and never mentioned their past account, then there would be no way to tie the two accounts together. Even banned editors can vanish (not m:vanish, which is a permanent departure) and reappear. The crux of the matter is the behaviour of the new account (civility, interactions, articles edited) and the lack of connection between them and previous accounts. It is sometimes possible to do deep and complex investigations, but if the new account is editing productively then there is little point. Equally, even the most productive and seemingly civil account always has a shred of doubt attached until due diligence has been done (the phrase Jimbo is using about checking the latest arbitrators) and commitment has been demonstrated. Something like actually attending a wiki-meetup, stating who you are in real life, or at least letting certain people know these things - until that happens, there is always a smidgen (or more) of doubt. I've been editing since January 2005, but (like many others) I've never shown the slightest interest in saying who I am in real life, though there are clues for location and suchlike. The point is that I could be someone who was banned before 2005. I'm not, but as long as I edit under a pseudonym, there is no way to be sure. That is why people say to respond to the edit, not the editor. Though that oversimplifies things somewhat. You often see people saying that they gave up an old account for various reasons, often as part of explaining why they seem to know their way around Wikipedia. This sort of thing obviously shouldn't be overdone, and I agree that getting unblocked is a better way to do things, but if someone feels that they've been unjustly blocked or that too much mud has been flung around and is sticking, then a new account is an option. There is probably an essay about "the right to start over with a fresh account", and when it is and isn't acceptable. Does anyone know of an essay like that? I also seem to remember some banned users being allowed to start with a new account without the knowledge of the community as long as an arbitrator has been notified and can monitor them. That applies more to arbitration committee banned users, but how would that work for community-banned editors? Carcharoth (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against the possibility of his return under a new account. It violates WP:BAN, but I honestly think you're right. People do change, and I'm sure Defender 911 can, and I have a feeling will, if we give it time. If he evades his ban, but helps Wikipedia in a substantial way while doing so, I commend him as the editor he'd become, not the editor he was. WP:AGF forever. Maser ^(Talk!) 03:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In any case, this has moved on to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Defender 911. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

JoshuaZ and Daniel Brandt

At the recent DRV of Daniel Brandt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it was decided that the deletion of the redirect was to be overturned, but the moving of the editting history of the article was placed at Talk:Public Information Research/merged material (which was itself a redirect last week) was not determined to be overturned or endorsed at the DRV discussion. This was the status quo until JoshuaZ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) replaced all of the editing history of the article back in its original title and then restored all of the history of the title. JoshuaZ has restored the editing history of the article three separate times. JoshuaZ has argued that this is a necessity for keeping the GFDL requirements in place for the article, but as it stands it has been decided at DRV [insert number] that the content of Daniel Brandt be solely a redirect, which is what the closing admin (Xoloz) had done to the content of the page as it had been deleted.

The issue stands that JoshuaZ has had more than his share in undeleting a very controversial page that has had a lot of deletions and undeletions. I am unsure as this can be construed as wheel warring, but I am fairly certain that several administrators in that delete log have been desysopped for their actions in conjunction with the deletion and undeletion of the article (Geni and Yanksox, in particular, were desysoped solely because of the wheel war at Daniel Brandt). I will notify JoshuaZ of this discussion so he may state his part.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, Talk:Public Information Research/merged material is now a simple text dump of the history, which is enough to satisfy the GFDL without making available any potentially libelous/contentious/whatever-adjective material. —Random832 04:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

For various reasons no it isn't.Geni 18:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• I simply do not understand the purpose of restoring the history of the article. Keeping it as a redirect to Public Information Research is a rational decision, even if some disagree, and was the decision at Wikipedia:DRV#9_December_2007. However what is the purpose of restoring all the article history? That perpetuates the problematic material that was the subject of the June AfD and DRV that resulted in the merge in the first place. GFDL? Redirects don't need a complicated history for GFDL purposes. Joshua also cites Previous breaks many links to by people linking to difs of this article in the archive and makes it hard to find. Well, shit, every deletion breaks a link somewhere, let's never delete anything! If someone has a link to Daniel Brandt and we have chosen to delete it (for whatever reason) then the link should be broken. This latest restoration is completely unexplicable to me. Thatcher131 04:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Timeline
• 19:58, 14 June 2007 JoshuaZ ( restored "Daniel Brandt" ‎ (2,667 revisions restored)
  • This overturned the AfD closure by A Man in Black without DRV; DRV later endorsed the closure.
• 03:13, 10 December 2007 JoshuaZ restored "Daniel Brandt" ‎ (2,674 revisions restored: Out of policy deletion, against previous compromise and consensus,and violation of the GFDL. Restoring)
  • This restoration overturned Doc Glasgow's deletion of the redirect in violation of the BLP policy which mandates that BLP deletions must not be overturned without consensus. DRV reversed the deletion on Dec 14, keeping Daniel Brandt] as a redirect but said nothing about the history.
• 7:45, 14 December 2007 JoshuaZ deleted "Daniel Brandt" in order to move the history back over the redirect, then he protected it.

There is no pressing need to maintain a history of potentially libelous information. The history should be deleted again and reverted to the status quo as of June. east.718 at 04:53, December 18, 2007

• Joshua is simply mistaken about GFDL. As long as the history is clear, it doesn't matter where it is. See Wikipedia:Merge and delete for a full discussion. If there is indeed a GFDL problem the history could be moved to a subpage, or--I think this would be best--the list of usernames and dates could be copied to a subpage, and the history itself deleted. Chick Bowen 04:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I agree that there was no need to restore the history. Broken links aren't exactly a reason to do so, and GFDL concerns here are fairly minimal, particularly if the history contains content that some (including the subject) consider libelous. Dumping the history to a subpage (maybe removing edit summaries) might be the best idea to satisfy whatever GFDL concerns might be there, as Random832 seems to have done. --Coredesat 04:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Yep, names and dates, that's all that's needed. Chick Bowen 04:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Try again. And this time really read the GFDL.Geni 18:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The status quo between June 2007 and the 1 December deletion by Doc was an undeleted history (per the log). The move of the history to another page took place only after Doc's 1 December deletion was questioned. We should keep that in mind when we talk about the status quo of the article. Another deletion would probably mean another DRV, not that that is a problem. I just wanted to note that there has never been a deletion discussion that resulted in the decision to delete the entire history. Something to ponder. NoSeptember 05:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As NoSeptember says, there was no consensus to delete the history. And as I explained earlier, doing so breaks the spirit and possibly the letter of the GFDL. There's no content in the history that the subject considers libelous. All such content has been oversighted. The DRV closer specifically had no objection to this, and the DRV restored the status quo more or less- so the status quo is as we have had for sometime, the history is there. Unecessary deletion of histories that breaks literally hundreds of links simply damages are transparency and accomplishes nothing else. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The GFDL is not intended to and should not impinge on our editorial discretion. If there are editorial reasons to keep it, fine. But the GFDL issue is not a big deal. Chick Bowen 05:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The GFDL is most certainly intended to infringe on your editorial discretion. You can no more use editorial discretion to ignore the requirements of the GFDL than you can to ignore copyright law. Fortunately, I don't think deleting past revisions is a violation of the letter of the GFDL, though it certainly seems to be a violation of its spirit. (It wasn't really designed to be used in the way Wikipedia does.) - makomk (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a violation of the GFDL however since most people have never really read it and made a solid effort of understanding it I doubt many people would get all the reasons why.Geni 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've re-deleted it, as per the reasons Doc, Alkivar, and Dmcdevit deleted it before. There is wide acceptance that the GFDL is already satisfied by the history on the talk subpage; GFDL compliance is not a reason to restore fragile BLP material. --krimpet✽ 05:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this really happening? Do we have to have controversy over this again? Deleted histories are still kept in the database and are available by administrators willing to provide them. This s compliant with the GFDL. Oversight is a different issue. But I'm preaching to the choir; these are things we all know.

Why wikilawyer all of this? This question is for both sides.

We can policy wonk this until the cows come home, the foundation runs out of cash, the internet es'plodes, or our motherboards burn themselves out with the kilobytes of typing. If you want to provide the Brandt history to users interested, make yourself available. Let us not get into this for the nth time. Sleeping dogs should lie, this discussion does not serve the principles of our project in a positive manner. Keegan^talk 06:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The entire history has been deleted? WTF? That certainly did not have community consensus. -- Ned Scott 11:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:BLP#Disputed_deletions, deletions of biographies citing BLP concerns do not need consensus but undeletions do. Perhaps you would care to explain how concerns about BLP (including unfairness to the subject, undue weight regarding single negative incidents, possible libel, etc) are served by keeping the history. Would you be in favor of retaining the history of any deleted biography, or just this one? Thatcher131 11:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"BLP concerns" do not extend to deleting the entire history of an article because Daniel Brandt doesn't like people talking about him. Merge was the result of the last AfD, and most everyone involved were under the impression that the article history was never in danger of total deletion. Problematic revisions can be removed, as cited by the deleting admin. -- Ned Scott 11:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 18#Daniel Brandt. -- Ned Scott 11:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 3. It's going to need it eventually anyway, so I figured it made sense to go ahead and set up the subpage. —Random832 16:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain how deleting the history violates the GFDL? My impression was that only the history section itself (names, date, and edit summaries) was required, not the revisions themselves; this is, as far as I know, routinely done for moving images to Commons. —Random832 13:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it does, but you may also have to include

(The line above starting "I don't think it does..." wasn't by me). If this goes much further I can foresee arbitration looming, and you don't need a crystal ball to see how that would go. Please let this die. --Tony Sidaway 16:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason is that when the GFDL was put together no one really thought about what the phrases used really meant. In this case the killer is "Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title," A couple of other elements of the GFDL means that the history section has to stay under the name of history. There are other issues but those are the simple ones.Geni 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you can probably handle that by simply labeling the top "History of X" or "blah blah blah (History)". In any event, the matter is now at DRV. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Remeber in order to get your head around how the GFDL you have to view each article as in effect a collection of books. Kinda messy.Geni 23:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Just another reminder, the GFDL was not the concern for the new DRV. What we have here is something that failed to get a consensus to delete, so it was merged, and then black-door deleted during the redirect fiasco. That's gaming the system, and it's unacceptable. -- Ned Scott 01:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone pretend that I have no clue regarding Wikipedia, Brandt, etc., and explain what the biggie is here? There's much sound and fury, but there's little substance. •Jim62sch• 01:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you understand our concept of AfD, and community consensus, and BLP issues: The community holds several discussions regarding if something should be kept or removed. The last big discussion on it, someone decided to "kinda keep it". The argument to delete it did not gain sufficient support. Another admin thought we should delete the redirect that resulted from the merge, but moved the page history to another page so that it would be kept (the page history is what the actual article is, the title is just a title). The community saw this and thought it was wrong, and took it to DRV, where it was shown that it was indeed wrong. We expected to see things back how they were, but other users felt they could take advantage of the situation. During all this, the page history that we were all told was not going to be deleted got deleted anyways. Even though the argument to delete it, when presented to the open community, failed. No one really noticed this right away, because we were already talking about restoring it to how it was with the old title anyways, so it's not like it mattered, because the DRV overturned the deletion. But other users, who disagree with these outcomes, are manipulating the situation so that the article gets deleted anyways. I don't care what article it is, that level of manipulation is simply not acceptable, not by anyone. -- Ned Scott 04:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"Pretend that I have no clue" doesn't mean "be condescending" (see first sentence above). Anyway, it seems to me that there's a bit of an interpretation issue regarding the DRV, GFDL, BLP, etc., which is rather common. Rather than Ryulong making big chest-beating sounds about it, a simple discussion would likely have sufficed. (Interesting how much trouble Brandt has caused and continues to cause even indirectly.) In any case, I dislike the removal of page histories -- it reminds me too much of 1984.

