Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

Purge the cache to refresh this page

    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion



    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2

    I am publicly soliciting, the unbiased and honest opinion of the esteemed members of the community in this case. Some of the ArbCom members seem bent on closing the case prematurely. Please take time to view the on-wiki evidence that was produced by me – [1], and the rest of the pages as well.

    Please take time to comment on the pages, your opinion would help avoid a grave and serious miscarriage of justice. Sincerely, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems the best thing to do in this case is discuss your issues on the arbitration talk pages, if the arbs wish to comment, they will do. Sorry, but bringing it here seems like your canvassing to get admins desysopped. I strongly disagree of your ascertaion that there's a grave and serious miscarriage of justice about to happen. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kindly review WP:CANVASS. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just get the impression over the past 2 days that you are determined to see Ramas arrow desysopped, and the only way to do that is on the arbitration pages - on AN, you were leading people to your evidence and therefore your personal view on the matter - that's why I see it as canvassing, and it's certainy not unbiased with your active role in the case. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Our actions should determine our future and nothing else. As for your canvassing allegations, I must remind you to review WP:CANVASS again, this is a neutral venue and the community can comment in an unbiased manner. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst I respectfully disagree that this isn't canvassing (if this was an RfA or AfD then I'm sure you would see it as canvassing), I'll let others comment instead. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that Rama's Arrow (who's on the other side of the case) also seems to be claiming the case is being closed prematurely (correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks clear from the discussion here), I don't see Nick's post as out-of-line. - Merzbow 18:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I'm sure none of you will like me for saying this, but I can understand the Arbitrators' rationale. As far as I can see, it was either a case of banning the lot of you or letting you all off the hook. I also rather think this is meant to be regarded as final warning.

    And this silly nationalist bickering is a waste of time. Find some adorable ladies and fight over them instead, much more worthwhile. And do it off-wiki. Moreschi Talk 19:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC) And don't propose motions congratulating yourself in ArbCom workshops, either, it doesn't come across well.[reply]

    I'm all for desysopping RA.--D-Boy 20:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Rama's Arrow blocked Anwar saadat, three days ago, for no reason at all, citing edit-warring as a reason, when there was no edit-war. Rama's Arrow also reverted Anwar on the pages on which he alleged that Anwar was edit-warring. The community ought to take a serious view of this. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 03:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing vandal logs from hacked account

    A while back, User:Eternal Pink had his account hacked by a friend from college, User:Darkhero17. Pink has been around for a while and I know him pretty well as a very helpful contributor to WP:SM. Darkhero has also been in and out, and I'm confident that they really are different people; they behave differently, spell different words wrong, have different skill-levels with regard to using WP, etc.

    Apparently what happened was that Darkhero watched Pink log in and memorized his password. After his own account was blocked, he used Pink's to create new accounts with which to vandalize, as seen here. All of those accounts followed Darkhero's behavioral patterns, not Pink's. He was imitating the "Dust King" vandal that caused us WP:SM so much trouble, as well as trying to frame Pink for misbehavior.

    Darkhero has confessed his involvement ([2]), and Pink has changed his password, so I'm satisfied that most of the problem is dealt with. However, Pink is unhappy about the vandal account creation that still shows up in his permanent logs.

    Since Pink's account was compromised, is there any way to remove those records and give him a clean slate? Who do we talk to about that? --Masamage ♫ 19:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is really difficult to go about expunging block logs. It is a developer's job, and also his prerogative.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case it's not block logs but user creations logs. I suppose those are probably equally difficult. How would Masamage or Eternal Pink go about putting this request to a developer? ··coelacan 21:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the question, yeah. --Masamage ♫ 03:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It can only be done by someone with direct access to the database, in this case, developers. Developers have been quite unwilling in the past to modify or remove logs, because they form a historical record, but you can try contacting one at #wikimedia-tech. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, given that he was stupid enough to let someone else find out his password, I'm not sure he should have those logs removed from his account. Neil (►) 13:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. If your account is compromised, that's your problem. I wouldn't expect much sympathy from the devs. --Tango 13:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Logs are there to show what an account did, that account did those things. People are responsible for their account. (H) 14:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    he was looking over my shoulder and I didnt see him until its to late so it wasnt stupidity ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 14:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "I didn't see him" is an excuse that doesn't usually work. By all means you can ask the devs, but given that you got your account back fine, and no real harm was done, I would suggest they will agree with me - just leave it be and find something better to do. Neil (►) 15:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point or not, going around calling people stupid is bizarre and totally out of line. --Masamage ♫ 15:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Describing an act as stupid doesn't necessarily equate to calling someone stupid. Neil (►) 17:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but that's not what happened here. Saying that "he was stupid enough to let someone else find out his password" isn't describing the act as stupid. --OnoremDil 17:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Frankly, given that HE was stupid enough to let someone else find out his password, I'm not sure he should have those logs removed from his account." the fact you said he referring to me means you where calling me stupid ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 17:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagry that "no real harm was done" If people who dont know what happened see the logs they will think im a evil sock puppeteer ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 22:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they will see that you failed to properly secure your account, which they should. My user creation log looks wacko, but its just because I volunteer on the unblock-en-l list signing up accounts for people behind school and isp blocks. Just tell people who wonder whats up and no one will care. -Mask? 02:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From my side, I can add a note in every created account stating they were created while your account was compromised. Not much, but at least if someone thinks you were abusing sockpuppets, it would prevent them from doing so. -- ReyBrujo 03:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, that sounds like a great idea to me. --Masamage ♫ 03:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Me two that would automatically people who read it straight thanks ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 10:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do I have to do somthing to add thoes notes?? to the accounts? ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 19:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Username blacklist

    I just saw a user blocekd with something like this, so it made me think that it wasn't on it: Can an admin add on wh3els, on whe3ls, and on wh33ls to the username blacklist? --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There are plenty of legitimate usernames that could be created with wheels in the name... I'd say no. alphachimp 04:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But matching the string "on wh33ls"? -Amarkov moo! 04:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's possible. The there's nothing against that in the username policy. We should be really careful about what we add. alphachimp 04:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But if people are getting blocked for it... --Masamage ♫ 04:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    People will be getting blocked for names intended to imitate a known vandal, other names containing wheels etc. which aren't rather transparent attempts to troll won't be. --pgk 06:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The list should only be used for names which should always be blocked, not even for names which are usually blocked. If there's a chance of a legitimate name containing the text it shouldn't be on the list. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But "on wheels" is in the blacklist. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 11:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Might I point out that if we are talking about the same bot/blacklist (HighInBC's bot) then being blocked is up to the admin who deals with the report anyway. ViridaeTalk 11:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm talking about the Mediawiki black list. Not HighinBC's. On wheels is in the mediawiki blacklist. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 21:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages BOLDly guidelined

    Though it clearly already met the WP:POLICY definition of a guideline, I have someone rules-lawyering with me that WP:MERGE wasn't official policy because it didn't have policy or guideline tags.

