Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive24

Mistress Selena Kyle blocked

I have blocked Mistress_Selina_Kyle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinetly.--Sean|Black 07:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This is being discussed at WP:AN/I too. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah well. I liked her user page. I would have preferred the Arbcom to say something about this, to give due process, but that's just my two cents on the issue. Elle _{vécu heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned on AN/I I've seen mostly disruption from the user and thought about doing the dirty work several times myself. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 07:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I've seen good things come from the user but I actually only heard of the disputes second-hand so I don't have a bad perception of her except that she's controversial. That's only my take, of course. Elle _{vécu heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure - that's why I mention it is kind of sad. I mean, she was involved in some community building etc. - but even then it was like an edit war on every page over silly things like the color of a template (Template:User aspie). I think she would have just took advice from other people seriously she would have been ok... *sigh*. Of course, I could say that about a lot of users, I suppose. Reccommended reading for cases like this is Dealing with difficult people (I hope I never cross that line myself...). WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 07:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a good site: it describes the behavior of not a few people I've run across on here. This snippet in particularly is apt:

To counteract such behavior, it helps to understand the mentality of those who engage in it. People generally do not do it consciously. No one wakes up in the morning and says to himself: "Today I'm going to cynically manipulate procedural forms in order to be an irritating obstructionist." Instead, such actions are often preceded by a semi-paranoid feeling of being shut out of group interactions and decisions. The person feels he is not being taken seriously, or (in the more severe cases) that there is almost a conspiracy against him—that the other project members have decided to form an exclusive club, of which he is not a member. This then justifies, in his mind, taking rules literally and engaging in a formal manipulation of the project's procedures, in order to make everyone else take him seriously. In extreme cases, the person can even believe that he is fighting a lonely battle to save the project from itself.

– ClockworkSoul 13:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• She'll be back.--God of War 20:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Uh, what does that mean?--Sean|Black 21:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I would like to see a rather more detailed justification of an indefinate block, persoanlly. DES ^(talk) 21:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Certainly. This user has been blocked 11 times is two weeks, all by fellow adminstrators whom I trust and respect, and always (in my opinion) wth good cause. This user has latched onto edit wars all across Wikipedia, frequently on issues that have long been areas of dispute. This user caused a huge ammount of disruption, frequently making disputes much, much, worse than they have to be. All this shows, to me, that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia, in fact seems to want to do quite the opposite.--Sean|Black 21:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

With good cause, and well justified perhaps. But for some reason, I can see good faith in this user. Don't ask me why. I suggest a few proposals to indefinitely blocking:

• Block for six months, or a year. See how it turns out after that.
• Remain blocked from all pages, except she has the ability to appeal to an arbitration case. If she violates this she will be reblocked immediately. If she does not violate (what we treat as a temporary injunction), then when the case concludes we accept the decision of the arbitrators.
• Put under mentorship and parole, with limits on editing.

These I feel could easily work out with minimal risk, and she must understand we are giving her mercy, not a right, and that if she violates any terms of this she is reblocked ASAP. Oh, don't you think this could just be a symptom of having Asperger's? (As well as attention-seeking et al.) Just a thought. Elle _{vécu heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

These are 'remedies' in the spirit of Arbitration and any imposition of them, beyond simple block is a matter for the Committee. A simple block, of whatever length, is a matter for admins, unless there is disagreement amongst admins when it must then proceed through the usual channels. -Splash^talk 22:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

On a "lark" I ran a CheckUser on the dear departed Mistress Selina Kyle. It turns out that she shares an IP address with a veritable nest of program vandals. Two of the IPs she has used, including the one she shares with the squad of vandals, belong to a company not engaged in the business of providing web connectivity (they are actually a hosting provider). I suspect that "she" is in some way involved in the program vandalism we've been seeing for months. Given this, I see absolutely no reason why she should not be banned permanently, and the earth salted in her footsteps. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I think it quite likely that whoever is behind the Mistress did in fact "wake[] up in the morning and says to himself: 'Today I'm going to cynically manipulate procedural forms in order to be an irritating obstructionist.'" Kelly Martin (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

By "program" do you mean 'bots or somehow organised vandalism? -Splash^talk 22:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Organised. Such as Willy on Wheels, Obesity, etc. The IP she has been using for many of her edits corresponds to one being used for organised vandalism of the aforementioned sort. I suspect that much of that vandalism is automated at this point, as well. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Call me dense, but if organised/program vandalism was coming from a static IP, why wasn't it blocked before? If it was blocked, how did MSK log in from there? Rd232 ^talk 09:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm shocked, simply shocked to see that this took so long. Phil Sandifer 23:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I am shocked indeed. Perhaps it is my disbelief; when I came across her on Christmas I thought she was such a promising user. I literally cannot believe it. If there was an emoticon for Wikipedia for shock, I would certainly be using it now. For some reason, I always seem to get involved in petty disputes and never seem to be involved in intense disputes on Wikipedia-wide issues. Perhaps that's the good thing. Elle _{vécu heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• If anyone wants to request arbitration against MSK, or myself because they feel it's necessarry, they are of course welcome to do so. I would respect whatever rulings were to come in such a case, obviously. I do not feel it is necessary, however, and I hope that this block stands.--Sean|Black 00:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I think MSK being able to file an appeal to the Arbcom is a good idea but then I don't want to antagonise the community with the need for unnecessary bureaucracy. Elle _{vécu heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Anyone who wishes to do so may file an appeal to the ArbCom about her block, and myself, is free to do so. That's their perogative.--Sean|Black 00:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I will notify her on her talkpage if she is interested. Elle _{vécu heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course she'll be back. Under another name, if she doesn't have one already. It was pretty obvious from the very beginning that she was the reincarnation of some other blocked troll. I wonder what Wik is doing right now? User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Absolute nonsense. I see no reason to believe anything other than that she was an overzealous contributor. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 03:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalbot

At the moment, Wikipedia is under attack from a number of IP addresses (apparently by a vandalbot). The anonymous users remove text from Wikipedia articles and replace it with kilobytes of nonsense. See my block log, for example. (By the way, for how long should I block them? One day or longer?) - Mike Rosoft 21:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally I take a very dim view of vandalbots...so the week you've been applying is the min I would do. Anyone remember what is our precedent the last time we were vandalbotted with the random username vandals? --Syrthiss 22:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Can/could they have been range blocked? Note that these were not random username bots, since those would be shootable-on-sight. These were all IPs. -Splash^talk 22:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

More activity from apparently the same source User:140.127.139.247 --pgk^(talk) 20:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection of user pages

1. What does everyone feel about admins protecting their user pages permanently? I know there are a few handfulls of admins who do it, and I know I don't like it, and have commented on it to a few admins already. This is because this is a wiki, and userpages aren't special. Most user pages don't get much vandalism, users that would are often watched by many people, and vandalism quickly reverted. Protecting these will tend to make users envy us. It also encourages us to be more pro-protection. Furthermore, I specifically allow people to edit my userpage, with a note at the bottom. I suck at web design and a few bored users have made my user page pretty cool.
2. I've noticed that many user pages of indef blocked users are being protected. That's perfectly ok if the user is vandalizing their user page, but many are being protected pre-emptively. That's not neccessary, wastes time, and stuff. Some of these are just Willy on Wheels socks, and our wheelers normally don't care about their accounts...at this point, they're basically making the on wheels accounts to waste our time and never going near them again.
3. Anyway, I've made a list of protected user pages at User:Phroziac/Protected user pages. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 04:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• 1. I think the only reason to protect userpages is an onslaught of uncontrollable vandalism (in which case semi-protection works too). I used to have my userpage protected, but I have seen the error of my ways.
  2. I think this is okay just to play it safe.
  3. Umm —Ilyanep (Talk) 04:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

User pages are not articles. It is basically accepted that users generally have carte blanche on their own user space within limits. If I don't want someone messing with my user page, it is only logical (and perfectly acceptable) to protect it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Mine is also protected. With all the anti-vandal work I do, I just feel better that way; the only people who want to edit my user page are vandals, and I don't want them to. If others want their pages unprotected, so be it. Antandrus (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I never found it necessary to protect my main user page, although it has been vandalized often in the past, but I fully understand and have absolutely nothing against anyone else protecting his or her user page due to vandalism. Protection of user subpages used as boilerplates for subst'ing is of course also fine by me, as one wouldn't want some vandal changing it. From Phroziac's list I gather that there are about 300 protected pages in user space (user pages or subpages thereof). Why worry at all? It's not a performance bottleneck, is it? Lupo 08:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I protected mine once when some kid ran a bot on it, but in general I think it's better that vandal-time is spent on my simple and rather unimportant page than some article where it might not be discovered. Userpage-vandalism is usually reverted very quickly and the vandal revealed and blocked. And sometimes it's just a kid testing and having fun. I don't mind, but I can understand those who do mind and want it kept clean. Fine with me and no big deal. Shanes 09:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've never found it nessecary to protect my page. Most vandalism I get is simple one off 'omg u suk!' things. I have however semiprotected a few users' pages over the past weeks, mostly because they've been hit on and off by AOL vandals. Blocking one vandal ip on AOL doesn't stop them from coming right back with a new one in the cases I've looked at. I don't think I would full protect a userpage though; vandalism not handled by semi should be handleable by normal channels of blocks. --Syrthiss 13:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jeffrey as well, but I have not completely disenfranchised the vandals, as my page is only semi-protected, and there is still a subpage for them to attack instead. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 17:32, Jan. 12, 2006

I agree with Jeff, obviously. If troublemakers are allowed to have virtually anything they want on their userpage by the reasoning that user pages are different, what reasoning would not allow me to keep mine from being vandalized? I see no reason anyone needs to edit my userpage and it's been really nice not having to worry about vandalism on it. Reverting vandalism on my userpage is wasted time that could better be spent on basically anything else. Besides, the protection policy specifically allows it: "A permanent or semi-permanent protection is used for: User pages and their subpages that are subject to repeated vandalism." I also don't like being included on a list as if I've done something wrong. - Taxman ^Talk 14:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Phroziac's lists are of pages that are protected against both moving and editing (by anyone other than administrators). It's widely accepted at other projects that protecting a user page against page moves only is entirely reasonable, given that there are few occasions where one would want to rename a user page, and given the propensity of some vandals to rename user pages. Uncle G 18:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with protecting against moves only. Userpages never really need to be moved. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 18:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

User creation pattern

• Nothing wrong with it, but I don't like the pattern on the user creation log I'm seeing, could be someone setting up a WoW run or something similar. Bringing here for higher visibility. Wikibofh_(talk) 15:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Ssuusissaaan (talk · contribs)
• Ssusissaaan (talk · contribs)
• Susissaaan (talk · contribs)
• Suusiisssaan (talk · contribs)
• Suusiissaan (talk · contribs)
• Suusiisaan (talk · contribs)
• Suusisaan (talk · contribs)
• Susisaan (talk · contribs)
• Susisan (talk · contribs)

Notable is that Wikibofh only mentions 10 users...which means that they're probably all from the same IP, and the 10-per-IP-per-day limit kicked in (at least, I think that's what the limit is...) Perhaps it would be of interest for Kelly Martin to checkuser these and see if they correspond to other vandals...then again, it could just be someone who was bored and decided to make a ton of articles. Ral315 (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: I don't know if you made a typo or forgot a letter, Wikibofh, but the last two user names (Susisan and Susisan) are the same. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 18:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Removed last one that was a duplicate. Cut-n-paste error. Had to dig through the user creation log to find them again. Wikibofh_(talk) 01:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Internal error... um... error

If one goes to delete a page that has just been deleted, you get an error message that reads:

---

Internal error

Could not delete the page or image specified. (It may have already been deleted by someone else.) Return to: * Category:Candidates for
speedy deletion * [[Special:Newpages]] * [[Special:Recentchanges]] (anons

---

Newpage patrol is war, baby, and war is hell.

What you see above is exactly how the error looks, bad wiki/html syntax and unfinished parentheticals included. I've tried like hell to find the MediaWiki code for this to fix it, but cannot seem to find it. Does anyone here have an inkling where this is, and better yet, can fix it? This has been like this for quite a few days now. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, while I'm at it, ffs, WE NEED MORE ADMINS ON NEW PAGE PATROL! This has been a public service anouncement. Thank you. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the error message is contained in MediaWiki:Cannotdelete, if anyones interested in trying to fix it. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 17:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• (diff) (hist) . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard; 11:22 . . Jeffrey O. Gustafson (Talk | block) (Newpage patrol is like being hip deep in monkey vomit while standing in front of a canon firing elephant shit at your face.)