BTW, if you want to see manipulation in full bloom (and the Nrandt article ain't it) hang around the image deletion pages.

Finally, as Tony said above -- let this die. Move along, time for a new horse to flog. •Jim62sch• 10:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my intention was not to be condescending, but to simply present the situation in a hypothetical "if one didn't know" kind of way. -- Ned Scott 09:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Rosencomet

Rosencomet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is here primarily to promote his off-wiki interests, mainly the Starwood Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and himself, Jeff Rosenbaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This takes the form of WP:COI editing, promoting his festival in articles on people who appear there, creating articles on people who speak there, always with links to the festival, and so on.

Per this diff [4] he is trying to excuse his COI edits by claiming that he lets others edit from his account. This, as far as I'm aware, is an absolute no-no. ArbCom seems unwilling to extend his admonition from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood to a topic ban, which several editors think is necessary to rein in his self-promotion, requiring an RfC first. This will be complicated if he goes and gets another account - although it's usually not hard to spot him, he does appear to engage in large-scale solicitation.

I do not know what to do for the best here. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Just warn him again about the policy, then block if he continues. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You can also possibly request protection. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What about restricting him to talk-page edits only (no article space edits) on topics where there is a potential COI? This was suggested as a possible remedy in the ArbCom case, and I think it can be a good compromise in some COI cases. I don't know the specifics of this one, though. MastCell ^Talk 19:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Pigman and Kathryn mentioned 2 RFCs but they must have meant article RFCs, as I find no prior User conduct requests for comment. Normally what should happen is that Pigman and Kathryn lay out their case, Rosencomet makes a defense, and uninvolved editors step in to comment. Ideally this will show Rosencomet how to change his behavior to fit community norms, or it will demonstrate to the community (and to Arbcom) that he edits outside of community norms and is unable or unwilling to change. Thatcher131 19:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The RfCs were not formulated as user conduct RfCs on Rosencomet, but both RfCs wound up addressing his behaviour. The first was a conduct RfC brought against Mattisse by the Ekajati sock drawer, but the outside view centered on Rosencomet's behaviour: "2. All the articles in question have links to Starwood Festival and its website. Many of these links fall outside of WP:NPOV Undue Weight, overstating the importance of a performer apperance at the starwood festival. As such these links can be considered a case of WP:SPAM. The links have all been added by User:Rosencomet who is connect to the event so WP:VAIN also applies." (RfC outside view, point #2)

The second RfC was about the links, but again, as Rosencomet is the one placing them, it again addressed his COI and spamming: Talk:Starwood Festival#Request for Comment: Inserting references to Starwood Festival in articles. I also think yesterday's statement by Rosencomet, "several different folks have edited using this account;"[5] indicates a clear violation of the sock policy on Role accounts: "Role accounts, accounts which are used by multiple people, are only officially sanctioned on Wikipedia in exceptional cases. The one currently permitted role account on en: is Schwartz PR, the account for a public relations firm working with the Foundation. If you run one account with multiple users, it is likely to be blocked." - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you see my point? At least the first RFC can not be held up as a good faith attempt be the community to address concerns about his editing, not with Hanuman Das and Matisse both sockpuppeting like mad. You've raised several issues at WP:AE and I think a new user conduct RFC is the best way to proceed. You can try going straight to Arbcom if you want, or persuade some admins to lay down some restrictions without Arbcom, although the rate of success of non-Arbcom editing restrictions is mixed at best. The role editing is a different kettle of fish though and is directly addressable. Thatcher131 20:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

My take: sounds to me like the account has been and is being used for role account purposes, which is prohibited for several reasons including licensing. Cease and desist the role use, or the account must be blocked. Keegan^talk 04:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I already did that, as soon as someone called it to my attention. I've had nothing to do with the rest of his history. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Rosencomet made an unblock request and said he won't let others use his account. Thatcher unblocked him. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, Thatcher has closed and archived the Arb enforcement discussion.[6] At this point I have to concur with Bearian. Treat Rosencomet like any user with a COI, and if he doesn't follow policies, he gets blocked. Edits to the articles he writes have spurred a re-emergence of a handful of abusive sockpuppets, but they're getting spotted and blocked pretty easily. Pigman and I posted about it over on the COI board, but there's a lot of articles involved in this; we really need more eyes on all those walled-garden articles. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

After being warned about his COI issues many times in the past (during the RfCs, Mediations and Arbitration), and three times in the past few days[7] [8] [9] about his COI on the articles for people he hires for the Starwood festival (and whose tapes he then sells on the rosencomet.com website), Rosencomet has today gone back to work on his COI articles, adding yet more mentions of Starwood and himself (as well as reverting other editors' removal of Starwood mentions): [10] [11] [12]. I think he has been warned sufficiently and has still crossed the line. But since he's screaming about me on his talk page, I'd prefer another admin handle the block. (Or a final warning, if anyone really believes that at this point yet another warning will make a difference.) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sod AGF, I've got TWINKLE installed and can bite who I like!

I previously brought this subject up on AN [13], but it got derailed into a discussion of the diffs I had provided, rather than the point at hand. Which is the Wikipedia way, of course.

So now I'm back on the same hobby horse (but not quoting diffs, so you'll have to wrongly guess). In the past week I've dealt with a couple of editors who have TWINKLE installed. And it seems installing TWINKLE means you can leave commonsense and your brains behind.

You see, you can tick that damnable box "actions evidently indicate a vandalism only account". And this is being applied to editors who we last saw a month ago. And if you complain at the misuse, the reaction is either to argue that you're misusing your admin powers by not acting on the report (oh yes!) or that the TWINKLE operator didn't understand what the button meant.

For it seems that clicking "actions evidently indicate a vandalism only account" makes that sentence true, regardless of the actual facts! Yay!

So now I'm starting to seek consensus. I believe TWINKLE needs to be modified in some way. The "actions evidently indicate a vandalism only account" tick box needs to go; or needs to pop up a Big Red Box saying "Are you sure? If accounts you are reporting aren't being used for vandalism only and you repeatedly say they are, your TWINKLE access will be removed."

Similarly, TWINKLE operators are remarkably ignorant of us wanting a recent edit beyond the last recent warning, thinking that last-warning-and-report works or that edits two days before or two days after work. TWINKLE needs to pop up and say "I see you're reporting this editor to AIV. Are you sure they have edited recently and beyond a recent last warning? If not, and you repeatedly say they are, your TWINKLE access will be removed."

Of course, this is a distraction from the related point of my fellow admins blocking after a single questionable edit or 12 hours since an edit because a TWINKLE user said that "actions evidently indicate a vandalism only account" - and that if you email (some of) them to question it, you get slapped down. That's a point we can think on about later. ➔ REDVEЯS is wearing a pointy red hat 22:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Remove tick-box from TWINKLE and force people to fill out reports manually. That way they have to engage their brains. As for admins blocking too quickly, I will happily participate in that discussion later, if only to suggest that admins shouldn't be afraid to warn, instead of block, and advise, instead of chastise. Carcharoth (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree wholeheartedly were it not for the fact that editors exist in two classes: those that will heed the first warning, and those that will ignore, whine, wikilawyer and sock around any quantity of warnings. Given that I've yet to be shown one (1) credible case of conversion from one category to the other... — Coren ^(talk) 22:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've actually seen a number of editors who went from one category to the other, though I can't provide specifics. I've even seen a few editors who were on the escalating block ladder to oblivion and turned things around as well. Unfortunately, it's only a tiny percentage. I agree that most editors who start off vandalising tend not to reform, and occasionally start sockpuppeteering to get around blocks. --Yamla (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like more of a problem with the editors than with Twinkle. I'd be in favor of restricting access and taking away the tools from people who can't use them properly, however. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This does seem a problem with individual editors, they probably shouldn't have the tool. Could you give some names? It might be an idea to remove the tool from their monobook. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(e/c with all of the above)One, Twinkle no longer allows IPs to be marked as vandalism only accounts; it is so rare for regular accounts to make good edits and then start blatant vandalism that I'm not sure how this is still an issue. Two, vandals are not entitled to warnings. If an IP has been repeatedly used for vandalism and/or has been previously blocked for it, they know what they are doing and should be blocked. Or if the vandalism is especially bad or ongoing - there is no reason to wait for 5 instances of vandalism. Three, the "recent editing" rules only apply to IPs where it is likely that they change owner every 24 hours or so. Registered accounts don't change owners. If the last warning to a registered account was 3 months ago, it doesn't matter, they still got it. Four, as I said the last time this was brought up; this is an attempt to blame a problem with users on the software. If they are using it improperly, tell them. If they continue to misuse it, it should be removed from their JS file. Mr.Z-man 22:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it's not just AIV admins who have gripes with Twinkers. People have a habit of requesting protection for anything and everything using Twinkle's WP:RFPP feature and I swear someone (maybe me, I forget) suggested a large "(a) Are you sure? (b) Are you really sure?" type message for that too in the past. – Steel 22:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the AIV reports. I left this complaint at WP:AIV regarding someone who requested a block for a user before a final warning had been issued. I'm not sure if anyone else is going to read that. Sometimes, I get the impression that certain people use AIV and TWINKLE as a stepping-stone on their desired road to adminship. I don't think the problem is with TWINKLE -- it's with the human operating it -- but TWINKLE makes it easier to submit AIV reports and to leave all the actual analysis to the admins. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Isn't that the point, though? Just as with a CSD, an AIV or RFPP report is a request or recommendation. It should be up to the admin dealing with it to ensure it's well-founded. Granted, there may be too many imperfect recommendations, but assuming good faith applies too. Do admins feed back to users who leave such recommendations? By the same token, how many users check AIV or RFPP to see whether their concerns have been met? I do, and I've learnt a lot from it. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The form letter postings on WP:UAA are really annoying. We have no idea what they've picked up on in many cases, and the submitter never checks back. Secretlondon (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that TW should be restricted in some way, maybe in the way that VPROOF is? TW makes things easier, yes, but the problem is definately with the individual users who abuse it. If somebody abuses it, then take it away. Seems pretty simple. I doubt people think that the majority of users who use TW, use it inappropriately, do they? I've used twinkle for a long time and its a great tool. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm one of the people who don't use automated tools, as I am aware of the temptation to go too fast. But many can resist the temptation. To help them do so, the first step is to modify the tools a little where appropriate to discourage the inappropriate use, and the present request seem a good first step. We also need consider individuals who need the permission withdrawn--but it is reasonable to also help discourage the incorrect use so the correct use can proceed without causing problems. DGG (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have twinkle installed, I write in form letters and I've bypassed my brain. Secretlondon (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't look like a form letter to me... Carcharoth (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have twinkle installed, I write in form letters and I've bypassed my brain. SEWilco (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ooh I have seen this recently, Like the Ioeth bot I had mentioned before, i bet twinkle is the real culprit Benjamin Kenobe (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)OBE-1

