I have tried to help by setting an archive page up for him per a passing comment he made on an article talk page but anything typed on his talk page is removed. I left a message on WP:OWN and that blanking a talk page is generally frowned on unless you are archiving it. I stopped short of the the 3 Revert rule and decided to come here instead to have this sorted out. I didn't care for the message...STOP EDITING MY PAGE YOU SOCIALIST NAZI PIGS!!!! when I was trying to help...or add the section about vandalism. Talk page is located here. User talk:Dwain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bschott (talk • contribs)

Please remove the comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Mobile&diff=70751273&oldid=70608195 from Bonsai8 - which is me. It simply states a user keeps deleting links. The comment is true, but could be considered a personal attack and therefore should not be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonsai8 (talk • contribs)

User:Wiarthurhu has contacted me by email to ask whether his community ban could be lifted. He was banned after exhausting the community's patience after several months of incivility, personal attacks and disruptive behavior. The discussion of his ban can be found here. Wiarthurhu's email proposes a set of conditions he feels are reasonable to accompany the lifting of the ban and which he agrees to abide by. I have listed these below verbatim - although this technically allows a potential breach of the fifth condition he lays down, any discussion of undoing a community ban has to take place in the open and I see no other way to fairly discuss this proposal.

I am an involved party having blocked Wiarthurhu before for WP:POINT violations. My personal opinion is these conditions are not acceptable given the user's past behavior, but might with modification by us be the basis for lifting the ban. Obviously this is the broader community's decision.

Thanks, Gwernol 21:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal:

• I do have a problem with all of the authors listed on my rfC

• I have very few problems with anybody else anywhere else on WP as long as I don't reference anything these above editors have done.

• I agree to a three month self-imposed block on any article ever touched by any of the editors listed on the rfC, including talk pages

• user wiarthurhu and all associated pages and records are deleted

• I get another username which will not be disclosed to the above editors, some who have shown a pattern of searching everywhere I've ever been and attacking both my material and myself. The terms of this user agreement will not be disclosed to the above parties, who will assume that I do not exist, and I will provide no reason for them to believe that I still exist as a WP user. If detected, you can terminate this agreement.

• I will cease to worry about the sort of things you folks have been tasked with fixing such as bullying behavior, or inaccurate content. Therefore, if challenged, I will defer. If ticked off, I will remain silent. It is no longer my job, it's the job of admins to enforce civility and factual correctness until WP rules are changed otherwise.

Can we give this a 1 week trial?

According to WP rules, a ban can be lifted if the user agrees to change behavior. I believe the above rules of engagement will eliminate all cases of conflict.

Ex-wiarthurhu.

I am willing to assume good faith and believe that he wants to change. I would support a second chance for him, but he must realize he is on a very short leash. If this is refused by the community, however, he could take it to the arbitration committee. Cowman109^Talk 22:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the dispute in question was beyond simply a user dispute but involved repeated violations of content guidelines and policies including WP:POINT, WP:RS, and WP:V, I am uncomfortable giving the user a fresh start unless these issues are addressed. The user still seems to believe the dispute is limited to "problems" between editors, and not incompatibilities with his edits and Wikipedia guidelines and policies. If the proposal is accepted as offered, the user will simply run amok of other editors and the processes we have observed over the last few weeks will be repeated. --Mmx1 22:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I care much for "user wiarthurhu and all associated pages and records are deleted", beyond the normal right to vanish I can't see why we'd grant this user any special favours. --pgk^(talk) 22:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deferring my comments until I see what others like Tony Sidaway or Cyde have to say on the subject. Beyond that, Wiarthurhu has been warned plenty of times that his behavior would either end up in an ArbCom case or a permaban, so he really can't say that he hasn't been warned. I personally warned him of this fact several times, and that didn't stop him from personal attacks or incivility. Perhaps I'll have more to say later, but for now, I'm at a loss for words. CQJ 05:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought ... How about if all that is initially promiced is that he is allowed to edit under the conditions he has set out except that he edits as an anon - which differs from his current position in that it won't be violating his ban. A month from now he can provide a list of his edits and it can be decided whether or not to grant him a user name or not. Just a thought. WAS 4.250 10:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no problem with him being unbanned; some form of mentorship should be agreed on, a la JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs) - remember Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis 2? --TheM62Manchester 10:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've had about twelve hours to sleep, eat, and think about this. I think it's obvious to me that Wiarthurhu has a problem with all of the authors listed on his RfC, particularly because some of them (not all of them) tried to get him to edit within the rules several times. I think part of the problem that Wiarthurhu cites was created by Wiarthurhu himself, especially by the creation of the now deleted Wikipedia strategy article and repeated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations time and time again. I saw the problem in WikiProject Automobiles brewing long before he was banned, about the time our mediation at F-14 Tomcat ended, and I didn't interject or start looking for things until the second and third MedCab cases were filed.

Wiarthurhu's references to these editors who he has a problem with are part of the problem itself. He has referred to the editors joining the RfC in a very negative tone, to the point of crossing the WP:CIVIL line, even to the point where some of his comments are within the scope of WP:NPA. He repeatedly has made comments along these lines in reference to Mmx1, ApolloBoy, and Karrmann at least, even going as far to call them Wiki-bullies and their supposed interference with him "evidence of Gang activity on Wikipedia".

If Wiarthurhu is to come back to Wikipedia, I strongly oppose deletion of his userspace and his associated records on the grounds that he's shown the same type of behavior in two separate disputes in two unrelated content areas against two groups of editors. What happens when the third or fourth group runs afoul of his intent? Further, Wiarthurhu has agreed to follow rules or suggested actions before which he's broken, and allowing him to create another name and dissappear from the radar would not be a prudent course of action, in my honest opinion. I don't think that he would follow a three month block of any article that these editors have touched, including talk pages, because if he was capable of self-restraint, I don't think he would have been permablocked in the first place. I don't mean that as a personal attack, either. Wiarthurhu has brokered "cease-fires" and peace agreements before, but when the other person doesn't play the game as he wants it played, then all hell breaks loose and more conflict comes to light.

Wiarthurhu has not been attacked here. To the contrary, it is usually him doing the attacking on other editors, especially ApolloBoy and Mmx1. Karrmann has also been a recent target of Wiarthurhu's scathing wit in addition, albeit Karrmann has also done a bit of pot-stirring in this case as well (for which he's been warned to cease). And, if Wiarthurhu's material and edits are called into question, it is because of the quality of his edits, not the fact that he makes them in the first place. So again, I strongly disagree with the community allowing him to get another username under the pretenses of non-disclosure.

Now, with that said, I would be in favor of Wiarthurhu coming back and being allowed to edit again, but not under the conditions which he proposes, and on a very, and I mean very short leash. I will pause here to save my contribution, and then I will continue in a moment. CQJ 19:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I propose.

1. Accepting that Wiarthurhu has a problem with the authors listed on his RfC, and the authors accepting that they've had problems with him in the past, Wiarthurhu and the editors listed on his RfC agree that they'll mutually avoid each other except through an interlocutor, a mediator, or a neutral third party for a period of no less than three months. Violation of this condition will result in a 72 hour block for any violating party, Wiarthurhu or otherwise.
2. Wiarthurhu agrees to immediately cease and decist in any action deemed to be in violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA against ApolloBoy, Mmx1, SteveBaker, Karrmann, or any other editor that has joined in dispute resolution mechanisms against him in the past. Violation of this condition will result in a one week block for Wiarthurhu - and any editor baiting Wiarthurhu will be subject to the same.
3. Wiarthurhu will avoid any article within the scope of WikiProject Aircraft or WikiProject Automobiles for three months, as he has suggested himself, or be subject to a one week block.
4. Further, a mentor (or several mentors) from the community will be assigned to Wiarthurhu to help him out wherever necessary or possible.

If Wiarthurhu is honestly sincere about becoming a better editor, and can change his Wiki-ways to conform with our standards, practices, the Trifecta, and Foundation goals, then I have no issue with allowing him to return under these pretenses. If he is not, then he shouldn't be allowed back, as the way it stands right now, there is more than enough evidence that I've seen to support a community permablock without question. CQJ 19:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who signed the RFC, and peripherally involved but not closely enough to be emotional about it, I think his proposal is missing the point. Regardless of whether some of the RFCers were more active and emotional, Wiarthurhu's fundamental problem is not that he's being wikistalked. The username change won't help with that, and will help obscure the user history. If he's really willing to reform, he can do it under that username just fine as far as I care. If other editors or admins do start really wikistalking him then that would be a separate issue to be dealt with later, but I hope and suspect that if he does in fact reform he will have very few problems. Georgewilliamherbert 00:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiarthurhu has e-mailed me, stating that he agrees to CQJ's terms, but the issue of him retaining his username or not still lies in question. Should he just use his current account, or should he be allowed to use a new one if his account is unblocked? Cowman109^Talk 02:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am unblocking Wiarthurhu shortly given confirmation that he accepts the terms CQJ stated above, and CQJ also said he will help keep an eye on Wiarthurhu to get him back on his feet (I guess being a mentor would be the word). I have also suggested that he follows the one revert rule and that if he feels he is being harassed, to come to me or another administrator about it instead of responding in the interest of not sparking more fights. His account will remain under the same name. Cowman109^Talk 21:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been name blocked as an impostor of User:Cyde (Cyde Weys). They've explained on their talk page that Clyde Wey is their actual name. I've done a bit of research and found this to be entirely plausible. Because this is true I think we should assume good faith and unblock this person's user name and subsequently keep an eye on their edits for any disruptive behavior. Thanks. (→Netscott) 14:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been allowed zero opportunity to make a contribution to Wikipedia. Considering the User's comments on his talk page and the Wikipedia's official Assume good faith policy, I agree that we should give Clyde an opportunity to contribute under his chosen (and real user name). (Note that I was also able to find evidence to support his claim that this is his real name, though in the interest of privacy, I'll not post it here.)

Note that admin Cyde goes by Cyde, notwithstanding his label of Cyde Weys on his user page.

— ERcheck (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there seems to be little consensus for the block, I have decided to unblock the username. If anyone disagrees, feel free to reverse my action. JoshuaZ 15:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding with an unblock JoshuaZ. (→Netscott) 15:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a name imposter going after me for awhile now ... everytime one of his accounts is blocked, he plays the old "I'm innocent" card and gives some implausible excuse for why the name, which happens to look a lot like mine, happens to be valid. And every so often, someone falls for it ... Cyde Weys 16:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry did you mean implausible or plausible there Cyde? (→Netscott) 16:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean implausible. He googles the new name he makes up and "establishes" his new identity around the one hit that does show up ... someone in West Virginia who wanted a quit-claim deed authorized. --Cyde Weys 17:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem would be solved if your sig properly reflected your username ... Cyde. Everybody's sig should reflect their username IMO. I support the unblock, just keep an eye on the users contribs. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde, if this user's editing becomes nefarious I'll be the first one to apologize but given the facts to this matter I still think an assumption of good faith is warranted. (→Netscott) 17:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll take that apology now ("Clyde Wey" has been confirmed as an impersonation sockpuppet of another user by CheckUser). I just wish you guys would trust my judgement more often ... Cyde Weys 17:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough I apologize. So perhaps in the future this should be standard policy to CheckUser seemingly impostor accounts? (→Netscott) 17:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about we just use common sense? It's not like 'Cyde Weys' is as common a name as "John Smith". Nandesuka 17:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which other user please, and who logged the RFCU? Apology will then gladly be forthcoming ... :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 17:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Dmcdevit's post to WP:ANI, everything is explained there. --Cyde Weys 17:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that answers part of my query - from AN/I: "...account was very likely created by Syphonbyte (talk · contribs)". Can't see any evidence of a request at WP:RFCU though. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When dmcdevit says "A CheckUser I have just run" shows something, that is a checkuser. WP:RFCU isn't what makes it official, it's just an organizational scheme. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU is just a way of managing the large demand for checkuser runs. --Tony Sidaway 18:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that much is self evident. I'm merely asking who requested a checkuser on this account, somebody requested it or Dmcdevit decided to do it off his own bat. Simple question begs a simple answer. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I requested it, naturally. --Cyde Weys 23:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This impersonator's puppetmaster account has been indefinitely blocked. See this ANI thread. (→Netscott) 12:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The disclaimers, linked to in the footer of every single document in the project (others too), are in a state of horror. I've (a) made formatting changes and (b) removed what I considered junk; the results are at User:PseudoSudo/Disclaimers/Wikipedia:General disclaimer (diffs: general, risk medical, legal, content). I'd appreciate if a sysop reading this could copy them over to their respective projectspace pages (changing {{../Template:Disclaimer-header}} to {{disclaimer-header}} and [[:Category:Wikipedia disclaimers]] to [[Category:Wikipedia disclaimers]]); I also invite anyone with concerns to comment here and/or reverse the copy if it's been performed.