Lol, I couldn't agree more. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 17:40, Jan. 12, 2006

Very fixed. Thanks for mentioning it. [[Sam Korn]] 17:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You, sir.... are the man. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

reverting after 3RR block expired

If a user immediatly after his block for a 3RR expires, starts reverting again (against overwhelming consensus on the talk page), can I immediatly list him for a 3RR again or should I wait until he makes 4 reverts? Cheers, —Ruud 17:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Technically, they haven't broken 3RR. However, if they continue to revert and revert, a longer block may be required, or else a request for comment might be filed. Ral315 (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing is enough for a block.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 18:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What gave you that idea? Jkelly 19:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to severe POV pushing. It comes in the form of constaint reverting for days, near vandalism edits, bad faith, and disruption. IMO, those constitute a well-earned block.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 19:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I read that as a general statement, instead of specific one. Jkelly 19:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE: please get this tool

I have been reverting WAVES of IP vandals in mere minutes today. Please download Lupin's tool and use the IP edits and filter pages allong with new page patrol. I need help down there sometimes. Check out this [1] too .To much elephant...Voice of All^T|@|ESP 18:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Forest Wraiths

Yesterday I listed Forest Wraiths for speedy deletion because it was a work of fiction created by Caseycool. It was deleted by Administrator Enochlau. Today Caseycool posted to my talk page stating that he'd wished he'd gotten a chance to move the contents of the page to his user page before it had been deleted. This is probably an odd request, and I know it's not quite a normal administrator task, but I'm under the impression that administrators can view deleted pages. If that's the case, would it be possible for an administrator to copy the former contents of Forest Wraiths to Caseycool's talk page as sort of a favor? I understand if you guys don't have time or can't do it. Thanks! TomTheHand 18:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved to User:Caseycool/Forest Wraiths. DES ^(talk) 18:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Outer Hebrides

The article Outer Hebrides has been moved to Na h-Eileanan Siar again. (This is the Gaelic name for the same place). User:Warofdreams (admin) has moved it back twice already, please could an admin move it back again? Perhaps the time has come for some stronger action? CarolGray 18:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• No actual moves, just edits. You can fix those yourself. I've added test1 to the user's page and rolled back the changes. Wikibofh_(talk) 18:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• The page could be protected against moves. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio images from User:Mad stratter

Greetings. The above noted user has uploaded a bunch of images. They have no license, and most are copied from websites (probably without permission). I addressed one of the images, placing it up for deletion, but there are several more, and I just lack the time today to get to it. --Durin 21:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

All are now tagged Template:Unknown or Template:Nosource as appropriate. Jkelly 22:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jkelly. --Durin 00:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Second opinion please

User:Flacinhell uploaded this iumage as part of an ongoing attack campaign waged at Pedro's BTMusic Only Tracker; I was wondering if I should tag it for deletion since it's now been reverted from the only article where it could possibly have a place, and I for one can't see any way it could go back consistent with policy. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delve into the attack campaign, but if the image is an orphan it should be listed at IFD. --Syrthiss 22:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, thought so. Thanks. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 00:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The special character cheatsheet?

Umm, someone must have changed something in the special character cheatsheet template that appears at the bottom of edit pages. If I knew where it was kept I'd go take a look, but I don't. --Syrthiss 14:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That's MediaWiki:Edittools Carbonite | Talk 14:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I thought the CATEGORY REDIRECT etc stuff was normally hidden things that were showing up because it was broken...not that they were there as one clicks for putting Category:Stuff etc. Thanks! --Syrthiss 14:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

User:rbj

Hello all, rbj (talk · contribs) has been doing little else than a constant NPA wikistalking campaign against myself(no need for diffs, just see his contribs and throw a dart, that's basically all he does), please advise on an action to take regarding this. karmafist 03:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest a short block from an uninvolved user. And remember, he makes lots of noise over tiny 24 hour blocks. (which is what started this crap anyway). :( --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 04:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep. The noise is getting absurd in regards to WP:NPA vios though. Can someone assist here? karmafist 05:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours.--Sean|Black 05:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't mind playing the role of "bad guy", do ya, Sean? :) Quadell 20:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this seems absurd to me. Wikistalking? Karmafist, you claim there is "no need for diffs"... well guess what, I'm gonna ask for one anyway. Please identify even ONE page that Rbj has 'wikistalked' you to... some article or talk page where you were contributing and he showed up not for some legitimate interest, but just to harass you. Just one diff to show that this 'wikistalking' claim isn't completely baseless. Or were you claiming that he 'wikistalked' you to the RFC you filed against him? The arbitration vote pages where he voted based on how likely he thought people would be to oppose what he sees as your harassment?

If wikistalking is "basically all he does" then no doubt you are a regular contributor at Gravitational constant, Shannon-Hartley theorem, Planck units, Disrete-time Fourier transforms and the many other pages where he has contributed in the last few days. Either that or you just engaged in personal attacks / false accusations against him.

Yes, Rbj complains about Karmafist and Phroziac (and some of their friends)... just as they complain about him. The complaint above happens to be untrue. Plainly and obviously untrue. A 'personal attack'. There are absolutely no grounds for the claim that Rbj 'does little else'... he does ALOT else. I can actually provide diffs showing that (see above). Yes, he also spends alot of time complaining about the (largely baseless) RFC these same users brought against him. They attack him... he attacks them... it's all an unseemly uncivil mess. Yet what happens? The regular user gets blocked based on blatantly untrue claims that he is not contributing to the encyclopedia and creative re-interpretation of blocking policy to allow blocks for such, while the equally 'guilty' admins do not. It is dead wrong. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 21:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

User:KDRGibby

Please review his history[2] and Talk:Wal-mart. For disclosure I am slightly involved and Rhobite is very involved, but this kind of conduct is problematic. I'd like another admin to look it over before I start passing judgement around.--Tznkai 18:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It took so long for the rest of the community to notice, eh. I have been in conflict with KDRGibby for over a month. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

KDRGibby has opposed my ArbCom candidacy without suffrage. Mine is the only one hehas voted in, and he gave a reason [3] that to me is a WP:POINT. NSLE _(T+C) 01:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The vote should have been flagged by now (I think this is one that I flagged myself). Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It was flagged by you, yes, heh, thanks. NSLE _(T+C) 01:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible problem with User:Sleepyhead81

User's company was deleted following AfD, user is now AfDing articles on other companies Sleepyhead81 (talk · contribs). Nominations are sketchy ("non-notable" being about the sum of it). Some may be justified, some not according to the article contents. I have left a heads-up on the user's Talk page User talk:Sleepyhead81#ERP companies. - JzG 12:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The following comment was directed at the user during the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24SevenOffice (second nomination) AFD discussion:

This argument is specious - existence of other articles for minor software of no verifiable importance does not justify inlcusion of all such. You are free to nominate those other articles for deletion should you feel they fall below the level for inclusion. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he's taking you up on that.  ;) Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 12:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, he's probably skirting WP:POINT, but if you ask me, less advertisements masquerading as articles on tiny companies is a Good Thing. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 13:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• The guy's doing fine. He made four AFD nominations, two of which tend towards delete so far, one would be an obvious keep, and one is borderline. Looks like he's just cleaning up to me. Radiant_>|< 00:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Issues with MediaWiki messages

I have a couple problems with the state of the system messages. First, there is currently no specific GFDL license grant on the edit screen. This could result in legal problems. I have proposed a fix at MediaWiki talk:Copyrightwarning#Minor_Change. Also, I feel useful text was removed from MediaWiki:Edittools. See MediaWiki talk:Edittools#Mistaken_Removal. In general, admins need to be less unilateral about changing these pages. Remember that they are permanently protected. Proposals should be made on talk first. Superm401 | Talk 20:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Jake Remington vandal

Upper-class_Jake_Remington (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He just created this account; can someone block him? — Moe ε 01:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Curps had gotten it, great bot work. NSLE _(T+C) 01:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirected Page

The page for Kurt Beyer, famed professional wrestler and son of Hall of Famer The Destroyer, was redirected to Kurt Beyer Films. Kurt Beyer Films can keep it's page, but it should NOT have taken over the page dedicated to Kurt Beyer the wrestler. How do we get the original page restored? (above unsigned but by User:Zatoichi101)

It was a normal old redirect so just a matter of going into the history and reverting to an older version, which I just did. When there is a dispute over who should be at the plain old name usually we do some disambiguation and discussion instead of erasing the article and redirecting. I'll leave a message for the anon as well. I don;t know if your article meets notability guidelines (didn;t really look) but some discussion needs to be done here on the appropriate talk pages. DreamGuy 08:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not only not sure which Kurt Beyer is more notable, I'm not sure either one is notable at all. For fairness I tagged both Kurt Beyer and Kurt Beyer Films and hope people will discuss and give good reasons. Both seem a bit vanity/spammy to me. DreamGuy 09:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into the matter. We are currently working hard to get the verification you require. Since most sources for information on Kurt Beyer are Japanese, that process is taking us a little longer. Please be patient - we will get the information you require. And although relatively unknown in the States, except among serious professional wrestling fans, Kurt Beyer's name value in Japan is much, much higher, and, therefore, a candidate for a page on Wikipedia.

In the meantime, we are adding U.S. sources gradually -- and added a short note at the top of the page that links to a U.S.-based source.

Again, it should be noted that Kurt Beyer's fame is centered more around Asia, especially, Japan. His father, Hall of Famer The Destroyer, will be added soon -- as soon as we all learn more about Wikipedia. This has all been quite a learning process. Thank you!

Also, as for sources for images (pictures), I see that the picture submitted has been questioned for source -- but through The Destroyer (www.thedestroyer.com) we have received permission to use photos on this entry. What are the steps we should take to meet your requirements for authorization? Again, thank you!

Spam rollback

Could an admin look at doing a roll back on this user's link fest. I'd do it, but without admin priviledges, it'd take all day... thanks. --Jgritz 06:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

All done. NSLE _(T+C) 07:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Jgritz 07:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The Puppeteer

There has also been some recent creations of users that have been calling themselves sockpuppets of each other and I feel that "The puppeteer is an inappropriate user name.

1. The_Puppeteer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. reeteppuPehT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. ATeppup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

   I've indef blocked this one. The accounts only actions were adding {{delete}} to pages and using divs to hide the template from view. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

4. BTeppup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These are the list of "Puppeteers". — Moe ε 18:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Bah, let em be. Block if anything actually starts to happen though.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 23:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking

The current Special:Blockip page sucks just a wee bit. I'd like to improve it, but I can't just go off willy-nilly adding things, without asking you lot what you'd like to see. Asking for ideas? Yes, I have gone off the bat. Still, your thoughts, suggestions opinions will be welcomed at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Robchurch/Blocking - sign, please, so I know who to ask for more information on an interesting idea.

Ta, Rob Church (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There are some pretty good ideas there. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Notice about when you protect/unprotect pages

When admins full protect, semi protect or unprotect a page, please remember to make the appropriate changes on the protected pages page. User:Splash, User:novacatz and I are having to go through the PP page daily to take out pages that are no longer protected and to add pages that are protected but that haven't been added to the page. For example, I just removed pornography, which was unprotected 4 days ago. It's a major pain in the rump to have to do this every day. So please remember to add/remove pages from the list when you take action on a protected page. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Will do. I don't know if I've ever forgotten, but I'm sorry if I have.--Sean|Black 09:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

A feature for this comparable to Special:Ipblocklist would be a useful addition, don't you think? Talrias (t | e | c) 19:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not simply check Category:Semi-protected, etc. Pages are automatically added there. -- Curps 22:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we do have that, but it's handy for those who watch the protected lists to be able to see at a glance the original reason and datetime of protection, neither of which are available directly from the category. It's a little more paperwork but, since admins seem often (HINT) to forget to unprotect pages, especially semi-protected ones, it makes others' lifes a little easier. -Splash^talk 23:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added a notice to MediaWiki:Protect-text reminding people of this, as well as a link to WP:SPP. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 18:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Uploader unsure of copyright status

looks like this needs some serious clearing out.Geni 01:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

What sort of cleanup do you want? I can turn OrphanBot on it to remove those images from articles. --Carnildo 08:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

anything older than a week old needs to be orphened then vaporised.Geni 14:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Commencing operations. --Carnildo 07:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Mistress Selena Kyle blocking (2)

Obviously by looking threw the Wikipedia block log there hasn't been a clear consensus on how long Mistress_Selina_Kyle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) will be blocked, Few have said 24 hours while one says 1 month. Some sort of agreement has to be made. — Moe ε 17:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It is clear by the 12 other previous 24hr blocks that a 24hr block does absolutely nothing to solve the situation. There is also no clear consensus to block indefinately. My one month block was a long enough period to actually make MSK sit and mull the constant NPA/Civility issues as well as 3RR violations. 24hrs is clearly not going to do a damn thing.  ALKIVAR™ 23:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say up to 1 week, possibly with some kind of Wikipedia:probation or Wikipedia:mentorship on return. MSK's longest actually-served block previously was 24 hours (4 times, all for 3RR), and regarding the snowballing disruption and NPA violation and so forth, we shouldn't completely disregard the Asperger's issue (nor that the extent/severity of that behaviour is disputed). The other allegations (of sockpuppetry for User:chaosfeary, who isn't banned anyway, or of having any connection with program vandalism) are at best unproven. Rd232 ^talk 00:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking over some of her "contributions" I tend to think a 20 day block is in order. Chooserr 00:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say no more than 96 hours (or time-served + 12 hours, if 96 hours have already elapsed). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably the best solution would be, as suggested, a 20 day block, to let MSK think about it and Probation to monitor her actions in the future. — Moe ε 03:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Didn't we checkuser her to find out that she's the same IP as a bunch of vandalbots? In which case "forever" sounds good to me. Phil Sandifer 03:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

IIRC that was proven false. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

IIRC it was (said to be) a proxy of some sort, and hence unproven (unprovable?) that MSK had anything to do with the vandalism from that IP. Rd232 ^talk 12:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless if the IP addresses are/were vandals, I don't think MSK ever vandalized under her user name space. She did however get blocked 3 times for 3RR. Also, she commits several infractions of other various WP guidelines such as WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:COOL and WP:POINT. I believe she can become a valuable contributor here but she needs some couseling. — Moe ε 13:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