• Seriously, here is a good example of Twinkle abuse: This article got twinkled by a user with only 200 edits, half of them today. How such new users get ahold of these things is beyond me. Is there no oversight like with VP? When a professor from MIT gets twinkled in spite of obvious notability, there is something wrong with the system. Jeffpw (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And here's a lovely quote to go with the twinkle abuse: I don't care how long the page has been around or how reputable the source might be. Do we really need twinkle abusers as well as the usual run of the mill vandals? Jeffpw (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

While everynody else is doing it, id like to mention my gripe with twinkle. So many mindless people are using twinle for new page patrol and tagging articles less than a minute after creation and not giving any time for article expansion. I am extremely frustrated by this because I think you should give an article time for expansion if it is not OBVIOUS and BLATANT vandalism. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point Chris, I have seen the same thing - and the user tagging then uses the fact that they used twinkle as their reason for not attempting to point new users towards WPs policies and guidance & for having no memory of what they have done! DuncanHill (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I see the point about automated tools like Twinkle. I'll stop using it for a while so my edits will be evaluated on their specific merits instead of their method. As for having over 200 edits, it was a long, boring night, what can I say? :) I'm happy to discuss my edits on my talk page with whomever. -- KingNewbs (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Overly quick tagging of new articles isn't just a Twinkle problem. I've seen non-Twinkle users speedy things awfully quickly. {{db-nonsense}} and {{db-bio}} seem to get the most abuse. :( IMHO, a new article should only be tagged with a speedy if it's an irredeemable problem (along the lines of "Jake is fat and he smells"). I'm not as bothered by other tags, such as {{unref}} or {{wikify}}, as they can help newbies (who are typically the ones who create articles in multiple edits) see where an article needs improvement. (Full disclosure -- I use Twinkle regularly, but I also take full responsibility for every edit I make with both Twinkle and AWB).--Fabrictramp (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to turn this into a big techy discussion but Twinkle is a javascript, and anyone who can edit their monobook can add a javascript to their account, be it Twinkle, Popups or a script they write themselves. (Given that the source code for Twinkle is publicly available, it would be fairly easy to make a copy and bypass any restrictions). The only effective way of restricting this is to prevent new users from editing their monobook, and AFAIK that would require a change to the Wikimedia software, and hence take ages to implement. While the behaviour of some TW users is annoying, I don't think it's worth that much hassle - just use the bad AIV report template on their user talk page if applicable and move on. Waggers (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't this whole problem be solved rather easily? Restrict TW in a way where brand new users cannot use it (something like Vandalproof or AWB). Then, enforce the rules stated on TW; That being "You must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies, or risk being blocked.", or just simply take away the tools. As pointed out above, anybody can make their own script. It seems as some people here want to "ban twinkle", but that theory is virtually impossible. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This sounds very reasonable to me. It seems like I end up declining at least 20% of AIV reports ... with the majority of those being from TW users who either did not understand or follow the complex two-step criteria for making AIV reports. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sure there are several inappropriate reports to AIV/UAA/RFP and pages inappropriately marked as meeting CSD, all from TW users. I don't know what REDVEЯS is trying to achieve here. I use twinkle, and I use it responsibly. It is a great tool, but it can be, and it is easily abused. For every editor that abuses TW, I am sure there are several who do not, so just deal with the minority here, and do not allow them to use TW. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It all really I believe depends on ones own interpretation of the article, personally if you are uploading a Resume I will consider it to be a Non-Notable individual to others pure vandalism. As well restricting ones access to TWINKLE is taking it a little to far. I can see it if the user continually, But I do have to agree ticking the vandal only account button every time is really bad. There should be a regulation. I believe that the proper route would be to have TWINKLE check how many warnings and at what times they were placed this way it will select the best warning for the moment while restricting all under the warning from being given (of course the first user to warn the vandal needs access to them all). As well it should be impossible for a user to be reported to AIV without proper warnings (with the exception of 4im warnings). I also would like to suggest that the vandalism only account check be grayed out until after a set amount of blocks. I would say after the second block that option be available but only to users with accounts (this means the warning should not be available for when it comes to reporting IPs). As well the problem seems to occur with new users. The suggestion I have has been said before but I will repeat. New Users should not be allowed to use TW. If you are under 3 months you should not have access to TW and everyone using TW right now and under 3 months should have their usage revoked. This goes for users with more than one block. Rgoodermote  19:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This is extremely reasonable. New users should learn policy and norms The Hard Way, rather than being given access to powerful automated tools. Another thing is the "using TW" edit summary, which lets newbies find it sooner than they should; perhaps that should be removed. east.718 at 20:30, December 19, 2007

Oh, drama! I like drama :) We can put it somewhat simple, it is theoretically impossible to have control of whom is using TW, so continuing arguing about adding such functionality is relatively void. But if you find something that could be better, then please, send me a patch. _→AzaToth 20:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

VP and AWB can be modded to run without approval too, but we still have approval processes. Get in touch with me on IRC if you need coding help with restricting it to autoconfirmed or whitelisted users. east.718 at 20:28, December 19, 2007

Bypassing approval on VP and AWB, is very, very simple. There are probably 5 different ways to do it at least, ranging from intercepting requests for the approvals page at the router, to just taking it out of the code. Yet, they're not abused. However, they aren't written in a language as easy to much with as JS. That aside, I think they've always had approval as a function, TW has not. If it went to apporoval-based, I'd assume, most folk would just go back to using the old version, as several people already do.SQL^{Query me!} 22:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not try adding a login function as well as making it so that it does not import until after the user confirms their ID and when they leave the TW page or refresh have it so that it deletes itself and you will have to re login. If it detects a change in code then it will not run until fixed. I think a BOT can do the deletion part easily, this solution makes it impossible to modify and impossible for a new user to run the program. This will take some time and dedication to do. But I think it possible and worth it for the integrity of Wikipedia. Rgoodermote  22:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be like weeding your garden with napalm. east.718 at 22:32, December 19, 2007

I was just thinking of sledgehammers & nuts here. Better to increase the requirements for use of all tools? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

if (!userIsInGroup("autoconfirmed")) { alert("D:"); return; } Can it be gamed? Of course. Is it worth it anyway? Sure, why not. Gracenotes^T § 22:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Like Napalm huh, some weeds. That is what we have here weeds that need to be destroyed at all cost. I love TW but has been become a problem with new users using it. Regulating vandals and their actions at the same time has become a problem. How about you set up a system like VP. An approval system, with regulations like

• One must be adopted by an experienced and trustworthy user (I.E. One of the admin)
• No more than two blocks (One block is enough to get some on track)
• Must not have been in any disputes (I.E. Edits war)

and so on. With this you do not add the link to the Monobook instead you edit it yourself. For the more experienced users you could simply put the code underneath the sign up for new users. This only works if the new users do not know about the monobook. Rgoodermote  22:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

One simple way to combat this: keep a log of each time someone abuses Twinkle (when & where), & track who are the worst violators. No need to warn/block/call them nasty names over this evidence -- just share it on WP:RfA when they ask for the Admin bit. Knowing that this will happen might force Twinkle users to use it more smartly, not more often. -- llywrch (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And there we have it, "How to Make Wikipedia a Much Less Enjoyable Place to Be" tip #638: punish misguided (but good-faith) efforts to improve Wikipedia with a flood of bitter oppose votes at RFA. Gracenotes^T § 23:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Joking aside, though, you want misguided TW users to push newcomers away from the project, tag scores of articles for speedy deletion without being informed what CSD means, revert good-faith edits and call it vandalism, etc., while everyone else watches and says "tsk tsk, just wait until his RFA"? There has to be a better way than that – preferably more preventative than punitive. Gracenotes^T § 23:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My read of this discussion was that Twinkle was being used by misguided (but good-faith) efforts to demonstrate that the user is qualified to be an Admin. I can't imagine why anyone else would want to mark large quantities of edits as "actions evidently indicate a vandalism only account" -- except to cause trouble, in which case, we have the existing remedy of blocks and community bans. -- llywrch (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the people who are using twinkle in a blatantly abusive way (the ones we are talking about here), will not try an RfA. I don't believe there is any way to log if Twinkle is used, anyways. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Just for information, there is a related discussion here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the RFA suggestion and I believe there is a way. Look at their contributions if that are reported. If they are being malicious in there use warn them like you would any other time. If it does not stop. Well we can always treat it like normal vandalism report them to AIV and then remove TW from their monobook. As well you are right create a database of users to watch. I can agree with it. Rgoodermote  23:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC) p; 23:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Here's a suggestion: Completely remove any options in TW to report a user for a username violation or for vandalism; use manual edits instead to report users. The same goes for edits to WP:RFPP. Any user who has made over 800 non-TW edits to the mainspace (and for that reason, we should keep the "using TW" edit summary, but remove the link, to find out whether an edit has been made using TW or not) can ask an administrator for the ability to make automated reports to AIV, UAA, and RFPP. Any user with less than 500 edits may not use TW at all, nor any other vandal-reversion tool like VP or Lupin's tool. If they do not comply with these restriction, they will recieve one (1) warning, after which they will be blocked for three hours. If they still do not comply, they will receive longer blocks (1 week). GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 23:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Stricken, see discussion below.