Although it's an improvement, in my opinion the pages have quite a ways to go. A goal I'd personally like to see is one single disclaimer, free from rhetoric and irrelevent comments (wikilinks gone, too). ~ PseudoSudo 20:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completed by JzG; thanks. ~ PseudoSudo 01:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it currently stands, the image categories for deletion, such as CAT:NS, CAT:NL, CAT:ORFU, CAT:NR are backlogged from between 5 days and 9 days in the case of NS. In short, for those which are 7 days old, they can be deleted under WP:CSD, if they have not been rectified by the addition of source info, copyright info, used in a a fair use manner or had a fair use rationale supplied. User:Kimchi.sg aka User:Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh has been the mainstay recently with 16,000 deletes in his 2 months of sysophood, but he is currently busy in real life. Anyone care to lend a hand? Blnguyen | rant-line 04:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CAT:ORFU really needs help, there are thousands of iamges (I?ve been trying to clear it for a week) and they are all speedyable (2 or 3 not really orphaned anymore for each hundred, those are just delisted, all others removed ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drini (talk • contribs) 05:22, August 28, 2006 (UTC)

They're all backlogged heavily. So is PUI and IFD. Kevin_b_er 06:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the advent of image undeletion, would it be acceptable at this point to blindly delete whatever is in the category without checking for the 2 out of 100 that are mistagged, and then mopping up afterward? That strategy worked rather successfully with the Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons where thousands were cleared to zero, with relatively little collateral damage.I think we need a way to get rid of these much more quickly. Dmcdevit·t 06:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It would probably be easier to deal with the handful of false positives by hand than the accumulated days of backlog. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully with this strategy. One of the things that makes image deletion ponderous (for me) is the manual nature of having to check and count the 7 day period. Given that we can undelete images, I think it's time to update the policies so we can speedy these, making a notification period a valuable, but not required, courtesy. Nandesuka 12:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take time to do it properly. You use Recent Changes and that tells you which ones have been altered since it was tagged and you can see if there was an incomplete detagging by checking about 10 edits. Then you can swamp the rest.Blnguyen | rant-line 06:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use related changes/recentchangeslinked on the individual categories too, will alliviate the need to extensively check history of each image. Kevin_b_er 15:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, at least we're better off than Commons. Commons has a backlog for unsourced/unlicensed images dating back to June 19! —The preceding signed comment was added by Angr (talk • contribs). 13:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a bot? Yes, I know that admin bots aren't very welcome around here however some of these image categories can be blindly deleted without any human intervention whatsoever. A bot which deletes the day's worth of unlicensed and/or unsourced images (and while we're at it, expired prods) would save a lot of admin time. MER-C 10:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We block hundreds of accounts with either nil or just one or two edits. Many of these are blocked at creation either for inappropriate usernames, or just trolling 'User:jimbo wales sucks' 'Doc glasgow on wheels' etc. I've been concerned for a while that there is a whole cottage industry of people going around creating userpages for these accounts, and taging and categorising them by whose sock they are thought to be (most are willy impersonators)- or which admin they are impersonating (although they are attacking rather than impersonating). Per WP:DENY I've been tryign to discourage this practice.

I always thought the taggers were simply misguided wiki-criminologists with an obsession with pseudo-law enforcement. However I'm now very suspicious that the same people creating these troll/vandal accounts are involved in tagging them. Many of the taggers are brand new accounts with no edit history e.g. User:ZIN, User:UJonk. Others have been specifically confirmed by checkuser to be creating socks as well e.g User:TheM62Manchester. I'm sure checkuserers could shed more light on this, but as a more general fix I’m proposing the following policy:

Userpages should not be created for indefinitely blocked accounts with an insignificant number of edits. Administrators may delete any userpages so created.

I'd interpret significant as 10+, but that's details. I intend to enforce this policy immediately, unless there are factors I have failed to consider. Thanks. --Doc 13:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that be 10 good faith edits; a user who manages to blank ten pages doesn't need a userpage any more than a user who blanks one. Otherwise, I wholeheartedly support the idea per DenyRecognition; the criteria for speedy deletion can be tweaked, so an entirely new policy wouldn't be needed. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 13:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DENY never had a consensus of the community and is still just an essay and not a policy so I'm curious as to why you are calling it one. I'd prefer this to become a policy through our normal process before people start enforcing it. pschemp | talk 13:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DENY is a principle not a policy - but usual process is to codify good ideas that work. So I'm putting this forward now as a response to the immediate situation. What other process do we have for policy. If there are reasoned objection, I'll wait and discuss. --Doc 13:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the policies on Wikipedia were principles or common practices before they were written down. In fact that's why they were written down: so that we could let new users know what principles and common practices the existing users were enforcing. WP:DENY merely describes what many of us are already doing since it is a matter of common sense and best practice. As with previous policies many of us are enforcing it long prior to its codification. And I am curious as to why you believe that WP:DENY doesn't have a consensus. Surely we can't know whether it has one or not until we ask the community. -- Derek Ross | Talk 08:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I think {{indefblockeduser}} should only be used by admins or for the blocks of real editors. All usernameblocked vandals' pages should be deleted, there is no reason to have pages with vandalistic titles. Kusma (討論) 13:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of the main issues related to this, is that if someone creates an account along the lines of "Bobby Boulders on Wheels loves General Tojo who killed FireFox", somebody will have the great urge to tag the userpage with masses of tags covering all angles of the username. This has certainly been an issue in the recent past, at least. — FireFox ^(talk) _{13:30, 29 August 2006}

Creating the above bolded language as a policy has my full support. Leaving these pages up just gives incentive to these vandals for "upping their count". Yes, they'll come up with more creative ways of gaining notariety. But each time they do something like this they provide us with more and more information and bring us closer and closer to identifying them. Bastique▼^parler _voir 13:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support the principle of WP:DENY, let's not give each and every internet malcontent their 15 minutes of fame on Wikipedia by creating their own generic Sockpuppet Template. That much is good, but this is not a policy Doc, it's only your idea for a policy. At the moment, it's only a personal policy. Fine, run around deleting these pages at will if you must, I'm not going to complain, but let's have some semblance of discussion on this. I think it would be useful to keep only the generic {{indefblockeduser}} for userpages, whether applied by admins or not. We don't all have checkuser access or immediate responses from any informal requests (wherever or however those are done). Keeping the generic template would help in the fight for the "non priveliged". This debate should probably go to WP:DENY. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind getting rid of userpages, but I think the separate categories are useful when dealing with onslaughts of socks and should stay at least while socks are active so efforts tostop thme can be organized and apparent and so other admins don't come behind you unblocking socks. After a particular vandal has gone away, it is fine to get rid of them. pschemp | talk 13:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting the deletion of any template or categories at this stage - and yes it is a personal policy. Actually, I've been doing it and there's been no objections. But I'd like to encourage others to do the same, and I'd like a little consensus so I can point it out to the taggers when I discourage them from their activity. This is more a case of me saying 'any objections?' in an open way. Call it policy, guideline or whatever you like. --Doc 13:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DENY suggests the deletion of categories, so if that is what you are using, you are suggesting that. Besides, its the tags that help organize socks with their respective categories. (I'm talking about the generic sockpuppet tag, not user specific ones. Those should go)pschemp | talk 13:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't tell me what I'm suggesting, rather let me tell you. Yes, I like WP:DENY and I'm certainly happy to ask people to consider it. But what I am suggesting as a policy here is simply the words that I bolded in my initial post. Nothing more. --Doc 10:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me. I think it's a good idea. --Kbdank71 18:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All these stupid pages show up in Google. Why should we have 250 Google hits for "Jew Aardvark"? Especially for usernames that attack other usernames or real people, I prefer to have nothing offending showing up. I support the tagging of real vandals that have actual edits, but username stuff just encourages the impersonators. Kusma (討論) 13:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cactus.man that users blocked without a significant edit history should only have either of three templates applied to their userpage:

• {{subst:indef-user}} for username blocks
• {{subst:indef-vandal}} for vandalism only blocks
• {{subst:impostor}} or {{subst:impostor-m}}, whichever is appropriate

Someone needs to write a bot to replace substed sockpuppet templates with the appropriate username block template. I might have a go if this is the community consensus.

(edit conflict) I apologise - I was responsible for about half of those Blu Aardvark sockpuppet templates. MER-C 13:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I once put "kitten vandal" in the block summary and regret giving them recognition ever since, I don't make any userpage for them and am peeved when others do unless noting 'proxy' or 'sock by checkuser'. Block summary - "vandal only account", subst: the usual vpblock on the talk page, next please. I support Doc's view here. --Alf ^melmac 13:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I think the sockpuppet tag is useful when dealing with a current onslught of socks and suspected socks so that checkuser can easily find them in one place to run. The category it creates is useful at the time. after that sure fine, delete it, but removing a tool useful in the heat of battle is silly. pschemp | talk 13:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The checkuserers I've spoken to say otherwise. --Doc 14:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The checkuser I worked with on EnthusiastFRANCE (Mackenson) used the category a lot to identify open proxies and go through and tag. That would indicate it is useful. Did you ask Mackenson specifically about that case? pschemp | talk 14:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The pages could still be deleted after the vandals have been checkusered and their proxies blocked. Kusma (討論) 14:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the onslaught is done, deleting is fine, then there is no permanent memorial. Certainly these categories are easy enough to find later to delete. pschemp | talk 14:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is to simply blank the page. The sockpuppet information would still be in the article history. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support not tagging vandals with specific user names or templates, and deleting such that exist. Blanking is a viable second option. Vandals should not be rewarded with notariety, should not be googleable. FWIW, Mackensen has weighed in at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels 2 on a similar topic. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The divider for me is: does this glorify the vandal (and at most only incidentally help the admins deal)? Lose it. Or does it help admins deal (and at most only incidentally glorify the vandal). For now, it seems to me that tagging accounts with names that attack or disparage may not be productive (although I tag them with the base {{username}} when I spot them, is that something that is perhaps not productive as well?) but that tagging accounts as socks often is ( perhaps not for WoW or WiC, perhaps but for some of our other sockfesters like PoolGuy for example). It seems that placing them in the category requires that either the userpage or the usertalk page not be deleted (so that the category has a place to be put). But that doesn't mean the page needs more than that category tag. On balance I think DENY ought to be considered to become policy, perhaps with some tinkering but agree it's not yet. Nevertheless it's a good practice. Qualified support of this idea. ++Lar: t/c 17:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, some are useful in the short term (and it should be short term), we just need to apply some common sense. Many of these tags are basically irrelevant. On the point of policy regarding WP:DENY, I think it should also be noted that there is no policy saying we plaster tags over the userpage of every user who is blocked... --pgk^(talk) 19:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Doc Glasgow's proposal is reasonable. WP:DENY is a good idea in principle, subject to implementation. As pgk suggests, it doesn't require a policy change to not add a template, or to blank a userpage, maybe leaving the category. I'm going to start doing this whenever it makes sense. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary section break for editing purposes