    I believe that it won't be controversial or inappropriate to simply acknowledge its community consensus status and promote it to officially labeled guideline, so I have boldly done so. In the spirit of "BOLD ends where others object loudly", I'm floating it here for feedback, though that probably should go to Wikipedia talk:Merging and moving pages as well. Georgewilliamherbert 17:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Actually, from reading your comments at User talk:Apostrophe#Undiscussed merges it is not xem who is rules lawyering, but you. You appear to be insisting that all mergers be discussed first, because it is "proper procedure". Proper procedure is that one can boldly perform a merger without discussion — just as WP:MERGE tells you outright, in fact. (A point made on that page that I see Apostrophe has already pointed you to.) Apostrophe's bold merger of a whole load of individual articles on minor characters into List of minor characters in Pirates of the Caribbean is not only wholly in accordance with WP:FICT, it is even in accordance with the "proper procedure" in the "rules" that you keep trying to bash xem over the head with. That you are abusing the vandalism rollback tool to edit war over this (see edit history of Endeavour (Pirates of the Caribbean)), and have threatened to abuse your other administrator tools to get your own way in an editing dispute, is even worse. Please stop rules lawyering and abusing your tools. Uncle G 20:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I rolled him back once by accident; I've undone the rest as any user can. Please don't turn a molehill into a mountain. Additionally, while a bold merge (or bold anything, in general) is fine per policy, WP:MERGE rather explicitly says "If the merger is controversial, however, you may find your merger reverted, and as with all other edits, edit wars should be avoided. If you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, are not sure where or how to merge, or believe it might be controversial, you should propose it on the affected pages." Anyone undoing it and asking you to put it up for comment constitutes controversy, much less an admin. Reverting that without then following the WP:MERGE procedure as listed is disruption. I'm not the only person who's reverted his merges; there's obvious controversy. Failing to discuss it at this point is inappropriate. I would ask on ANI rather than block myself, but it's clearly blockable if he keeps it up (more than that, he's at 3RR on all of them...) Georgewilliamherbert 20:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You abused the vandalism rollback tool in an edit war more than once: diff diff diff. And your logic is circular. The only reason that you have stated this merger to be controversial is that you object to it; the only reason that you have stated (several times) for your objection is that it didn't follow "proper process", and the only reason that you give for it not having followed "proper process" is that you claim that it is controversial. You have built a circular chain of logic and are beating an editor over the head with administrator tools for no reason. The editor was not being disruptive. It is you causing the problem here, by needlessly making an editor jump through hoops and then wikilawyering over the definitions of policies and guidelines in order to attempt to justify your requirements for jumping through those hoops. And yes, according to the edit history of the article linked to above and of Dauntless (Pirates of the Caribbean), you are the only person to have reverted the mergers. Uncle G 22:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • See thread on AN/I about editor (and admin) behavior; I am not the only one to have reverted one of the merges, I don't recall the other rollbacks (though the record is what it is), and this is all besides the point for the policy discussion here. Georgewilliamherbert 23:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    BJAODN Deleted

    I have deleted most of the sub-pages from Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense as a violation of the GFDL. In nearly every case, the content in the subpages had been copy-and-pasted from elsewhere. In the case of existing articles, content was copied without crediting the author(s) of the revisions. In the case of deleted articles, without fail in the pages I deleted, the content was not properly moved to preserve the history. In every single case, there was no non-infringing content worth saving.

    For those interested, the specific GFDL section relevant to the above is Section 4.B of the GNU Free Documentation License. The speedy deletion criteria is CSD G-12. See also Copyrights - Contributor's rights and obligations.

    As can be seen, I have not deleted all of the BJAODN subpages - in the case of much of the April Fools pages, content was properly moved by conscientious editors over the years. Now I know that this will upset some folks, but that is not my intent. Nor were these deletions a liberal interpretation of the speedy deletion criteria - in every single case, the deletions were to keep Wikipedia in compliance with the GFDL, the license by which every single page in every single article in every single language in this great Project is based. If we cannot abide by our own license, how on Earth can we ensure that those who wish to use our content do the same?

    These actions should not be interpreted as a fiat against the existence of BJAODN (although one must wonder if our collective creative energies could be used more effectively and whether or not such content is more appropriate for Uncyclopedia - but that is neither here nor there). As long as content is properly moved to preserve the history of "deleted" content, or proper linking to diffs and authors for specific edits on surviving pages, then it would be in compliance.

    Again, this is not a rouge interpretation of policy, this is enforcement of the GFDL, period. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not a comment on the appropriateness of the deletions, but did you honestly think that people would not view this as a rouge interpretation of policy to do whatever you want if you explained it? -Amarkov moo! 02:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, to the admins reading this, PLEASE do NOT undelete all of these without discussing. Let's not get into a wheel war. No comment on the merits of this deletion. Sean William @ 02:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like something doesn't add up here: A unilateral deletion is acceptable, but a unilateral undeletion is not? It's bad enough that bold, revert, discuss isn't an option for editors when faced with administrator actions, but I never imagined that admins were similarly hamstrung. This is strictly an observation about the power imbalance between a deleting admin and practically anyone else. It should not be construed as an argument on either side of the bad jokes vs GFDL discussion. --Ssbohio 04:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Has this been discussed at all? It doesn't seem like something that should be or needs to be done hastily, given the length of time it's existed (and the lack of possibility the GFDL will ever be enforced against us in this manner). Also, as has just been discussed here, it's not clear the GFDL should be interpreted this way. The way, the truth, and the light 02:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't follow only parts of the GFDL. We have to follow all of it. Sean William @ 02:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The GFDL is fairly clear on attribution, as linked above, and in each case there has been an abject failure to attribute. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See the last MFD, and it was discussed on ANI at the time too. Also, every time you subst a template without following the conditions of the GFDL (there is even a whole section on this, 5) God kills a kitten. Kotepho 02:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've slowed it down a bit. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, you might as well nuke the whole thing. It's unfortunate; some of it was quite funny and the Upper Penninsula war deserved to be archived somewhere (WP:DENY be damned), but if we are killing a good portion of the content it is probably worth just delete it outright... otherwise it will just get filled again.--Isotope23 03:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (moved my comment over from ANI)

    Escanaba vs Marquette? Did Manistique seize the opportunity to occupy the Garden Peninsula? Did Wisconsin push its border up to the timezone boundary? Hell of a fight regardless....Mackensen (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah well, I'm glad I got to see it one more time before it got deleted... it still makes me chuckle.--Isotope23 03:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. The history of that article, at least the good part of it, seems to reside here. In any case, the main contributor was apparently User:Tjproechel. Can we salvage this? Duja► 10:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    AHEM... I just looked at the article and it's a complete riff on Toledo War, an article I contributed a substantial amount to in order to get it to featured status. The Toledo War, involving Michigan's 22-year-old governor at the time, is quite amusing. It also has the benefit of being true. 67.149.103.119 22:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Restore what? Just put a link at BJAODN to User:Hanger65/Upper Peninsula War. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and endorse zapping a gigantic GFDL violation and timesink besides. Mackensen (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Theres long been talk of doing this, off and on. Theres no record of authors, breaking GFDL requirements, it's unfunny, fails WP:DENY and in general is just all around stupid. -Mask? 02:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The deed is done. The list of pages I have deleted is here: Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Deleted. Everything else at WP:BJAODN is compliant. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks a lot, Jeff, for not deleting the talk pages and making me go through the list to delete them. —Kurykh 03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm working on that now. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    >.< why did you change your username? I've been worried that you died or something. -Amarkov moo! 03:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you talking to me? If so, a 17-year-old admin doesn't die easily. And I changed my username because my earlier one sounded stupid (at least to me...now). —Kurykh 03:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    File:Jumoing Wikipe-tan.svg
    Wikipe-tan says "Copy and paste moves are evil. If you use the rename button to put daft pages into BJAODN, you won't violate the GFDL and I and my friend M. Gustafson won't have to thwack your page over the head with this administrator broom. Hello M. Gustafson. It is nice to meet you at last. Stand back a bit please. Aiiiie-ah!"

    This had to be done. Its a good idea in theory, but there's some pretty nasty stuff about living people there. And Wikipedia is based on the GFDL - edits have to be attributable to the accounts that made them. Signed posts are alright to just be moved, but where chunks of text have had many editors we need to preserve the history. That just isn't possible with a lot of BJAODN. WjBscribe 03:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If there's nasty stuff about living people in there, change the names or change the characters to some fictional characters. No prob. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    When pages that have existed as long as this, and have been viewed (and presumably enjoyed) by so many people, get deleted suddenly and it supposedly is required by policy, then either policy (i.e. the GFDL itself) is broken or interpretation of it is. The way, the truth, and the light 03:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Or maybe because no one interpreted the license like this before. —Kurykh 03:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia can't be fun. Got it. In that spirit, I suggest we now delete other non-encyclopedic essays, like BEANS, HORSE, FISH, KETTLE, REICHSTAG, and any other essays which all clearly violate AGF? Thanks. ThuranX 03:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You're confusing humor within policy and licensing and humor that violates it. —Kurykh 03:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, these actions do not mean that future BJAODN, properly done, cannot exist. Quite the contrary, there is still a fair amount of material at BJAODN. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I cannot imagine that in most of these cases a solution couldn't have been found that would have satisfied the GFDL and preserved this page. But if not, fair enough. Phil Sandifer 03:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    while true in many cases it would have involved an awful lot of work.Geni 01:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No comment for now on the deletions—I've exceeded my quota for controversial deletion activity for one week—but I'll take a link to the Upper Peninsular War, please. Newyorkbrad 03:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    [3] - Merzbow 06:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I do hope we're going to follow this through by deleting all the articles that have been created by merging and/or splitting other articles, with consequent loss of history. And we'd better get onto the other language Wikipedias about their unattributed translations. We might start with the German Wikipedia's featured article de:Yagan, a translation of our Yagan article without any author attribution whatsoever.