Ummm, TW helps everybody, the constructive users too. So why do you want to "punish" (for lack of a better word) them by removing the AIV/RFP features? Also, as for the rest of your suggestion, just who is going to manage the permissions for this? That job is way to big. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Proposal, although well-meant, is too prescriptive, and will remove valuable options from those who use Twinkle properly. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal struck. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 00:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Lets put it as simple as possible, twinkle is clean JavaScript, and as it will never work under IE, most abuse is limited by that fact. twinkle is designed to do common things simple and fast, it doesn't adhere to the "Are you really sure?" paradigm, instead it assumes the users knows what he/she is doing (that was in fact the reality back in the days). I wouldn't want to implement some restriction that would decrease the usability and performance just because some are afraid of some ghosts. lets just assume good faith and be happy. less drama please. _→AzaToth 00:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What a marvelous idea! I remember hearing something about AGF in the past...those were the days. Joking aside, I've asked this several times, if somebody is abusing TW, why not just remove it from their monobook? Thats it. I thought it rather simple. -- Rjd0060 (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I had forgotten about the man power it would take to do all of that. Well at least there are ideas if there is a huge epidemic. 72.79.205.169 (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

IP was me, I forgot to login. Rgoodermote  01:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User:KingNewbs has put speedy deletion tag on the biography of Jonathan Gruber. He is a professor at MIT and one of the raising economist in the World. He has published over 100 research articles and also received the American Society of Health Economists Inaugural Medal for the best health economist in the nation aged 40 and under. He completed his Ph.D. in 1992. So it will take time for him to be more notable. He is an economist and not an actor. Thus, he may not be notable to people who are not interested in economics. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl of course quickly removed the speedy. Turns out he is in the Insitute of Medicine as well. This is a reflection of another general problem: people thinking notability is required to pass speedy, not merely an assertion of notability. DGG (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So are you guys saying if the user didn't have TW, then the user wouldn't have thought the page qualified for speedy? - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The user would have to have read the deletion policies to find out how to speedy pages. east.718 at 05:26, December 20, 2007

You don't know that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You're exactly correct, Rjd0060. It was definitely a misinformed and hasty edit when I added speedy tags to this article, but I'd have done it with or without Twinkle. I spent some time last night studying the policies on speedy deletion a little closer and have made several adjustments to my article evaluation mental checklist. I'm allowing myself to hesitate a little before tagging pages for speedy delete, which seems much more productive. Twinkle definitely makes it easier to tag pages, but this particular problem was editor error, not Twinkle-abuse. Of course, that's a matter of perspective. :) -- KingNewbs (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was just wondering; is TW under maintenance right now because I can't use it to revert and warn. —BoL @ 04:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Your account is too new to use Twinkle. east.718 at 05:26, December 20, 2007

Huh? SQL^{Query me!} 05:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So how "new" is "too new". I've been an editor for over 2 years. I've been an admin for almost 18 months. I've not been a TW user, but decided to install it to better understand the issues expressed here. Trying to use it, I get a "too new" message. — ERcheck (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That was a temporary bug. Please clear your cache and tell me if you're still experiencing this problem. east.718 at 05:43, December 20, 2007

LBU

Resolved

Article at AFD, agreement that if the article exists, it should be listed on the dab page --B (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who remembers user:Jason Gastrich will remember the efforts made by alumni of Louisiana Baptist University to have a redirect at LBU. A dab page has now been created, with three valid uses plus our favourite fundamental baptist diploma mill - and let's be clear, there has never been any proposed content for this page that did not contain said diploma mill. I googled this and found fewer than 800 hits for LBU -> Louisiana Baptist University, all of which were either advertisement copy, astroturfing or user-edited. I don't see any evidence that this is a widely-used initialism. I have removed it, but confidently expect Ra2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to dispute it. I'm noting it here because it's possible I'm being more cynical than is warranted, though I don't think so, and becasue there will be a lot of admins who remember the Gastroturfing of Louisiana Baptist "University" and its alumni. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

How about LBDM? Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Er, but their icon/logo says "LBU" and their domain is lbu.edu.[14] This seems pretty open and shut. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh! Carcharoth means Louisiana Baptist Diploma Mill, which has the merit of accuracy :-) The issue os not whether they call themselves LBU, which they do, but whether anybody else cares enough to do so, which it appears they don't, the obsessive efforts of alumni notwithstanding. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I still like Our favourite fundamental baptist diploma mill. Daniel 23:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's their domain name regardless. If I got an e-mail from someputz@lbu.edu, I'd want to know who I was talking to, and I'd want wikipedia to be able tell me when I type lbu and hit "go." -- Kendrick7^talk 23:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't whois. The initialism doesn't appear to be used by anyone outside the "alumni". — Coren ^(talk) 00:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What was the initial reason for not creating a redirect? Even if it isn't commonly used, it seems like a reasonable one to have. I guess it could be paid advertising, but if you type LBU into Google, the first hit is the school [15]. "Louisiana Baptist University" gets 59,500 g-hits. LBU and "Louisiana Baptist" gets 877, or 1.4%. By contrast, "Virginia Tech" gets 7.5 million g-hits. "Virginia Tech University", an INCORRECT name for our school that is neither an "unofficial" nor "informal" name for the school - purely an incorrect one used by people who are uninformed - gets 216K g-hits, or 2.8%. So while 800 g-hits is pretty small, proportionately, it's pretty close and "Virginia Tech University" was kept at WP:RFD nearly unanimously. --B (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the more appropriate comparison is not 1.4% versus 2.8%, but 800 ghits versus 216,000. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the justification for keeping it off the dab page listing? It seems harmless enough there, we have plenty of dab page entries with fewer ghits, and the part about how it's a low-repute diploma mill smacks of IDONTLIKEIT. Keeping it there seems like a much better solution than a redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Good lord this is petty - it does no harm whatsoever to have "Louisiana Baptist University" on the LBU dab page. It doesn't matter if "no one else calls them LBU" (untrue - the IANA do, at least, considering they granted them www.lbu.edu - see .edu), nor does it matter if it's a diploma mill, it's a disambiguation page. We have an article on a topic with the initials L-B-U, so it should be on the relevant dab page. This smacks of personal distaste for a topic swaying people into cutting off their noses to spite their faces. I've put the link back there. Neıl ☎ 11:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The "disambiguation" page contained four items, two of which appear to be astroturfing (the diploma mill and [{Liberty Union Party]], 769 and 10 Googlehits respectively), and was proposed by Ra2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guess what someone found in this user's user space? User:Ra2007/JCSM. So: looks like Gastroturfing, precisely as I said above. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As hilarious as that is, why is "Jason Gastrich wants it" a reason not to have it there? Either delete the article or list it on the dab page - one of the two. Even if it is a self-identified abbreviation, it is still an abbreviation for the school and if the article exists ought to be listed. Other than pettiness, as Neil pointed out, I'm not sure what the reason for not having it is. If the article is free advertising for a non-notable "school", delete the article. But if the "school" is notable enough for an article, it belongs on the dab page. --B (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy, what does that have to do with anything? Comment on the content, not the contributor, please. Agree that there's no real reason for Liberty Union Party to be there (if dabbed anywhere, you would image it should be at LUP), but I still don't see a good reason to keep Louisiana Baptist University off there other than "Guy doesn't like it". How is it astroturfing to have a functional and correct disambiguation page? Neıl ☎ 14:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, it's the subject of perennial POV-pushing and astroturfing, the user also created a page on Gastrich's vanity ministry, no iteration of that page has ever existed that was not used to promote the diploma mill, and Wikipedia is not supposed to be the place toi promote your diploma mill. There are fewer than 800 Google hits for LBU + "Louisiana Baptist University", and all opf them seem to be the result of alumni trying to boost the place. Well, congratulations to them, now we'll be blazing the trail on their behalf. Wikipedia rewards persistent vanity spammers, great result for the project. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This is insane. If the article is spam for a diploma mill, delete it. It doesn't make sense to have the article, but not the dab link. --B (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If this article is supposed to be "promoting" the school, it's doing an awfully poor job of it by including extensive discussion of the school's non-accredited status. Looks more like a good snarking to me. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As long as the article exists, there's no reason the dab page shouldn't point to it. Whether the article deserves to exist is an entirely different question. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser requested, by the way ... if you know of any non-stale socks that could be used for the check, feel free to add them. --B (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that they own lbu.edu it seems like an unfortunately reasonable dab to me. Of course, we should still block all LBU related crapspammers on sight. Any even suspected Gastrich sock or similar spammer should be blocked. Period. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, lets fight the right battle here. The LBU article in its present form will not be useful for advertising. We need to keep it that way unless their standards suddenly rise unexpectedly. David D. (Talk) 16:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I'm a'clicking that good ol' "watch" tab now... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond arritt (talk • contribs) 16:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article appears to heavily dependent upon WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH on the one side, self-claims on the other. I'm concerned that many editing the content there are behaving more like promoters or consumer activists or investigative reporters than encyclopedia editors. If the institution deserves note here, secondary sources are the key. If the institution needs to be "exposed", it needs to be exposed by the published authors like Steve Levicoff (who is a good reference there), not wikipedia editors. The battle over the initials is silly. The focus is way out of whack in this "LBU" dab squabble. The initials aren't a problem at all. The problem is WP:SYNTH is ignored throughout the article, and there is way, way too much promotional-type self claims taken straight from original sources without independent references for verification. (And please folks. Snarky digs against the topic or editors set a bad example, and don't help to achieve article NPOV in any way shape or form.)Professor marginalia (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Correction: even Levicoff is apparently a self-published source. The article says way too much considering its very skimpy WP:RS. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

So is anyone going to nominate it for AFD? There seems to be broad support for deleting it, based on what people have said in the discussion here and at the dab, and that would get it off the dab list. —Random832 20:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Banned users question

Guess I misplaced this question. Your input is appreciated. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I am copying the question here:

If a user is banned, or indefinitely blocked (and there is absolutely no chance the user will become unblocked), are their subpages (talk page archives, sandbox, etc..) going to be deleted? - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Usually yes. If the user is indef-blocked for vandalism or sock puppetry or other blatant violations of policy, his userpages are deleted as part of Wikipedia:Deny recognition and Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore. See also Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. There are cases in which the userpage can be kept. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The status quo is that when a user if normally indef-blocked, all pages in the account's userspace are deleted. If the user is a blocked sock, a page is preserved with the appropriate notice of sockpuppetry. If a user is banned, the user page and talk pages are normally preserved with the appropriate templates (the talk page is preserved for reference). Of course, in some cases, the m:Right To Vanish is invoked. This isn't instruction creep, just merely an observation of current practice. —Kurykh 20:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There are some pages from indef banned user Kirbytime if anyone would like to delete these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt57 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. DrKiernan (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Would a list of pages out there be something a bot could do? I'd imagine a bot could easily "check indefinitely blocked user pages, see if other pages exists, list the user name." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think having a bot do it would be a good idea. The reason is, we have to make extra sure that the user is not returning. That would mean a rejected unblock request, if the user wasn't officially "banned". - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I just meant a list being created; would it be a bot or just a generic program, something, what's the term? From there, admins could decide. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. After re-reading your comment, I understand what you mean. Maybe a bot to categorize (is that the term you were looking for?) all the pages / subpages of blocked indef/banned users. Good idea! - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I really just meant someone to create a list of the page/subpages. It wouldn't be a bot per se, but just a list created. That way, people could check it and strike names out that shouldn't be deleted yet. I worry about a category as to what to do for ones that aren't appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A bot was proposed for this, but was rejected. It needs human thought and assessment to pick up the pages that actually document useful stuff for the encyclopedia. Some "good" editors turn "bad", but (unless they invoke 'right to vanish') there is no need to clear out the good pages that existed before they went "bad". For this purpose, replacing the userpage with "indef blocked" or "banned" is not helpful. Adding a notice at the top of the page is better. Consider User:Giano II (this example used as an extreme example and due to recent comments made by Jimbo). Even if something happened in future and the user was banned, I would strongly object to replacing the page with an indef blocked template, putting in the "temoporary Wikipedians" category, and seeing the user page and its subpages deleted. I'm sure others would object as well. There is a spectrum, and the reasons for deletion depend on the reason for blocking or banning. Sometimes those carrying out the blocking or banning use the wrong template, and that causes problems further down the line. If the editor was always "bad" (vandal, troll, etc) then the indef blocked template and page deletions are usually appropriate. For borderline cases, "|category=" can be added to the template to prevent the page ending up in the "temporary wikipedians" category. These would be cases where someone thinks preserving the pages is worthwhile, or where the user might be unbanned and unblocked in future (relying on being able to restore deleted pages is not good practice - better to get it right first time round). Carcharoth (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

AWB waiting list

There are some people waiting for an admin to add them to the AWB check page.

See Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Requests for registration.

Please address the requests and add the page to your watchlist.

The Transhumanist 19:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There are currently two users and a bot waiting for approval. How is this an important backlog that urgently needs clearing, let alone necessitating a notice here? —Kurykh 19:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The instructions on the registration page state "If the list contains entries that are over 24 hours old, please mention this (nicely) at WP:AN" --Stephen 00:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not an instruction for random users to check the page and report the backlog here. The instruction is meant only for a user who is awaiting access is is getting impatient. No admins should ever feel pressured to clear this backlog. If it piles up too large, it may be better to try to contact an AWB mod on their talk page or on IRC. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The perhaps the instructions could be modified to read, "If the list contains entries that are over 24 hours old, please mention this (nicely) at WP:AN. Just don't expect people to be nice in return". Sheesh. Jeffpw (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi I've been waiting to be approved on the AWB waiting list for some time now, so this is a polite request that a nice admin person could approve this request. Thank you in advance. Jdrewitt (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Overuse of logos

Please have a look at Compact Disc and tell me wehter the use of logos there is allowed in their context, or that it is just plain overuse of logos. Over the past few months, I have removed them twice, but a Jnavas (talk · contribs) keeps putting them back in, sustaining that fair use criteria are met. I (and others) don't think so; they serve merely as a gallery, but John refuses to acknoledge the fact. See Talk:Compact Disc for the discussion. I want some objective views from other admins. — Edokter • Talk • 21:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, overuse of those logos. Secret ^account 21:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There really isn't a good reason to place an image of every single variation on the logos; and given that they are trademarks as well this makes fair use even more tenuous. Besides, they make the article look like crap. — Coren ^(talk) 21:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't actually an issue for admins, but I'm not really sure what every slight variation on the logos gives us. They all seem pretty bland variants of the original logo. Secretlondon (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It may well turn into an admin issue if Jnavas keeps reverting their removal. It may help if others tell him why the logos are not suitable. — Edokter • Talk • 22:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

From a purely editorial standpoint, they add nothing to the article and make for awkward formatting. Looking at the issue through the prism of WP:NFCC, their usage fails criteria #3 & #8. If you want to remove them permanently, WP:IFD may be a better fit. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that we need only the main "Compact Disc Digital Audio" logo. That logo is extremely common, and its inclusion provides information that a textual description could not easily do. The rest are all unnecessary and excessive since they are non-free content. *** Crotalus *** 19:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"Shops"

Hello all, I was just wondering what you thought of things like this and this? I know we've had people's personal shops before, but not multiple people like this. Seems like instruction creep to me...just wondering what people think. Regards, Keilana 01:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

what is the point? Viridae^Talk 01:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Unless I'm missing something, this is just a witty approach for offering to help others. Strikes me as good natured and constructive, and goodness knows we could use more of both qualities around here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be helping users, but I think the dollar stores are coming to Wikipedia. I've "purchased" items from one of them before, and, to clarify things, I AM NOT AN EMPLOYEE AT CHAMPION MART!!! —BoL @ 04:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

*sigh*. Daniel 07:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not really doing much at all, in fact, it's doing harm to those who receive Christmas cards that are "bought" from these shops and displayed in dark green on bright red. Even though they claim to be helping users by making them feel cheerful and happy about contributing, but in my opinion, they appear to make the whole place look like a social networking site and end up getting people blocked for social networking. My two cents, anyway. Spebi 21:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

But looking at the positive side of these shops, you don't really have to buy anything, just copy the code from the source and the owner's can't come to your talk page complaining of "card theft". Spebi 21:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Only complaining of a GFDL violation. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think what's best is if we drop the subject, then bring it back up if Gp and Vintei start warring about it. —BoL @ 23:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. This is a valid discussion topic, especially considering the fact that some users are now talking of "friend requests" – [16], [17]. Spebi 04:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify things, shops were created to help users, not to build an emporium of shops. Also, User:Gp75motorsports has a note that the goal of ChampionMart is "to become the largest multi-use shop in Wikipedia", and Wikipedia is not a web host, nor a shopping mall. Macy's123 01:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the "shops" are really intended to help users, mostly newcomers (I have a shop myself). And the workers are volunteers, not conscripts.-- Vintei  Talk  01:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Yeah, so do I. I think Vintei and I are speaking for all shop owners (there may be more) when we say that the shops are easier to use for newcomers because all they have to do is copypaste the source code. I'd rather copypaste a premade design or request a design from a more experienced user than have to continually reference the userpage design center if I wanted a unique userpage. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 02:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC) :Look, just drop it for now. If you two start flaming about it, it will be dealt with. —BoL @ 02:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC) You know what? Scratch that. I have nominated both their shops for deletion. Looks like they're going too out of the edge, I mean, Gp75 copied the src from Vintei, so I'm doing it. —BoL @ 02:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Wait, scratch that. I'll file a request for comment. —BoL @ 02:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Remind me again why having "a unique userpage" is essential to building an encyclopedia? Shouldn't we be helping newcomers learn how to improve articles and not how to have gaudy userboxes, signatures, and user pages? Metros (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No reason. —BoL @ 02:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I hate people who judge before they see. We also do templates and userscripts. And BoL here is only saying this because he works for Vintei. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 02:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"Because he works for Vintei" — on so many levels, I hope you were joking. Daniel 04:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't really work for anyone, really. I mean, checkout? You got to be kidding me. So, I'm just going to kick back and relax and see how this goes. I may merge your stores into one and have you guys work together. Seems cherry? I didn't think so. Anyway, I'm not sure whether this is the right place to report it, but UAA is backlogged. —BoL @ 05:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Shops nominated for deletion

I have nominated both shops for deletion. You can see them at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vintei/shop and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gp75motorsports/ChampionMart. Metros (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection

This is probably a useless complaint, but user:Versageek feels it isn't necessary to protect pages in the current version, specifically List of animals in The Simpsons. As far as i'm concerned, protecting it in the version he wants is pretty unethical. Ctjf83 ^talk 19:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop forum shopping and cross-posting we do not allow NFC in lists. Versageek did the right thing β^_command 19:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I protected it at the version that complies with current practices regarding the use of images in lists. Even featured lists have had all their fair use images removed. That said, I too am looking for a centralized page where this practice is defined and explained, at the moment one isn't readily locatable. Rather it seems likely that the relevant discussion is spread out among many article discussion pages. I think that being able to link to a centralized page would make situations like this much less confrontational. ..and Ctjf83, I'm really quite reasonable, so go easy on the personal jabs. --Versageek 19:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

oh wonderful, responses form the people against me, now lets get one from a neutral admin Ctjf83 ^talk 19:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments like

well it's not listed here so i don't care what you, and your anti-image buddies decided before i even knew about wiki Ctjf83 ^talk 19:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

clearly show that this user does not want to follow previous consensus and policy. β^_command 19:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

all i see at WP:PP is current version, nothing about it saying so for images in lists Ctjf83 ^talk 19:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll unprotect and reprotect the page in a form that leaves the page in full compliance with the Non Free Content policy, if you want. That should remove any concerns relating to the protection, and as I am uninvolved, I believe that qualifies as neutral. Nick (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

the current version that was my last edit is in compliance with WP:NFCC so it should be in that current version Ctjf83 ^talk 19:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

wrong, your version is not compliant. β^_command 19:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Beta, do you realize that you could have prevented ALL of this by just citing and linking to actual Wikipedia policy and not someone's userpage? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutralhomer stop trolling, and READ what I linked to, it is a summary of discussions on this topic. β^_command 19:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

(ecx2) There's nothing in WP:NFC that says FU images are point-blank prohibited in lists (but they, 99% of the time, fail criterion 8). In the case at hand, I would say that the removal of the images was right, however, I feel an adequate claim for fair use can easily be made for and only for Blinky. Will ^(talk) 19:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

again, nothing at WP:PP says anything about that, it says current version but whatever, this is a useless argument Ctjf83 ^talk 19:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Beta...One, I am not trolling....two, don't tell me what to do.....three, unless it is [[WP:insert link here]] it ain't official Wikipedia policy and a userpage ain't official Wikipedia policy and Four....I'm done. You are just pissed that someone is about to put your and your crap of a bot out of business so you are taking it out on a user and wanting to start an arguement. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:FUEXPLAIN. I dont want an argument just to enforce policy. β^_command 20:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Point of Information: WP:FUEXPLAIN is an essay, not policy.--CastAStone/^/(talk) 20:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"again, nothing at WP:PP says anything about that, it says current version but whatever, this is a useless argument"... "Point of Information: WP:FUEXPLAIN is an essay, not policy." You seem to be operating under the mistaken presumption that something called "policy" actually exists. Policy is not prescriptive, rather it is descriptive of what is done in general cases; arguments for a particular action are justified on their merits, not by whoever throws out the most WP:EIEIOs. Many editors seem to misunderstand this and insist that good actions are not so because "policy doesn't justify it," instead of realizing that all it does is describe prior solutions. At the end of the day, a tailored solution is what's called for, and the right call was made here. east.718 at 20:14, December 20, 2007

All it was was a point of information. It was and is true. It wasn't and isn't an endorsement of either side.--CastAStone/^/(talk) 20:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

E-mail blocks 100% of the time?