Note Werdnabot will orphan this subsection when it auto-archives unless the latest time stamp is the same as the last time stamp in the section above. Suggest refactoring when the discussion cools off or switching to a different archival bot. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

ah ok, didnt know that limitation... I'll come back and remove this if the discussion lapses Syrthiss 16:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone recover the deleted WoW long term abuse page so I can export it to my MediaWiki installation?? --Whitmarewood 08:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, normally I'd consider such a request, as I do userify deleted pages on request, but um... in this case, click on the user and you'll know why I'm declining. ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An example right here of where a LTA page was helpful. Admins with no prior knowledge are reluctant to block what was an obvious sock: example. Getting rid of all this stuff is going to cause more confusion. pschemp | talk 14:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that LTA pages may need to be kept for more subtle vandals who require investigation as in your example. So far though we're mostly talking about Willy, Squidward, and other types of flagrant abuse. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Doc has expressed his opinion that all of the pages and categories are useless and this proposal is the first step. The next one will be to get rid of all of them. I don't have a problem with getting rid of WOW crap. What I fear is that this will be expanded to everything. In fact I'll be extremely surprised if it isn't. That's the direction off-wiki discussions about this are going. pschemp | talk 14:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this proposal goes so far as to get rid of a useful page like the MasgotGuy page (which, if you review it, will clearly demonstrate enormous utility to admins trying to deal with the problem, and no glory to the vandal) then it's going too far. I'm having trouble figuring out where to address this concern though as it seems there are many places where parts of this are being discussed. ++Lar: t/c 15:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there are off-wiki discussions going on, imo they should be brought back here (or some centralized location). I hate to think that people are being denied input because they don't use IRC. (reply to pschemp, not reply to lar ;) ) Syrthiss 15:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are related discussions to this at WP:ANI#WP:DENY-driven deletion spree and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedia blocked imposters and all subcategories. Syrthiss 15:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit too early to be deleting vandal pages as there isn't any consensus to delete them. Furthermore, some of them contain useful information, like which IP range do you block when Blu Aardvark shows up? If the relevant vandal page gets deleted (which it hasn't because it's in my userspace), admins are going to have to sift through the checkuser evidence while he vandalises away. I reckon such pages should be moved to Essjay's wiki where they are of use but don't give vandals recognition and have been trying to do that, but Essjay seems to be on a wikibreak. MER-C 09:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shavian alphabet has a large number of images depicting the various letters of that alphabet. For example, Image:Shavian-ado.png. If you click on that, you will see that the "image" tag in the upper lefthand corner is red. There is no "history" tag, and there is no "delete" tag, even if you're an admin. Neither is the image taken over from Commons (because I just deleted a copy from Commons for not having a source or license, but the local version is still present). Now, these letters were designed by Ronald Kingsley Read, who died in 1975, so they aren't in the public domain yet. They have no source and no license, but with no "delete" tag, how do we get rid of them? —The preceding signed comment was added by Angr (talk • contribs). 19:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The letters were created then, but are these images themselves the creation of Read? Can you really copyright an alphabet that was intended to replace the Latin alphabet in English? If you're worried about the images themselves, it doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to create new ones and just update the images with the new versions. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But under what license? I don't think they're {{PD-ineligible}} the way normal letters are, because they are the creation of a specific, identifiable author. And there's no knowing what the source of these particular .png files is. —The preceding signed comment was added by Angr (talk • contribs). 06:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm contacting the author of a Shavian font right now (and it's possible that he's the author of the font that the images were taken from, if they were taken from a font), asking for permission to create image files from them for Wikipedia. Is there anything particular I'm supposed to ask/say regarding the copyright situation of the images outside of Wikipedia? Does his granting us permission mean that all subsequent providers of content taken from Wikipedia have the right to use the images as they see fit? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, granting Wikipedia permission to use the images isn't good enough. He will have to agree to license them under a free license like the GFDL or CC-BY-SA. However, since the Shavian alphabet is a recent invention and has an identifiable author (unlike most writing systems), I'm still not convinced that the letters aren't covered by R. K. Read's copyright. —The preceding signed comment was added by Angr (talk • contribs). 14:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we go to find out otherwise? I can't even conceive that an alphabet created for public use and which was hoped to replace the Latin alphabet was copyrighted. If anyone owned the copyright, I would think it was Shaw's estate, since Shaw commissioned the alphabet in his will, and so paid the creator for rights to the work. I would assume, with good faith, that Shaw didn't want copyright (and probably stated so in the will). But then, assumptions don't mean a whole lot here, eh? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that Shaw's estate would own the copyright to this alphabet. He only commissioned the development of some phonetic alphabet; he had nothing to do with the development of this alphabet. There was a contest, which Read won. But it was Read, not Shaw's estate, who went on to develop QuikScript out of the Shavian alphabet, so I think any moral rights to the alphabet belong to Read. I suppose the question really comes down to whether or not these squiggles meet the threshold of originality necessary to being copyrighted. —The preceding signed comment was added by Angr (talk • contribs). 18:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the creator of the Shavian font mentioned above. I've decided to provide images of my font under the GFDL to replace the images in the Shavian article. I can identify the current images by their shape, and they are taken from an existing font which has been copied much but I don't believe the author has given permission for any of these copies. We really do need to have a properly licensed set of images, and that's why I've decided to provide them.

As for the issue of possible copyright by Kingsley Read, I don't see how it can possibly be copyrighted by him. There was a contest and several people's designs were accepted, and money was paid to the creators. Read's was chosen as the best of them, then additional modifications were made. The alphabet is mostly Read's creation but not totally. I've researched Shavian for several years and have never heard of any copyright. I don't know if an alphabet such as this can even be copyrighted. Unless someone can provide evidence of copyright, we must assume it's public domain, since all the information we have at least implies that. EthanL (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier this evening, Bastique and David.Monniaux discovered across a particularly nasty form of copyright abuse on Commons; someone had uploaded two photographs using a username the same as that of the original author, given the legitimate (non-free) source, marked them as free-licenses... and added an OTRS-confirmation template on the end with a nonexistent ticket number. The net result, we have something saying "oh, yes, the source is unfree but the Foundation confirms it's released as GFDL". The first we knew of this was when the author wrote to us complaining about it!

This seemed pretty clear evidence of bad-faith intent to us, and the user was accordingly blocked (as well as another, with identical modus, from back in March). A little detective work by Bastique found someone on en: using the images immediately after they'd been uploaded; checkuser by Kelly Martin and Arnomane confirmed that the user on en: and the user on Commons were the same, so the local user (Jcmurphy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) got blocked too. Whilst he hasn't apparently violated policy on en:, we felt that something of this magnitude deserved an indefinite block, pending a very good explanation.

Two reasons for posting this. First, to run the block by the community, since blocking for dodgy behaviour on another project is unusual. Secondly, and more importantly, please be alert if you run across someone adding OTRS permission tags. If someone is adding them when they upload a file, or is adding them whilst apparently a new user, be suspicious. m:OTRS has a list of people with access to the queue; we're all happy to do quick lookups on the system to check that, yes, there is a permission filed. If you see one that looks unlikely, please feel free to challenge it - we want to stamp on this sort of thing hard. Shimgray | talk | 00:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that he misused the image on Wikipedia-en so a block is warranted. Indefinate is a good starting place for this sneaky offense. Reconsider if the user makea a good arguement for why he deserves a second chance. FloNight 01:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd stand behind the indefinite block. This type of abuse runs directly contrary to all of our attempts to respect and maintain copyright laws and should be dealt with severely. alphaChimp ^laudare 04:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Ral315 (talk) 07:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good block. Could be released with a very very very very very very very good explanation, but thats a lot of verys. Syrthiss 12:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree as well. Folks who knowingly mistag images and put Wikipedia in a position of legal jeopardy should be dealt with very strictly. Legal issues are not laughing matters. (→Netscott) 12:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pileon strong support for this block. Commons is sort of another site, and sort of not, though, so even if the user hadn't messed around on en: I'd probably still support the block. ++Lar: t/c 15:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in favour of indiscriminate indefinite bans, but here I think we have an especially egregious case of bad faith, quite difficult to catch, and that poses real legal risks for both the Foundation and whoever tries to reuse our content in good faith. Moreover, impersonation is a crime in many jurisdictions. Thus, I think a cross-wiki indef ban is justified for such behaviour. David.Monniaux 15:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Tyrenius 08:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heavily backlogged again - mainly images. Viridae^Talk 04:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying at it right now (especially with great caution in images, I'm okay but not nearly the best). It really is a neverending backlog. Yanksox 05:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would really help if there was a script or tool to automatically comment out images used in articles. alphaChimp ^laudare 05:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't be nice if we could always use scripts? Then it wouldn't take so long. Yanksox 05:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think images should have their own CSD section, but that's just my 2 cents. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Woohookitty. That would really keep clutter out of CAT:CSD. Perhaps Category:Images for speedy deletion is a good name. »ctails! =hello?=« 23:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, that wouldn't be the best idea. The images in CAT:CSD get ignored as it is already, we don't need them shuffled off elsewhere. We need to draw attention to it so that the issue can be resolved. Yanksox 23:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support dividing images from the main CSD category. They delay loading the page, they require different skills than the articles that make up most of CSD, and they are far more of them. We(well, me and some other people) handle {{no source}} fine; we can do the same with CSD images. If necessary, we can put the backlog tag on, just as we do for any other backlog. Just get them out of CAT:CSD for the love of all that is holy. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with moving them out. It would be good to have them in a page which also included full instructions on how to deal with them. Tyrenius 08:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Library List of Best 20th-Century Novels

Is this list, prepared by a Random House and published here with a notice "Copyright 2003", exempt from copyvio? To the best of my knowledge, a list, with its precise ordering of information, is a creative effort, and hence fall under copyright. Or am I wrong in this? --Ragib 07:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the list is objective like best selling books or tallest buidings or oldest people, then the list can not be copyrighted in america regardless of the effort used to create the list. This is the law we go by even tho other nations may have different copyright laws. If the list is subjective such as based on a poll of a few select people (as opposed to a poll representative of public opinion thus representing objective fact - you can't own a fact) then the list as a whole can be copyrighted but specific facts about it like what was number one on the list can not be copyrighted (like you can not copyright the individual words in a sentence but the sentence as a whole might be copyrightable). WAS 4.250 13:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, can anyone look into the article I've mentioned above and see if it's a copyvio or not? thanks. --Ragib 17:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am most certainly not a lawyer, but there appear to be two lists on the source page: one for "the board's list" (which sounds more like the poll of a select few) and another for "the readers' list" (which sounds more like the poll of a larger number of people). The article here only contains "the board's list". In my view, this is not something at all like a list of the hundred tallest buildings, and should probably be removed. —ptk✰fgs 18:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio, plain and simple. It's an "expert compiled" list and unless it's been released into the public domain/GFDL it's under copyright. Factual lists may be free of copyright in the US, lists like this are not and have been deleted on numerous occasions. --kingboyk 18:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even poll results that purport to represent the opinion of everyone is copyrighted--taking a poll involved formulating questions, performing statistical correction and such other activities so that a poll can not be fairly considered a fact in the way that the number of people living in Ann Arbor is a fact. Thatcher131 (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good spotting. Source is marked as copyright; I suggest listing the article on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. -- Infrogmation 01:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I've listed the article in Copyright problems. --Ragib 04:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, can anyone direct me to the Wikipedia policy page on such external lists, and the associated copyright issues? I tried looking it up but can't find it. Thanks. --Ragib 02:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Sheynhertz-Unbayg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely. It makes me sad to be forced to do this, but I don't see much else to do after his non-participation in this and this MedCabal case and this RfC. To any comments about his editing activities (see the RfC or category:Onomastics he typically reacts abusively or not at all, and just continued the creation of problematic pages that had led to the RfC. To recent blocks by several different editors (some for uncivility or disruption of MfD, mine for not reacting to repeated complaints), he reacted by using sockpuppets. See 61.112.94.154 (talk · contribs), 61.112.95.194 (talk · contribs), L.Kugelman (talk · contribs), L.Kugelmann (talk · contribs), 61.112.197.233 (talk · contribs). I suggest to community ban him until he cooperates in the cleanup of his pages and understands that he needs to communicate with others. If Sheynhertz-Unbayg engages in meaningful discussion of his activities and promises to answer to his RfC, he should be unblocked. Until then, none of his IPs and sockpuppets should be allowed to edit. Kusma (討論) 07:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Sheynhertz is an extremely problematic editor. His continual messing up of the encyclopaedia, including unfinished articles (many containing German) dumped into articlespace and rapid-fire page moves creating double redirects is unacceptable, and attempts to clean it up are met with instant reversions and bizarre reactions ranging from baseless accusations of vandalism to suicide threats. (All documented in the RfC, so I'm not going to go diff-digging.) I have less confidence than Kusma that unblocking will do any good, though. I have no idea how Sheynhertz' mind works and little inclination to try to find out. I applaud Kusma for taking on this extremely tiresome editor and suggest leaving any decision about whether Sheynhertz should be unblocked up to him. Note that Sheynhertz, whose native language is Japanese, is already banned from the Japanese Wikipedia. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  By the way, I'll try to help with some of the cleanup of 'his' articles once I'm assured that he won't be misguidedly unblocked. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the offer! We should probably try to organize the cleanup a bit so we don't have to check all of his 20k edits more than once. Kusma (討論) 13:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My hope of a good end of this is fading -- I just blocked three evading IPs: 61.112.89.145 (talk · contribs), 61.112.103.242 (talk · contribs), 61.112.86.254 (talk · contribs). One of them told me You are my enemy, and I'll grudge strongly you!!. Please help me to either (a) solve this issue by reforming Sheynhertz-Unbayg or (b) blocking all 61.112 IPs that edit onomastics articles or add lots of redlinked names to disambiguation pages. Kusma (討論) 13:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is now editting out of Schönherz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Ryūlóng 19:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have rangeblocked 61.112.0.0/16 for 3 hours after getting tired of blocking his IPs individually. I hope I don't inconvenience too many other users of his ISP with this anon-only, no account creation block, but his insistence on his edits is getting silly. Kusma (討論) 20:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely appalled at what has happenend. I used to have friendly contact with Sheynhertz-Unbayg on a number of topics, especially articles on Judaism. However I lost touch and he seemed to have disappeared. I noticed later that there were some strange fall-outs from the Japanese Wikipedia that spilt over, which really made me wonder since it was surprising. I wish I knew how to help to defuse the situation, however reading the comments of users that have had other dealings makes me wonder if it is actually the same user? Reading through the comments I trust Kusma's judgement, but to me this is just nevertheless really bizarre, highly unfortunate and saddening. Gryffindor 21:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a month now that the Kosovo article looks like Serb propaganda. A certain administrator ChrisO and several Serb or pro-Serb editors are clearly editing on bad faith. I tried to change that but they seem to be furthering a Serb nationalistic agenda and don't want to cooperate. I would appreciate if any other administrators who are neutral on the issue come there and change the Serb propaganda pamphlet, that the entry on Kosovo has now become. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vezaso (talk • contribs) 09:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.