MSK was apparantly the only person editing through the IP group that wasn't an obvious vandal, and there is circumstantial evidence that she is not using a proxy. If this isn't good enough for quite a few other admins than I don't mind sitting it out and seeing if her behavior improves, but I suspect that we have another, slightly brighter, Enviroknot on our hands. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Please review my actions

I have just been promoted to the adminship, and I'm not sure I have followed the proper procedure. A user had moved his userpage, User:Mistle, to the article namespace (Mistle) because he didn't like the user:-prefix. I have moved the article back to User:Mistle and deleted the resulting redirect (Mistle) and its talk page, which had become a redirect to User talk:Mistle (afaik, cross-namespace redirects are speediable). I have left a note at the user's talk page explaining to him that userpages do not belong in the article namespace. Have I done everything the way it should be done, or have I made mistakes? If I have, please tell me so I won't make them again. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 01:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

No, looks fine to me -- Francs2000 02:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

(ec) I see that you did the right thing with the move, and explained the situation very well on the user talk page without biting. Looks good to me. Friday (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've awarded Aecis a barnstar for a) doing an excellent job as an admin, and b) being quick to ask for help when he needed it. If more of us did this, Wikipedia would be a lot better place. Let's all take a moment to stop by Aecis's talk page and tell him "Good job", as well as a moment to reflect on how this new admin can teach some of us old admins a thing or two. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 02:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection of Wikipedia today

It is a vandal target and it is linked off of the main page today. Today is our 5 year anniversery. I know the temptation is to protect or semi protect it. Don't do it. :) Why? Well it's not good to protect articles linked from the main page anyway, but I feel like this one is particularly important given it's about us and it's our anniversery today. We even have a small notice up at the top of our pages today. If we need to SP for 10-15 minutes to clean out vandalism, I think that's ok, but let's not go beyond that. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Didn't last long. Got hit by a new user attack and then it was SP and we had a sleeper account hit it. *sigh* --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if these vandals have realized the irony of vandalizing Wikipedia on Wikipedia. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} _{this user is a candidate for the arbitration committee} ---- 17:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

User:152.163.101.13 and User:63.138.121.4

These two (assuming they're actually two people) need to be blocked PERMANENTLY. They have constantlly defaced pages. Both of them do so on the Tim Lynch page, and may therefore be the same person. The former, in fact, User:152.163.101.13, has been warned on his user page numerous times, and has been blocked at least TWICE, and yet continues to deface pages. The temporary blocks obviously have no effect on him, and he needs to be blocked permanently. The latter, User: 63.138.121.4, has been warned on his page at least three times for vandalism to various articles. Something needs to be done about him/them. Nightscream 05:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all it's against blocking policy to indefinitely block IP's, it is also against policy to do long blocks on AOL IP's which is what 152.163.101.13 is, the other one I don't know about but I'll keep an eye on both of them in and will implement blocks if they start vandalizing again, though neither has vandalized for some time. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} _{this user is a candidate for the arbitration committee} ---- 05:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Special:log/check

I have made suggestion administrators of wikipedia may be interested in at Wikipedia:Help desk#¬¬¬¬\_How long are IP addresses logged and stored by Wikimedia?_/¬¬¬¬

I think it is probably good suggestion, I got the idea from meta:Talk:Checkuser_Policy --168.131.46.80 18:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Open proxies and range blocks thereof

I'm in the process of expanding the blocks for the various open proxies I've found to cover the entire range owned by whatever hosting center hosted the proxy. Several of these proxies move (their hosting centers reassign IPs on a semi-regular basis), and as a result I end up blocking them over and over again. For more infomation, see my list of open proxies. Such hosting centers are range blocked with block message {{OpenProxyBlock}}, so they're obvious in the block log. Please exercise caution when unblocking one of these blocks. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Pages with userspace redirects

I found this category somewhere in maintenance. It contains about two dozen "user/old" pages with apparently little history or anything. Any reason for not deleting the lot of them? Radiant_>|< 22:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say delete the redirects. Secretlondon 22:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, will do. Radiant_>|< 14:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Image deletion logs

I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to ask. I just provided information from the deletion logs of two images for the editors of an article who were wondering what happened to the images. Is there any reason why the images cannot be deleted while keeping the image page with the image history and deletion history? It seems that all it would take is to replace the images in the history with blank ones. This would only be in the case of copyright problems. Is this possible? Who would I talk to about this? -- Samuel Wantman 09:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

People putting libious statements into edit comments.Geni 13:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, this information was publicly available at one point, but the devs were increasingly forced to manually edit the deleted edit summaries on high-profile pages. Ral315 (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be a reason to delete the page, but otherwise, why not just delete the images? -- Samuel Wantman 01:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of British Commonwealth-related pages

User:Hu has been listed here, as he persists in vandalising pages in relation to the British Commonwealth. The worst act of vandalism is of Category:British Commonwealth Honours Systems. He has left this namespace blank. What a waste of space! - (Aidan Work 23:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC))

What's he actually been doing. Can you give an example? Secretlondon 23:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

He's right that you've misunderstood categories. They are not a list of links. Secretlondon 23:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The category was created by Aidan Work (talk · contribs), who, instead of adding the category markup in the related articles, created an article in the category space, with lists of the related articles. That's not how categories work. Hu (talk · contribs) is entirely correct in dealing with the page. Thanks. --Ragib 23:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Look at Help:Category for more info. Leave me a message if you need help. Secretlondon 23:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Left a message at User_talk:Aidan Work, recommending him to use lists instead of categories for this type of thing. Bjelleklang - talk 10:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Willy sock

• possible Willy sock Westwooler (talk · contribs) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think so too. Blocked indefinitely. Thanks for the notification. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Looking at the tally, I might be able to do it myself next time :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Page deletion and merging on article that has failed two votes for deletion by user

Islamofascism (term) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Islamofascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect to (term) page)

Both of these are being revert warred by BrandonYusufToropov (talk · contribs) and Irishpunktom (talk · contribs), the latter of whom is making personal attacks on me for reverting the change without consensus, calling me "abusive" when I was polite as possible, see for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamofascism_%28term%29&action=history
(I left a message about the sockpuppet message on Talk:Islamofascism after BYT said that he wasn't using it as a sockpuppet and have now put a notice on User:24.34.154.167 and User talk:24.34.154.167 as there was no indication that it was him previously, and from the contributions he has been using the IP as an alternate username for a while - hope this is acceptable, not really sure what's the standard to be done for this kind of thing)

Talk:Islamofascism has a small debate near the bottom involving 3 users, this is claimed to be consensus by BYT. The article has failed two previous votes for deletion, the latter of which was made by Irishpunktom (talk · contribs) who is the other editor reverting the change to point to Neofascism and religion: This is the exact change he sought to make in the vote for deletion that failed, except he and a small group of friends are now seeking to make the change by force of "pack-reverting" behaviour (so bypassing 3RR) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 17:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Tone down the rhetoric and deal with it on the talk page. And review the sockpuppet policy carefully.--Tznkai 18:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Virago

I found this page, which had a {{deletedpage}} on it. However, there was a legitimate disambiguation page on Virago (disambiguation). Since I had edited the disambiguation page, and moving it over the {{deletedpage}} would mean the content would end up being protected, I took the unusual decision of pointing Virago to Virago (disambiguation), which is exactly opposite the usual way. I would like for other admins to review that unusual decision (since, while it was an editorial decision, it involved changing a protected page). --cesarb 17:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Virago was recently AfD'd (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Virago_2); why not move the disambig page there now? Any attempt to recreate the article can be dealt with. Rd232 ^talk 18:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, done. --cesarb 21:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

User:A1sdf Sockpuppet

A1sdf Sockpuppet (talk • contribs) ...was blocked, and it was implied that it was my sockpuppet!? Trust me, If I make a sockpuppet, you'll know about it(like now for instance)--I (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) really should check in on this place more often 21:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I blocked User:Dantine Ice indefinitely. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 22:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You're easily confused, so I corrected your error for you--I (Dantine Ice) really should check in on this place more often 22:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Username impersonating well-known figure

Hi. I've received a request that User:Adrian Appleyard is impersonating on Wikipedia someone named Adrian Appleyard well-known in the Big Footy forum. Is this considered to be a violation of the Impersonation guideline and what is the proper response? I thought I had seen something like this before, but can't find it now. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, I'd say if we don't have an article on the person, he's not a well-known figure. So unless the user is creating disruption in some other way, let it go. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 05:53, Jan. 15, 2006

Or it could be him, or some other nn person with the same name. Mike 05:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The BigFooty Appleyard has contacted another Wikipedian expressing concern that he is being impersonated. The problem is that in the AFL fan community, the Adrian Appleyard at bigfooty is well-respected for his opinions, but the Wikipedia Adrian Appleyard is claiming to be the same person and making edits to footy-related articles. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, Adrian Appleyard himself, has e-mailed me telling me of the situation. This is his user profile on BigFooty, and he is the administrator of that forum. As many people do in response to authority, a user from that forum has apparently signed up as "Adrian_Appleyard" on this site as a joke. Look at User:Adrian_Appleyard, it says "Dictator of bigfooty.com" on there, meaning someone has set up the account as a joke.

Anyway, surely there's some way to allow the real Adrian Appleyard access to his own name on this site, and force the imposter to use another name? Rogerthat 06:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've received further correspondence from Mr. Appleyard:

 That would be satisfactory if I could get that account.
 A few people have been talking about the project on the site. I'll
 include a link in my next e-mail. 

Rogerthat 08:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Given the lack of contribs for Adrian Appleyard (talk · contribs) and his userpage, I think it's entirely reasonable to ask him to change his name, and reserve the account for the Appleyard that mailed you. Radiant_>|< 10:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• You might do better to take this up at Wikipedia:Changing username, where it will get the direct attention of the people who actually have the power to change usernames. My understanding is that one cannot "take over" an existing account. In any case, it looks to me like the person who registered User:Adrian Appleyard may have gotten bored and gone away. FreplySpang (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Well the current Adrian Appleyard account can be moved to another name, moving all its edits with it. In the renaming procedure we then recreate an account with the original name and block that to stop impersonation. In this case we'd recreate the account and then send the real Appleyard the password. Secretlondon 23:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave you to get in contact with the real Appleyard, I will give you his email, drop me a line on my talk page Rogerthat 07:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

User Attacked

Can I get a Admin to have a look @ my Talk page ? I have a User who says he is leaving due to attacks as soon as he became a Wikipedian. see Re.:"hello" on my Talk page.

Appreciate the assisstance. Martial Law 10:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The attacked User is DeveloperFrom1983. What he said happened to him is in violation of WP:BITE and WP:NPA and no telling what other Wikipedian protocol has been violated. Martial Law 10:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• The guy's got a point. Wikipedia seems to be becoming increasingly unfriendly. Unfortunately such problems are far easier spotted than resolved. Radiant_>|< 10:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've left a couple of nicely worded notes to the involved users asking them to take a look back at things and see if there is anywhere they could be of help to DF83. Hopefully, they'll take the gentle suggestion and make a reconciliation; if not, there is always RfC and/or disruption blocks if there is a recognized history. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ack! Turns out, DF83 was an abusive sock account! (Checkuser confirmed.) I've blocked the account as a sockpuppet used to evade policy, and if someone can find me the diffs where it was used to avoid a 3RR block, I'll block the puppetmaster for 3RR and possibly disruption. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 18:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Curps email address

Hi everyone, I've asked Curps to add an email address to allow users to email him (due to the number of blocks he places, occasionally sometimes an innocent user will be blocked and will have no way of contacting him to be unblocked) twice now[4][5], and he hasn't even acknowledged my messages. I think it is important that an admin who places as many blocks as Curps does should be contactable by email to be able to deal with any cases where he has blocked another user because of shared IPs. What do other people think? Talrias (t | e | c) 20:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I second this as I was misidentief by Curps as a pagemove vandal and had no way of contacting him directly. (Although in this case he unblocked me within two minutes after realizing his mistake, he forgot the autoblock and I could only contact him by using another IP address.) —Ruud 20:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have a strong feeling either way. It isn't like someone blocked has to email only the blocking admin...tho I suspect thats one of the easier paths to unblocking. In most cases, they still have access to placing {{unblock}} on their talk page. --Syrthiss 20:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

True, but you assume that Curps reads the talk pages of all the people he blocks (my experience was that he doesn't) or that you know an admin (the page you see when you are blocked only allows you to email the admin who blocked you. —Ruud 20:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be mandatory for an admin who performs blocks on a regular basis to have an email address enabled in their preferences. I might even go so far as to say that the software shouldn't enact a block if an admin isn't contactable by email. It's trivial to get a Gmail, Yahoo, or other free email account specifically for Wikipedia use. Carbonite | Talk 20:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It's also trivial to give a non-working email address or just ignore email entirely. android79 20:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that restriction could easily be bypassed, but it would be a clear message that admins were expected to provide an email address if they're going to perform blocks. Carbonite | Talk 20:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If an address were required, then that would be a breach of policy, thus not allowable. [[Sam Korn]] 20:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it was considered at least good form for all admins to provide an email address, for the reasons stated above. It's not policy AFAIK, but common sense. Rd232 ^talk 10:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk page being vandalized by malber

Can someone please get malber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to just leave me alone? He's edited my user page, which I reverted, and now keeps trying to change the formatting of my Usr Talk page and has been deleting my comments from there and changing things too

I have already previously asked him to stop, and he has been previously blocked for making personal attacks on me elsewhere, see User talk:Malber#Vandalism of talk page. yet he continues to change the formatting on my talk page and delete messages by me, and repeatedly changing links that have nothing to do with him, some examples:

• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]

He seems determined to harass me as much as possible, despite prior to these edits having asked him to stop..

