I created {{mprotected2}} and Category:Protected pages associated with Main Page articles to assist with keeping track of templates and images that are protected because they are used in articles linked from the Main Page. Hopefully, protecting images and templates used in Today's Featured Article will not be a requirement as it is for images and templates used on the Main Page. However, due to the recent deceptive and disturbing vandalism, some images and templates have had to be protected. Hopefully, admins who do that from now on will add {{mprotected2}} so other admins will know to unprotect the pages at some point. -- tariqabjotu 00:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks for creating it. Chick Bowen 04:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

He continues to make a test page, removing the {{G2}} I place on his Pradschico page. Please intervene as I believe I have warned him as much as I possibly can for removing the aforementioned CSD, after I referred him to the sandbox explicitly in the welcome message I first left him. Pumeleon 02:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I may have been too hasty. He has not removed the latest CSD. Please watch for further violations. Pumeleon 02:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: He just blanked his page. I will list it as {{G2}} and see if the issue resolves itself. Pumeleon 02:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Currently at 4 days or 499 "articles" and user pages. Please help out to eliminate this backlog. Thanks. MER-C 02:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection was requested on WP:AN/I#Christine_Maggiore by User:JohnnyBGood. I think semiprotection for a couple of days is warranted. The article was edited in a POV manner by at least two IPs. The question is sensitive and attractive for vandals and POV pushers. I see no problems if the article will be protected for a couple of days. Everybody interested in the edit warrings could get an account. Obviously, if could persuade another admin to unprotect the article I would not revert his or her actions Alex Bakharev 05:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A vandal i've been chasing and reverting(they've regsitered several accounts over the past 15 minutes), has registered a username discernably similar to mine and is performing vandalism with it. thanks, i kan reed 07:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Ikanread76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for the name and for being an obviouse sockpuppet. I have also blocked The Megocian76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and YankeesGlen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as obvious sockpuppets (of an as yet unidentified puppetmaster). (Just look at their edit summaries.) There's probably more to be found, but I need to go back to bed. If more than one admin agrees that these blocks should be lifted or modified, you don't need to contact me first. -- Donald Albury 10:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please unblock [1] It was a compromised host someone hacked into my system but my network admin fixed the issue. Please unblock. 65.99.214.132

How do you know it's fixed? How are we to know that it's fixed? Claiming that someone else did it is more than iffy. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I know it´s difficult but it is fixed. How can I prove this to you? You can watch the edits after you unblock me, then you see I like wikipedia. I would not do such things. I beg you please unblock. 65.99.214.132

Sorry, but the account had been compromised and will not be unblocked. Naconkantari 07:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It was not anymore, please unblock it i like wikipedia. 65.99.214.132

There's some sound reasoning behind it. i.e. sockpuppet User:Mnbvcxy, and that your account vandalized your own failed RfA, which is unlikely for a random vandal who got control of the account. In any case, if the hackishness is true we can't know if it's still compromised or not, and can't unblock it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please! Everything of that was the vandal. Now the network leak is fixed. Please unblock the account. What about the IP adress? Please unblock at least this. Otherwise I can´t do anything on wikipedia. 65.99.214.132

I've blocked the above IP. Naconkantari 07:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