Eternal Equinox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is placed on Probation and personal attack parole for one year.

Jim62sch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is cautioned to avoid teasing or taunting sensitive users.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 13:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This thread on Village Pump(technical) discusses the idea of making it easier to expunge block log entries. I had heard that there have been instances of block log entries being expunged, but that it was very rare, because it was difficult to do (developers had to be involved directly) and because it is not something to be done lightly. I think there have been instances of blocks that ought to be expunged, and so I raised the idea there, to make it easier to do, but not necessarily to make it something to be done more lightly. Your input there is solicited. ++Lar: t/c 14:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would expunging blocks also expunge any record of an admin performing an improper and unnecessary block? -- tariqabjotu 02:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many complaints on OTRS are allegations on libel on our part, especially in:

• biographies of living people (typically, semi-famous persons such as writers of self-help books, "alternative scientists", radio hosts on local stations, etc.)
• articles on highschools (typically, some student or former student has written something insulting for staff).

Often, the people whose reputation is sullied have tried to remove the inflammatory content have been reverted, or even blocked for doing so.

Please read WP:BLP if you haven't yet done so. Wikipedia's official policy regarding biographical details of living persons is to err on the side of caution. Potentially libellious information without serious sources should be deleted, not flagged as "unsourced". Users, even anonymous ones, who delete such unsourced information should not be blocked - 3RR does not apply. Users who repeatedly reinsert such information despite warnings should definitely be blocked.

On a similar line, we also have a privacy policy regarding living persons, especially people who are not public figures. The same applies: if personal information such as names of relatives (who are not themselves public figures) etc. is removed, please do not reinsert it nor block whoever removed it.

The Wikimedia Foundation daily gets legitimate complaints about such behaviours. David.Monniaux 15:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to reject several parts of this:

1. If a random editor comes along and removes perfectly good information from an article, without explaining that it is a result from an OTRS complaint, then another editor is entitled to reach the conclusion, in good faith, that it does not need to be removed.
2. Thus your direction that we may not reverse it is wrong. Your edits are subject to reversal, no matter your superglue-like adhesion to one of the most damaging policies we have, unless they are potentially libellous and poorly sources (Note the conjunction. We can include negative information if it's well sourced. Until their lawyer telephones Danny, anyway.)
3. The policy does not provide for indefinite removal and 3RR circumvention of things like names of relatives. It is not "on a similar line" at all. You don't get yourself an exception from being blocked for removal of such information. It is a matter of interpretation of the policy and the material.
4. Wikipedia's official policy regarding biographical details of living persons is to err on the side of running screaming with our hands in the air.
5. Since when was a school a living person? If someone is vandalising the article, revert them and block them.

Splash - tk 16:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, Splash. Firstly, you don't get to reject this since it comes from on high. Secondly, it is common sense. When someone is insistingly blanking or removing sections from a bio, don't just scream 'vandal - kneejerk revent and block'. Instead, ask 'could there be a reason for thisact?'. It is always possible that the aricle is crap or libelous, and the anon IP is an angry injured party who doesn't understand how wikipedia works. Take a look at the material that he's removing - consider it - does it look fair? Are negative comments ballanced and referenced? Should the article in fact be deleted or rebuilt from scratch. Admins should not be on autopilot. --Doc 23:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anyone thinks that removing paragraphs in biographies should always be reverted, and I doubt anyone thinks that they should never be reverted. I think we have one of those imaginary arguments between positions that no-one wishes to defend brewing here. Just use common sense. Before reverting a paragraph removal, scan it to see if it says "Joe Bloggs was recently sentenced to a billion years for being a third-degree cretin" - likewise, check the previous edits, and see if before blanking the 'Controversy' section, the same IP blanked the paragraph immediately before it (indicating straightforward blanking testing/vandalism). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Doc 23:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, if you're referencing the "divine passage" I believe you are, "If you read something negative about someone, and there is no source, then either find a _legitimate_ source (and make sure that WE do not make the negative claim, but rather than we merely report neutrally on what the claim is), or just remove it... and insist that anyone who wants to put it back, do so with a legitimate source!", that would support deleting the information. However, you'll notice the emphasis is to make sure that it's sourced, not to simply remove it because it's negative. This is about WP:V, not "being nice", so what we need is proper case-by-case judgment, not a blanket guide about being unable to revert people who are removing negative information. --tjstrf 23:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In an ideal world where WP:V was the only relevant issue, an unsourced paragraph that said that the subject won an award recently would merit just as much scrutiny as one saying he was arrested for drink-driving. However, obviously this isn't an ideal world, people like to sue, RC patrollers have limited inclination to fact-check articles on people whom they don't care about, and if people are going to fact-check anything we should make sure they check negative information first. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The major problem here is your first point. People are reverting "vandalism" without ever stopping to read it, without ever noticing that what was being blanked was the unsourced section saying the subject was a child molestor or an embezzeler (yes, I have seen both such cases in the past). People assume anything in the article was "perfectly good" and revert without thinking, and so we end up with the problem that we're essentially protecting the defamation. This is bad from an encyclopedic standpoint, from an ethical standpoint, and from a not-getting-our-asses-sued standpoint. I'm not sure what order you rank those three in, but it's not good for any of them. Shimgray | talk | 00:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after all, one should take one's responsibilities. When you revert libellious claim, you are, effectively, inserting it yourself. When you block somebody who was removing unsourced, libellious claim, you are, effectively, exercing editorial control to maintain this claim. (*) You then put yourself as a prime target for the possible lawsuit, especially if the Foundation tries to dodge responsibility by claiming it's the responsibility of whoever inputted the entry. You may also find that some people would like to sue us in various locales (I'm thinking of England here, among other places), and may also prefer to have some local identifiable defendant rather than a foundation in Florida. And I'm ready to bet that the Foundation will be eager to hand over your connection data to judicial authorities if it avoids it some legal trouble; actually, as far as I know, it has already done so.

(*) Ask User:Soufron. David.Monniaux 00:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you take responsibility for your own edits. That's why you should verify it from an outside source. (If you can cite the negative claim to someone else, then you can pass the legal buck on to them.) Would legal responsibility actually apply to reverts of unexplained section blanking though?

What confuses me about your initial statement, though, is that there are people complaining about negative information about the staff of highschools. Wouldn't most of those be your traditional teenage "Mr. Smith sux!" vandal, and easily dealt with? Or has it gotten beyond that, to vandals writing believable libelous claims? --tjstrf 00:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be surprised how many are "$school employs three known child molestors"; "$school recently came under controversy after beating pupils"; "$school is a haven of drug use"; "$school is currently under investigation for X", etc, etc. Common abuse is one thing, but vandals often don't stop there. Shimgray | talk | 01:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh! A nice little injunction because of, guess what, yet another school libelled in WP! Schools make up a significant proportion of the libel allegations received in OTRS. And guess who they're after? The last person who inserted the content!

Not all school issues are straightforward stuff like "Mr Smith sux". In some instances allegations are made that Mr Smith is a pedophile, or a pervert, or a fraudster, or a known racist.

As for responsibility, Soufron (the former chief legal officer of the Foundation) seemed to believe that it fell upon the people who had exerced an editorial power — thus including those who had reinserted litigious content after it was deleted. David.Monniaux 00:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article link on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_4#Telefact links to this page. Don't know if its recreated or missed content that should have be deleted. Telefact seems to redirect to Telefacts. Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 01:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the original article, but reading the AfD indicates that it had something to do with the university of Pittsburg. The current article Telefacts is about a completely unrelated matter, an existing and popular TV program in Flanders (Belgium). A legitimate article, and a reasonable redirect, so no problems there. On an unrelated note, when I tried to edit this section, I came at a completely different one (humor something or other). So I'm editing this by going through the whole way too long page... Fram 13:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted a move request regarding moving Prime Minister to Prime minister, per reasons given on Talk:Prime Minister#Requested Move. After the standard five days, there were three other users in agreement with the move and no objections. Thus, I performed the move. Jtdirl moved the page back saying the move is fundamentally incorrect and against policy because prime minister either has both of its words capitalized or both of its words not capitalized. He added that "it was decided long ago, on this and similar cases, that there was no option but to use the title in uppercase" and that "indeed if the RM proposal had been spotted in time, admins would have aborted it as the vote is invalid under WP rules," but I saw no discussion of this on Talk:Prime Minister. Is Jtdirl indeed correct about this discussion or can the page (as I and, presumably, the other supporters believe) be moved to Prime minister and a {{lowercase}} template (if necessary) be added to the article? -- tariqabjotu 01:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has come up a few times all over the place. There are certain titles involving a number of words which can be lowercased or uppercased, but which must be done in unison. A mixed upper-case/lower-case title for certain offices is fundamentally wrong in English. (It is the equivalent of writing United states or George w bush, or indeed President of the united states.) Because of this the requirement for full uppercasing or full lowercasing was explicitly spelt out when it comes to prime minister/Prime Minister in the Naming Conventions and elsewhere. In the past, when the page was moved to a mixed upper & lower case, the move was instantly undone by admins under the IAR rule, on the basis that to put an office under such a illiterate form of name would be to bring ridicule on Wikipedia, because it is such a fundamental error. (It is the sort of error that students, if they replicate it in exams, are instantly failed on. It is what is known in the academic trade as a "nuclear error" because if you do it, nothing else counts.) While the RM procedure normally functions smoothly, the wisdom of Wikipedia's rule about decisions not being based on votes is shown here.

Where there is a valid argument for either uppercasing or lowercasing, for technical reasons we cannot an entirely lowercased version. Rather than make ourselves a laughing stock, it has long been precedent in these and other cases to use the only other alternative then available, using the uppercase version of the title. As with precedent in this and similar cases, to avoid embarrassment to WP and going by the rules laid down in the MoS and NC, I used IAR to overrule the RM vote and reinstate the page to a correct format. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you are correct here, Fear, you are exaggerating significantly. I certainly don't appreciate the suggestion from an admin that I am making Wikipedia a laughing stock and attracting the ire of the international media by a simple article move. I hope the hyperbole was intentional.

Nevertheless, the advertisement for the WP:RM backlog is impossible to resist here. -- tariqabjotu 02:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something to consider is that the input of three people might not be sufficient for a move of such gravity. For example, in cases where only a few people have weighed in on an AfD it is relisted in the hope of attracting more attention. In this instance, a note on the village pump, or at WP:PEER, or anywhere else where interested parties lurk would not have been amiss. Mackensen (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That might have been a good idea in 20/20 hindsight, but there was no reason to believe that was necessary as no one objected to the move or mentioned this precedent. Many move requests don't get much input and, as Wikipedia:Moving guidelines for administrators says, In general there is a consensus that there is no minimum participation, unlike with AfD. -- tariqabjotu 02:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, as far as process is concerned everything was by the book. This doesn't change that fact the more people should have been consulted, and that the article ended up in the wrong place. Mackensen (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright; I'll keep that in mind for the future. -- tariqabjotu 02:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support Jtdirl's interpretation of the situation. Had I been aware of the proposed move, I would have objected in the strongest terms. Mackensen (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a further note, the title "Prime Minister" became an official one in the United Kingdom in 1905 or thereabouts, when Campbell-Bannerman took office. It could be argued that prior to 1905 the office was a notional one in the UK, and that the First Lord of the Treasury (or Foreign Secretary in the case of Salisbury) was the monarch's "prime minister." Of course, this ignores the Continental usage, where the office was established in law far earlier than that. Mackensen (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think, Tariq, you realise how big a mistake it is. Saying it would make WP a laughing stock is if anything understating how ridiculous it would look. It is the equivalent of writing United states, of calling Berlin the capital of France, or of writing about a "Prime Minister of the United States". It is the sort of mistake that would lead readers to ask "how could an encyclopaedia make such an elementary mistake?" If the article had remained at Prime minister I can pretty much guarantee that the mistake would make the Sunday newspapers in Britain next Sunday with "and they call this an encyclopaedia?" articles. It is a cringemaking mistake that a first year politics student would get pulled up for. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the capitalization of a letter right? And there is still a redirect to the article, which wasn't demolished, right? It is the equivalent of only the first thing you described, "United states", the other two are plainly different and it is ridiculous to equate them. "United states" doesn't look that bad, by the way, and "united States" was the capitalization used in the united states declaration of independence. —Centrx→talk • 03:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is about accuracy. The office can either have both words uppercased or both lowercased. It can never ever ever have one uppercased and one lowercased. That is idiotic, akin to writing President bush. As WP cannot for technical reasons have both words lowercased the only option is to go with the uppercased version. A RM vote (of 3!) decided to ignore the rules of grammar and all the rules of Wikipedia as laid out (and the case of prime minister/Prime Minister is explicitly spelt out as an example where half-upper and half-lower is not an option) and move to a made-up name that is quite simply illiterate bullshit. As admins have done in the past (on this article in particular) I used to IAR rule laid down by Jimbo to overrule the application of a move which would make WP a laughing stock. And yes, Centrx, Prime minister. as Mackensen and anyone else who deals with current affairs, political science, history etc will tell you, is illiterate nonsense. It is one of those elementary faux pas taught to students as a "you must never ever . . ." It also features in style guides worldwide as an example of what never ever to do. BTW united states, lowercased, means an informal, unstructured group of states. United States, uppercased, means a formal country by that name. United states, mixed, means either that the person who wrote it had been drinking, or had an English teacher so bad they should sue them for incompetence. Prime minister means the same. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 04:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hope you are joking. —Centrx→talk • 04:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is beyond ludicrous. First off, to quickly deal with User:Jtdirl's utterly ridiculous example: "United States" is a proper noun, a name; "prime minister", isn't. If you have a reality-based example, bring it out, but this isn't one. If you can't tell the difference, don't spout off nonsense about "illiterate bullshit".