At this time he is STILL making changes to my talk page that aren't messages, editing the layout, reformatting, changing links and deleting messages after I have told him to stop...

User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle ([[Talk:User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle|talk]] · history · watch) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Drop him a {{test4}}, and report back if he does it again. NSLE _(T+C) 01:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No, don't do that. That is very provocative and thoroughly unnecessary. Politeness never did anyone any harm. [[Sam Korn]] 01:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not vandalism. Nevertheless, it is definitely Not Cool to reformat others' user pages/user talk pages without just cause. Have you asked Malber to comehere to discuss the issue? While I would request Malber ceases doing this, I would also ask you to reread Wikipedia:Vandalism, which doesn't include reformatting talk pages. [[Sam Korn]] 01:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

He is still doing it over and over again. I left the test4 message already, Pilotguy reverted it and I said that I got told here to put it on and not to use rollback to revert non-vandalism

Every time I revert he changes my page again in a different way --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently talking to malber in IRC, and he agrees to ignore you, if that's a fair compromise. NSLE _(T+C) 01:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Politeness went out the window a long time ago in the case involving MSK unfortunately. He should still stop, it's not nice. MSK, have you checked to see if he's broken 3RR? NSLE _(T+C) 01:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

In all fairness, I have not reverted your template continuously, it was just once and an honest mistake on my behalf, but it is not nice to take it out on me. Obviously there is still debate on it. You see the top of my talk page, MSK? I thought you were different; apparently I was wrong. --Winter 01:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I never said you reverted my template continously! O_o I said malber was reverting me continuously, or if I didn't say that clear enough that's what I meant anyway. I know you reverted only once, I wasn't saying that. sorry! --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• This is not about reformatting or layout. MSK has struck out part of Malber's comments on her talk page and added "(blatant lie, see below for proof --Selina)" in the middle. And there's a couple of other lines that the two are reverting over. MSK should simply blank the relevant paragraph entirely rather than editing in the middle. Malber should stop reverting. Both need to grow up. Radiant_>|< 01:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

While I don't condone MSK's response to it what Malber was doing was blatantly innapropriate, since he has continued to do it I have blocked him for 24 hours. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"Supercunt" vandal

We seem to have a very pesky new vandal a la Jake Remington and his ilk. I've nicknamed him the "Supercunt Vandal." I keep blocking his user names and he just keeps hitting us with nonsense. Can a sysop look into blocking the range if at all possible? - Lucky 6.9 03:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Bah It's an AOL ip range... and how do I know? you ask? because every 20 seconds I get a "blocked because your ip range was recently used by supercunt..." message, this is too many ip autoblocks to be an accident, this is a good ol' fassioned denial of service type vandal, gets himself blocked, then takes as many AOL ip ranges with him as humanly possible, blocking all of AOL is probably what this person is after, may have to just ride it out like with all the other AOL vandal sprees--205.188.116.200 16:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• With all due sympathis, may I suggest that "supercunt" may not be the best name for the vandal? Putting that name in a block summary will give messages like the above to the many AOL users who will be affected. It does not reflect positively on Wikipedia to use such a label. [[Sam Korn]] 16:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

French Revolution

Hit very close together by two different ips that traced to two different ISPs. Might be wroth doing an open proxy cheack on them.Geni 04:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Hu

Hu has put in this very offensive message that when I put in a catagory listing at the bottom of an article such as Rhodesian Honours System, it really proves how ignorant he really is about British Commonwealth history. A lot of people, especially those in New Zealand have never heard of the Commonwealth of Nations. We have all heard of the British Commonwealth. Can an administrator please correct this offensive category tag to read 'Category:British Commonwealth Honours Systems', which is politically neutral? - (Aidan Work 05:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC))

I'd request that administrators disregard this, as the message stating that the organisation is called the Commonwealth of Nations is in fact correct, and Aidan has been the subject of an RfC which covered forcing incorrect terminology on articles. Wheter people in New Zealand have or haven't heard of the correct name is irrelevant, however I really doubt that they haven't, to be honest. --Kiand 08:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Bertrand Meyer

According to this, the article on Meyer article stated that he died on 24th of December. Where is this edit? It's certainly not in the deletion logs or in a deleted version in the history! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's refering to a bit of news making vandalism in the German Wikipedia. Dragons flight 08:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Got it :-) Ta bu shi da yu 08:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensus or Supermajority?

There is talk on Wikipedia:Consensus concerning the statement that certain Wikiprocesses, in particular WP:RFA and WP:AFD, no longer work on the principle of Consensus, but instead on the principle of Wikipedia:Supermajority, which seems to imply a more-or-less strict numerical limit. I would appreciate it if some bureaucrats, or AFD regulars, would weigh in on the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Consensus to comment on this. Radiant_>|< 14:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Haham hanuka and war crimes reverts

Fellow admins. I'm a baby admin and am slightly new to this, but we have a situation with the above user. Ths user is going to several articles on Nazi leaders and removing them from a category devoted to war crimes. The user then states that to call such Nazis war criminials is "POV". However, the nazis we are talking about include Heinrich Himmler, Amon Goth, and Adolf Hitler to name but a few. In Goth's case, he was convicted twice of war crimes, Himmler was convicted posthumously at several different trials, and Hitler...well...to say he wasn't a war criminal is revisionism in my opinion. In any event, this user is not responding to talk pages and continues this campaign. I am at my third revert on Amon Goth and could use some help. Thank you! -Husnock 15:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours, for the moment. He has created Category:Persons convicted at Nuremberg and is apparently filling it with people convicted there. That seems okay, but it does not imply that those people not convicted at Nuremberg are not in fact war criminals. Radiant_>|< 15:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Persons convicted at Nuremberg strikes me as a useful subcategory of Category:War crimes. Jkelly 17:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Nazi war criminals seems to me a much better formulation. Besides being less linguistically awkward, the fact that these war criminals belonged to the Nazi movement is a more relevant categorisation that which tribunal happened to convict them. Mark¹ 17:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Please discuss that on WP:CFD. (Anon)

Help needed with autoblock on 80.177.165.204

Someone has made a reasonable request to have an autoblock removed but I find no trace of any such block. Probably just me, so could someone else please give it a go? See User talk:80.177.165.204. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I unblocked the only autoblock I saw with your name attached to it; it was over a non-vandal username block, so it should have been released anyway. (Let me clarify: the original block was a username block of a username that was inappropriate for WP, but not one of the vandal-type usernames; those autoblocks are routinely lifted so the user can choose a new name.) Also, I've unblocked that IP directly; if you go to the unblock screen and type in that IP, it will unblock it even if it is blocked as a result of an autoblock (and thus, a block doesn't acutally appear under that IP number, but a cloak instead.) Problem should be solved. -- Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 20:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

AIDS reappraisal

I'm not sure if this is the place to do this, but in the article AIDS reappraisal there is a constant reference to wikipedia edits. Is this ok in articles? I was under the impression from Wikipedia:Self-reference that we shouldn't do this. --Bob 21:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the only one I could find. But I think self-reference is the least of that article's problems, as a quick glance at the edit history suggests. Guettarda 22:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed from my casual reading. --Syrthiss 22:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I just removed another self-reference, and I fully agree with User:Guettarda about this article having much more dire issues than self-ref. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes for deletion

In the past month, wikipedia has seen an explosion of userboxes. Many of these templates feed into dedicated categories. Wikipedia has also seen a massive controversy over which userboxes are desirable and which are not, and what actions and processes are appropriate to deal with "undesirable" userboxes. I personally don't see this issue being resolved soon. Also, a lot of bad blood has been created, which might interfere with community operations in the future. Would it be an idea to create a new deletions process, Wikipedia:Userboxes for deletion (UfD), to deal with this issue? I believe that there are now so many userboxes, with so many more being created every day, that filling this with new deletion requests shouldn't be much of a problem. It could also prevent an overflow of deletion requests at tfd. This overflow could obstruct non-userbox-related deletion requests. Furthermore, the occasional linkage of templates and categories could create some friction with tfd and cfd. The same has happened between rfd, cfd and tfd on one side, and sfd on the other side. I don't know if this is the proper place to raise this issue, or whether I should go to the Village Pump for it. I also don't know if this is feasible, viable and/or desirable. What are the obstructions to this issue? Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 00:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Or just delete the lot. --Doc ^ask? 00:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with Doc. I thought that the recent RfCs should have taught one that single-handed actions by people "feeling strongly" about issues is unproductive. I would also add that it is abuse of administrative powers to go on a deletion rampage; actually to delete even a single userbox without proper process, unless it is clear nonsense or clearly offensive. For full disclosure, I hate userboxes, even the Babel ones (the granddaddy of them all I would guess). But if one does anything, let it be done by proper process, whatever that may be. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

A terrible idea. Witness the morass that WP:SFD has become, where perfectly good redirects like Template:Us-rail-stub → Template:US-rail-stub are unanimously deleted, until it's gotten so that it's practically impossible to sort stubs unless that's almost the only thing you do. Specialized wikiprojects should not have sole voice in deletion. Send 'em through TFD. —Cryptic (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Cryptic. TfD is the appropriate venue. I'm also concerned that having a separate UFD would lead to a subcommunity of voters that develops a sense of consensus and practice that is at odds with the broader sense of community standards. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What Kelly said about a separate UfD culture developing makes sense to me - we don't want that. The userbox situation is going to have to be resolved by some kind of widespead discussion and consensus about the role of the Wikipedia community and what bounds, if any, need to be placed on its growth as a community, which is a non-trivial question. That's the root of the userbox issue, though, and has to be addressed somewhere.

Meanwhile, I would take issue with Cryptic's characterization of SfD - are you aware that template redirects cost double the server resources, and that developers support deleting template redirects? Fascinating stuff, that. Turns out not all redirects are cheap. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that they cause an extra database query. I'm also aware that they're cheaper than normal redirects, since don't make the squids cache an extra copy of the whole, rendered page. This is an argument for either a soft redirect or bot enforcement. The rest of Wikipedia abandoned CamelCase a very long time ago. —Cryptic (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I find your referring to a "UfD subcommunity" a bit of a fallacy. That's a risk you get with every deletions process, whether it's AfD, CfD, TfD, IfD, MfD or SfD. I don't see why it should be more of a problem with userboxes than with other types (although I agree that some people have become overly owneristic of new userboxes). Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 11:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It still never ceases to amaze me that we have new users with a ton of fugly userboxes and very few actual edits. One quick example: The Ungovernable Force, with all of 15 articlespace edits and 18 userboxes, most of which express an opinion rather a skill. I'm still suffering from red-userbox-blindness. --Deathphoenix 05:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• I sense the impending invention of Deathphoenix's Law: The number of opinion-expressing userboxes on a user page is inversely proportional to the number of edits to articles. ☺ Uncle G 18:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ha! I like the Law, it pretty much summarises my sentiments. --Deathphoenix 16:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Río de la Plata

Could an admin please review the discussion at Talk:Río de la Plata on the articles' name? It has been at River Plate as the common English name for a considerable time, but it was moved to Río de la Plata a few weeks ago after a limited discussion, which only came to the attention of the wider community when links from Battle of the River Plate started to be changed. There has since been a "vigorous" discussion which has, in my opinion, demonstrated that "River Plate" is by a considerable margin the preferred English name for the place (even when discounting the battle, the movie of the battle, and the Buenos Aires football club from the search). I would move the article myself, but I've already been involved in the debate and have no wish for an RfAr! -- Arwel (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The page is currently listed at WP:RM. Maybe no need for intervention is needed. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Zen-master banned regarding article titles

After his previous two proposals to remove the term "conspiracy theory" from articles failed, Zen-master has now started a third, nearly identical proposal at Wikipedia:Conspiracy_theory_titles. I've tried pointing out the mistakes in his reasoning for a while, but he tends not to be responsive to any opinions other than his own, and prefers wikilawyering to back his claims, and prefers repetetive polling or voting over sensible discussion. I do believe he qualifies as being a vexatious litigant.

Hence, to put an end to these fruitless one-sided discussions, and by his ArbCom probation, Zen-master is hereby banned from discussing, or commenting on, article titles on any page in the Wikipedia namespace, and is requested to use the relevant talk pages instead. Additionally, Zen-master is hereby banned from starting polls or votes related to article titles on any page in the Wikipedia_talk namespace, and is requested to use consensual discussion instead. Both bans have a duration of one month.