    Yes I know it sounds like I'm being sarcastic, but I really do think this issue needs to be tackled. I just hope that Jeffrey et al realise that this problem is really really big. It isn't going to be solved just by deleting BJAODN.

    Hesperian 03:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Translated articles should have a link saying that they were translated and linking to the revision of the source article they were translated from (either on the article page or talkpage). Where merging happens, the source article must be redirected to the target article to ensure GFDL compliance. WjBscribe 03:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tell Jimbo that; he thinks translated articles on Wikipedia are exempt from the GFDL.[4] Hesperian 03:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • He opines that the location of the link to the original is not required to be in the article itself, and can be on the talk page or in the edit summary. He does state that there is no GFDL reason to include such links. As an editor who has been through the GFDL requirements for copying things between wikis in meticulous detail, and has been transwikifying articles and fixing other people's transwikifications to be in accordance with the GFDL for several years now, I can tell you that he is wrong about that. The GFDL does require that. The relevant clause is 4(j). Uncle G 10:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A thought as a random user and BJAODN fan -- it seems to me that there's more at stake here than just GFDL enforcement. Wikipedia has a wide perception of being a humorless and rule-obsessed place, despite policies such as WP:IAR and WP:OWN (the simple fact that one much of the time cannot type "articles for deletion" into the search box and be taken to WP:AFD because of restrictions on cross-namespace links is telling, since a usability issue has been sacrificed to protocol). Inasmuch as Jeffrey O. Gustafson's actions embody the letter of WP:IAR and the like, they also seem to trample over the spirit of it completely. It seems to me that the elimination of much of such a long-standing Wikipedia tradition as the BJAODN archives is a rather hamhanded way of dealing with the attribution problem, as well as contributing to the project's increasingly negative reputation. I propose that the deleted pages be put on ice somewhere pending a community discussion on the issue. Haikupoet 03:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of content is still at WP:BJAODN, so there's still plenty of humour. Its just the elements that are not attributable to the contributors who made them that have been deleted. WjBscribe 03:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How many of these could have been quickly attributed by checking the article histories and doing some digging? Phil Sandifer 03:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And if they're properly attributed, we'll chip them out of the ice, if I may continue your analogy. We can restore what we deleted. —Kurykh 03:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What do we do with this template? I sent it to TfD, unless one of you wants to delete this without going through that pretty-much unneeded process. —Kurykh 03:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I dunno. There's such a thing a leaving room in life for some freaken common sense. Taking away one of the little inside jokes rips at the heart of an organization, and we are not doing this for the money. Jeffery I sure wish I had your self-confidence, to be so sure I'm right as to undertake such a task without first consulting my colleagues. Herostratus 03:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, this is something that has been discussed on and off amongst admins for a fairly long time. And my "self confidence" in this only comes from supporting and upholding not just policy, but the basis of this whole Project. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikipedia community isn't just the Admins, Mr. Shazaam. There are the editors and the anons, too. We have a say, too, and we help with policymaking, too. Just remember that. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the page contained copyvio, it should not be here. A pity, I am sure we lost some good stuff, but hey, we were doing things right lately, and needed to do something controversial from an outsider's point of view to give them something to talk ;-) -- ReyBrujo 03:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (Note: not an admin) I grieve over this loss, and I would gladly help to look for diffs for mine and others' contributions to the pages if given a chance. I'm certain other editors would too with BJAODN at stake. --LuigiManiac 03:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This strikes me as an interpretation/application of policy that should require discussion before action. Among many other examples that come to mind, mirror sites often lose granularity of attribution. They often permit an end-user to view only a complete version of an article, not the whole history with all authorship properties, just like BJAODN. Should we shut down/cut off mirror sites that fail to implement this interpretation of the license perfectly? Should we do it instantaneously, because "policy says so", regardless of consequences, agreements, or other policies? Best, --Shirahadasha 04:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    GFDL-compliant mirrors should contain a link (or other reference) back to the Wikipedia article, from which the full edit history can be retrieved. This is rather different from cutting-and-pasting content from deleted pages into BJAODN. -- Visviva 04:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) We contact them to suggest changing their methods, many indeed break the GFDL by not linking back to provide a full history attribution. However, we must first and foremost care about Wikipedia "health". If we are deleting decorative fair use images from templates, why not decorative texts copied from another source? -- ReyBrujo 04:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a bit confused.. many people probably didn't know this was even an issue, and would have been glad to help correct the situation had they known. Why not do that now? It sounds like a painfully easy fix. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    I wouldn't have said "Rouge interpretation" anyway, but I would call the deletion a rouge action. WP:BOLD is meant to motivate editors to do things that have not yet been done and/or tried, but it is not meant to flout community consensus. If BJAODN had not been deleted yet, it seems obvious to me that no consensus has been reached. Why not start a process meant to determine consensus instead? -- Renesis (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the prior MfDs all failed. --tjstrf talk 07:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough... but that only reinforces my feeling that this was not the correct action to take, no matter the interpretation. -- Renesis (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It reinforces my feeling that MFD's hinge on personal tastes rather than application of policy. — CharlotteWebb 08:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please forgive me for suggesting this, as I'm sure this manpower and resources needed to do this could probably used in a more productive manner, but: maybe we could start a task force of volunteers to go through each BJAODN item one-by-one, find the original diffs, and merge it into the edit history? Krimpet (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It would appear that the minimum level of compliance is to list the names of the contributors and the year in which they contributed. A text dump of the history tab would be quite satisfactory, and that is what is usually used for pages transwikied to meta or wiktionary or wikibooks or whatever. In the most common case, a funny article that is quickly deleted, you're probably at about 5 edits by 1-3 distinct users, which really is trivial to document. Also common is a humorous paragraph or sentence or "funny vandalism" if you will, entirely created by one user, and added to an article that still exists (but quickly reverted). For this it is probably adequate to link to the diff of the edit and list the user name and timestamp (like this: Pigsonthewing 20:25, 28 June 2004) directly above the text excerpt. — CharlotteWebb 08:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The GFDL argument is pretty weak, many entries contained at least a link to the vandalized article. These actions seem like they were based on a selective enforcement of a legalistic interpretation of Wikipedia licensing to further the goal of getting rid of questionably humorous content. Not that these deletions were a horrible injustice, but I doubt that they will prevent editors from nominating a future, properly attributed and GFDL-compliant version of BJAODN for deletion. Oh how I wonder what excuses will appear then... >:) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you should assume good faith rather than accusing a long-standing editor of malfeasance - If I wanted to make up some reason to delete BJAODN then there would be nothing there. I have no problem being rouge, but in this case my actions are very clearly spelled out not just in policy, but, again, in the license that forms the foundation of our Project. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While I generally do assume good faith, this was a rash action on the part of an admin, and thus I put the pages up on deletion review - because this deletion shouldn't have occurred. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever accusation implied was not serious, I have no problem with you or your standing as an editor. As this deletion dealt with BJAODN, it seems only appropriate to bust your chops a little. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC) (To clarify: I don't necessarily agree with your interpretation of how GFDL applies to Wikipedia, but I don't suspect any malfeasance and I don't think the deletions counted as a significant loss to Wikipedia. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    Again if we lost anything that was actually funny, just do some research, figure out who actually wrote it, and include that information when adding it back it in the next volume. — CharlotteWebb 08:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's a thought--how about we focus on the content that we actually want to keep in the encyclopedia? (laughter ensues). Mackensen (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me just say it is a shame it was deleted. BJAODN was an important part of wikipedian culture and history. And there was actually some funny stuff there. :(. It should be brought back, or at least undeleted, copied to a mirror site / user page / or somewhere else so it can preserved for those who DID enjoy it, and then re-deleted. --IvanKnight69 12:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Wikipedia humor