Second, since "prime minister" is the proper form for the job, Wikipedia page titling -- and standard English orthography -- demands the page be called "Prime minister", just like every other two-word title would be in every other similiar situation. Since this is absolutely standard, the only people likely to be confused by this are morons -- and while I realized that Wikipedia is not edited for the protection of minors, I didn't realize it was edited for the protection of morons. Make "WP a laughing stock"? Only among complete idiots.

It also features in style guides worldwide as an example of what never ever to do. Fine, give an example, one that explicitly says that using "prime minister" at the beginning of sentences demands that both words be capitalized. --Calton | Talk 09:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order to stop this ridiculous wikilawyering, should we propose the move from Prime Minister to prime minister instead? In that case, morons will be protected as well and everyone happy. (Yeah, I do know what will be the page's title in that case, in case mor someone didn't get the sarcasm.) Duja 11:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the page back to Prime minister, in accordance with both Wikipedia's naming conventions and the consensus on the talk page. —The preceding signed comment was added by Angr (talk • contribs). 12:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Style wars are silly. Find something more useful to do. --Tony Sidaway 12:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reserving a spot at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. If this continues this way, we will be having some administrators blocked, a couple of RFCs, and a lot of stress for a single letter. -- ReyBrujo 12:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I brought my hip waders today, as I'm going to get knee deep in it here... I don't have my Canadian Press stylebook handy today, but I know that in referring to Stephen Harper, when I'm not using words that aren't repeatable in polite society, I capitalize Prime Minister, and I have one style reference that says that it should be capitalized depending on the importance of the person being referred to - suggesting that as federal government policy. [1] Here's another guide that suggests it's capitalized in conjunction with a name, but not otherwise. [2] This guide says only capitalize if it's after a name when referring to a head of government. http://www.yorku.ca/gcareers/grammar/capital_letters.htm#RULE%206:] A discussion we had at the office here last week on titles brought forward that if we're putting it before a proper name, it should be capitalized all the time, but if it's after, we can use lower case. Personally, I'd still capitalize Prime Minister if I'm referring to Harper or Blair, but that's the joy of being an editor - you can bend things occasionally. However, we might also want to look at our own manual of style, which, under the second section on Titles discusses capitalization of prime minister depending on various uses. All in all, I think we should follow the initial suggestion: move to "Prime minister" and add the un-capitalized note at the top. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a long-winded comment on the talk page. Basically, it comes down to a pragmatic decision about what does or doesn't "look funny" that has to be made in some pragmatic way. If it's a question of what is technically correct, then we should write "prime minister" throughout the article except when it begins a sentence. The title of the article should then be "Prime minister" because it is our publisher's house style always to capitalise the first letter of an article's title. Surely, though, we make some pragmatic exceptions to this, don't we? Metamagician3000 10:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, that doesn't mean that I think the circumstances justify a pragmatic exception being made here. I have no opinion about that. I just think that it would be good if both sides realised that the other side has a point. In one case it's grounded in consistent application of house style; in the other it's grounded in the risk of public misunderstanding. At the moment, consistent application of house style seems to be the majority approach, and I can certainly live with that. Metamagician3000 23:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is humor appropriate for this format ? Would it be incorrect for two Wikipedians to tell jokes to each other ? Any references, clarification ? Martial Law 04:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I did'nt ask, someone else may, and not be so polite about it. Martial Law 04:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? What "format"? Anyway, humour has long been an accepted part of Wikipedia culture, just not in article space. See Category:Wikipedia humor and WP:BJAODN. There's nothing wrong with two users telling jokes to each other inasmuch as it may help relieve wikistress and therefore help the project, just as long as it doesn't go overboard since Wikipedia is not a blog or myspace. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If two Wikipedians who substantially contribute to the encyclopedic want to tell a couple of jokes to each other from time to time on their User talk pages there is nothing wrong with that. If it is more than that, though, then other means of communication, like e-mail, should instead be used. —Centrx→talk • 04:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read some of User:Giano's comments at User talk:Lar#Carnildo, who (Giano) continues to have hard feelings about a block comment that User:Carnildo wrote when blocking Giano a while ago. This may be a problem that has affected more than one user.

My first instinct was to say we'd need block and edit summaries to be editable by the blocking/editing party, but that means either accepting that when the block comment is removed, the offense is forgiven, or adding another layer of revision control, presumably without summaries. Such an additional layer of r.c. would add too much complexity for my liking (and may not meet with much enthusiasm from the developers).

There is potential that if implemented without r.c., such a facility would undermine the value we currently derive from block comments as a log of past objectionable actions, because there is potential that admins give in to blocked parties too easily upon unblocking, and remove this important information in cases where the user continues to be disruptive. On the other hand, it would be a way of building forgiveness right into the system. It does, however, assume that users understand that if they quote edit summaries, the quoted content becomes, in all but very rare instances justifying oversight, embedded in the edit history, thus remaining visible to those willing to put in the effort to dig it up.

An alternative would be a spam filter for edit, upload, block etc. summaries that gives a warning about the use of typically derogatory words - a warning that could be overridden by a second click (as may be important for articles about anatomical parts or derogatory terms, for instance). This could (?) be easier to implement, but will not catch every offensive instance.

Thoughts? Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love the idea, after all:

• "Repent therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out" (Acts 3:19)
• "when he forgave us all our trespasses, he erased the record that stood against us" (Col 2:14)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't God, so I think you'll need to 'forgive but not forget'. Not even the blood of the Jimbo would expunge your block record. But rather "I know my iniquities, and my sin is ever before me" (Psa 51). --Doc 11:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea to have a technical facility to do so but probably best used only by decision of ArbCom: e.g. they could have decided in the pedophile wheelwar case that the 'bad' blocks could be struck from the log. Just a thought. The Land 11:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well spoken, Samsara. The technical facility has been proposed, or one close to it. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Expunging_block_log_entries ++Lar: t/c 11:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except where defamatory statements or private information are included, it wouldn't really be appropriate (and we can't easily filter those out automatically). It's important on Wikipedia to have a sense of proportion; those who don't may pose a problem, but this can be dealt with using normal, human methods. Writing yet more complex software won't help. --Tony Sidaway 12:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we need the ability to wipe a long, the more more urgent one would be the deletion log. I've at least once deleted an article with a libelous or privacy violating title and then though 'woops'. I suspect that happens more often than unfortunate blocking summaries. --Doc 12:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The auto-deletion summaries are often very bad, including birthdates of real people or even attacks. It would make sense to change some of them, much more than the block log. Kusma (討論) 12:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed here also. I've had this problem also. JoshuaZ 21:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened to the idea of, "Once a criminal, always a criminal"? If someone screws up once, they're likely to screw up again. Even if they don't screw up again, the people who violate policy once still deserve extra scrutiny. (Except, perhaps, for people who have expertise in highways.) It's like that old "permanent record" they threatened kids with in school: "This is going to go on your permanent record!" Removing notifications of blocks, or removing vandalism warnings, is an all-too-convenient way of erasing one's permanent record. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice cite of unreasonableness to encourage reasonableness, Elkman! However, it was all summed up better above: "forgive but don't forget". That's a good policy that guards against people falling back into old ways. However, it rarely applies in real life. Those who made a genuine mistake go away and reappear under a new username and never mention their old identity. Those who set out to destroy Wikipedia and changed their minds demand forgiveness but only allow about 8 minutes for it to be granted before they start destroying again, "justified" by not being believed (cf User:Lir). Those who are seriously deranged - and I mean "water tower-rifle interface error" - scream for positions of power in return for returning as "an ordinary user", then start to vandalise in a complete "help me! help me! I need pills and a rubber room!" way (qv User:Blu Aardvark).

Wikipedia as a whole has bags and bags of forgiveness, beyond anything that would be found reasonable in Real Life. And still we tend to be caught out by it. Huh. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this analogy is that, at least in Giano's case, there was no initial wrong. He wasn't hate speaking. His block needs expunging. Elkman would it be OK with you if I blocked you with the notation " indef block, major wanker, eats children in his spare time, runs down old ladies in crosswalks " ?? That's an exaggeration but it's just as unjust and unwarranted a block entry as "hate speech". I think it would be a lot easier for Giano to forgive Carnildo if that smirch were removed. Of course I could be wrong and he would never forgive him but that's my theory. ++Lar: t/c 20:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the block log, one cannot force forgiveness or amend lost trust by decree. Especially when there is seemingly so little incentive to do so. But since Giano is bothered by his block log, I'm blocking him for 10 seconds with an appropriate block log note attached. I, at least, was immediately resysop'd so as to be able to make such a note, plus Essjay added his own. El_C 21:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to expand on my own block log note (which is indeed harsh) because I consider it closely tied to my approach toward Carnildo, who in his responses, draw the comparison that preemptively blocking pedophiles is similar in nature to preemptively blocking homosexuals. My antipathy toward his stance is largely based on the fact that, in the realm of ideas, he has yet to address these notions. So, intellectually, as far as I can understand, that remains his position, which is a pitvotal problem for me. El_C 21:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick heads up; this has 17 items as of this timestamp (I've seen a backlog tag with just 8!). --ais523 10:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

We are now up to 689 links to chabad.org ([3]), which is far beyond what can be justified by this small though significant organisation. I'm sure many of these are valid and appropriate, but I'm equally sure that we are being spammed. Can a couple of helpful individuals pop along to my Tal;k page and see if we can work out how to approach this? I am really not convinced that we need to have the Chabad-Lubavich perspective on every single subject which touches on Judaism, but it's not a simple case of nuke-on-sight, and it's rightly been rejected at the spam blacklist as having at least some legitimate uses. Just zis Guy you know? 17:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went through a number of the links but could only delete a few. Many of them are relevant to the articles in question but some are merely links to other collections of links. The ones I deleted were the links to more link of links :-). I do wonder, though, if there is a faster way to deal with this (like a bot)?--Alabamaboy 18:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive55#Spam-a-rama copy/pasted below for relevant discussion the last time JzG brought this up. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pasting the info below. As I said, the links that are to useful articles are no-brainer keeps but I personally don't believe the links to further links should be kept. However, while I removed a few of the most blatent of these I'm not going to spend any more time doing so. Best, --Alabamaboy 20:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted two types of links, one was a link from the weekly Parsha of Matot [4] which has links to every viewpoint in Judaism's commentaries on it and there should be not reason why chabad's should not be included. Another example is this edit [5] which was a relevant link to the customs of the Priestly Blessing. In regards to your point about linking to further links. The links on chabad.org which have links to more articles are a collection of articles on one topic and is far better than linking to each individual article from wikipedia, as it covers many aspects of one subject. In the future please be more carefull before you mass remove links. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive55#Spam-a-rama