I'm putting this here for general notification (and discussion, if need be). Note that several other admins have recently expressed disagreement with Zen-master's opinion and methods, such as on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions and WP:RFAr. Radiant_>|< 22:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a request for clarification on the WP:RfAr page where I'm asking for zen to be banned. At this point, he's been blocked from enough articles that I can't even keep track of them. Is there a listing somewhere? If there isn't, one should be compiled. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 22:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a listing. It is on zen's RfAr page. Apologies. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I endorse User:Radiant!'s enforcement. User Zen Master has been pushing this issue throughout his Wikiepdia career, and his actions have been disruptive to the project. -Will Beback 22:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I formally dispute this ban, for starters Radiant and those allied with him are only censoring me and my User:Zen-master/Conspiracy theory titles proposal because they disagree with it. Secondly, there is no justification within Wikipedia:Probation to ban a user from discussing or proposing a straw poll/vote or criticizing a title as being non-neutral, that is the antithesis of Wikipedia. By what justification was the proposal moved to my user namespace? By what justifiaction did Radiant rollback my edits to other user's talk pages informing them of the vote 2 days ago? By what justification was version 2.0 of the proposal speedy deleted, after 4 months of work, from its Wikipedia:Title Neutrality location? User Radiant falsely claimed the proposal failed twice, voting on version 1.0 of the proposal closed 6.5 months ago, version 2.0 of the proposal was mistakingly speedy deleted 2 days just as voting had begun. zen master T 23:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine zen. Then what you do is to challenge the speedy delete at Wikipedia:Deletion review. It's what it is there for. You often ask "how is x disruptive?" Well this is a textbook case. Instead of using the correct process, you decided to create new versions of the same proposal. If that doesn't define disruptive, nothing does. And you are not a newbie, zen. You should know better by now. If you disagree with the speedy delete, fine. Use the propoer channels. We don't hide these things. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Radiant and others were well aware version 2.0 of the proposal was substantially updated, the previous vote closed 6.5 months ago and it has been worked on, by both sides, for 3 months so the speedy deletion was completely without merit and is an obvious case of censorship of a proposal certain admins don't like. Even if it is the same core proposal they can be resubmitted for renewed debate, discussion and voting. If you are so confident the updated proposal would still be rejected by the community why are you so adamantly against allowing the community to become aware of it? zen master T 05:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Since Zen was once more started discussing article titles on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions (of all places), I've blocked him for 24 hours. Radiant_>|< 23:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That's actually a good block. Hopefully he'll learn to use the correct process. We don't hide these things. What he was complaining about is exactly what deletion review is for. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Paranoia

It's official, we're all part of a big conspiracy, as proven by the very clever IP who figured it out and made this quote. Let's send him the ninja already to tie his shoelaces together, that'll teach him to expose us.

"I estimate that over 93% of admin accounts are sock puppets of other admin accounts. I see all over articles, admins who control a small number of articles. They check these articles around 16 hours a day" -- some IP

• Radiant_>|< 01:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• I made Radiant say that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Exactly, there is no massive sockpuppet conspiracy, except for mine of course--I (Dantine Ice) really should check in on this place more often 01:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  So, there is a cabal behind the cabal? Not that I didn't know that, of course, but I thought my socks were more careful than that... Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• If I were an Admin I'd be very worried about now about this exposure about all the things that are all about stuff that nobody is supposed to you know, know about. hydnjo talk 03:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm blocking Titoxd (who is my sockpuppet anyway, so it doesn't really matter) for exposing the cabal behind the cabal. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 18:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That's silly, there is no cabal behind the cabal, it's just Mark. Dragons flight 18:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is the sockpuppet of Jimbo Wales. Watch it, or I will delete Wikipedia. --Jimbo Wales16:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The irony is that by deleting Wikipedia, you are automatically permabanning yourself since there isn't a Wikipedia left to not be banned from. If that made sense. Radiant_>|< 17:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wehatetech recreations

Wehatetech and We hate tech were deleted per an afd vote. {{deletedpage}] was put on both of them. Well today, it was recreated as Wehatetech.com. I just put the deletedpage tag on it. I'm alerting everyone because now we have it recreated with names in different languages! Oi. Nous détestons la technologie is the name. And we've also had a user account created which consists of the deleted material. It was at User:Wehatetechdotcom. I just deleted it. So please be on the watch out for any more recreations. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are all over the place - I speedied a couple myself as well. Keep a look out on afd and other places for articles that sound like it. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 21:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

They tried to bring it up on DRV yet again, and I deleted the discussion. Now I'm being threatened. It was also recreated with a name that had nothing at all to do with wehatetech (I can't remember the name right now), but I just happened to encounter it while doing Recent Changes patrol. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Zoe: "and I deleted the discussion". I am sure that is helping the problem.

Yup - it's also been recreated a few more times here and here. I have no doubt it will show up again and again under other similar names --Bachrach44 02:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Titoxd Imposter

Well, I don't know where else to post this so..

Titaxd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tito has an imposter account. Block? — Moe ε 00:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. Titoxd already did that, though. Speaking of blocks, I noticed a permablock (by Curps) on a vandal named User:Ｔony Sidaway. Indeed, an imposter with zero edits. Problem is, on my system his name renders exactly like that of the well-known admin (e.g. no i/l tricks etc). Anyone know what's going on? Radiant_>|< 00:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I already nailed that guy, he keeps making usernames that are imitations of admins. As for Ｔony Sidaway, open the page and look at the URL. You can see that the T is a non-Latin Unicode glyph. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It's times like this that I appreciate the font quirks of my web browser. The "T" in the impostor's name shows up in what looks like a 20-point serifed block-letter font, while the rest shows up as a 17-point sans-serif font. --Carnildo 07:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Should this be in the main namespace

I can across these lists, starting with List of people in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography - A and I was curious about the copyright issues of having them in the main namespace. Non-commercial use of the information of the DCB is allowed, but as we all know non-commercial use is not compatible with the GFDL. Also the lists seem to be being used like a missing encyclopedia aricles list with editorial comments added that are only relvant to editors. I think they need to be moved out if the main namespace, what do other people think?--nixie 01:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It should be deleted as a copy vio (possibly after merging the lists into one of the general missing biographies lists). Having led the charge that eventually managed to delete the similar lists that had been copied out of Britannica and Encarta, I can tell you that the people working on a project like this really don't like being told that copyright extends to the index of a book, and I am not up for going through that fight again myself. Dragons flight 02:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've asked someone to merge the into into another biography list.--nixie 02:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If it's a copyvio that should be deleted, why does merging it alleviate the situation at all? -Splash^talk 16:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The copyright on a list extends to the selection of items on that list (as well as arrangement and presentation), but not to the particular items on a list as they themselves just facts that can't be copyright protected. It is generally believed that one list can draw on and incorporate many of the items on another list provided that the net effect is to create a new list whose selection and purpose is still distinctive. For example, if you created a list of "the best Chinese restaurants in the San Francisco", it is probably permissible for me to draw on your list (and others) when compiling a list of the "most distinctive restaurants on the West Coast" as the two are different in scope and purpose. By taking the list of Canadian biographies, excerpting just those figures not found in Wikipedia, and merging it with other lists of missing biographies, the net effect is probably to create something sufficiently distinctive that it does not infringe the copyright interests of the original compilers. At least that is my understanding of the reasoning given by the lawyers that looked at this during the last go around. Dragons flight 16:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I can attest to Dragons flight's correctness in this case, and while I was one of the ones who was unhappy with his earlier actions, I know that he is correct and will support his actions elsewhere. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that, but as I said above the whole experience with other encyclopedias burnt me out, and I don't intend to be the one to press the issue. Dragons flight 21:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but isn't a selection only copyrightable if there is a "spark of creativity"? Justice O'Connor's majority opinion was pretty clear that while a list could be copyright if there was something unique about the order of presentation, alphabetic order didn't qualify. The amount of effort someone put into creating a list doesn't matter when it comes to deciding if it qualifies for copyright. I am sorry if you experienced unpleasantness in earlier discussions. But I believe you are incorrect. Your list of chinese restaurants? What makes you think it is anymore copyrightable than the names in Rural's phonebook? -- Geo Swan 04:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetic lists of names are not copyrightable under US law. See Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. -- Geo Swan 03:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If you actually read our Feist article, which is pretty good, you would note that there are a variety of factual compilations that can be copyright protected. For example, under Eckes v. Card Prices Update any list whose selection is based primarily on editorial opinion (rather than say statistics or geography) is considered to have that minimal spark of creativity necessary for copyright. There is an actual case covering Chinese resteraunts specifically, though I don't recall the citation right now. Feist v. Rural is far more narrow than you believe. The exception covers only lists of facts that lack both creativity in selection and creativity in presentation. A list such as DCB that is based on editoral judgment of which individuals are worthy of inclusion is going to meet the minimal standards for creativity in selection and be subject to copyright. Dragons flight 22:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Just want a quick comment

Just want to see what others think... am I being too anal? It's about Anti-Secession Law of the People's Republic of China - I've been having a discussion with Free Citizen (talk · contribs) about the placement of external links. He/she wants to stick them anywhere, and I think that looks messy. See for example [11] and [12]. I've been trying to see if the user will change his/her mind on the user talk page to no avail. Comments please? Thanks... enochlau (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think external links should go at the bottom in the section reserved for them. -Husnock 15:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget about the reference extension (<ref>This stuff goes straight to bottom [link]</ref>) — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 22:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool thanks guys. enochlau (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Mistress Selina Kyle continued violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL

Mistress Selina Kyle has continued violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL at the talk page for Template:User Aspie in the response to a serious question I posed regarding the usefulness of this userbox [13]. I am unable to resolve this issue via her talk page as any edits to that page are construed by this user as vandalism. --malber 20:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Further violation of WP:CIVIL: [14] --malber 21:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This is why I suggested, at least, one week block, to let her think about it as the 24 hour block seemed useless. — Moe ε 21:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't see an outright policy violation yet. It's probably violating etiquette and good manners, and it's an antagonising post, but so far it's a violation of assuming good faith (guidelines), not policy of civility and personal attacks. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm forced to disagree with you here. From NPA: (bolding is mine)

• Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will never help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia."
• Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom.

This is disruptive conduct and certainly goes against the policy of creating a good enviroment for an enyclopedia--Tznkai 21:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mistress_Selina_Kyle--Tznkai 21:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any evidence from the diffs provided of an NPA violation: this edit from malber (talk · contribs) doesn't make me anymore inclined to take action. Physchim62 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The comment MSK made is that "BYT has stated that he wants to "see this article gone" for religious reasons, this is an attempt at POV'ing Wikipedia". This is semi-bad faith, but not an outright violation. This wasn't a personal attack so much as an accusation of vested interest (which is different from "is a troll"); accusations of vested interests are bad of course, and should be discouraged, but there aren't as horrible. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Its very similar to accusing someone of being a bad editor. It was a clear case of poisoning the well despite her aggreement not to do so. Furthermore this is the remnants of an accusation of vote-stacking. Instead of a friendly "please don't do this, she accused of vote stacking by a biased editor whos judgement cannot be trusted because of religious beliefs. Those are big guns couched in styrofoam words.--Tznkai 22:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Erm, if I get this correctly, she meant to discount a vote because, for one, anything up for deletion is more about consensus than a vote, "religious reasons" are not a valid criteria for deletion. It's not so much more of the belief of the editor than the criteria the editor gave...then MSK bashing the editor for it. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we do this on AN/I?--Tznkai 22:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Is the noticeboard too large?

Should we reorganize it or create a new supplemental board? If interested, please take a quick look at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Shape and size of AN/ANI. Radiant_>|< 22:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Spam protection filter

A subpage of my user page, User:Moe Epsilon/Vandalism, has a Spam protection filter on it. This is what it said:

---

The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This was caused by a link to an external site.

See the spam blacklist on Meta for a full list of blocked sites. If you believe that the spam filter is mistakenly blocking the edit, then please request that it be fixed on the spam blacklist talk page. The following is the section of the page that triggered the filter:

The following text is what triggered our spam filter: overflow:auto;height

---

Why? Just because it has the text overflow:auto;height, on it makes it spam? I don't understand this at all. Can someone take my subpage(s) off the spam blacklist? — Moe ε 00:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The spam blacklist is at m:Spam blacklist. [[Sam Korn]] 00:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll

This is a gauge of community opinion on admin accountability, RFA, power abuse, and deopping. Not a policy proposal. Opinions welcome. Radiant_>|< 18:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that additional questions have been added to this straw poll, if you went and visited it early. -- nae'blis _(talk) 23:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I wish people wouldn't add questions to polls partway through. It just confuses things. Make a separate poll. Or avoid polling altogether... -Splash^talk 23:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, if you need to change it for future voters, then the previous votes loss weight, if you don't...then don't change it.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 23:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Tt1 and World War II ranks

Fellow admins, Tt1 is cuasing quite a stir and creating problems at Comparative military ranks of World War II and the article on SS ranks. The user is adding very questionable and possibly non-existent German ranks then, when these disputed edits are removed, will simply edit war and has already been blocked for 3 revert rule. The user has now taken to using anon ip addresses as sock puppets. The user has rarely discussed these edits on the talk pages and, when the user does, has a very bad grasp of the english language making the edits very hard to understand. Anyway, it doesnt look like this user is going to stop and we are rapidly apporaching article protection, I feel. As I am involoved in the editing, I ask other admins to come have a look at the situation. Thanks! -Husnock 15:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Seconding everything Husnock says. This editor is basing everything he adds on a single source and will not accept that it might be wrong, despite everyone else disagreeing with him. -- Necrothesp 16:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

URGENT: User:Tt1 has been blocked for violation of the Three Revert Rule under an anon IP address but simply has changed IP address and logged right back on. He is now on about the 6th or 7th revert. A page protection is highly warranted and extended block against Tt1 for these actions. -Husnock 18:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the wrong place for this, please post a reqest to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. Mike _{(T C)} 18:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