    For those that worry that Wikipedia has become devoid of mirth, I should point out that the above category is quite well populated, and unlike the rather aptly named bad jokes and nonsense, most of this category consists of "good jokes and kept witticisms". See also this policy. >Radiant< 09:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Attribution can be found

    Forgive me if this has been mention previously. It would be relatively easy to get the attribution information. All you have to do is find when the content was added and from where (in most cases this is given on the BJAODN page) and then look in the history of the article around the time the content was added to BJAODN. It would be extremely easy for an admin to find the stuff from deleted pages. I could do it myself, but I am busy with other things both Wikipedia and non-Wikipedia related and do not have enough interest in BJAODN to give it priority. To transfer the attribution, I suppose that you could put the usernames in edit summaries, like we have done before in unusual situations. However, since these are BJAODN pages and not articles, it might be better to put them on the page itself, next to the content that each contributed. -- Kjkolb 12:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There's more useful work to be done than trying to find histories for the random junk on BJAODN. If we're going to keep using BJAODN, and I've no reason to believe we shouldn't, histories need to be preserved and BLP crap needs to be kept out. Nick 12:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's part of Wikipedia's history. Yeah a good chunk of it is crap but not all of Wikipedia has to be serious :) --WikiSlasher 12:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think it would be too much harder to provide attribution for the deleted content than it would be for new content, especially in the case of joke articles and bad articles that were deleted immediately. -- Kjkolb 13:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Issue is that for old stuff we don't have deleted histories.Geni 01:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Seriously, don't people have anything better to do? Like an encyclopedia to write? Wikipedia is not a joke shop, nor Myspace. It's an encyclopedia. Our job is to actually write the damn thing. Not to spend hours playing around with 60-odd hours of idiotic subpages of BJAODN. Moreschi Talk 13:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    "60-odd hours of idiotic subpages of BJAODN"? Also, as I previously mentioned, I do have better things to do. -- Kjkolb 13:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is a case where the addition of humour sections are harming the encyclopedia and sidelining people from improving the article, nay violating Wikipedia policy and the GFDL, then the involvement of humour within Wikipedia needs to be discussed within the community, and if necessary, deleted. If the humour sections are harmful to Wikipedia in terms of contributions or legally, they will sadly need to go. --tgheretford (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I didn't realize people were taking jobs here. Where can I put in my application? I now regret all the time I spent for free just because I thought this was fun. What a rube I am! William Pietri 04:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Moreschi just ran head-on onto my Third law of Wikipedia... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    G12?

    How did you reckon G12 applied? Steve block Talk 15:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The contributions of users were being attributed only to whoever copy and pasted the material instead of the actual author in violation of the license under which the original author released the material, thus, Copyright violation twice over. But that is really ancillary to the true reason, which, as noted, is the utter GFDL violations (section 4.B of the license). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I get all that, but my reading of G12 doesn't allow that as a reason for speedy deletion under G12. Does the material have to meet all the parameters or just one of them? And I think this is important, because if it doesn't meet G12 then you're claiming WP:IAR. Steve block Talk 17:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So if you do not agree with the G12 interpretation (which I stand by), then just go by the GFDL. No matter what, the material cannot stay. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand how it violated the GFDL, I just can't see violating the GFDL as being a parameter listed under G12. It wasn't copied from a website with an incompatible license, therefore G12 cannot apply. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Steve block Talk 19:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Somebody has got to revert this idiocy. Copyright paranoia can only go so far, before it becomes an utter and complete farce. WP:IAR, undelete, and ban Jeffrey for being WP:LAME.  Grue  16:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Jeffrey, and the failure of MFD to discard this walled garden nuisance does not speak well to our community. Even keeping the current page is questionable, but the archives were without value. -- nae'blis 17:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's really too bad... but Jeffery is 100% right. It's form violated our own ethics. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will resist the temptation to start a deletion review because I know that will only cause more trouble. However, my strong opinion is that Mr. Gustafson should not have deleted anything unilaterally. I really don't see how this is any different from when User:YankSox deleted Daniel Brandt by implicitly invoking WP:BLP, and started a deletion war with catastrophic results. In both cases, the pages were nearly perennial subjects of discussion, but nobody could muster community consensus to get them deleted. Then some admin goes ahead and deletes them unilaterally. Our community dynamics depend on trust, and it's hard to trust administrators who don't reciprocate that trust for those of us who have contributed to BJAODN.

    I support the idea of trying to rescue citations to page history so that some of BJAODN can be recovered. This presents technical problems for non-admins like me because I don't have access to deleted articles. I'm referring to the sources for BJAODN items, not to BJAODN itself.

    Going forward, I suggest the following:

    1. Restore the titles of the BJAODN pages. I find them amusing, and they do not violate GFDL.
    2. Recreate BJAODN as a category instead of a list. The category would have three subcategories:
      1. Deleted pages.
      2. Reverted diffs from existing articles.
      3. Special items such as April Fools jokes.

    In appropriate situations, a newpage patroller could bypass CSD G1 by adding a template that says "This article is deleted and is viewable only for humorous purposes" and would automatically be categorized by the template. I'm not sure how it would work for diffs. I suppose special items could already go in Category:Wikipedia humor, but then, the entirety of BJAODN belongs there.

    Let us not confuse GFDL issues with personal preferences. Just because BJAODN violates some rule that most of us honestly don't know about, it doesn't justify unilateral action, and it also doesn't mean that we should disparage any and all attempts at humor, as some of the folks above have been doing. YechielMan 20:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just because BJAODN violates some rule that most of us honestly don't know about — Any administrator — any administrator — who is not familiar with the requirements of the GFDL has been given access to administrator tools too early, before xe is actually ready to use them. Many of the tasks that we use our tools for from day to day, including history mergers, fixing bogus copy-and-paste moves, and renaming over existing articles, involve the requirements of the GFDL. We are required to delete content that is not licensed under the GFDL, and to preserve edit history and not delete when (GFDL-licensed) content has been merged. Our tools are here in part for us to ensure that the project's copyright policy is adhered to, and to repair the errors made by those who have not followed that policy. Not knowing what the requirements of the project's copyright licence actually are is a fundamental deficiency; it is something that one should have learned before becoming an administrator. Uncle G 23:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Realisticaly you are going to have to accept that most admins have not read the GFDL. Just as you have to accept that most admins have not read our full disclaimers.Geni 01:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but just because we should be willing to forgive ignorance of our copyright policy doesn't mean that after its consequences have been pointed out people should intentionally disregard them. >Radiant< 08:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ahem. It is a sad day when BJAODN gets deleted. Amen. - Bagel7*Talk02:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we can all do without that collection of unattributed libel. We can instead, oh I don't know, write an encyclopedia? (H) 13:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as a sidenote, can an admin please undelete and do a history merge on User:SunStar Net/Persian Panda and merge the history of Persian Panda (now deleted) into it to keep this within the GFDL?? - since the original author's work is not included, because I did a copy-and-paste job on it. The article is tagged with {{humor}} so people know it is a BJAODN article.