See this list [6] of links to chabad.org, a polemical website. Many of these links are inappropriate (in Christian topics, for example, where the Hasidic view is not really relevant). I am not sure what to do about this. Hundreds of links always lights up the spam radar. Just zis Guy you know? 12:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Zap the lot of them, and enjoy it! --kingboyk 12:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all it is not a polemical website. It is one of the largest Jewish websites out there. Each link is an important resource which belongs there under WP:EL. An example of a link which he removed is this link from the Psalms article, which is the Judaica Press (Non-Hasidic) translation with the commentary of Rashi. I have restored those links. Which christian topics does it have links by? I could not find any. The Problem of evil which you removed a link [7] is applicable in Judaism as well. etc.--PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you deny that it carries heavily politicised pro-Israeli editorial content, then? Just zis Guy you know? 13:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It has a few article which are very pro-Israel, but that is to be expected from a Jewish site. In fact every Jewish site out there has pro-Israel articles, are we going to start removing links to all of them? The links that are in the articles are to specific sections of the site that deal with the content of that article. For example in the Psalms article it links to the transalation and commentary of Psalms, not to any Israel related content. The Israel content is a tiny fraction of a percent of the site. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC) In addition its Pro-Israel articles focus less on politics and more on prayer, charity, and good deeds. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you deny that it carries heavily politicised pro-Israeli editorial content, then? And the translation with commentary is indeed problematic, as is the fact that the copyright status of the commentary is somewhat unclear, and the fact that it is surrounded by adverts selling off the page (see the shopping cart icon?). Oh, and the text "at chabad.org" is weblinked not internally linked. Just zis Guy you know? 13:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

About the Pro-Israel content see above. Why is a third party commentary Rashi problamatic? There is no problem with copyright. You can write to Judaica Press to ask them. and a small advert on the side offering someone to buy a hard copy is quite reasonable when you are making the entire copy available online for free. I don't know, but perhaps Judaica Press asked them to place a link there as part of the agreement. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Chabad-Lubavitch is a popular and well-known Jewish movement, and chabad.org is a popular Jewish website - for example, it gets an Alexa ranking of 10,786, significantly higher than other popular sites about Judaism like askmoses.com (15,200), aish.com (15,930), ou.org (66,439), and jewfaq.org (68,141). I daresay it is the most popular site about Judaism on the internet. The fact that it carries a small amount of material about Israel is almost inevitable (just about every Jewish site does), though it's not clear what makes this content "heavily politicised". In any event, most of the links appear to be not to content that has anything to do with Israel at all, but rather to relevant pages on Jewish thought on various topics. In particular it's hard to imagine what is objectionable about the links to Jewish translations of various books of the Bible, along with Rashi's commentary. The Judaica Press translation is generally recognized as one of the most scholarly Jewish translations (it's not a translation done by Chabad, btw), and Rashi is the pre-eminent Jewish commentator - observant Jews almost never read the Bible without using his commentary. All in all, these links are a rather valuable service provided to the Wikipedia reader. Oh, and regarding "copyright" issues, Rashi wrote the commentary in Hebrew in the 11th century, so I suspect his copyright has expired at this point. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Jay on this one. That said, the chabad.org site does not in every single instance represent the mainstream Orthodox Jewish viewpoint. In those cases, alternatives may need to be sought. But I don't support blanket removal of all links simply because an editor (an admin in good standing) once added them many months ago. JFW | T@lk 22:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is that we are in many cases representing the Chabad-Lubavitch POV as the Jewish POV, which is not exactly correct. If we don't do that, but don't have the mainstream Jewish POV, then it's undue weight. I think in many cases the Chabad link could be replaced with a link to the article in the Jewish Encyclopaedia. Just zis Guy you know? 13:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are 5,013 links to the Jewish Encyclopedia [8] if you know of any articles that still need a link, feel free to add it. However probably due to the outdated language that they use they are one of the less visited sites according to alexa [9]. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry if this is the wrong place for a question like this--please redirect me to the right place if it is not.

A user recently added a dump from this site to the Brampton, Ontario page, which I twice reverted as copyrighted information. He then emailed me stating that he worked for the City of Brampton and was the author of said information. I'm no expert on copyright, so I told him I'd contact someone here, but I assume he'd need to prove that the city itself (that is, someone who has legal authority to speak on its behalf) has given permission to use this copyrighted information on Wikipedia (and in essence release the copyright through acceptance of the GFDL). If he can provide this information, where should it be directed to? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email to permissions@wikimedia.org, explicitly stating a) what the page in question is and b) that they're willing to have the material licensed under the GDFL. Email should come from an address clearly recognisable as the operator of the site. Shimgray | talk | 18:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should also let them know that licensing under GDFL also means they are giving up copyright and control over their text. Sometimes these places don't realize the implications of allowing this. You can direct them to Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission for more info and instructions on how to do all this.--Alabamaboy 18:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, in most Berne countries, the copyright of a creation made during the course of employment by and as part of the duties of a body vests the copyright in the employing body, not the employee. That's how Wikipedia gets to use NASA images and US National Parks photos as Public Domain - the copyright goes to the person paying the wages, not the person earning those wages (and, in the case of this example, US Fed Gov stuff is generally PD). ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I let him know all of the above. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 20:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't giving up the copyright; users retain the copyright to any text they contribute, presuming that a copyright would apply. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, just an invitation to all here to please add the new Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons noticeboard to eveyone's watchlist:

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard.

Thanks. (→Netscott) 19:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Poet's Life, the article creator, User:Worthlessboy1420 has closed the debate as a speedy keep, after also advocating for the article to be kept. Notwithstanding a number of keep votes, I think that's a bit odd. Could someone take a peek? Tony Fox (arf!) 20:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It did not meet the speedy keep criteria, and the article's author should not speedily close the discussion. I am not certain that the concerns of everybody commenting "delete" were adressed. Kusma (討論) 20:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IAR is one of the five pillars... --Kbdank71 20:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it isn't. "We have no firm rules" is, but that's not an endorsement of IAR as much as an endorsement of how our policies evolve. Regardless, it looks like the close was thankfully reversed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your assertion doesn't become true just because you constantly repeat it, you know. --Calton | Talk 07:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The truth, however, will set people free. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • No doubt. Completely irrelevent to anything you've actually said, of course, but a wise and a pithy saying. Did you bring it up for a reason? --Calton | Talk 19:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, let's all do whatever the fuck heck we want, IAR! Who needs common sense, anyways? --Conti|✉ 21:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have dropped the user in question a note asking him not to do it again. Article deletion procedures should be followed unless there is a very good reason. The Land 21:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was an overwhelming keep. This was an appropriate action. --Tony Sidaway 14:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's appropriate for the creator of an article to close the AfD on that article as a keep in less than a day of it being up? I haven't a problem with the article myself, but that seems to set a fairly dangerous precedent. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a precedent. Since there's been no jiggery-pokery the close was obvious and appropriate. --Tony Sidaway 18:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People involved in the discussion should not do the closing. Period. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* I find this is incredibly bad timing considering the issue with User:Publicgirluk and all.. — The Future 21:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and see if I can determine the copyright status later, but IMHO, it should stay deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually suggesting for it to be deleted, but I never got to post a update before Drini deleted it. :) — The Future 21:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader has uploaded a fairuse (orphaned ready for deletion) and a fairuse trying to pass a gfdl-self. So I assumed trolling and copyvio -- Drini 21:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a complex underlying issue, however, I am concerned by Stirling's overt legal threats made against me with no evidence whatsoever to support them here: [10] and here [11]. Request administrative intervention to remind Mr. Newberry that he should keep his head cool and not resort to accusing me of "illegaility" and "slander/libel." T Turner 21:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T Turner is obviously not a new editor. The account T_Turner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been used solely to attack and edit war with Stirling Newberry. (It's first edit was to criticize Stirling on another editor's talk page.) I warned Turner earlier today that if he couldn't find a positive and non-Newberry-related way to contribute to Wikipedia he would be blocked. I have just issued a final warning to Turner to find something useful and non-Newberry to do. If he fails to take heed, I intend to block him indefinitely as another sock of the editors who have been harrassing Newberry. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I have not said I was a "new editor" you automatically side with Stirling Newberry even though he falsely accused me of spamming his cell phone? What you are saying is that Stirling is allowed to violate WP:NPA, whereas when I bring up a valid point, I get threatened with a block. That is obviously unfair, and I feel that your "friendship" with Stirling is clouding your impartial judgement on this issue. If I am blocked by you related to my non violation of Wikipedia policies, I will pursue RFC. T Turner 22:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome the comments, advice, and scrutiny of any other admin. I would ask that T Turner not re-delete my comments to him from his talk page until this complaint is resolved. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser request might prove fruitful. On the other hand, banning a troublemaker is faster. Mackensen (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for speed.

All of his edits are attacks on Stirling. I blocked it indefinitely as a harrassment account, and welcome review of this action. Antandrus (talk) 02:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

based on a quick review: support. ++Lar: t/c 15:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd not concern myself with posting a relatively trivial question here but both my own page move and that of an admin have been reverted concerning an image's talk page. This image had to be reuploaded due to the fact that its original name was completely out of accord with NPOV. Since the image is identical save for its new name shouldn't the original talk page be moved to correspond to the image's new name? Thanks in advance. (→Netscott) 23:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of a number of attempts by Netscott to cause trouble over this issue. First, it's a content dispute and therefore not appropriate for AN/I. Secondly, it's BLP-related, and therefore I won't go into detail on-wiki. Anyone wanting to know the background is welcome to e-mail me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing like a bit of transparency to allow for a proper review of the matter I always say. (→Netscott) 23:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This in fact is a WP:BLP issue as User:SlimVirgin rightly says. It involves Wikipedia implying (through lack of a reliable citation in the text of the concerned article) that an individual is an anti-Semite. But that is besides the point. Save for "ignore all rules" what is standard policy regarding the moving of image talk pages? (→Netscott) 23:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If an uninvolved party could review this that'd be appreciated. My valid concerns are now being deleted by SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Thanks. (→Netscott) 23:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As SlimVirgin rightly said this is not the place to discuss content issues. This thread was started relative to the question of moving a talk page of an image under the image's new name. Also please note that there is an AOL user trying to move the comments and SlimVirgin's has used here rollback tool to undo this anon's edits. (→Netscott) 00:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not for WP:ANI. It is a content dispute. Please take it to talk page ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding Jossi but my question still remains about moving an image's talk page. I think we both can agree that's not a content issue no? (→Netscott) 00:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP question is now being discussed in the proper place over here on WP:BLP/N. (→Netscott) 01:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask editors wishing to refer to the blocking policy to use the words "blocking policy"? Using arcane abbreviations as some kind of shorthand does not help the readability of these often complex discussions. If you expect people to spend time reading your words, please spend the extra quarter of a second or so it takes to type the words. --Tony Sidaway 14:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe they are referring to "Biographies of living persons", but your apparent confusion is another example of why we should not use shorthand in normal conversation. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(There is a User:kross they are defaming.)