Admins should only be blocking with e-mail disabled when there is evidence of e-mail abuse, correct? I'm still seeing the occasional admin who disables e-mail with each and every block. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably, though the reason may be tied to the sockpuppeteer account in cases where an admin blocks a sockpuppet, so it may not be immediately clear on first inspection. I'm not sure we have any official policy on this, mind you, and remember that blocked users can still email the unblock-en-l list even with email disabled. For the record, virtually none of my blocks are with email disabled. --Yamla (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would make sense in that case. But the examples I'm seeing is where an admin is making random vandalism blocks (WP:AIV patrol), username blocks, etc., all disable e-mails. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hard to comment specifically without seeing specific cases, but I tend to agree it should generally be rare. I've probably only set it a handful of times. Yamla's got a point about blocking sockpuppets, although in cases where we block wrongly that locks out a few avenues of appeal. Probably the largest question: should email blocking be pre-emptive? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I do it occationally, especially if the user is severely harrassing or something Secret ^account 21:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Pre-emptive? No. I've blocked a fair few editors and email abuse hasn't been a problem, but maybe I've been lucky so far. It's just as easy to block an address on the email end though. Some examples might help, or, better still, take it up with the admins on a one-on-one basis? --Stephen 23:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Expired Blocks

According to WP:BU, the longstanding blocks/bans for His excellency (talk · contribs · logs · block log) and Lir (talk · contribs · logs · block log) have expired, and the block logs show they have not been renewed. This is a notice, not an endorsement of renewal.--CastAStone/^/(talk) 19:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Missing featured pictures

I've just found Image:San Francisco in ruin edit2.jpg, that has in the past been promoted to FP, but has been forgotten/page deleted. What should the procedures be? is it still FP, or isn't it (i.e. would a renom be required)? Is there more FP that has been "removed" from the face of WP? _→AzaToth 20:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate FP templates re-added. Just being bold... —Kurykh 20:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted as a exact duplicate of an image on commons, and the image IS on commons. Nots ure wether it stays on the english WP as a FP after being moved. Viridae^Talk 23:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It does. en-specific stuff like that is a valid reason to have an image description page here for an image that is on commons. Deleting admin should have undeleted the IDP (and trimmed out the licensing stuff etc that belongs on the commons IDP) —Random832 03:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Dominionism

A few months back there was a thread here related to the template on dominionism, this eventually led to an AfD which found that said template needed to be watched for BLP issues. This template has since been forked into a "list" which continues to display the same BLP issues the template did and lists the same persons who were removed from the template with extremely weak sourcing while being away from the eyes which were watching the template. This material has been removed from the list due to BLP issues and continues to be replaced into the article. Can we get some more eyes, preferably ones with BLP experience to watch this list? Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The list is List of people and organizations associated with Dominionism. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I was distracted in the middle of writing that out by this. [18] *sigh* Its a bad day when well established editors start yelling at people and labelling their edits as falsehoods and lies. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a bad day when established editors repeatedly make obviously false claims, even after they were called on their falsehoods. Kyaa is clearly intent on disruption here. Guettarda (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be venue shopping since it was already brought up at the BLP noticeboard and elsewhere. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems Kyaa is prowling for an opinion to match his own. •Jim62sch• 22:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No actually, I have a couple people on the talk page which agree with me. My goal is to get more input than the five or six people who have commented on the talk page involved. But thank you for assuming good faith regardless. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? So why then are you slinking from venue to venue with this pathetic argument of yours? Oh, BTW, we are only required to AGF so long as there is no presence of evidence to the contrary. You kinda blew that one by being more disingenuous than Joe Isuzu. •Jim62sch• 23:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That article really is a joke. List of people and organizations associated with Dominionism#Usage_not_embraced_by_the_subject says, "Some social scientists and writers describe the following as Dominionist" and then proceeds to brand people as "dominionists" based on either TheocracyWatch's say so or, in one case, on Rolling Stone's say so. It should say, "at least one person has called these people dominionists". The TheocracyWatch attack piece being used to source most of those listed doesn't even call them dominionists. In the case of Roy Moore, the one and only time he is mentioned is in this sentence - "While media attention focused on the two-ton granite monument of the Ten Commandments placed in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court by its Chief Justice Roy Moore, little, if any attention was focused on a House measure that passed by a vote of 260 - 161." Yet that's being used to source a claim that he is associated with dominionism. In the case of Karl Rove, it uses a quote "We need to find ways to win the war" out of context that if you google it, he was talking about abortion, but falsely claims, "He was talking about the war on secular society." But somehow, that's a "reliable source" for proving that Karl Rove is associated with dominionism. In the case of Ralph Reed, who, lets face it, nobody in their right mind would deny he is a dominionist, the article only talks about his ethically questionable campaign tactics for Republican candidates. It doesn't once call him a dominionist or even describe dominionism when talking about him. The whole point here is that even if you take the TheocracyWatch source at face value, it doesn't say what it is being used to source. --B (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is a POV fork and should simply be deleted. There are some users who keep inserting BLP-violating original research over and over again. *** Crotalus *** 20:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed but I've been threatened with blocking if I follow the requirements of BLP on the article. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

By whom? *** Crotalus *** 00:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Some admin(his name is not important). Not a big deal, just... annoying that they refuse to follow the BLP and prefer to back those who disregard it and boldly make an effort to continue replacing BLP infringing material counter to the rules that allegedly apply to everyone. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

ROFL. B shows his colours again. Ho hum. •Jim62sch• 01:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Even I don't taunt admins. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I need a second pair of eyes on a deleted page

Resolved

 – —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Matchmaker, created by Coleharrisjohnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It's basically a request for pictures and personal information. It's probably just a misguided attempt to contribute by a new editor, but it could be something more nefarious. I briefly considered a block, but I thought that might be an overreaction, so I wanted to get some opinions here. I've deleted the page and left a level 3 page creation warning on the user's talkpage. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

His deleted contributions don't show anything constructive. One more bit of nonsense would probably result in a long block. --Stephen 23:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should be talking about long blocks if we haven't made the attempt to adequately explain how the edits have been disruptive. I'll review the edits and try to come up with a personal message to post to the user talk page.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you help me please?

Resolved

 – WinHunter ^(talk) 04:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Jerry, newbiee admin here. I speedy deleted Moon Tower as patent nonsense. The article was also nominated as Afd, but not properly, not indexed, not templated correctly. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moon Tower. I closed the AfD as speedy delete, but I don't know how to do it right. Should it just be deleted as a malformed and unnecessary AfD, or should it be templated and indexed? Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The same user tagged another article, Flatout toys that needs to be speedied, but I don't know how to disposition the malformed AfD's. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've put the closure templates, I would leave it there. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Another admin speedied Flatout toys, so I closed out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flatout toys similarly to as you did the one above. Thanks. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I see I missed the bottom tag. Thanks for catching that, snowolf. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought that they could be deleted as there was no discussion, but that's fine. Should they be transcluded onto today's AfD log? WODUP 03:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was asking when I said should it be indexed. I believe Snowolf's reply I would leave it there was a "no". nevermind he probably meant don't delete itJERRY ^talk _contribs 03:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I transcluded them onto today's AfD log. Cheers, WODUP 04:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The moon towers were a lighting system in Austin, Texas. I've redirected the redlink to Moonlight tower. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Harassing

Resolved

User:Betacommand is harassing me, but reverting edits that have nothing to do with him. [19] most likely due to this and this debate. he is clearly trolling Ctjf83 ^talk 03:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I see neither harassment nor trolling in the diffs you provided. It looks to me like Betacommand is trying to show you which policies apply to your situation. If you have better diffs, feel free to share them, but as it is I would suggest that you read the policies he has pointed out to you. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

it is relating to the first link...another user and i were rvting each other for the simpsons project about the inclusion of a quote. beta comes in, not having anything to do with the simpsons project, and this edit not having anything to do with pics, and just rvts me, so the other user wouldn't get a 3RR Ctjf83 ^talk 04:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw a rude threating uncivil comment when a user reverted, without explanation, against the consensus of at least 2 other editors. I happen to have some simpson and other keywords on an IRC Recent changes feed. (I catch a lot of stuff with that filter) it was a standard edit. If I wanted to harass you, you would know it. this is in no way harassment, β^_command 04:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

whatever you say, u could have discussed it with us, but your sill mad from our argument earlier...but oh well, this is another one of my useless tyrants Ctjf83 ^talk 04:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no harassment, only you having trouble getting up to speed on an important but labyrinthine policy. You have also been sniping at Betacommand for a while on multiple places for a while now, and it stops here. BC's hard work on images and their surrounding issues is not a license for you to continually make querulous complaints in an attempt to paint him as the village scapegoat. east.718 at 04:32, December 21, 2007

Ctjf83, do I read you correctly, and are you calling Betacommand a "useless tyrant"? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

no you didnt not...it is my bad vocabulary...i meant tirade...but i'll rephrase it..."one of my useless bitch fests" Ctjf83 ^talk 04:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

but just put the {{resolved}} template, i'll be the adult and ignore him Ctjf83 ^talk 04:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ignore someone helping you to understand policy and improving the encyclopedia? Thank God you're doing the mature thing. Once again, Betacommand makes the encyclopedia more free, and someone hates him for it. J Milburn (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

We know, Betacommand can do no wrong. Carry on. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think him deleting pics improves anything Ctjf83 ^talk 19:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand doesn't delete images, as he's not an admin. Acalamari 20:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

from the articles i mean Ctjf83 ^talk 20:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand has contributed more than any other editor to applying image related policies, so remember that he knows a lot about it now, and is unlikely to be wrong or doing it for the fun of trolling anyone. He often removes images from articles, and is almost always right in doing so as far as I can see. Even faced with people reporting him here every other week he remains calm, and doesn't give up, + his bot does an excellent job and despite what some users may think has a very low error rate from what I've seen. I honestly don't think he is targeting you in particular, he just happened to notice the topic and tried to help out, by enforcing the policy that consensus decided upon. Note that there is also a strong consensus to forcefully apply policy if needed. Jackaranga (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article nominations

Just letting you guys know that there is a backlog of 229 articles over there. Davnel03 09:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Anybody can review GAs. This doesn't really need urgent administrative action. east.718 at 10:01, December 21, 2007

This is a good place to announce a backlog. Many editors watch this board, not just administrators. You might also try the village pump. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the village pump next time for this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 10:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:GAC has been backlogged since time began, a periodical announcement of this isn't really necessary... Anthøny 18:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