    Also, I feel BJAODN should be kept, as long as pages are moved into it rather than deleted wholesale - e.g. Nonsense article that is very funny moved to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Nonsense article that is very funny - that way it might just keep the GFDL requirement. Same for all the other deleted articles that were cut-and-pasted into the BJAODN archives too. Hope this suggestion helps. --SunStar Net talk 21:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, say goodbye to my edit count... =( Dark Ermac 21:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm putting this up for WP:Deletion review. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Crikey. This makes me sad, as Wikipedia isn't a job to me, it's a pleasure. And even were this a job, I feel like a shared sense of humor is a vital part of a healthy workplace culture. This sudden action seems roughly as reasonable to me as tearing through the office one day and ripping down all the photocopied cartoons. If I grab the ultra-full dump and write something that rummages for attribution, would people accept the attributable BJAODN fragments back? Or is there some unexpressed issue that's driven this? William Pietri 04:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would accept it if:
        • It was properly attributed (which may lead to "you did this to make fun of me" wikidrama), and
        • It is actually funny (which is subjective, because one person's funny and hilarious joke is another's stupid and lame one)
      • Otherwise, it's better to keep them deleted. I was about to flush out the archives because most of the content was just plain stupid, and they were funny to the point where I did not laugh at the subject of the joke, but at the joke itself. —Kurykh 04:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't read this thread exhaustively but I've done a quick text search and this doesn't seem to have been raised. Doesn't the exact same interpretation of the GFDL also result in practically every talk archive subpage on Wikipedia being a violation in need of immediate deletion? Help:Archiving a talk page gives detailed directions on how to do a copy-and-paste move of material from talk pages to archive subpages, and I know this has been the method I've always used myself. Bryan Derksen 07:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk pages and pages like these are actively signed by their participants. That is the attribution.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Undelete the BJAODN Pages and put in an Archive, Please

    It is my belief that many BJAODN can be attributed; even in cases where they aren't attributable to pre-BJAODN edits, they should be attributable to those who posted them on BJAODN. So what's the issue? — Rickyrab | Talk 22:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    vandalism

    Resolved
     – Be careful what you wish for... EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Itham keeps removing a well known fact from the page, despite lot of reverts. Please, someone do something.... --Jollyroger 10:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Review of editor spamming article with irrelevant example

    Mindys12345 is obsessed with repeatedly adding Fatso the Fat-Ass Wombat Fatso the Fat-Arsed Wombat to the article "mascot". He adds both a picture and a see also bullet for this irrelevant piece of social commentary against commercialization. It is really not relevant in the grand scheme of things. If Mindy were writing sourced, full explanations of parody mascots as a trend, then such an addition might be warranted.

    But considering no specific characters are highlighted in the see also section, and there is no discussion of the character and the larger trend (if indeed it is one), it's simply flaunting a limited happening that wasn't covered in the mainstream media outside of Australia.

    Opinions? -- Zanimum 14:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Revert once and then walk away. If it's unworthy, lots of people will do this, and the user will eventually give up, or get blocked for WP:3RR. Jehochman Talk 14:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's already happened multiple times. Every time, I not only reverted, but added a bit of relevant extra information.
    Ramdrake deleted the image, Evb-wiki brought it back because he feels that there's enough room for everybody. Are Wikipedia articles supposed to be littered with images? Hit bull, win streak deleted the image as "inappropriate", Evb-wiki fired back that "your view of what's appropriat is not a valid reason to remove content". This clearly interprets Hit bull's comments as meaning PG-rated content, when he likely meant not appropriate for an article with so few other examples and so little context for the character's prescence.
    There's now suggestion that the article is US-centric, which it isn't: the headless mascot appears to be the lion of SG Kronau-Östringen (Germany), the bug is from Canada, meaning only Clutch and the Pets.com puppet are American. Frankly, the whole concept of non-cartoon mascots is completely ignored, which is much worse. -- Zanimum 18:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

    I have unblocked jvm. This may prove to be the stupidest thing I ever did. I hope not. Posting from my blackberry so no proper sig, JzG

    I hope it turns out to not be the stupidest thing you ever did. At this point though it is really up to Jeff.--Isotope23 17:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, it's better to have tried and failed in such circumstances then not to have tried. Hope JVM takes your conversations to heart, Guy :) SirFozzie 17:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Runcorn and sockpuppets banned

    After an investigation involving several CheckUsers, myself included, it has been determined based on new, firmer technical evidence, as well as the editing patterns, including similar article interests, reverting to each other, and double voting, that Newport, Poetlister, R613vlu, Brownlee, Londoneye, and Taxwoman, all previous sockpuppetry suspects from 2005, are all the same user, and, further, that the operator of these accounts is also the operator of the newer accounts new accounts including Simul8, Osidge, Holdenhurst, and the admin account Runcorn. On the recommendation of the Arbitration Committee, Runcorn has been desysopped by a steward, and all of the accounts have been blocked indefinitely. Dmcdevit·t 20:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm shocked. Pretty shocking when you think about it. This seems as bad as the Wonderfool/Robdurbar incident some time ago. I do know that Poetlister's still active at Wikiquote as q:User:Poetlister. This is certainly one thing I didn't expect to read on Wikipedia today. I assume User:RachelBrown is still active, am I wrong?? But, whatever way you look at it, it is shocking. --SunStar Net talk 20:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No Poetlister and I had email communications, and she has provided me important information about the issue and they indeed proved she is not a sock. I now need a trustworthy admin that I can forward the evidence to. Who wants it? WooyiTalk to me? 21:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Send it to the arbcom list or an arbitrator, but I highly doubt this. Dmcdevit·t 21:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, but this needs to be confidential, which arbitrator is the most trustworthy and responsive? WooyiTalk to me? 21:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They're all a bunch of faithless losers, when you look at it that way. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect the ArbCom, so no intention to insult the institution. Anyways, from past experience you seem to be a good arbitrator, Gordon, so I will send it to you. WooyiTalk to me? 21:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Email sent to jpgordon. WooyiTalk to me? 21:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above-mentioned e-mail has been received by the Committee. However, I'm afraid that it didn't actually cast any further light on the matter (merely a denial). If there is evidence to bring to our attention, we would most certainly like to see it. James F. (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just curious: How did this mass sockpuppetry come to light in the first place? Checkuser, yes, but obviously there must have been some suspicion involved to get to that point. What were the sockpuppets doing that set off peoples' alarms? This is one of the most severe cases I've ever seen — and it makes me wonder just how many other admin sockpuppets might be lurking somewhere out there, just waiting to strike... *** Crotalus *** 23:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Various people have been tracking them for a while. Finally someone looked at just the right thing - David Gerard 23:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      This page offers a fair amount of evidence. --Calton | Talk 00:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      We e-mailed arbcom with 8 pages of evidence after this AFD, but there was obviously much more to it, people had suspected sockpuppetry for ages, but Runcorn's name hadn't come up (as far as I know) until that AFD just kind of made it obvious what was going on, if you could read between the lines. --W.marsh 05:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed, I first encountered it there, discovered an administrator behind it, and contacted ArbCom, who were already looking at similar issues. Dmcdevit·t 00:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's quite true. This was brought to my attention by someone else (I'll leave it to them whether they want their name mentioned or not), but after looking into it, it was pretty clear that the accounts were socks. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Aren't these sockpuppets of RachelBrown or is she unrelated? --MichaelLinnear 00:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    There was a user subpage on Zodriac or something about the Poetlister alleged socks. Some admin deleted it a year ago when Zodriac (sp?) got banned. Basically it lined out all the evidence that acquited poetlister. Basically, she and the others are real life friends. I mean they include their pictures. I am sure they can include pictures holding up signs of things to prove they are not socks, just friends. There's a difference between people of similar interests and friends and people who are the same person. Just ask them to provide pictures of themselves holding up signs or something and it'll be proven they are different people. SakotGrimshine 00:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If they are real life friends and they are voting together...how is that not meatpuppetry? IrishGuy talk 00:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the accusation was sock puppetry, not meat puppetry. SakotGrimshine 00:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's rather easy to circumvent. Just get a bunch of random friends to hold up signs for you - they don't have to know why. Snap some pics. Job done! - Alison ☺ 00:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since most of the blocked accounts had uploaded pictures of themselves, you'd have to get all of the same people back together again, maybe not so simple. --MichaelLinnear 01:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone actually bothers to take a picture with a sign, to get back an editor account with no powers--not an admin account--instead of just changing your IP and making a new account, then this is likely a legit person. If that's not enough, ask them all not just holding a sign, but doing it in a bikini--which you couldn't easily get a bunch of friends to do. I'm also not sure that everyone who is at their computer a lot has a whole bunch of real life friends. If they are socks, then their photos would be taken from somewhere else and we should find the source... magazines, etc. SakotGrimshine 01:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um not really. I know just about anybody who could convince a bunch of friends, which these images clearer are, to do that. The facts are though that every one of those accounts used the same "wording" and "phrasing" in their edit summaries and most importantly in their CfD/AfD !votes. On a recent CfD I participated in, I noticed that most of these users IDENTICALLY misunderstood a certain user's reasoning and responded to it in identical confusion. These are not meatpuppets. Bulldog123 06:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Also.... Has this been finished yet, checkuser being able to read USER AGENT? So checkuser can see what people's browser and OS are? I'm doubtful they all match for every account. I'm sure some of them use Mac's, Windowx XP vs. Vista, etc. SakotGrimshine 00:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That wouldn't prove anything either. I really do have several systems which use different OS's, and it's trivial to spoof useragent headers. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest immediate unblock and exoneration of Rachel Brown, Poetlister, and Taxwoman, absurd sock accusation that amounts to Witchhunt. WooyiTalk to me? 01:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If useing a different browser makes you different people me and user:User:Genisock2 are different people. Something that doesn't appear to be the case.Geni 01:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on, they all have pictures of themselves, socks don't have human faces. Have some common sense. WooyiTalk to me? 01:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How you know they are pictures of them?Geni 02:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I WP:AGF and assume most Wikipedians are honest, plus my email communications with one of the blocked user. WooyiTalk to me? 02:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your "important information proving they are not socks" turned out to be nothing more than a rant and unfounded accusations. Dmcdevit·t 02:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um. No. This was the result of extensive investigation and conferring between several CheckUsers. Obviously, I'm not going to give technical details because there is no pressing need to reveal personal information, and there is certainly no good reason to make it easier for future sockpuppets to evade detection by knowing our methods. However, all of the things that are crossing your minds now crossed ours as well, as ArbCom discussed the matter, and the technical information explains it all well. Dmcdevit·t 02:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're saying those women, many of which are on the list of the top prettiest Wikipedians, are really actually a man? SakotGrimshine 02:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So it would seem. One Night In Hackney303 02:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wooyi, since you bring up WP:AGF, you could assume that the checkusers and ArbCom have acted in good faith and performed a diligent investigation before labeling these accounts sockpuppets. But instead you've described their actions as a "witch-hunt", "absurd", lacking "common sense", etc. I don't bring this up to be hard on you, but it's not the first time you've defended an ArbCom/checkuser-identified abusive sockmaster on flimsy grounds ([5]). How about extending some of that good faith to the checkusers and ArbCom? MastCell Talk 04:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    MastCell, I have only defended a couple users alleged to be sockpuppets. But you only focused on these to comment on me. If you look at my records, you can see I've edited tons of contentious politics-related articles and I've confronted innumerable vandals/trolls, you think I would actually defend bad users? However, I also believe the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and I looked at some of the accused "sockpuppets"' contributions, I could find no compelling evidence, so I think they are not. Frankly, for years I might be one of editors who are especially "law and order" in regarding to disruption. WooyiTalk to me? 20:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Speaking of images, what do we do with the images like Image:Taxwoman1.jpg and so on? Since these are all sockpuppets of an editor who at times identified as a male, can we really assume they have any rights to these pictures that were uploaded? --W.marsh 05:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • About the pictures, has anyone noticed how perfectly formated all the userpages were? Each had precisely one picture and one link to contributions. Look:

    [6], [7], [8], [9] This reeks of someone's attempt to look like 6 or 7 different people by taking photos of their friends and uploading them. In addition, this "unblock Poetlister" mentality was already carried out by many other banned users, probably friends, such as User:Zordrac. It's a trap and I think User:Wooyi might be falling for it.. Bulldog123 06:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Having absorbed what I could of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Newport, and noticed the userpage pattern I was about to ask why User:Runcorn was suspected (besides CU) until I saw this, in which it is quite obvious that there is one and only one person behind the relevant keeps. Most or all of the socks are blockable based on public evidence alone.
    My hat is off to Dmcdevit and all else who contributed to uprooting this ongoing abuse.Proabivouac 08:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was clear on that, and quite a bit more. But I certainly salute Dmcdevit and all of the other checkusers too. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My hat is off to Seraphimblade, Bulldog123, Dmcdevit, and all others who contributed to uprooting this ongoing abuse.Proabivouac 20:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing that one other entry in Runcorn's block log was a bit of an "aha!" moment as well. Good work. WarpstarRider 11:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Okay here is the whole Zodrac evidence page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:Zordrac/Poetlister It got deleted 21:36, 7 January 2007 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Zordrac/Poetlister" (attack page). But admins can view it. I recommend you copy and paste it into show preview for easier viewing. It includes many pictures of Taxwoman dressed as a ... to put it midly... a dancer, although the userpage says she is an accountant. There's a bunch of good evidence there and also more related IPs. SakotGrimshine 12:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just out of curiosity...as a non-admin, how is it that you know the contents of a deleted page? Your first edit was 29 December 2006 and you didn't return again until 17 January 2007. Meanwhile, this page was deleted on 7 January 2007. IrishGuy talk 18:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen them as well. They have been mirrored elsewhere. hbdragon88 02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of the socks were UK-based and had generic occupation claims (accountant, chemist, mathematician, etc.) For me one of the most compelling argument for calculated sockpuppetry - as opposed to the meat puppet theory - was that none of these accounts ever talked to eachother on-Wikipedia, not even one word. They never even voted "per" eachother in discussions, the first one always made an argument then the others voted "per" someone else who made about the same argument. If I found someone who agreed with me 90% of the time in 100+ discussions, I'd be pretty intrigued and probably talk to them, although even 90% is a pretty far-fetched number. If I found someone who agreed with me 100% of the time - I'd think I had multiple personality disorder and check myself in to the clinic down the road. But here are 5+ people who literally always agreed with eachother, and they never said anything to eachother? The more I looked into this the more obvious it became. --W.marsh 13:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That page was edited by Taxwoman. It was in part based upon arguments supplied by another editor who turned out to be a mass sockpuppeteer. And Zordrac later turned out to be a sockpuppet account, too. Be aware of this when reading what is written there. Uncle G 15:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, there's a significant amount of fallout to this mess. Fortunately, one of the people who dealt with this has already caught what was my most immediate concern when I read Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Newport. However, there are other concerns. Checking Special:Contributions/Taxwoman has led to User:Taxwoman/articles, at least one (so far) of which I believe to be original research (see Snake play (AfD discussion)).

    I'm surprised, given what W.marsh wrote above, that Interesdom (talk · contribs) does not appear to have been included in the list of accounts sent to the CheckUsers, given this edit where xe makes the same AFD argument as all of the other now-identified sockpuppet accounts, which would appear to qualify xem at least for investigation on the grounds stated above. Of course, Interesdom could simply be a second real person who has simply adopted the common view of a single external group, given that xe is also User:Interesdom on the same wiki as "Taxwoman", and, like "Taxwoman" and "Balzac" (whose account here is BalzacLFS (talk · contribs)), a sysop and a checkuser on that wiki.