user:SuperMayan Has recreated the deleted attack article Kross and is taunting me with it. User:IncredibleJake had originally created this and I gave him a test 3 for it. User:Incredible Jake had earlier taunted me with a note on my talk page about similar posting on unencyclopedia which I reverted because it contained an external link and I don;t care about unencyclopedia. Rather than taking the bait, I'm posting here as it does not have a db-attack on it yet and I don't want to feed the trolls. Oh dear, oh me, another taunt from User:Incredible Jake as I'm typing this note. I'm not so worried about the stalking as the defamatory attack article on Wikipedia. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 06:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 06:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied and protected against re-creation. -- Vary | Talk 07:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is another major backlog on the Category:Candidates for Speedy Deletion, which I have been working on for the last hour. However, I really need to go to bed now and there are still about 200 items left, mostly images. Academic Challenger 08:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still a problem, I've spent half an hour and deleted around 100 images and articles. About 240 items in there now. --Robdurbar 10:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category was getting full of images because a bot, PoccilScript (talk · contribs), was using {{db}} rather than {{NowCommons}}. The bot was blocked by Geni. --bainer (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am inviting a review of my move of the article Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma to Queen Anne of Romania, as I am still getting complaints about it. It is a rather complicated situation. Queen Anne of Romania is the most common usage, but there are also good reasons why Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma should be used (see Talk:Queen Anne of Romania, User talk:Kjkolb and this section of the Administrator's Noticeboard for discussions). The survey results were two to one in favor of a move. At first, I did not move the article because of an apparent conflict in the naming conventions, the most common usage vs. a rule for the naming of consorts. Then another naming convention seemed to apply, so I moved the article based on that and the survey result. However, the other convention may not be relevant, either. Still, I did not move the article back because of the survey result and Queen Anne of Romania being the most common usage. Also, moving the article back and forth does not seem like a good idea. Finally, while I would not call two to one (or three to one) a consensus, requested moves usually get little participation, often it is just the nominator, so going by the majority is more practical (barring any reasons why the majority position should not be followed, such as a relevant naming convention or having weaker arguments than the minority). -- Kjkolb 09:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David is asking to have his talkpage delete and cites his right to vanish. I can understand having his userpage deleted, but believe talk pages should be retained for historical purposes and to ensure discussions aren't broken on one side. Has this been discussed already? I appear to have a distant memory of a similar discussion in the past with a more famous Wikipedian. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I think the talk page can be blanked (and protected if necessary) but is not actually deleted. Thatcher131 (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a reasonable idea. It leaves the edit history in tact, but still allows him to disappear. - Mgm (not logged in) 12:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in this case since there are no warnings he would be allowed to delete it per meta:Right to vanish. However he has already had his user talk page deleted twice before (check the page log). I would suggest looking at the deleted versions to see if he has ever previously claimed "right to vanish" or if he was previously hiding administrative warnings. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A blanked page is still a page - no vanishing there. Meta:Right_to_vanish mentions neither previous deletions nor administrative warnings (not that there were any), so those objections are beside the point. David Sneek 15:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that the notices on such a page may be archived, but not deleted. Particularly if the user name is still functional. Kukini 16:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's odd that a user should repeatedly have a page deleted under 'right to vanish'. RTV really only applies if the user intends to leave the project, I believe. If David is really through with Wikipedia, it would be appropriate to delete his userpages under right to vanish, but perhaps with the understanding that all revisions should be restored if he resumes editing? The last time those pages were deleted was on August 19, and David has edited more or less continuously since then, so RTV wouln't have applied. -- Vary | Talk 16:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't appeal to "right to vanish" before, I just asked for the page to be deleted and this was done. I am planning to vanish this time. David Sneek 16:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is my understanding as well. David will need to stop editing under this user name alltogether. Administrators do the task of "vanishing" you David. Kukini 16:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The deleting admin should check the prior deletions to see what reasoning was claimed then; as long as David is not a "serial vanisher" then we should assume good faith and let him vanish this time (but maybe watchlist it too). Thatcher131 (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrator, I am able to delete the user upon his request, I believe. I will do so now. Please contact me if you have any concerns about the process. Kukini 16:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deindenting. No concerns about the deletion, but should David resume or continue editing wikipedia, I do think that all revisions of the talk page should be restored, per Thatcher's comment about 'serial vanishing'. If David wants to start over, he should do it with a new account. Other than posting of personal information and similar extenuating circumstances, I think the history of an active editor's talk page should be available to all editors, not just admins. -- Vary | Talk 16:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am in complete agreement with Vary on this. Kukini 17:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk pages are supposed to be kept. They can be blanked, but the history must be intact. The only times that they are deleted is when the user has only a couple of edits and is leaving forever or has already been blocked indefinitely and requests deletion to make a clean break, when the user is being harassed or when Jimbo deletes it, which is rare. I think that the page should be restored and blanked. -- Kjkolb 19:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user requested to "vanish" and was afforded this opportunity. Right to vanish does not apply selectively to user talk pages and not the actual user account, but to the entire user account. In the service of helping this user vanish, the IP and account creation options were both left available. If this account is to be restarted,the user talk page needs to be brought back in its entirety. Of course, the user has the right to archive it, but not to delete notices such as "test 1." Kukini 22:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I concur in Kjkolb's analysis, which seems quite consistent not only with that which I've long understood to be our practice but also with that which is plainly sensible. Joe 03:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the second or third long-standing, good editor to quit Wikipedia as a result of the situation with the anarchism-related articles, even though my editing expanded far beyond them. Anarchism is listed as one of the subjects on which every Wikipedia should have an article on; yet, it is probably one of the worst and most unstable articles on the English-language Wikipedia. It draws to it a myriad of ideological warriors, from both sides of the spectrum, who have no problem gaming the system to get what they want. Some of them (like RJII or Thewolfstar) have been banned, but have also admitted or been proven to have numerous sock puppets.

While most of the editors of these articles, regardless of partisanship, are reasonable and intelligent people who are willing to compromise, there have always been two or three (an interesting number, considering that two or three have been banned indefinitely) editors who have thrived on throwing matches into the powder keg. These editors know well how to game the system, and some administrators, probably unwittingly, play right into their hands. They wait for the slightest violation of Wikipedia policy by editors they disagree with and then report it immediately and vindictively, and a few administrators are always more than willing to come barreling in to block so-and-so without actually attempting to understand the context of the situation. I have been blocked three times in the three years that I have spent on Wikipedia, all within the span of the last month or so, as these users have learned how to better game the system. I am not typically a hot-headed or edit-warring type of editor. The second time, it was a mistake (later admitted by all involved). The last time, it was a mistake, but then again, Woohookitty does seem to be incapable of error (and quite rude -- but then again, as a long-standing and active administrator, he deserves the respect of a soldier on the front lines, God bless him, I could never comprehend his travails).

Since I no longer see any reason to put any time into Wikipedia, and now see my thousands of edits and time spent trying to improve particular articles as rather pointless, I've decided to quit along with the two or three editors who have also recently quit as a result of this very same problem. I am posting this, as my last message to WP:AN, only because I hope that people will actually put some time into this problem and attempt to fix it. That is all. I don't want any sympathy, and I don't care whether or not anybody agrees or disagrees with my last block. It just needs to be recognized that there is a huge problem, and that that problem is not me, or Two-Bit Sprite, or Blahblahblahblah, or infinity0, or The Ungovernable Force, or any of the myriad of other editors involved in these articles, but rather two or three editors with too much time on their hands. --AaronS 13:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked into the specifics of this case. However, I have already seen practices of "gaming the system": using the formal rules of Wikipedia (3RR etc.) to get rid of people of different opinions who have less time to spare or who are less organized. There's something flawed there; essentially, a group of decided POV-pushers with time to spare can effectively lock out good contributors.

I'm personally in favor of applying 3RR sensibly. David.Monniaux 17:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your comments, Aaron. What dispute resolution steps have been tried with that article? Might be time for an RfAr to try to get things under control. That article has been "trouble" for a long long time. And I might've been hasty with the blocks and comments. We admins can make mistakes too. Not making excuses for myself but it reminds me of Neuro-linguistic programming when it was at its worst. It's so complex that it's hard to adjudicate anything. --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to answer your question, that article has been through a great deal of dispute resolution (RfAr, MedCab, etc.), and it hasn't helped one iota. The most troublesome editors are not interested in compromise. To compromise, for them, is to lose the great struggle. RJII, for instance, really believes that he is on the front lines of a revolution. Also, thank you for your comments. I appreciate that. --AaronS 21:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the indefinite block on User:KarlV, which had run for a month, based on the prior discussion showing no community consensus/support for an indefinite block. I'd urge all involved to refrain from further inflammatory accusations or actions and see if Karl's repeated promises of good behaviour are born out. --CBD 17:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't want to lose Dbiv. I blocked him for a few days after he resumed defiance of his arbitration ban from Peter Tatchell after warnings. In the interests of continuing dialog I have unblocked him for the purpose of engaging in editing from which he is not banned. --Tony Sidaway 22:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His talk page makes it sound like he was sockpuppeting yesterday to get around the block. Is this true? I'm all for de-escalation, but I'm not sure I like the idea of unblocking someone who was just evading their block yesterday. Friday (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was sockpuppeting on a related note - leaving messages on talk pages etc but not particularly attempting to engaged in tendentious editing. I unblocked his sockpuppet for similar reasons as Tony has jsut unblocked his main account. I would describe Dbiv as behaving oddly; there is a chance he is being manipulative; however given the quality of his contributions I think we should extend every opportunity for him to regain our trust. IF he continues to either breach the ArbCom decision, or otherwise wind people up, it is little hassle to reblock him. The Land 23:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable- I have no idea of the background here, so I'll certainly defer to those who've been previously involved. Unblocking a recent block-evader just struck me as usual, and I suppose it is, but that doesn't mean it's always a bad idea. Thanks for the clarification. Friday (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom. --Tony Sidaway 18:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kirbytime makes a personal attack but it was only one and that is not why I am posting the situation here. He states, Are you done being a tool of Scientology already? [12] So, I attempted to get into communication with him. But leaving a signed message on his user page causes a "you've got a new message" to appear and when clicked that then redirects the unsuspecting user to this page: [13] This "gotcha" template which appears when a person gives him a communication and signs it with four tildes is why I post here. I believe administrators should be notified because it is a mis-use of a user's discussion page. Terryeo 00:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terryeo, I think it is intended as a joke, sort of like R2-45 was, so I suggest you lighten up and stop your pouting.--Fahrenheit451 01:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors disfavor the practical joke new messages, but their use is widespread and not something over which to quibble. In any event, there is no nefarious process by which Kirbytime leaves the new messages message for users who have written on his talk page; in fact, the template appears on his user page, as it does on the user pages of many editors. The question of the propriety of Kirby's initial remark aside, this ought to be quite far down on the list of on-Wiki items about which one should be concerned. Joe 03:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've given him a warning about the attack on Terryeo (which in my opinion was particularly blatant). The so-called "practical joke" seems to amount to wikilinks at the top left of Kirbytime's user and talk pages, which are presumably intended to resemble the "new messages" notice in some skins. Childish but not particularly problematic. --Tony Sidaway 15:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to protect this page only against moves, since a minor page-move war is going on, but think I've stuffed it up. Sorry to admit my technical incompetence. Could someone check and fix this? Some clearer instructions on how to do it in the guide for admins would be welcome, too, if anyone has a moment. To me at least, it's not intuitive. Metamagician3000 07:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. If you want to have different settings for editing and moves, click on "unlock move permissions". Then set each to the appropriate level of protection. I think they tie them together as the default because pages are usually blocked due to editing and not moving, and if no one can edit the page, it does not make much sense to allow the article to be moved. -- Kjkolb 12:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Metamagician3000 07:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of vehicles in the Halo universe has recently been recreated. It was successfully deleted on 13 July 2006 primarily as a violation of WP:NOT, section 1.9.4 (WP is not a game guide). Two notable precedents were cited [14] [15]. The page was recreated 1 September without malicious intent. I do not believe it falls under criteria for SC or PROD (as it does contain factual information). Being unsure about the best way to redelete the article, I moved to standard AfD, where I could not figure out just how to correctly list an article for deletion that had already been deleted. By bringing it to administrative attention, my hope is that the article can be deal with properly, as opposed to me taking a stab at random and hoping it works. --Ourai ^{(т • с)} 08:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To nominate where an article with the same name has already been nominated, you need to substitute {{afd}} onto the page, then edit the AfD message and replace the link "[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pagename]]" with something like "[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pagename (2nd nomination)]]". Then follow the new redlink to create the page as you would normally. --bainer (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a clear-cut speedy deletion, per WP:CSD#General criteria #4: "Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted as a result of a discussion in Articles for deletion or another XfD process, unless it was undeleted per the undeletion policy or was recreated in the user space." -- ChrisO 11:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have a clarification about the wikipolicy that material that could be construed as critical, negative or harmful about living persons should be removed immediately. [16] @ Talk:Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians, one editor wrote that Hawass is a "liar": "Hell, if liars like Zahi Hawass can pronounce to the world [...]" [17] I removed the word "liar" [18] but it was reinserted immediately with the comment: "restored. do not alter my posts. And if you're going to refer to Wiki policy, provide a relevant link. Hawass is a public figure; he's fair game" [19] Comments? CoYep 12:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ascription of liar to a biographical subject is probably less-than-helpful, such that one might reasonably strike it out, I suppose, but this situation seems quite insignificant relative to those that BLP seeks to address; not only is liar almost surely not potentially libellous, but such appellative is mentioned on the talk page of a and quite plainly a subjective assessment not advanced as unsourced fact (toward which, see mistake of fact and opinion; of course, neither unsourced facts nor personal opinion be introduced into articles [or appended to talk pages], but it is worth noting that there are, at the very least, no legal issues here). The fair game formulation does seem to reflect a misunderstanding of BLP (although perhaps the editor means to refer to the distinction in United States law as regards libel between those who are public figures and those who are not [New York Times Co. v. Sullivan], but I imagine that a note on his talk page as to BLP would suffice, even as such note might not be necessary. Joe 15:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a "History of Doctor Octagon" on User_talk:David.Mestel. I'd appreciate it if admins would read it, and be aware of the pattern for when a new Gilliland sockpuppet appears. Thanks! Nandesuka 17:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can help me. I have been working on some embryology and congential heart defects. There is a page dedicated to truncus arteriosus(embryology) and truncus arteriosus congenital outflow tract anomaly. I was able to change Truncus arteriosus to a more exact term Persistent truncus arteriosus, but when I cross reference in embryology it still sends me to the congenital defect. It needs to be Truncus arteriosus for embryology and PTA for congenital heart disease.GetAgrippa 14:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might have been better off using the Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, as this doesn't sound like it requires admin intervention. In any case, are you looking for [[this style of|link]]? If you do that link ( link ), it sends you to "this style of", but has the text "link". It might also be useful to change that redirect that you created into a disambiguation page. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected this high-profile article due to an edit war. The issue is that despite good references that he is Jewish, people keep removing this information on grounds that clearly violate WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. There is evidence of sockpuppetry. Can an admin not previously involved review this please.--Runcorn 17:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. First there is no proof if there is show it the only "proof" is a russian article where they themselves only go by his name
2. Why is the alleged religion mentioned at the very top of the article why isnt Arnold Schwarzeneggers religion mentioned at the very top or Bill Clintons or Bill Gates or Richard Nixons or Jimmy Wales of their articles.
3. Has he had a bar mitzvah is he even a member of the religion?
4. Even the article about Einstein dosent mention the religion at the very top at the very beginning of the article.
5. So why is the alleged religion mentioned at the very start at the very beginning of the article. When it is extremly hard if not impossible to do so with the vast majority of wikipedia articles about persons.
6. And what is the most interesting is that the Admin has himself violated the 3rr rule which if anything proves that the alleged religion shouldt be mentioned at the very top at the very start of the article and why even mention it at all