School Threat

58.109.120.73 made a treat this morning (their only contribution) against a school in Australia. Is it practice to make notification to the school administration regarding threats such as these? Brianga (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Since this is an overt threat, somebody familiar with Australia who can identify the city should contact the police. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The school is located in Victoria, Australia. Telephone is (03) 9430 5111, email is info AT elthamhs DOT vic DOT edu DOT au. The police phone number is (03) 9247 6666. Who wants to call? --Haemo (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Could do with notifying the foundation and possibly User:Mike Godwin via e-mail. Pedro :  Chat  11:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this needs an immediate response. I am not capable of calling Australia right now, tho. Brianga (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, this is schoolboy vandalism. Ignore it.--Doc^g 11:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what I think too, but I went ahead and asked for any active Australians an the mailing list so that we can at least say we tried. John Reaves 11:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo has repeatedly said that issues like this are to be taken seriously. What should be done is an LEA decision, not ours, and this applies equally to suicide threats. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe this thread. The threat is ridiculous and anyone contacting the school is being a melodramatic fool. There's thousands of these type of thing every day. Forget it and move on. --Doc^g 12:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You might not say that if there was another school massacre. Seraphim ^Whipp 12:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Or if you'd seen Jimbo's interventions in previous cases. Not our decision. Period. End of. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Get a grip. This is just silly now.--Doc^g 12:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's view is that, yes, it may be silly. But it's also a criminal offence. I've seen similar cases here where the FBI have been involved. Now, do you want to take responsibility for the headline "Wikipedia fails to prevent school massacre"? Hmmm? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)So, phone the school and say "hey, some anonymous person blanked your article with a threat to hunt down and kill every single one of your pupils in some unspecified way - they implied they wanted to warn you by being one of the millions of people who vandalise us every day. Actually, we get stuff like this routinely on wikipedia mostly by 12 year old trolls. Mainly we ignore it but, in this case, we thought you'd want to know....(click)"--Doc^g 12:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree that it's almost certainly unnecessary and commonsense says 99 out of 100 times it's a childish post. Also underline "almost". As far as I know, WP practice is we do take such statements seriously, regardless, and let the school or lEA know. They're not naive either; a school or LEA that sees that will often say "thanks for letting us know" and then make their own decision if it's childish or not. But that's their choice, not ours. And email, not phone. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'd love to know what qualifies DocGlasgow to assess this type of risk. The school and their local law enforcement agencies will have people trained to make appropriate risk assessments. In a country like Australia they are likely to have already developed protocols for dealing with threats of this nature - if we do not tell them, then we deprive them of the ability to make their own judgment. If we do tell them, they can assess the situation and take whatever further action they deem appropriate. DuncanHill (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Qualified or not, we have to do some limited assessment. We get thousands of silly "die scum" vandalism every month - should we report every one? When someone blanks George W. Bush with "I'll do this asshole in", do we run to the FBI? (We're not 'qualified' to say he isn't the next Lee Harvey Oswald are we?) Certainly, some threats should be reported. But whether you think this one should or should not, you are making some for of assessment, unless you are seriously suggesting we report every one? That would need a wikiproject in itself.--Doc^g 13:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Really lousy example - Bush has the Secret Service to take care of him - and I suspect the FBI and the CIA and the NSA and others have lots of very clever tools to detect threats to his person. Remarkably few schools enjoy this level of support. DuncanHill (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
      • You are almost certainly correct; but you have just made a risk assessment.--Doc^g 13:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've now emailed Mike Godwin about this situation. A last resort, obviously, but it seems the Foundation's message is not getting through. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think as a matter of policy someone relatively local to the site of the threat should notify the school. MikeGodwin (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone email the school? info (at) elthamhs (dot) vic (dot) edu (dot) au--CastAStone/^/(talk) 14:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If no one else does, I will - but I'm sort of in Ohio, so I'm not sure that I'm the best person for this sort of thing. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this is - what if ClueBot or VoAbot reverts it? There's not even a guarantee any human ever sees the threat. —Random832 14:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I revert stuff like this all the time - it's childish vandalism, we really don't need to be taking such measures - so IMO, we don't need to worry if one of the bots revert it. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Doc glasgow and some of you are saying. All threats should be considered credible until they are resolved by who are trained to respond to it. Those of you saying that it is nonsense to report it or it's childish vandalism wouldn't be laughing when either someone went through with it or Wikipedia was blamed for its non-response to it. Lets face it, this is the one of the most popular websites on the Internet, and the chances of someone posting a real threat is probable. If you want to choose to ignore it, that would be your choice, but there are some (including me), who are not afraid to call authorities when murder threats or similar things are reported. Considering I have reported just as serious things as this and the FBI was interested in the threat enough to approach the editors house and question him about the credibility of the threats he made, then things like this definitely need to be reported to by authorities. Doc, etc. you are not exactly qualified nor in a position to define what is a serious threat to report and what is not. — Save_Us_229 15:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

And FYI, I have contacted the authorities and the police in that area for this threat if no one did so already. — Save_Us_229 15:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• For the love of all that is good and holy, report this to the Australian police now! To the naysayers, all threats of harm to self or others must be taken seriously. If it was an empty threat then there is nothing to worry about, right? Just imagine if this is the real thing. Recall, the Virginia Tech guy put videos on YouTube before he went on his spree. Bstone (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's already been reported. — Save_Us_229 15:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Save Us. I'm sure this will all be an overreaction, but I dread the alternative. Brianga (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I point out that anyone who does feel this to be real can perfectly well call by themselves, and would only need to tell others to prevent duplication. DGG (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Save Us, can you please clarify who this was reported to? Thanks, Sarah 16:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It was reported to the school and authorites in the area. — Save_Us_229 17:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I understand that but can you please clarify what that means exactly? I guess I'm trying to find out what you mean by the "authorities in the area" because the phone number given above isn't correct. That phone number is a number for the state's Police Centre, the Commissioner's offices in the city. The phone number for the 24 hour police station in Eltham is 61 03 9430 4500. I don't know who you reported this to or how, and that is what I am trying to clarify. Did you ring the police on the phone? If so, what police did you ring? Did you email the school or leave a message there? Sorry if it sounds like I'm interrogating you, I'm just concerned that the info gets to the right people and I know it is difficult for people overseas to make contact, especially because the Australian police forces are somewhat different to the American's. Sarah 17:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I e-mail the school with the above e-mail, given that the e-mail address is right. I called the Victoria Police by phone and told them about the threat to Eltham High School, the IP address, the link to the threat and that I already e-mailed Eltham High School about it. As far as I know, they are looking into it. — Save_Us_229 18:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

For informational purposes, it is 3:08 am in Melbourne (Eltham is a suburb of Melbourne) on Saturday morning. Yesterday, Friday, school finished for the year. As in the school year, not just for Christmas. School is now out for the summer and won't back until February next year. Whoever did this should watch the news more. Just a couple of weeks ago, a guy was arrested in Frankston, about 40 minutes from Eltham, for posting a shooting hoax threat on the internet. [20] Sarah 16:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, is there any chance we could record advice in an essay to avoid these long threads in the future? We can discuss appropriate ways to respond at the essay. Then, when there is an incident, we can have less drama. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

We have WP:SUICIDE, which deals with threats of suicide or personal harm. Surely, a similar essay - or an expansion of that one - would be appropriate, especially if there are hard and fast policies from Jimbo and the Foundation, as there appear to be. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Try this. And with respect to Doc's opinion, he may be right this time and the next time. He might even be right every instance he sees. But once we open the door to making threat estimates ourselves, eventually one of those threats could very well be real and someone who isn't quite so wise would follow precedent and call it a hoax. It only takes one missed warning to result in tragedy. Durova^Charge! 16:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Responding to threats of violence -- So we can record the consensus advice once and reference it in the future. These long threads violate don't feed the trolls and don't stick beans up your nose. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the essays and proposed guidelines that spring up after these events violate both of those principles also. Durova^Charge! 16:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Durova. An essay is just asking for anonymous kids to blank their school's page with "let's kill them all" in the knowledge that a wikimop will be phoning the headmaster pronto. It's like being able to set off a rogue fire alarm with no consequences.--Doc^g 17:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No consequences? I hardly would say the police or the FBI knocking on your front door step to be a lack in consequences. Good-faith editors are timid to report these. Do you honestly think someone is going to blatantly take the chance that the FBI may or may not show up? — Save_Us_229 17:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've agreed with DocG in the past but then I saw User:Vampire Warrior II and changed my mind. The idea of the police actually hunting vandals down and knocking on their door tickles me to no end. I say call them in every opportunity. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This definitely needs to be reported. 4chan#Pflugerville High School terrorist threat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmajdan (talk • contribs) 17:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

First, if the foundation wants to take threats seriously, then we simply need to know how the foundation wants us to respond. That's simple enough. As for why we should bother to report each instance? That's easy. While we can't reasonably differentiate hoax from threat, local authorities (school and police) may well be aware of a pattern of behavior from a particular individual that indicates a genuine threat. Our notification then provides one more piece of the puzzle for them. It may even provide them with the clue (IP address) necessary to identify the culprit. To us, a threat is a puzzle piece without context. To the authorities, a reported threat could be the one piece that allows them to complete a puzzle they've been working on. Now if DocG would like to argue that we should not assist the authorities in any manner, then that's different point entirely. As for flooding the police and schools with useless reports from pranksters, I think we should let them tell us what they want us to do. To date, I haven't heard the authorities make any statements along the lines of "please do not report threats or suspicious activity to us – we really don't want to know." Rklawton (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Heavens above, isn't this getting blown absolutely out of proportion? If you observe suicide claims being inserted into an article, take a logical and considered decision over whether to contact the local authorities or not; don't spend numerous bytes of discussion debating the decision itself. The contact itself only takes a few moments, so yes: err on the side of "yes, contact the police" rather than "no, don't". But screeds of squabbling are unnecessary. Anthøny 18:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Where ever you are in the world, you can and should call your local police immediately. You don't need to track down a foreign phone number. Such threats even if hoaxes carry penalties in most places. Your local police will make the necessary contacts. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

IfD discussion due for closure

Resolved

 – IfD has been closed. 18:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone close Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 December 15#Image:DW Fear Her.jpg? This IfD has some quite heavy discussion, so I appriciate a specialist having a look at is. — Edokter • Talk • 14:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done, by Uncle G (talk · contribs). Anthøny 18:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Cut and paste move

I noticed that the discussion page for the third AfD for a, now deleted, article had been placed over the first Afd Discussion - See [21]. As I think it's important to be able to keep and view all such discussions for future reference I reverted the page bck to the original discussion ([22]), created a new, approproately titled page and copy-pasted in the information from the new discussion (See the new page here). As the original page was going to stay in place and their was no talk page I didn't really consider this to be a typical - and so discouraged - copy-paste move. Now however I think I may have acted hastely and incorrectly, would it be possible for someone to clear up the mess and fix it so that an appropriate page history is viewable at both locations. Sorry for the trouble. [[Guest9999 (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)]]

The history is split and merged appropriately, now. Although I notice there doesn't seem to be a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2nd nomination)? If not, the 3rd could possibly be moved to that location (which anybody can do, now that the history is arranged correctly). – Luna Santin (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, the second nomination was as part of a group under a different title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter film/book differences (2nd nomination). [[Guest9999 (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Expungement?