We put there too. The user who was edit warring is now back under the login User:Roitr, apaprently not taking no for an answer. -Husnock 19:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Then follow the standard process. Have a non involved admin review the situation and block if necessary as at least a 24 hour block appeared to be. But instantly escalating to the indefinite blocks that are currently in place is innapropriate. Evading a 24 hr block is not grounds for an indefinite one. A block of 48hrs to a week and then more discussion on how to handle the issue would have been the more appropriate thing to do. Since the 24 hr block appears appropriate we have at least that long to discuss how long to extend it if need be, I see no reason to undo the current blocks yet. - Taxman ^Talk 20:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, perhaps the hammer came down a little too hard. I reduced the blocks to 24 hrs. howcheng {chat} 22:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I also agree, blocking indefinitly so fast might have been harsh and too quick. An admin unconnected to the article did intervene and the permanent blocks were etablished by others after that admin had reviewed the situation. This user has now edit warred under no less than 5 different anon ip addresses and apparently two different user names. I'm also new to this kind of thing, and probably didn't follow the book exactly as to how admins should behave. I apologize in advance for any improper things I did and encourage others to correct me. But, on the other hand, I strongly feel we are very clearly dealing with someone who has no respect for Wikipedia policies and will continue to edit war until he/she gets thier way. -Husnock 22:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but if you're unsure, read the policy guys. When in doubt, be conservative. 24hrs is plenty of time to discuss to see if a block needs to be extended. If the user returns after the block and repeats the same thing or does it with another IP or username, then reblock for a slightly longer period. For me it depends on how obvious the violation is, but repeating the exact violation immediately after a block expires is obvious intent to disrupt and earns a week then a month then more if need be. That only applies when the behavior is obvious and isn't simply a content dispute. Now when it's obvious its the same person but new usernames or IP's, consider 24 or 48 hr blocks for each. The longer the block the more important it is to get admin consensus on it. Again, just do a shorter block and discuss if need be. - Taxman ^Talk 22:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Roitr resumed his edit warring as soon as his block expired. I've reblocked him for 48 hrs now. howcheng {chat} 23:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfavorable first impression (as a contributor) of Wikipedia

Hello. I just wanted to drop a line here as I couldnt figure out where else it should go. I love the idea of Wikipedia, but I do not like the eagerness of users here to delete information. There should be an eagerness to preserve information. There should be a willingness to offer unfiltereed access to items that may or may not be of interest to you, with the understanding that the information just may have relevance for someone else. While I understand there needs to be a baseline which must be met for inclusion, the bar should be set relatively low. One line nonsense or obvious fiction are one thing. But article that are relevant and are newsworthy should be given the benefit of the doubt.I do not like the loopholes that clog up the processes here. I do not like that an article that was unable to be deleted can be renominated over and over again until success is achieved (unless apparently we are talking about the GNAA site which while FAR more offensive and irrelevant than anything in this article people somehow refuse to delete). There is nothing to restrict users from constantly redirecting, merging, blanking, or AfDing an article that has made it through AfD process without a deletion or merger mandate if that article offends them or if they singularly disagree with the decision of the AfD discussion.As I said before, I like the idea of Wikipedia, and I have used it extensively in the past as a resource to garner information. I may continue to do so, but the likelihood of being an active contributor has diminished greatly after seeing what I consider to be a blatant disregard for the work of others by users who often times have an agenda which is obviously not the provision of information to the masses. Processes here are abused and manipulated. Thank you for your time. Tokyojoe2002 19:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What precisely was deleted that you thought shouldn't have been? — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 19:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I refer specifically to the article "saugeen stripper". Some valid arguments have been made for merger, although I believe that at this time it merits its own article. But that said, as soon as the first AfD was closed (the article made it through AfD without consensus), the article has since been blanked, redirected, merged, vandalized, and now AfD'd again by users AND ADMINS with no consideration of processes. many have indicated they have moral objections to ther article. Is wiki an arbiter of what is moral suddenly? And I thought there was supposed to be a 30 day moratorium on AfDing an article. I just don't get it. Leaves an awful taste in my mouth about what this place is all about. I dont expect anything done about it. I don't know who could at this point. I just felt I had to make my feelings known somewhere. Tokyojoe2002 19:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you say how or from where you formed the impression there was a deletion moratorium of any kind, and specifically a 30 day one? On your general complaints, yes, this is the correct place for the issues to do with out of process/improper deletions, though as the article's been recreated, currently exists, and is being re-voted on, I don't see much urgency to that question. It's of course not the best place for discussing the merits of a particular article, or of inclusionism or deletionism in general. Alai 20:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This may have been a byproduct of some things I have read (specifically, on the Saugeen Stripper discussion page) where users refer to possibly relistting the article when the "30 days are up", although it seemed like a plausibility tinged with common sense, as it would seem inappropriate to allow an article to be repeatedly AfD'd one on top of another. I guess I misinterpreted something somewhere along the line regarding that specific requirement, although I still believe this has been a nightmare in terms of process violations. Tokyojoe2002 20:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now, thank you; I'd misinterpreted you to mean a 30 day grace period for any deletion of new articles. Yes, immediate relisting for deletion isn't normally allowed, but in this case, we in effect have disputed closing of the original AfD, and "relist" was the specific consensus at deletion review, so that part at least is entirely within process. If you feel the conduct of any particular editor or admin is especially at fault, you may wish to go to RFC. Alai 21:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There are approximately five billion other websites where you can put any old rubbish you please. Why complain that an encyclopedia doesn't want an article about a student who took her clothes off? Mark¹ 19:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I am complaining about the lack of adherence to process. If during the article's initial AfD process the article was deleted, I would unhappily deal with it. But the closing admin delared no consensus. The article was kept. And immediately, other users and admins began a personal crusade to "right the wrongs" of the AfD. I think that us uncool. Again, I don't expect specific action taken, thats not what this post is about, I just want someone to consider the process and how it is not adhered to and respected by users and admins. Tokyojoe2002 19:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The article in question is Saugeen Stripper. android79 19:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

While I support keeping the article (now on AfD) I think most of those opposed have based their views on notability or encyclopedic worth, not on "moral" grounds. We have articles with far more explicit sexual content than this article ever had, and no one seriously tries to delete any of them. DES ^(talk) 20:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

As for the matter of process, surviving an AfD (particuarly with a non-consensus result) is not a reason that the content cannot thereafter be changed or deleted. I strongly support process, as Wikipedia:Process is Important will show, but I don't see major process violations here. I argued that the redirect/merge was being imposed without consensus, but the AfD process has been perfectly open and I see no problems besides not agreeing with the views of many there. However, that will happen from time to time. DES ^(talk) 20:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

DES, while I respect your opinion, and appreciate your support, I have to disagree that there have been no process problems. From the moment that the previous AfD was closed, there has been a specific admin that has made it his personal mission to prurge this article from the pages of wiki. he twice attempted to outright delete the article, the decision to do so was not arrived at in afD. Then, once that stopped working, he repeatedly began redirecting the article WITHOUT INCLUSION OF THE INFO. He did this at least a handful of times despite beiung asked not to. And then the article was relisted for AfD short of what I could swear I read as a 30 day moratorium on relisting. The primary goal of this admin was, I believe immediate removal of the content. The secondary mission was to make this article such a lightening rod that it would generate negative interest among the wiki community and enough support could be rallied to achieve a sure delete on a second Afd.From the moment that the AfD ended there has not been a blink of process followed, and it is extremely disheartening. I created the article. Admittedly I have a personal desire to see the information contained within disseminated. But why someone would have an equally strong passion NOT to see that take place is bewildering and disappointing. Tokyojoe2002 20:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is an abuse of administrator power, of the sort we are seeing increasingly. As an administrator and user of Wikipedia, I personally apologize to you on behalf of the community. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 20:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the specifics of this case, but Tokyojoe2002, you have to realize that Wikipedia is a project made up of thousands of different volunteers with many different opinions. Ideally everyone would behave appropriately and nicely, but human nature is that that will not always happen. I also apologize on behalf of the community if you have been wronged, but reallize if you have been, it is from individual actions, not the project's. I think the project as a whole could certainly use a return to civility and kindness to deal with disagreements. Unfortunately as the project's popularity skyrockets we seem to be getting worse at basic courtesies. There is still dispute resolution that you can avail yourself of as we do all have an interest in having participants of the project follow our rules, and important one of which is civility. - Taxman ^Talk 20:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Taxman, while I agree with what you say in general, in cases like this which revolve around process irregularities and wheel warring it really shouldn't be the responsibility of someone like Tokyojoe to sort it out. WE failed here, and I would like to join Phil in apologizing for the mess the administrative community has put Tokyojoe through. Dragons flight 20:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to Phil, Taxman, and Dragon. I appreciate your comments. Note, I have encountered many good-intentioned admins here (DES above is another), and I do not paint admins with one sweeping stroke. But it is just disappointing that the small percentage of admins who do not honor process and do not respect content that they may disagree with can wield so much power here. I wish there was some way to preserve this article, but at this point, the situation has spiraled out of control. I believe that those who wanted from day one for this content to disappear from wikipedia will succeed. But I want to make situations like this known in hopes that someone with the power to do so can make sure that they do not happen again so that someone's efforts are not so readily discarded. Tokyojoe2002 20:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The Saugeen Stripper article has been merged with the Saugeen-Maitland Hall article in what most involved contributors seem to agree was a mighty fine job. For those that don't agree with the content of the merger, there's always the article discussion page to debate the issues and possibly add/ edit content. I don't think I've seen Tokyojoe2002 posting on the Saugeen-Maitland Hall discussion page, just the Saugeen-Stripper discussion page. Barry Wells 23:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Treason

See new user created: User:Mr. Treason is back. No contribs yet. Might be making a sleeper sock. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, it seems a lot of "Sanka___"-type accounts are being created. Not sure it means anything, just something to keep in mind. Special:Log/newusers --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suspect it's not Mr Treason at all (he's been missing for almost a year and a half). However, the North Carolina vandal has been active tonight, making dozens of socks, attacking the Christianity article (how do I know? 1) he's obsessed with Danielle Cunio, which was his first sockpuppet name, 2) he's always active this time of evening, and 3) I just shut down his range of 63.19.128.0/17 for three hours at 03:14, and the vandalism immediately stopped). (If I'm wrong I'll unblock it at once, but I have a hunch I'm right). NCV knows all of our historical vandals and loves to imitate them: what he wants more than anything else is attention. Antandrus (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't figure it was really Mr. Treason, just thought an eye should see what I did. Any ideas on the whole Sanka___ thing? (It might be a page back now) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That one I don't know... it is a little suspicious. Have any of them edited? It might be a common name prefix in Hindi (google "sankarankoil") ... Antandrus (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any of them are editing. I will check a few, but the names are create so fast that it wouldn't appear they would have time to be editing with all the names. BRB. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope, none of them are contributing. Although I did find this gem... User:Martin Luther King Jr. who did edit once. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Mr. Treason loves Lucky 6.9 also. Going back to check for more. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, keep an eye on User:Irving Washington, User:Brett leigh dicks, User:Fawcettt, User:Thomas Jefferson, User:Angelina Jolie... so many possibilities. Night. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's a very real possibility that Mr. Treason is in fact back. Look at the edit history on Essjay's user/talk page, i.e., [15]. This was as a result of Essjay's suggesting that Oldwindybear was behaving similar to Mr. Treason [16]. Guess the comparison pissed him off (note, Oldwindybear's not him). He also started leaving comments as this IP [contrib history (see from Oldwindybear to present). · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 15:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm, yes, thanks for pointing that out: the style is distinctive. The IP ranges are new, but he's likely changed location. He's a charmer, no? Antandrus (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think any of the Mr. Treason-named accounts can be blocked indefinitely for an inappropriate username. --Deathphoenix 15:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, User:FireFox is a gay bitch should probably be scolded harshly. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind... I am slow. Curps got 'em a long time ago. Stupid, LV, think before you type! --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Mediaa

I left a warning at User talk:Mediaa about making threats. We might want to keep an eye on this user. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:SuperButchBitch - "inappropriate username"

I was browsing the block list and I saw this block, by NSLE (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for "inappropriate username": Is this really necessary? And has her IP been blocked too so she can't even create a new account? I don't know her but this seems well, a bit over the top. No attempt to even talk to the user or explain that she may be blocked first either, from what I can see.

I added Template:UsernameBlocked to the user page as there was no message, notice or warning left by NLSE..

I would like to point out that the username is not insulting anyone and "butch" is likely in context of butch and femme than anything else --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 12:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Being gay myself I don't see this as inappropriate however I can see how others would do, the term "bitch" often being used in a derogatory manner based on gender. Have you contacted NSLE on their talk page regarding the block? -- Francs2000 12:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Will do now. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)}

The IP was probably the autoblocker. I blocked for "bitch" more than anything, so if there's a general consensus that the name is not inappropriate I'll be glad to undo the block. NSLE _(T+C) 12:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. For other people reading this and deciding for themsleves, might want to see Bitch#Women reclaiming "bitch" - This block is almost like blocking someone for calling themselves gay or queer.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 12:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked the IP address. NSLE _(T+C) 12:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

From Template:UsernameBlocked: "Due to Wikipedia's mechanism for enforcing name changes, your IP address may be temporarily blocked. Unless you have also been engaging in vandalism, we will remove that block as soon as possible—if this doesn't happen within an hour or so, please email an administrator and explain the situation": Is this policy, does anyone know (to unblock IPs of non-obvious vandals [excluding stuff like "JIMBO WALES/insert username here IS A COMMUNIST!" and stuff of course obviously] so they can change their username)? Maybe it should be, I wouldn't be surprised if there's been a few good intentioned newbies banned and never coming back as a result of being perhaps a bit too daring in their choice of username.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I just tried emailing to tell her about it but there's none set. bleh. Wikipedia really could've done with another (probably) lesbian editor to provide perspectives on topics, there aren't many..