Ramand 17:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking into this situation. There appears to be some heavy-duty sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry going on here. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for what it's worth, Jewish is a lot more than merely a religion, it is also a heritage and culture. Although I am atheist by "religion", when someone asks me what I am, I am likely to respond Jewish, because that is my culture and my heritage. Grigori Perelman is clearly Jewish in this regard even if he doesn't have a personal belief in a deity. --Cyde Weys 00:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

To summarize: Discussion of global issues which concern use of "apartheid" and all polls shall be at Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid with subsidiary dialog on the talk page of affected articles. Based on the difficult and controversial nature of this matter, with the exception of Zeq (talk · contribs), who remains banned from editing the article, the principal participants in this dispute shall be granted an amnesty for past actions, but are strongly encouraged to engage in negotiations. All involved administrators are admonished not use their administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome everyone to take a gander at a new essay entitled RBI. These games we've been playing with the vandals have long since gotten tiresome and it's time to simply revert, block, and ignore. Remember, we're here to write an encyclopedia, not play cops and robbers. --Cyde Weys 00:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think we tried that on the PWOT mob. Strangly talking to them worked better.Geni 01:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments posted on talk page of the essay. Newyorkbrad 03:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks similar to Wikipedia:Vandalism is not a game.--Andeh 07:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One tenet that reassures all of us that Wikipedia never will be overrun by vandals is that people inherently want to be "good" more than "evil," so the number of people reverting and fighting vandalism will always be higher than the number of people vandalising -- no matter how much Wikipedia grows. It has occurred to me, however, that the more notorious Wikipedia becomes, through either media hype of its supposed inacurracies from minor misinformation to libel (Siegenthaler), or god forbid, if any mishaps should happen to children preyed upon by pedophiles here. I'm sure you can imagine the massive media coverage that would get.

Therefore, if Wikipedia becomes notorious in the media for its real or supposed "evils," the number of people using Wikipedia to vandalise and wreak havoc would increase faster than the people fighting vandalism. New vandals would see harming Wikipedia as a crusade in taking down something seen as malicious, something with a bad reputation, and a bloated factory of internet evil. And thus Wikipedia would finally be overrun. Its just a thought I had. Wiki Mirabeau 03:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.

• Ericsaindon2 is required to choose one username and edit only with that name.
• Ericsaindon2 is banned from Wikipedia for one year due to a variety of disruptive activities.
• Ericsaindon2 is placed on Probation. He may be banned for an appropriate time from any article or set of articles which he disrupts.

For the Arbitration Committee. --FloNight 06:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ericsaindon2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been blocked for one year as per ruling number 2. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since administrators are the ones who fulfill or deny requests to delete user talk pages, I wanted to make sure that they are aware of the discussion about modifying the policy here. -- Kjkolb 10:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor issue, Hi,

 this is srujan.Iwant to get little information about the following,like,

how can i know about the university and how to apply for the university.even i wanted to know how islife when i come over ther and wht would be my expenses for my staying and my tution fees,can u pelse help me whith this information .

                                        Thanking you ,
                                                        yours faithfuly,
                                                         Srujan Pudhota has been reverting good faith edits of mine on New Lanark without comment and I beleive he holds a certain sense of ownership for the article. I'm just off for a couple of weeks holiday, so would appreciate it if somebody could keep an eye on thigs. Thanks/wangi 11:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.

• Heqong is placed on Probation. He may be banned for a reasonable period of time by any administrator from an article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing. Should Heqong violate a ban he may be blocked for a reasonable period of time. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Heqong#Log of blocks and bans.
• Heqong is banned for one month for personal attacks.
• Heqong is placed on personal attack parole.

For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 14:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for one month per above. JoshuaZ 14:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.

• CoolKatt is banned for one year from articles which relate to US television stations. He may continue to comment on talk pages.
• CoolKatt is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or talk page which he disrupts. After the expiration of any ban imposed by this decision that ban may be re-imposed should he resume tendentious or disruptive editing. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CoolKatt number 99999#Log of blocks and bans.
• All of CoolKatt's subpages that do not comply with Wikipedia:User page#What about user subpages? shall be deleted.
• Should CoolKatt violate any ban imposed on him by this decision he may be blocked for an appropriate period. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CoolKatt number 99999#Log of blocks and bans

For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 18:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pages by prefix link. I'm not sure how we determine which subpage violate that guideline though, since they could all be "a work in progress". Or is the idea just to delete everything that looks like an article? --kingboyk 18:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does he finish serving out his 3 month block for violating the preliminary arbcom injunction? Also how does this ruling address his incivility and behaviour that exists outside of TV Station articles, like where he went on a spurious campaign of labelling everyone and their dog a sockpuppet for speaking out against a particular pokemon article (and went so far as to put obviously false sockpuppet tags on user pages to further that campaign), would that be considered a disruptive behaviour?--Crossmr 18:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several files have been mysteriously deleted from my user space recently.

• User:Geo Swan/working/Guantanamo articles that have been nominated for deletion
• User:Geo Swan/shadow/Guantanamo articles that have been nominated for deletion.

I am not aware of anything in these pages that was a violation of policy. But, if, for the sake of argument, someone else felt that they were in violation of a policy I think that whichever administrator felt they had the responsibility to delete them should have at least left an explanation on my talk page.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 18:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they were only redirects. You still have a complete page at User:Geo Swan/working/Guantanamo related articles which have been nominated for deletion.

Deletion logs: [20] [21]

--kingboyk 19:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, we've come to a fork in the road where WP:DENY is being fully implemented and most of the Wikipedia:Long term abuse subpages are being deleted.

So, before Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Universe Daily gets deleted we need to figure out whether to shut down the linkspammer once and for all at the risk of forcing him to change tactics and risk making it harder for us to track him.

"Universe Daily" is an abusive SEO who is known to have posted redirect-spam links Wikipedia to 40 known domains of his in the past. For example, stephenhawkingsuniverse.com (whois) is one such domain which has been linked to at the Stephen Hawking article. His links aren't noticed for some time because they are actually an invisible frame redirecting vistors to an official site. In this example, stephenhawkingsuniverse.com was a redirect to Hawking's official documentary site at PBS. After having establishing an external link in any article for some time, "Universe Daily" would then either turn on his own ads in his domain's frame or redirect his domain to an ad/link farm as he did with universetoday.net at Universe Today (their official site is .com).

This spammer has continued doing this since May of this year and has been banned many times for using sockpuppet accounts and random IPs as well as the odd open proxy. There's also a debate as to whether we should blacklist all of his known domains. If we blacklist all his domains, we run the risk of him purchasing a whole new set of domains to start all over again and it may become even harder to pick up his trail again.

"Universe Daily" has also switched to a new tactic where he is directly redirecting his sites back to the revisions of the Wikipedia articles that he inserted his own domains into. Could it be possible to oversight every reversion of every article he's ever edited to sabotage whatever SEO technique he is trying to use?

I just don't know what the best course of action dealing with this spammer is anymore. Through my investigations, I have noticed that the Registrant's contact details are publicly available. Is there anyone from the Wikimedia Foundation has the official capacity to ask him to cease and desist from spamming Wikipedia? --  Netsnipe  ►  19:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, and a significant one, this person left 469 hate mail messages in my e-mail box on Friday, two days ago. Four different messages, advertising an anti-semitic hate site he built himself, and bragging that his vandalized version of the Israel article could be found there. He must have spent a lot of time at his computer copying and pasting the hate-mail text into the little box and hitting "send". Unbelievable. (I deleted them all with about six mouse-clicks.)

He's not just a spammer: he's a fierce anti-Semite, and is the most hateful single person I've met in two and a half years of vandal-patrolling.

I know his real name, and he edits from a library terminal in Queensland, AU.

I think he needs to be shut down for good. No question about it. Antandrus (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DENY really only applies to people vandalizing Wikipedia. If someone is abusing Wikipedia for other reasons, in this case to make money, WP:DENY doesn't apply, because denying attention is irrelevant; he's not editing to get attention. However, it's probably a good idea to move it into private all the same; if we try to put together our defense against him in public where he can read it, he can easily stay one step ahead of it. --Cyde Weys 19:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block his links, then he can't spam them. Agathoclea 19:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has he been spamming lately? I knew all of his linkspam sites, and I kept that list private until he started putting his pages as framing to real websites. He sent me close to 2000 mailbombs from wikipedia email until I sat down and noticed it and put an autodelete filter on his emails. I know his real name too, including several details about his spamming activities that is not on the LTA page. That being said, the issue with the LTA page is WP:BEANS, where we don't want to help him improve his activities. However, the links almost look 'useful', because several of them are just framing to actual (and useufl) websites, but at any time they could go back to his phpbb fourms he's spammed so much. Kevin_b_er 19:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to place all the sites on the blacklist. You can either email me or leave a message on my meta user talk page. Naconkantari 21:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naconkantari's option is the way to go. It's simply denying him what he wants. There is an issue here, however: the URLs we have for the foul-mouthed little mailbomber are all liable to change, so this isn't a permanent solution as we will have meta admins AGFing and not adding his filthly little sites to the list without many and several hoops being jumped through. And rightly so. But this is the way to go if we want to stop Wayne and his spamming activities on our side. On his side, we're going to need Oz Wikipedians to get in touch with his ISP if it can be found; Canadians to talk to Doteasy Technology, his registration agents, and the Foundation to talk to Google (his ultimate aim) about a hard blacklist.

The one thing Mr Smith should not expect is for Wikipedia admins to be put off by mailbombs and persistance. We've all had bigger things than him free with our breakfast cerials of a morning, and his death-threatening mailbombs are usefully futile, amusing... and slowing the idiot down. :o) ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added all of the links provided to me to the blacklist. Naconkantari 21:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

domians cost money. Shut them down fast enough and what he doing becomes finacialy unviable.Geni 23:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disrupting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Following Follows. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 21:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.

• His excellency is placed on personal attack parole, should he engage in personal attacks directed at individuals he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. Should he engage in attacks directed at ethnic groups such as "The Jews" or "The Kikes" he may be blocked for extended periods of time, up to a year.

• His excellency, having made one personal attack directed at "The Jews" and another directed at "those kikes" is banned for one month for the first offense and 3 months for the second offense, to run consecutively.

• His excellency has continued to make anti-Semitic attacks on other users [22] during this proceeding. An additional ban of 6 2 months is imposed to run consecutively with other bans.

• His excellency is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by edit warring, incivility, or other disruptive behavior. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency#Log of blocks and bans.

• Timothy Usher is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by edit warring, incivility, or other disruptive behavior. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency#Log of blocks and bans.

• Traditional Muslim usages such as "Salam, brother" or (PBUH) may be used on talk pages at the discretion of the user; however, care should be taken to not create a hostile atmosphere for non-Muslims.

• Violation of bans imposed under the terms of this decision may be enforced by blocks appropriate to the offense involved. All blocks and the basis therefore to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/His_excellency#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 21:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: does that also apply to his second account, Amibidhrohi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ? If it does (I hope so) it should be blocked too... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All arbitration remedies apply to the person, in any guise, unless the remedy says otherwise. The remedy is intended to address the problematic behavior. --Tony Sidaway 22:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the quick answer :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recently it was brought to the attention of the Arbitration Committee that administrator Everyking (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has posted to an external site in the process of trying to determine the contents of inappropriate material, sensitive personal information, deleted from an article. Everyking looked up the deleted material using his administrator privileges, and offered to post the deleted content publicly. He stated:

I looked for you, but when you look at deleted revisions it doesn't show you the changes (or if so I don't know how to access them). I guess I could just post the full text and you could work out the differences yourself. [23]

It is already known that the user who posts at that forum under the name "everyking" is in fact Everyking because he has confirmed it in email to the Arbitration Committee previously. We view this as a serious misjudgment and a betrayal of the trust the community has given him in adminship. As such, Everyking has been immediately desysopped. Dmcdevit·t 23:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]