    On the other hand, they could be sockpuppet accounts on that wiki, too. Interesdom shows exactly the same pattern of editing Master (BDSM) as Taxwoman does with Snake play. Xe created the article on the other wiki and then copied it to Wikipedia citing the other wiki as the source, exactly as "Taxwoman" did, even down to the use of {{Wipipedia}}, with Snake play. So we have two points of editing similarity, and I think enough evidence to at least ask for a yea or nay from the CheckUsers. Uncle G 15:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Interesdom (talk · contribs) sure fits the profile we've seen. I think wp-en's checkusers should look into this and see if they can't tie him to the sockpuppets. On an odd note, he seems to use a joke lifted from my userpage on his userpage. I'm not sure what this means exactly, but it was added around the time I let it be known publically that the Wipipedia sockpuppets were being investigated. To clear up why he wasn't expected, when Seraphimblade and I started digging into this, the main thing we used to find connections was looking at accounts who voted in both the deletion discussions and RFAs with Runcorn. The only RFA Interestdom seems to have commented in was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Michaelas10, which was indeed a textbook example of the sockpuppetry. --W.marsh 17:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It seemed a clear-cut case. I've unblocked the account in case the user wants to use his new-found credibility for more detective work. Tyrenius 04:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, Jujugoe seems to have been a sockpuppet of someone or other. I'm not familiar with Antidote (talk · contribs). But it's interesting that someone was onto Runcorn's sockpuppetting over 6 months ago, I think that's the earliest I've seen. It's strange that no one really mentioned Runcorn publically, as far as I can tell, until this very AN thread... was it just because they didn't want to name an admin, or if they just didn't notice the connection. --W.marsh 19:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, the "sockpuppet of User:Antidote" thing seems to be a common theme in Runcorn's blocking log (next to all of the open proxy stuff). I wish I was more familiar with that situation; anyone have any info? WarpstarRider 05:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Some time ago, on the Georg Cantor article, User:Newport, User:Brownlee, and User:Runcorn, including the user who is apparently now User:Simul8 were edit warring with a bunch of anons. Myself and User:PMAnderson later joined in. Here's a history log [15]. When I reverted to versions that apparently didn't suit their POV, Runcorn flat out banned me as a sockpuppet of "Antidote" without any explanation. I had to get an unblocking admin to conduct a checkuser to exonerate me. In the middle of an edit war, which I now learn was actually just him and a bunch of sockpuppets, he pulls this stunt. He didn't leave a message of explanation or anything. Nor an apology after the unblocking. It makes all the more sense now. So to answer your question, I think Runcorn uses the "blocked as sockpuppet of Antidote" excuse as a cover to ban people/IPs that edit-war with his sockpuppets. Since nobody knows who that was, he could get away with it at least temporarily. His talk page has comments all over it of complaints of blocks. Crazy this went on as long as it did. --Tellerman(Chat)
              • One wonders how many Wikipedia editors walked away from the project forever after being arbitrarily blocked by Runcorn over things like this. I fear that people like Tellerman are in the minority, and most editors would have just given up rather than go through all the work required for exoneration. Runcorn has brought shame to us all with his self-serving deceit. --Kralizec! (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a quick comment: I assisted in the May sockpuppet investigation. I endorse the conclusion and the bans. DurovaCharge! 23:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

                • There's been other administrators desysoped for sock puppet abuse. I think the real question is, why has no one noticed the banning of editors they're in a content dispute with by runcorn or other administrators until a big scandal breaks out? SakotGrimshine 07:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Runcorn Votestacking

    Weird category

    Allo. I'll admit it, I don't know where to go for this, so I'm just sticking it here. I stumbled on a category that doesn't seem to belong as a category. (But, can you put 'speedy' tags on categories?) Anyways, take a look and see for yourself: Category:How_to_tell_if_a_person_using_one_and_what_to_do Bladestorm 22:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It links to club drug and contains material that someone pasted to the bottom of that article rather than trying to incorporate it into the article in an organized way. Apparently someone was confused about the difference between an article and a category. Michael Hardy 22:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mountain Vista Governor's School

    Can another admin please keep an eye on Mountain Vista Governor's School and its AFD. A bunch of school kids have been trying to include some silly nonsense, and even some attacks, in the article. A number of users have vandalized user pages of those who recommended delete at the AFD. I've blocked a bunch them and several IPs, and I would semi-protect the article if it weren't currently at AFD. Anyways...I won't be around for a bit, so an extra set of admin eyes over the next day or so would be helpful. Thanks. --Ed (Edgar181) 23:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Proposal for Change in "Attacking" Policy

    In my own opinion, I feel that our policy regarding offenders of the "attacking" policy is a bit too lenient and is often disregarded following appropriate action taken by Wikipedia admins. Please note that you do not exactly know where the attacks originated and how far they could go. Even though incidents like these rarely do take place, it is certainly a likely possibility. I propose a punishment of, for a first offense, a permanent ban from editing Wikipedia and that comment be either kept or reported to law enforcement depending on the severity of the threat. Please take this into consideration. This punishment may be harsh but is necessary in our pursuit to rid Wikipedia of vandals and misuse! Please comment on my talk page ASAP when you have reached an opinion, have a question, etc. Redsox04 23:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't punish. We prevent. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I should follow this up by stating that a) we already block people who personal attack others, at the administrators discretion up to indefinitely. b) Not to mention there's really no way for anyone to actually track you down and cary through on their personal attacks, and law enforcement really can't do much about it. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto to this, we never (in a perfect world, I know, but we get close) block to punish someone. We only block to prevent damage. If a good faith belief is held they wont continue to harm the wiki, no block should be imposed. -Mask? 02:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that a user should never be blocked for a single edit, unless this edit is part of a problematic pattern of edits. In addition, an idef-block for a first-time offence seems to be too long, and that blocks should always be designed tobe preventative, not punative. Od Mishehu 07:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    New at this

    I'm a new admin and am just starting to deal with disruptive editors. Would somebody please review my actions regarding User:Horhay Sanchez? It's mostly his talk page; he kept doing weird things to the warnings he'd been given, even after I warned him to stop. I've fully-protected the page for 24 hours. Is that right? --Masamage ♫ 03:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He was a vandal-only account. Ryulong extended it to an indef block which is pretty standard when the account is brand new and has vandalism only edits. Feel free to extend the page protection. He was clearly just trolling. IrishGuy talk 03:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm~, okay. I guess one learns to be less lenient after a while just by necessity. (I've seen three unblock requests today that blamed a friend for hacking the account to vandalize with. Amazing.) Anyway, thank you for the reply! --Masamage ♫ 04:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    IPs and user accounts are different animals. We tend to be more lenient with IPs just because it could be several users using the same IP and you don't want to punish those who didn't commit the vandalism. User accounts are different since only one person is usually using a single account. And blocking the account only blocks that account. Something to keep in mind. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a note: personally I don't indef block vandal only accounts first off, I gove them 1 24 hour block - after that if their behaviour doesn't improve they are indef blocked. I'd like to think some people improve though. ViridaeTalk 13:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    BJAODN

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

    Can someone restore the following articles for BJAODN:

    All GFDL compliant, of course. --Kelmar20440 08:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    While I do think a case can be made for restoring WP:LTA/WOW (if for no other reason than that we're still getting asked about it CONSTANTLY ages after the fact), the other edits (reject tagging WP:DENY among others) this user has made suggest this is WP:POINT and/or a troll, and definitely a sockpuppet. Is a block in order? --tjstrf talk 08:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. Troll blocked. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

    O RLY?

    Resolved
     – YA RLY! EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Skrenpp66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims to be Pschemp. From this [16] I strongly doubt it. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lulz. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unblock request declined. Riana ⁂ 09:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    NO WAI! hbdragon88 19:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleting top anon edits at the request of the associated user to hide the IP

    Resolved

    A user has contacted me to request that an edit that they accidentally made as an anon be deleted, to remove the IP from the history. The user/anon combination is top on the page, so the deletion wouldn't be a GFDL violation. Would this be a reasonable interpretation of WP:CSD#G7 or WP:IAR, or would people object to such a deletion being done? --ais523 11:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

    Seems fine to me as long as they learn to log in after one error. CMummert · talk 13:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This has happened to me. Sometimes the software is having a bad day and will inadvertently log an editor out without his or her realizing it. It once happened to me while I was at work, before I was an admin, while I was editing a contentious page with a lot of trolling, and it was a matter of some urgency to me to get the edit deleted before the trolls could locate my workplace. Requests of this nature should be accommodated instantly. Newyorkbrad 15:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (after EC)I have not infrequently made anon edits without meaning to. as my basic ID info is public, and I even have a link from my most common IP to my user page, I don't care (except to login and and sign talk comments properly) but if someone does care, I see no reason why such a request shouldn't be accommodated. I hope the edit will be repeated logged in. For many people an IP doesn't actually reveal anything useful, but for many others it will give a clear pointer to identity. DES (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I made the deletion immediately after CMummert's comment. --ais523 15:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

    206.131.72.0/22

    I have blocked this range for one hour. It's registered to "St. Anthony School District" in Minneapolis, MN. Several page blanks and typical "students talking to each other" incidents prompted me to place the block. Each edit appeared to be coming from a different IP address, so it's either many students or a load-sharing masquerading router. In any case this prevented me from issuing warnings while being certain they were being received. --Chris (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    bugzilla:9213: even a static IP might not receive a warning. --ais523 15:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

    bot for repairing links?