I hope in future for usernames that aren't obviously a personal attack on someone you'd at least try to talk to the user first before blocking in future, WP:BITE and all.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 12:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The few admins I've asked all think it's sort of an inappropriate name, but I won't take any action until there's a clear consensus on what to do, it's admittedly, when you look at it from your POV, a borderline case. NSLE _(T+C) 13:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This is borderline, but I think based on the evidence this case deserves an unblock tbh. -- Francs2000 13:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This user shouldn't have been blocked outright, but should have been notified that their username violated the acceptable username policy and telling them to choose a new username (I understand bureaucrats or stewards can move user accounts to new names). The offensive part of the nickname is 'bitch', not 'butch'. It is irrelevant that this offensive term is self-directed. - Mark 13:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to ascertain without being able to do a wildcard search through the block logs, but I'm pretty sure we have a clear history of blocking usernames with the word "bitch" in it, regardless of whether it's self-directed or not. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 13:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly an inappropriate username. The only reason NSLE is taking flak for this is because it somehow slipped past Curps' bot. I would have blocked it too. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 13:41, Jan. 7, 2006

I agree with Mark. We should notify users of action we take against them unless there's good reason not to. (It's not like it was a personal attack on someone else, in which case we wouldn't necessarily want to encourage them to stay.) Rd232 ^talk 14:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Bitch#Women reclaiming "bitch" - Its not always offensive. It's more offensive to censor such well-meaning self expression. WP:AGF, WP:BITE.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Allowing one opens the door for incessant hand-wringing to allow others. "But you let User:SuperButchBitch in, so why can't I use User:StupidBitch? I'm just trying to reclaim the term!" And then we get to spend our time having to justify the few we allow to the majority we disallow, and explaining to the majority we disallow why they don't rate. Which would generate reams of angst and drama, and for what benefit? So that a few users get to be among a selected elite allowed to use a username most other people aren't allowed to?

Sounds like a lot of trouble, effort, and acrimony to me for an extraordinarily trivial and marginal benefit.

I say "Let 'em crash."

Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 13:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no way to call someone "stupid" in a nice meaning of the word. Bitch however, is used as an affectionate term or as self-empowerment in some circumstances: The case is entirely different to the other example.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Anything can be theoreticaly used affectionately by somebody. Many find lack of intellect or bitchiness charming, and others are masochists who might well derive great pleasure in being refered to as a "stupid bitch". We don't care about how this person ment it tho, because the policy is against usernames which are disuptive or offensive to us, not to the user themself. I agree that it would have been best to discuss the user name w the user, but its definitely not a big deal, or worth the blocking admin getting any more concerned than they already are. I am sympathetic w Selina's POV (well, not really, but at least she explained it well), but we shouldn't have queer or gay as a username either, much less fag or nigger, which are words also being "reclaimed". Sam Spade 14:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The doctrine of "offensiveness" is a tricky one to invoke. Let me just say that I am not bothered by this name, that it is important to apply sense of humor to such things even if it is not possible to induce it in others, and that the suppression of user names in itself raises serious issues, certainly much more so than the content, at least in this case. But I would even argue that totally confused and aggressive names (say, "Jewhater") should be left to reap their own rewards. Haiduc 15:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Obvious unblock. The culture here is moving strongly towards blocking for anything - I feel like one of the few non-authoritarian admins. *sigh* Secretlondon 20:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I fully support this as an inappropriate username. While I usually don't block at first for not blatantly offensive usernames (such as ones insulting Wikipedia or Jimbo), this definitely falls under offensive. The word "bitch" is widely considered and regarded as both offensive and derogatory; if you're not offended, fine. But because it is considered as offensive and derogatory, then it's an inappropriate username. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo isn't god. Blocking (and especially blocking without communication) is considerably more offensive. Secretlondon 20:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree.. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 18:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes well said Flcelloguy. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 19:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there's no clear consensus on the username, and I'd prefer to keep it blocked, per Extreme Unction's brilliant reasoning about having a select few. NSLE _(T+C) 00:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if there is no clear consensus I do not see why this accountname should remain blocked. I agree with the others here that it can (and is being) used as a term of self-empowerment, especially in this context. There does not appear to be any malign intent on the part of the user either, so an attempt by the administrator to talk about it first would have been appropriate at the very least, in my opinion. That said, I am only a sysop on NSwiki so perhaps not an expert on 'big wiki jurisprudence', however I was unaware that banning things in case they are contentious or controversial is standard wiki policy. --Knootoss 01:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Without trying to make light of the issue, I'd draw comparisons to Revenge of the Nerds, where at first the jocks use 'nerd' as a derogatory phrase, and by the end of the film, the nerds have reclaimed the word, with Lewis stating that he's proud to be a nerd, and summons all other nerds to step forward.

And the parallels between this issue and the reclamation of 'queer' and and (here in Australia) 'wog' (for immigrants of South European descent) are obvious. 'Bitch' is considered an offensive phrase used towards women, but I'm all for those attempting to reclaim the word. Cnwb 01:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Being only 19, I'm often told I'm too cynical for my age. I'm afriad people are right, but here goes:

We're bitching [hah] about a username which was most likely created for shock value. "SuperButchBitch" is offensive. Wikipedia is not the place to "reclaim" the term bitch back to women. Sorry. Can we worry about something more.. important? I'm really sorry for acting like this, but come on! Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 02:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear. — Dan | talk 10:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes yes, I agree. "Bitch" is still considered offensive by a very large majority of people and is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Invite the user to make a new username, keep this one blocked, and let's be done with it. Cookiecaper 10:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There may be an ogoing reclamation effort, but Wikipedia is here to report on knowledge as it is, not to promote social change. Fact is many people find the word offensive, which is against the username policy. That said, I agree with Mark and Selina that the user simply should have been notified first and asked to change usernames instead of instablocked. - Taxman ^Talk 19:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the name's offensive, as many people will find it that way, and it's possibly damaging to the community. The person needs to create a different account, if they're legitimate. WikiFanatic 23:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak is right. Wikipedia records society; it doesn't alter it (except in that it exists in it). Bitch is offensive. When society no longer considers it offensive (as with "nerd"), then it should be allowed. --Happylobster 16:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Concur with blocking. The name is inappropriate right now, although perhaps in 20 years English will have changed. --Improv 14:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

An apology

A couple of days ago I unblocked myself in a dispute with another admin. Everyone familiar with the incidents surrounding this action aggree that the original block was entirely uncalled for, but my unblock was unnacceptable at the highest possible level. While I made my apology clear over at WP:AN/I, on the advice of another admin I am repeating it here: what I did was wrong, an abuse, and was destructive to the ideals and values we all share. It was not an action taken with malicious intent; it was a mistake, but a doozy of one, and I offer my apologies to all. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 10:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that it's fair that you told us here. It shows good faith in the admin that he would allow his actions to be scrutinised by the wider community. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Menu thing when editing

I don't know if an admin added this feature or the devs, so I'm posting it here. The new dropdown thing beneath the edit box is very nice, but it means gallons of javascript code that most people will never use. Is it really useful to make people on dialup drink so much (to them) redundant HTML? Surely not. -Splash^talk 00:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I aggree. I know gobs of hard work went into it, but it really is a bit unsightly as well. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't work and it imposes an undue burden on users, especially new users. I did the thing of installing a monobook.js, which is a burden for new users and a bother for experienced users. This caused a second menu to appear in front of the blank menu that recently appeared under the special characters list. When I select a language, nothing happens, and I still don't have the characters I need and that I used to have available when I needed them. There are other problems too. Can we go back to the larger list of special characters, please? That was useful and worked. Hu 01:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a new option in the user preferences to turn it on or off? --bainer (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• It's probably part of the Mediawiki text? I would strongly recommend turning it off, I know it's been needlessly increasing page load times. Also, the items listed should be restricted to things people actually use a lot, and that definitely does not mean "includeonly" or FORCETOC. Radiant_>|< 20:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Please... it's killing me. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Ah yes. MediaWiki:Edittools. Indeed, there has been a lot of hard work put into that. Please join the discussion on its talk page. Radiant_>|< 21:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the load, but it's not "needless", I find it really useful. But it shouldn't be forced down people's throats, I agree. dab (ᛏ) 21:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears to have been restored to the simple, effective, and (most importantly) working full list of yore. Thank you. Hu 02:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The last version worked fine. You either don't have javascript enabled or are doing something weird for it to not work. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-20 06:12

Nothing weird and I have Javascript turned on. I got the drop down menu, it just didn't do anything. Netscape 7.1 and you can inspect the monobook.js code that I was required to insert from Edittools into my monobook page (that's imposing a burden on new users and a bother on experienced users). Hu 07:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

GNAA "War on blogs" campaign

See User:Timecop/The war on blogs and also see, for instance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TechPhile (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Unalienable Right. Some of the blog articles they are systematically targeting may be legitimate deletion candidates; it's just that few websites end up in an improved state after any organized campaign by self-proclaimed GNAA members. So a little extra scrutiny of what they're up to wouldn't hurt. -- Curps 22:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I've already looked over most of the nominations and they're great. Timecop is operating completely within Wikipedia's rules. He should be thanked for focusing on a specific area of cleanup. silsor 23:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Until as recently as five days ago, they had The Volokh Conspiracy in their hitlist queue (until some anon IP removed it from their list). That raised a big red flag that they might be trying to sneak some non-delete-worthy articles past us, mixed in with the crowd of more obscure blogs. And their methods are questionable regardless of whether any given targeted article actually is a valid deletion candidate or not: meatpuppets systematically voting as a bloc on multiple articles in response to an organized campaign, often with few other contributions to Wikipedia other than the systematic party-line AfD voting. -- Curps 23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, there's reasonable evidence of this, as they've tried it already. Phil Sandifer 23:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

For those who aren't aware, User:Timecop is the founder and leader of the GNAA. -- Pakaran 23:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Femmina, User:Depakote, User:Jmax-, and User:Tapir do almost nothing on Wikipedia except vote to delete blog-related articles. An honest effort to delete useless articles would be fine, but these guys are clearly coordinating their efforts off-site and they don't care if they delete useful articles. They all vote "delete" soon after an article is nominated, in order to build momentum. Rhobite 04:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Rhobite - I realize they are from a "trolling organization" but it seems like an honest effort to remove what is otherwise blatent spam. Also, despite the notariety, timecop has made mostly good contributions (which admittedly is kind of strange given the circumstances). I and several other admins are already watching this list (I've voted delete on most and keep and transwiki on a couple others) so I don't think there is a need to be worried at the moment. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 05:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I take issue with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler (deleted and currently listed on WP:DRV) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.bloggar (current AfD). Anyone who is familiar with right-wing blogs will recognize the Rottweiler; it won a couple awards in 2002 and 2003, and has been linked from LGF, Instapundit, et al. I think this blog is clearly notable. A disappointingly small number of people voted in its AfD. I will also be very annoyed if W.bloggar is deleted. Thousands of people use this software to post entries to their blog; I used it in the past. GNAA made no attempt to assess the notability of this software, and there are several illegal votes in the AfD by users with no other edits. I see you voted to keep that article, and I'm glad that you're not just knee-jerk deleting. That's what they are doing. It doesn't matter if they get it right most of the time - I care about their disruptive methods. Rhobite 05:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm right-wing, I maintain a blog, and I've never heard of it, nor do I gutlessly promote my own droll musings. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:45, Jan. 11, 2006

Well, in terms of the Rottweiler article there is obviously geniune disagreement between admins over that one with the majority favoring deletion - plus the GNAA interference in that debate was somewhat minimal (indeed the debate itself was rather minimal). As for W.bloggar that will probably easily be kept, and even if it doesn't there are other high-edit and admins who wanted that article deleted also so it isn't really an open-and-shut case. While the pile-on votes from the new users are somewhat disruptive, as far as I can see it isn't much different then the old schoolwatch debate a while back - except this is even in userspace and not public space. In terms of nominations they actually provide at least some varafiable information (google hits, alexa rankings, etc.) and guideline arguments for most articles which is honestly more than most AfD nominations do, and this was due to criticism about earlier nominations so it seems like an honest attempt to contribute. Call me optimistic, I guess.WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 06:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you consider "minimal"... two votes were by self-proclaimed GNAA members (Timecop, Femmina) and a possible third (User:supers). Without those votes the deletion wouldn't have happened. -- Curps 22:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

In the past Fammina has denied involvement in the GNAA (not that I neccesarily believe that, but I can WP:AGF), and it is a stretch to throw supers in as they are not usually ones to be quiet about their allegience. Even then it runs into the problem of guilt by association and the fact that the users you mention are not really new users here and have other contributions. However, I am slightly concerned with the queue, but the process itself is working ok (besides, if I were to post something like "GNAA NOMINATING GOOD ARTICLE FOR DELETION, PLEASE WEIGH IN" et al. on the blog talk page I'd wager it would be kept pretty quickly. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 22:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to contradict, but Femmina has a GNAA logo on his/her user page. Hence, "self-proclaimed" GNAA member. We might charitably suppose this represents a change of heart rather than the original denial simply being an outright lie. -- Curps 05:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't a lie. Check the dates. When I argued with Silsor I was in the process of joining the GNAA, now I am a member. Simple as that. Femmina 19:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that in their "queue" are several very notable articles including Moblog, Sousveillance (publicized by Steve Mann and covered on Slashdot), Overheard in New York, Video podcasting, and MetaWeblog (widely used API). I wouldn't be surprised if they followed through and nominated The Volokh Conspiracy as well. This isn't good-faith editing. No user should make it their sole purpose to delete articles from Wikipedia. Rhobite 06:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop conspiracy theories. The only people who want to read tripe like "The Volokh Conspiracy" are the same people who enjoy Photocasting from their newly-pucrhased Intel Core Duo MacBook Pro's. Volokh WAS in the queue, no idea which idiot removed it. Probably the article author (and the only person who actually cares about it). --Timecop 07:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop conspiracy theories. Kindly don't insult people's intelligence. It's not a "conspiracy theory": it's a open, visible-to-the-naked-eye conspiracy. --Calton | Talk 13:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I added sousveillance to the list. A neologism being plugged on slashdot doesn't convince me of its validity, and it's worth debating on AfD. But that's irrelevant, the point is that timecop & co are operating within the rules, on a job that SOMEONE needed to do sooner or later; the avalanche of blogcruft and foocasting articles was getting crazy. There's enough people watching the War On Blogs to make sure it stays copacetic. Proto t c 07:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You do bring up a good point: luckily RN was watching Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.bloggar closely enough to catch you voting twice. Rhobite 15:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Rhobite - I honestly hadn't noticed.