Is there, or does anyone imagine there will ever be, a method in which one may go about expunging previous blocks from their record? I have a 3RR block on my record, something which I am seriously not proud of. I will admit at time I didn't realize I had gone over 3RR and honestly thought I was reverting in good faith. Be that as it may, might there be some mechanism for minor violations like these to be removed from one's record? It can potentially derail a future RfA. Bstone (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Logistically, no: the only method one can scrub a block log is by being renamed (or usurped). Fundamentally, I disagree: transparency is important on any community, and removing a block log entry because "it makes you look bad" really isn't an acceptable reason for dodging that transparency requirement. Furthermore, if you are requesting adminship from the community, you will get it on the basis of how trustworthy you are, and whether or not you will use your tools; a block log entry, even if its effect is negative, must come into that process, unfortunately, whether you like it or not. Anthøny 18:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

And don't try to hide it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean? Bstone (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't try to hide the fact that you've been blocked (ie: by a usurption), as that really will "derail" a future RfA. Essentially, I am just saying I agree what Anthony said above. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Heck, I was indefblocked as a vandal at some point, and I seem to do fine. There might be a few people who would blindly rush to conclusions based on a single 12-hour block from several months ago (whenever you plan your RfA), but I'd like to think the far more important consideration is what you learned from that event, and how you've applied that lesson to your behavior around the wiki since then. We shouldn't expect people to be perfect. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Expungement of block logs has happened only once, and I hope the circumstances surrounding that time never occur again. east.718 at 20:09, December 21, 2007

I'm aware of at least one case where a user requested renaming, after a serious dustup, and in the renaming process severed any and all available link to his previous block log. Whether any link to prior blocks exists after renaming, or whether you get a clean slate, is apparently up to the bureaucrat who handles the request, but in at least some cases it appears to essentially expunge a block log. MastCell ^Talk 23:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You musn't worry, Bstone. When you go up for RfA, people won't oppose for one 3RR block. They look at when you were blocked, why you were blocked, and more than that, what you have done since. Now, if you were a persistent edit warrior, there'd be a problem. However, it doesn't appear that way. Expungement is only for cases where we must oversight the block. Maser ^(Talk!) 20:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't worry about a single 3RR block very much. Far more worrisome was your taunting of another editor on your user page, and your repeated complaints of "vandalism" when I removed it. Friday (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Friday, talk about a completely inappropriate time and place to bring up accusations. I really don't know what to say or how to respond. Bstone (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You're specifically asking about this in the context of passing an RFA. I gotta be honest here, if you ran, I would oppose based on that incident. Friday (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I was asking if it was possible to have previous blocks expunged. I merely mentioned how it might work in an RfA. Friday, I really don't wish to converse with you as it only ends up in dispute and personal debate. While I have no way in forcing you to do this perhaps you can at least respect my wishes. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to but in, but you did ask about expunged blocks because of a future RfA (at least that is how you worded your original comment). Friday may have been blunt, but I agree with him on that issue he has pointed out. Talk about beans. I am sure you'd like to know how to improve your chances of a successful RfA, no? - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, nobody's perfect. I heard a rumour admins make mistakes occasionally, but I can't believe that. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You aer korrect - Admeens are inkaparable of makn misteaks. I shud no! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we're chewing up and spitting out any admins who are capable of making mistakes, so soon we'll be left with only infallible admins, right? MastCell ^Talk 23:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively you could wait 4-5 years or so for it to fade of the face of the encyclopedia. This editor was banned in 2003, but it seems old logs disappear after a while and they need to be placed back in the logs. I'm guessing that would be your only shot at it actually being removed from the log history. — Save_Us_229 23:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that won't work. They simply weren't logged before December 2004 in the way we imagine now. Blocks from November 2003 to December 2004 can be found at Wikipedia:Block log and blocks before that needed someone with direct access to the servers. Anyway all logs are available for download along with the Wikipedia database, so someone could back them up. Graham87 05:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You're making too much of this. Many of our best editors and admins have been blocked for 3RR at some point. If you had multiple such blocks it might cause for concern, but you don't, so it isn't. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No big deal, as they say. I make mistakes all the time. :-) We need more sysop closing discussions at WP:AFD anyway. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, which I am not sure if it was pointed out; if the account is renamed, the people who perform the moves can have the ability to block for one second to show a previous block history. So even if you want to hide from the block log, there is no way to do it now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, blocks can be completely expunged, but it requires a developer to manually delete the rows from the logging table (and you'd probably need some oversighting on your talk page to remove all the evidence), but you would need a really good reason for it to be done. Mr.Z-man 06:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Closing of discussion

Will someone come close this merge discussion? It's been about a month since it started, and since I was the one who started it, it would be best for someone else to close it. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion as merge. There is a majority in support, and while statistics alone cannot be the indicator of consensus, they assisted in getting to it. The reason is that the supporters are arguing that the article has a section that deals with prostitution and that "Geesha" is an intentional mispronounciation of "Geisha," and while the two are separate topics, they were viewed to be related in the section that discusses prostitution. The opposers, on the other hand, were simply stating that the two are separate, but did not verify these claims. Difficult consensus. Maser ^(Talk!) 01:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Not so much an intentional mispronunciation, but rather an uninformed or "misheard" mispronunciation. That happens a lot with Japanese words being pronounced by non-Japanese. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Malfunctioning Bot (ImageBacklogBot)

Resolved

 – Bot triggered due to FU images being used in template space by accident. Will ^(talk) 01:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The bot ImageBacklogBot has removed various Fair use images that, in my opinion, were used legitimately in articles. See here. I'll leave a notice on the bot's talk page, but the bot maintainer wants me to go through a convoluted registration process that I don't have time for to tell him about it, so I'm mentioning it here too. If those images are not speedily undeleted, I'll probably take it to DRV if I get around to it. 98.16.161.161 (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. See resolved note above. Will ^(talk) 01:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Peter Yarrow Page

Resolved

Page has been protected by User:LaraLove -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I whole lotta people worked out consensus language on Yarrow's conviction, incarceration and eventual grant of clemency.

Two days later a single editor started unilaterally changing the page.

Please read the history of the article and its talk page. David in DC (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Note, per above, this noticeboard is NOT for content disputes, so I'm going to close this. If the user continues to be disruptive, then start by going through any of the options at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution before coming here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles erroneously listed in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion a glitch?

Resolved

 – Inadvertant transclusion of CSD category to pages that linked to a template. Protected and semi-protected pages required a null edit to force the server cache update.

JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jerry, newbiee admin here. Sometimes there are articles on the category candidates for speedy deletion project page that I just can not figure out why they are there, or how to get them off. The articles themselves are not, and have never been tagged. I checked all transcluded templates, etc... and I still don't know why they are there. I have purged the page, and <ctrl>F5'd my MSIE, but they stay stuck there. A current example is Big Syke. Anyone know why this happens? Is it just on my end? Thanks. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Template:Thug Life seems to be the issue here, but the problem is solved now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • (blush)... it was one of the things I checked for, but somehow missed. Thanks... I would not have slept until I knew why it was there. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, was going to point out that template had a CSD tag for a while. It's one of the few non-protected templates on the page. Occasionally there are also .js pages, which typically happen because some string intended for an edit summary or tooltip contains {{delete}} or similar. Gimmetrow 04:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
      • The Thug Life-related pages are still showing up in CAT:CSD. I've refreshed a few times, no dice in getting rid of them. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Cache-purge is your best option. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Still a problem. I have server-purge-cache'd all of the transcluded items, the article, and Category:CSD. Thug Life-related articles remain listed. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
            • I see it still on my side...hmm...maybe just a DB lag, I don't know. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
              • Sometimes, it seems semi-protected and protected pages need a null edit to nudge the caching to update. Gimmetrow 04:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Fixed now. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Foreign languages

I've always been curious about articles that contain foreign languages. A good example is at Jat people in Mahabharata period. How do we know what the foreign language really says? How do we know Al-Qaeda isn't communicating via WP disguised as an article? I know, I know.. just was curious. -- ALLSTARecho 09:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you they don't. east.718 at 10:07, December 22, 2007

lol! ;) -- ALLSTARecho 10:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol, simple learn to read it. Jackaranga (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Did You Know needs updating

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know/Next_update is 6 hours overdue.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the note. Daniel 11:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Question about TV series episodes

Hello, I was just wondering if I missed something in the last few months ? Before making a massive AfD I would just like to check that unsourced, original research articles on TV series episodes are still against policy ? I see there are some series that have 1 article for every single episode, with no sources given, or assertion of notability. However as I see administrators contributing towards them, I was wondering if policy had changed ? Before I make an AfD I would like it someone could take a quick look at The Kindness of Strangers (Heroes) for example, and tell me how come it is tolerated now to make so many individual articles ? The only source for this one is a link to a forum for example, and all the rest seems to be OR, please help I'm confused. Has anything changed in policy since I nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3-2-1 Blast Off! ? Jackaranga (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE are disputed right now. Even so, episode AfDs are discouraged now, and merge proposals are used instead. There's also a RfAr about it too. Will ^(talk) 13:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I read a bit more of the recent discussions, perhaps its better to just nominate on notability, original research, and unreliable sources grounds. I think there is more than enough for many of the articles based on those alone. Jackaranga (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with merging? WP:NOTE says "If appropriate sources cannot be found, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context." If there are unreliable sources, ask for more reliable ones before nominating for deletion. If there is original research, just remove it or request sources. Again, do this before nominating. If a week or a month has passed with the tags on them, make one last appeal on the talk page, and then go to AfD. If you follow this process, you will have a stronger case for deletion. Carcharoth (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

True but it worked for the other ones I mentioned above without having to wait, also I don't fancy redirecting because it seems WP:EPISODE is kind of ignored, and you can be sure someone will just revert all my edits anyway. Jackaranga (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Supparluca

In regards to Category:South Tyrol, I received a notification on my talk page from Chris - It seems that Supparluca emptied and redirected Category:South Tyrol despite consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 28#Category:South Tyrol to leave it alone. This, in itself, should be punished - IMHO. Rarelibra (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

RtV Clarification

I would like input on an issue that I think many editors may have come across before, to get clarification. At times, editors, for whatever reason, will cite RtV and rename themselves, asking that their previous username not be disclosed. RtV states that this can be done for two reasons: 1.) There is personal identifying information that puts the editor at risk. and 2.) The editor plans to permanently leave the project, with no chance of return. However, when neither of those apply, and it is done as a renaming to have a "clean slate", so to speak, would the confidentiality still apply? I realize that someone who digs could probably figure the old username out, but if an administrator were to request the disclosure of the person's previous username, would that be a violation of RtV if the reason for renaming had nothing to do with personal information, and the editor obviously had not left the project? Thanks in advance for any and all opinions on this! Ariel♥Gold 17:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

RtV also says that talk pages which contain multi-party discussion should NOT be deleted. Although, IAR in exceptional circumstances of off-wiki harassment may override this.--Doc^g 18:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Detwinkling

Per some rather dubious use of TWINKLE by Neutralhomer (see also the top of his talk page), I've blanked Neutralhomer's monobook and protected it for 96 hours. This is not what mock-rollback tools are for. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, those reverts didn't need an automated tool, and should have been done with a valued edit summary. 96 hours is nothing at all, I hope Neutralhomer can refrain from misusing the tool when he gets it back. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on this edit it seems that just simply removing TWINKLE will do nothing to help Neutralhomer be more civil. Metros (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

For further reference, would you all mind telling me what is vandalism and what isn't? Per the reason of my "de-twinkling", I seen that JPG had a station marked as owned by Cumulus, when the FCC said it was Clear Channel. I Warn2'd, cause he should know better. He reverted, Warn3, and so on. I thought, that when someone is vandalising a page, we issue Warn1, 2, 3, 4, etc warnings? Obviously, I was wrong. So, what is vandalism? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this a content dispute, or an allegation of a long-term problem? Wouldn't RfC or other dispute resolution be a more appropriate venue? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking me or the others above? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)