    Does anyone know if there is a bot that can repair links and redirects or does this always have to be done manually? thank you for your help. Gryffindor 16:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What sort of repair? Bots are good at some things, not at others. CMummert · talk 16:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a bot that does repair for double redirects, but none for broken redirects. Broken are repaired manually. Links like disambiguation links, I don't believe there is a bot for sorting that out, editors have to make sure links are pointing to the right article. Not sure what other kind of link repair there could be. — Moe ε 18:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Sextans Dwarf Spheroidal/Comments

    User:200.8.148.31, who appears to be relatively new to Wikipedia, created this page when trying to comment on a merge proposal sitting on the pages of Sextans Dwarf Spheroidal. Could an administrator transfer the comment to Talk:Sextans Dwarf Spheroidal and delete Talk:Sextans Dwarf Spheroidal/Comments if appropriate? Dr. Submillimeter 18:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Done - Alison ☺ 18:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That was fast. Thank you. Dr. Submillimeter 18:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Heads Up

    Im in the process of cleaning up our fair use images, After I cleaned out our Orphaned Fair Use images (~25,000). I now moving to Images without fair use rationales. I estimate that at least ~15,000-20,000 more images. I hope you admins have your delete button handy. (there are currently 4523 tagged images.) Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 18:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep up the good work. (H) 18:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: 5,131 images Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 20:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know whether to love you or hate you. ^demon[omg plz] 22:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: 6,328 images Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 01:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of tallest buildings in the United States

    Something in List of tallest buildings in the United States is messing up the templates at the bottom and I am at a loss figuring out what it is. Help please.--JEF 20:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Template limits. YOu are transcluding too much onto the page. Upon investigation, your use of {{convert}} is the problem. Eliminating this template will solve your issues. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats not the problem. I narrowed the problem down to something wrong in the paragraph that begins with: "Prior to". Something, maybe a new template edit may have had an impact on it. The convert template primarly, but Chris above already figured that out :). — Moe ε 20:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just removed the first template and hit preview; sure enough, I was able to get one of the {{cite}} tags to show up. The list needs some severe pruning. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The list doesn't need pruning, it just needs to use less templates. Why a 13K template is used to generate 10 characters of text is the mystery. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The map seems problematic as well--it's not displaying properly. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh. {{convert}} may not be the problem, but it is definitely a problem. Templates that use intricate parser functions shouldn't be transcluded onto a page 100 times. Unfortunately, substing the template doesn't fix the problem, because {{convert}} itself uses multiple templates. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Image fixed, I think. Don't worry, I'll get the other convert templates fixed now. We don't need to subst the cite web or the other template though. — Moe ε 21:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The image is still messed up for me (OS X Firefox 2.0.0.4, if it matters), but your substing of the convert template worked--I wonder why it didn't work when I substed it? --Akhilleus (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    *Shurgs shoulders* Unknown answer :) But as long as the template isn't used 100 times is all that matters. Could you tell me the problem with the Image? I don't have FireFox, so I can't see whats wrong. But I can start fixing it when I know whats up.. — Moe ε 21:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, the text is in the wrong place: New York City buildings are listed over eastern Wyoming, Chicago appears over San Francisco, and the west coast buildings are way off to the left. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I think I know what the problem was, could you tell me if I fixed it? — Moe ε 22:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's working now. Thanks! However, I have to say I am dubious about its value. It's difficult to read the text against the state borders, and anyone who needs to know where Atlanta, Houston, etc. are can simply consult the appropriate articles... --Akhilleus (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking the same thing when I was trying to place the template in a more appropriate place in the article. Then I looked at the "Whatlinkshere" page for the template and saw that it only links to one article. I'm thinking of putting it up on TFD. BTW, thanks for telling me NYC was in Eastern Wyoming, it gave me a chuckle for some reason :) — Moe ε 22:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Would it be worth having a bot go around and subst: {{convert}} everywhere, to avoid issues like this? ^demonBot2 can make use of Special:Expandtemplates, so it can fully subst it without leaving residue. ^demon 22:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't your straight kind of subst. This template uses some intricate features and substing them causes an overload of unwanted syntax in the article. I think this kind of thing has to be done manually. It also doesn't have to be subst'ed on every page. Only on the ones that have it repeated a hundred times. — Moe ε 22:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand what you mean, which is why I mentioned that I can use ExpandTemplates. It bypasses all that mucky syntax and gives you your full output from the template. ^demon[omg plz] 01:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Really?? Hmm.. I would be content if your bot did that work. Still, I wouldn't use it on articles that only have in transcluded once or twice, more along the lines of 20 or more times. If you could get your bot to do that, that would be great :) — Moe ε 02:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I realize that {{convert}} makes things convenient, but couldn't someone just go and use a freakin' calculator and just write out the values?? That would pretty much solve all the problems for this page. howcheng {chat} 01:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    So true, thats what I thought the template was to be used for at first, to figure out the conversions, but I guess it's so that users don't even have to strain :) — Moe ε 02:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Usernameblacklist

    I have some regex's I think would be nice for the username blacklist. Could anyone interested take a look over at MediaWiki_talk:Usernameblacklist and offer your comments? Thanks. ^demon[omg plz] 22:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Request re: BJAODN deletion

    I am requesting the edit histories of the deleted subpages of BJAODN, as well as the deleted subpages themselves. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    How many times will you be told no before you stop? As you were not the sole editor, you have no right to the content. Period. It cannot be recreated because it violates the GFDL. Period. You are really bordering on trolling at this point. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. If it was possible to release them to you under the terms of the GFDL, then they wouldn't have been deleted in the first place. Hesperian 01:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, someone already blocked him for it. Kinda mean to block someone for requesting something. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not when they have been trolling to get the information. He only started actually giving a polite request when I told him to be civil. Beforehand he was asking rather rudely. I think he knew the consequences of what he was doing. — Moe ε 02:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    About the block. ^demon[omg plz] 02:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Runcorn, sockpuppets and vote stacking

    The revelation about Runcorn is quite shocking, but perhaps our best response would be to become less reliant on counting "votes". The object of all discussions are to arrive at the best decisions. If several people take part in a discussion and they do not add a convincing argument for their position, it should not matter if the argument was made five times by one person or one time each by five people. It is still an unconvincing argument. However it is possible to sway opinion by piling on comments to make it look like an overwhelming show of community support. Certainly, in this respect Runcorn's behavior is appalling and cannot be justified. But exposing sock-puppets is just a partial solution. I call on closers of all discussions to focus on the arguments of the debate, weighing all points, examining policy and current practice and using judgment to come to the best possible decision. If you arrive at the best decision, and can explain how and why you reached it, the decision will be accepted. This is the best defense against sock-puppets. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You've made a very good point, but this is an issue for the community at large, not just admins, so I guess it would be better being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump. Neil (►) 08:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Am I losing the plot?

    Just need someone else to look at this because I think I'm losing it. User:Angelbo reported User:24.192.99.116 to AP:AIV. I removed the report as a final warning hadn't been issued. Now looking at history of the supposed vandalised article, I can see any contribs from the IP, and when I look at his/her contributions there are no edits. It's early I need more coffee but what am I missing? Ta Khukri 07:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I would suppose that their edits were deleted, as they contained personal information. WarpstarRider 07:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)At least one of the editors who left warnings certainly thought [17] they were reverting edits made by this IP. Perhaps the edits in question were deleted ... ? (and I will ditto the coffee order) --Kralizec! (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=135042326

    Leave a Reply