It may well be related to the above, but I tried to merge The Volokh Conspiracy into Eugene Volokh, only for User:Curps to revert with no explanation. Lack of communication is not conducive to keeping things pleasant. Proto t c 11:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could have done some communicating or discussing yourself, right here for instance, before carrying out part of the GNAA agenda (immediately after doing that merge, you posted to User:Timecop/The war on blogs, writing "Done" next to the Volokh Conspiracy entry on their target queue). You obviously knew that attempting that merger would be controversial, not least because you were aware of the above discussion, having posted in this current discussion yourself yesterday [17]. It takes a certain chutzpah for you to complain about lack of communication. -- Curps 11:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"The war on blogs" AFAICS is really just a glorified cleanup project, and I myself have listed fine articles such as TWBPSK Kevin Ray's Corner Blog for deletion, and have done some real non-deletion-related cleanup of blog-related articles. The merger was well within WP:BOLD as the controversy here was about deletion, and the merger was fairly nice. I'd encourage people to sit back and relax and let others handle it if they are vehemetly opposed to anything with a GNAA label on it. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 21:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

sousveillance has been nominated for deletion twice already: Talk:Sousveillance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sousveillance. Uncle G 19:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

---

For what it's worth, Timecop posted the following to the Wikiproject Blogging page: [18] (arguably vandalism and reverted as such; that's not a talk page). It seems to be a pretty clear indication that he's motivated by a visceral dislike of blogs in general. We all have our pet peeves, but that doesn't justify what amounts to a censorship agenda. -- Curps 07:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I hate to harp on this, but Timecop is now making not-so-veiled threats. [19]

The problem is, you're getting into something you shouldn't be part of. If you don't read blogs, stop caring about what happens to them. I guess you can consider this a warning of some kind.

Moving this section to the bottom of the page. -- Curps 04:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There does seem to be some.... erm.... (I won't say that word because last time I did it led to nastigrams) including this diff which made me laugh out loud :). Even despite that and the fact that they have expressed a desire to delete good articles such as Little Green Footballs it seems to be mostly minor disruption. Plus most of the ones nominated lately are good picks, and quite frankly are in the words of one afd commenter "NONSENSICAL GARBAGE!", heh. I don't know, maybe just warn to block if they continue to do silly stuff like that :). WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 04:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In light of Jimbo Wales's recent mailing list message about rudeness on AfD, we need to discourage people from insulting the article's subject in an AfD. It is fine if you don't think a blog should have an article. But please don't encourage users to call these blogs "garbage", "crap", etc. Jimbo gets plenty of complaints from people who are upset that the first result of a Google search on their name is a rude AfD page. Rhobite 04:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you moved the section Curps. Wonder how much longer we're going to put up with these threats along with sockpuppet votes, "nn blogcrap", "delete garbage" votes, etc. Some "new" users in the war on blogs:

• User:Aigis - 10 or so small edits followed by "delete" votes in almost every one of the new round of blog AfDs.
• User:NONCENSORED Popeye - few edits outside AfD, reincarnation of User:GNAA Popeye who was blocked
• User:Cptchipjew - a few legitimate edits, many edits to GNAA topics and AfD's, then many "delete garbage" votes on blog AfD's.

Rhobite 04:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right about the socks (well, maybe they are most like meats), and a checkuser certainly seems in order for some of them. Pontificating aside though, these "quality" (note the sarcasm) articles such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blogivism are getting deleted resoundly without help from socks and the like. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 04:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean you don't like User:Timecop my userpage? :( --Timecop 05:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yours is pretty tame, actually :) WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 06:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Since when do we care so much about the human bean and so little about the contribution? These protestations of "GNAA! Everyone look!!" seem a bit shrill. If the nomination is a good one (and I've tuned them up a few times about how to make good ones) and the closer isn't brain dead (we can only hope) this is a total non-issue. So, we've got a few people doing block voting... is this something new? *cough* school watch *cough* So we've got some off-site organisation... it this something new? *cough* IRC, mailing list *cough*. This thread started out reasonable enough, but has devolved. The time would be better spent presenting clear, verifiable evidence to AfD of a blog's notability.
brenneman^(t)(c) 06:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, I agree - perhaps I'm slightly guilty of that myself - but as you can see I've been one of the few vigerous defenders here (there's even more at User talk:Curps et al.) and I do agree with that statement. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 06:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Personally, I think that the bar should be set *very* high for BLOGs to be considered suitable topics for an entry on Wikipedia, and unfortunately we've generally been hurt by a lot of bars that *should* be higher having slipped. As unusual as the source is for this effort, I feel that it's likely to produce results that are good for the project. It is also worthy of note that some GNAA members, most notably SPUI have become valuable members of the Wiki community (even considering his odd sense of humour) -- we cannot assume that people who are initially hostile to the project will remain so indefinitely or that their contributions are automatically without merit. --Improv 07:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't see the problem either. Everyone knows Timecop, knows he has an agenda, and I for one take the time to check the ones I vote on; most of them really are blogcruft and seem to get deleted by solid consensus, with lots of names I recognise as regular AfD voters outside of the GNAA nominations. But then, I have never seen a problem with bringing articles to AfD - good articles should not get dleeted (and in my view generally don't). We're more likely to keep a crap article than delete a good one. I think it's absolutely right that someone other than a blog fan also runs through these lists. Of course, if Mr Ego were to take a back seat for a minute the bloggers and GNAA could work together to get the blog content down to manageable proportions, and cover the lesser but still moderately important subjects, like minor subgenres, without creating disporportionately vast articles on nonentities (can we say merge, children?). - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to endorse JzG's comment above. Why is this being debated still? Eusebeus 16:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Based on the jeering comment Timecop left on the Wikiproject Blogging page, it hardly seems like he's interested in "working together" with them. And what to make of his comically over-the-top threat to me... he seems to have delivered it in earnest. Maybe someone should Kelly Martin his inane "Jews did WTC" userboxes.

I can understand the "it's all good" attitude some have expressed here, but just like even the guiltiest defendants deserve a fair trial, even blogcruft deserves a fair vote. The appearance of fairness is not served when each vote starts out with half a dozen GNAA meatpuppets stacked against it, and new ones being created all the time (eg, User:Viscid created today and already voting, or User:Blackyheartiez a little earlier). "Process" is hardly being respected.

And they're not exactly civil or assume-good-faith-y in their Afd replies either [20], which seems likely to drive away good contributors or create another webcomics-like fiasco. -- Curps 21:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I bet you are a real contribution here Curps, whenever you want i can start fixing thousands of articles wich are completely wrong and also help to get ride of a LOT of articles wich are using text from another websites with no authorization at all. I guess you didnt know this till now, because all you do is to point your finger at the GNAA with no real evidence, you just hate gay people, you hate the GNAA. Whenever you have time, visit my page, i have some great userboxes.Blackyheartiez 23:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It's true that most of these articles should be deleted - but at least make it a fair fight. And there's no excuse for telling some poor blogger that their site is garbage or their neologism is crap. If you can't act like an adult you shouldn't be voting in AfD. AfD is one of the most public (and nasty) sides of Wikipedia. Rhobite 22:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This whole thing is silly. As an administrator, Curps, you should know that administrators are capable of making judgement calls on the veracity of an AfD vote before closing it. If they feel the vote has loaded by sock/meatpuppets who have barely made any edits, then they are able to make a decision. And both sides of this argument could do with consulting WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL a little more closely. Rhobite, if you dislike what the 'war on blogs' is doing, then perhaps you could try and present pertinent, researched, cited reasons during blog-related AfDs. Even if the GNAA mass-vote, if there is a good, researched reason to keep, then enough people will vote keep to ensure the article remains. If there is not, then the article will - rightly - be deleted. Proto t c 12:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki messages: a call for stability

The last few weeks, there have been a lot of rather important changes to MediaWiki messages that weren't discussed and were not necessarily a good idea. Examples include the Symbols menu, changing "history" to "page history", adding "all pages must cite sources" to edit text, and changing "rollback" to "revert vandalism". All of this has now been reverted, by the way. There may be more, such as the recent revert war over Sitenotice.

We need some people watching RecentChanges in that namespace (it's not that long) to keep an eye on it. We should stress the point that nobody should change the basic interface layout without discussing it first, except for the Devs, and presumably board members sticking up an important message. Radiant_>|< 21:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There is way too much experimentation on this messages too... in the best interests of everyone, you should have a local MediaWiki installation which you can test these changes, and make sure that it's HTML not Wikitext the message wants. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 21:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I suppose. But we need a place to discuss them, that people actually watch. I will experiment with another wiki. Notice the "history" tab there is unambiguous to newbies.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 21:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That's why the MediaWiki namespace is the cabal. ;-) — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 22:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You know, ambush commander is fun magic card :).Voice of All^T|@|ESP 22:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there have been edit wars raging between usually the same sets of users on various MediaWiki pages. I wonder if the attraction is a kind of "bright lights" thing when you know what you do will instantly affect everyone everywhere. Whatever it is, it needs to stop, as I've said in several places. We should have a rule, yes golly some instruction creep, that admins, by convention do not edit those pages without discussing there changes on WP:AN or WP:VP or somesuch first, and defintiely never without providing a working test somewhere that people can hack about with in advance. There were times when I've come close to blocking the lot of the people afflicted with MediaWiki-itis. -Splash^talk 23:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think not even the devs and the board should change it without discussion unless they have a good reason since much of the edit warring on sitenotice was caused by the fact that certain unnamed people who may or may not have been devs and/or may or may not have had impromptu and definitely unnoficial board meetings decided to unilaterally add ugly notices to the sitenotice message and used the so called "will of the board" as an excuse to revert all changes to it. That being said those who were rabidly anti-notice weren't much better. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Splash is probably correct. I should also point out that discussing it on a MediaWiki_Talk page is not really going to help since nobody much ever reads those. Radiant_>|< 00:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's why I suggested AN or some other high-profile page. It takes me 15 minutes just to work out which file someone has "edited", let alone the time it takes to work out why/when and then to post a note on a talk page that noone apart from the "editor" is likely to read. -Splash^talk 01:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

historicaly I suspect people have kept quite about mediaWiki in order to limit it to those who have at least some idea what they are doing.Geni 01:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• It shouldn't take long to figure out which message someone's edited. Just pull up Special:Allmessages and search for the text that's appearing. Warofdreams talk 02:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank goodness the set of symbols to insert has been reverted back to the simple, but effective medium sized list that we had available for so long and that was so useful. Hu 02:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Uhm, no offense, but the split apart version was far more useful to a wider variety of people. Now we're faced with the existing single box being expanded and consuming even more screen real estate... —Locke Cole • t • c 02:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The split apart version did not work, as I explained in a section above. Even if it did, it imposed a burden on new users and a bother to experienced users with the requirement to install javascript code into monobook.cs or similar. Hu 05:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • AFAIK none of the versions required user interaction to get working (they only required Javascript to be enabled, which must be enabled in any event because <charinsert> utilizes Javascript to do its magic). I'll try and find your complaint regarding the split-apart version and perhaps address that seperately. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The instructions I was required to follow on the Edit Tools page (I think that was the page, but I don't remember I just followed the instructions that appeared where the characters used to be) required installing code into the monobook "page". My remarks above are here. Hu 06:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• That's fair enough... however could I request a prominent link to our site policies when people create an account? We shouldn't give them the excuse that they didn't know about what is expected on the site. I have added the link to appear after you login, but don't know about new signs. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There is one when users log in already. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I am aware of that: I put it there. We still need a link to the policies when the create an account. I just created one, and there is not a single link to inform new editors of our site policies. How can they be expected to play nicely when they don't know the rules?! - Ta bu shi da yu 15:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)