He's persistent. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

See Special:Whatlinkshere/Hexspeak, many of which were created by Hexdec16 (talk · contribs), who does not seem to be stopping. Is this going to get to represent every possible word that can be expressed with 0-9 / A-F ? It seems a bit much. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of like a reverse category through redirects. I wouldn't see the harm in doing this for values that actually have some documented use (as people might then encounter these), but just entering every combination of those letters that can make a word seems rather pointless. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been contacted by a producer with a public radio show called Weekend America. Who is looking into a story about the ArbCom elections and was wondering if I might have a few minutes to talk about my experience in Wikipedia. Tempted and amusing as that might be, I have strong feelings on blabbing to the media and those that do it, but does Wikipedia have a policy on this? I'm sure I am not the only obe to be singled out Giano 07:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether Wikipedia has a policy already, but I don't see the harm in it and I think that openness can only benefit us. If there's media interest in the ArbCom elections, the best course of action is to be honest and forthcoming, and do what we can to ensure that the coverage is fair. Clamming up makes it more likely that it won't be. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Curious. Giano, did the producer explain how they came to select you? (→Netscott) 07:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, why not me? I actually LISTEN to the show! In any case, go for it. --Calton | Talk 08:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Since we have some suffrage for the arbcom voting, I do not see the problem. I would be worried if an AfD or RfA advertised in the big media Alex Bakharev 08:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea why they chose me, cos I'm more horrible than you I expect! Is it real station then, I though it may be a hoax? Anyhow, I have enough experience of these things to know than a "nice happy story is no story" They want my "experience of Wikipedia" but I expect it will be all about Kelly Martin's arbcom result and behaviour etc, and the "Giano case" Neither of which are Wikipedia's finest moments. They are hardly going to want to discuss Palladian architecture are they? (Which is what I like talking about) No I shall leave it to others - interesting to see who though! Anyway they want me to phone them, and I'm certainly not spending megabucks on transatlantic phone calls. You lot would never understand my vowels anyway. I'll forward their email to Jimbo and he can tell them how marvellous the place is - especially the architecture section etc etc etc. Giano 08:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Tell them to phone "the co-founder, Jimmy Wales". That should give them a story... yandman 08:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Neille i (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been asking arbcom candidates on-wiki to beinterviewed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an arbcom candidate - heaven forbid, so I can't immagine what they want to know Giano 09:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have no qualms about giving interviews to the media. See for example [2], I was picked because of this I believe. Sure, go for it, and be honest in your answers. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That is hilarious! Jimbo recreated it two minutes later, with a rather endearing edit summary: [3]. Are you saying doing the interview was a form of punishment? :-) Carcharoth 13:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That had me laughing out loud for a moment :-) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a real radio show, at least. If the story comes off it will probably be available on podcast, too. [4]. Thatcher131 12:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The only concern is whether you know the questions in advance or not. I've into this before w/ David Gerard and pshapiro and that's why i am bringing this concern here. There may be tricky questions waiting for you Giano. Is it possible to check if you can get those questions in advance? -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Giano, I say go for it, I'm sure they'll call you for the actual interview. And yes, tell them about the architecture and how the articles are getting written. If they try to focus on the drama, just tell them that Wikipedia's internals being more transparent than their company's doesn't mean that we have to discuss our dirty laundry with outside players any more than they do. Zocky | picture popups 16:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• No, They would almost certainly want the drama, not the architecture. I shall not be commenting. Eeverything I do is above board and onwiki, that way others have their chance to comment legitimately and a right of redress. It is not my style to talk about others only when I know I am safe from reproach. If asked about certain subjects I would have a problem maintaining my usual kind disposition especially as the "IRCadmin" gang are now travelling on tour in a charabang hectoring voters at [5]. I'm not sure why they are called "elections". On Wikipedia they always seem more akin to those in dodgy countries, where one cast one's vote at one's peril. Giano 08:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I would have a problem maintaining my usual kind disposition especially as the "IRCadmin" gang are now travelling on tour in a charabang hectoring voters ... ah, classic Giano. It never gets old. Never. --Cyde Weys 21:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• No, and it never will so long as we have "Bonnie and Cyde" to point out the error of out votes and ways. Giano 08:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sharlene Thompson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Spamming surveys on talk pages, 16+ so far..

Example:

Health Wiki Research

A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.

Please consider taking our survey here.

This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.

We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Wikipedia Foundation.

Thanks,

--Sharlene Thompson 19:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks, --Hu12 20:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone should give her a phone call (number on link provided) and find out if it's legit... ---J.S ^(T/C) 20:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

In particular, we should ask what members of the Foundation approved and then confirm. If it was explicitly approved by the Foundation, I personally have no problem with it. —bbatsell ¿? 20:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

OTRS ticket #2006073110013565 - Corey A. Hickerson, an assistant professor with JMU, wrote asking if he and Sharlene Thompson could conduct this research, and a member of the Communications Committee approved their request. Raul654 20:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm ok then. ---J.S ^(T/C) 21:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the unwanted messages. I've made a request to the OTRS thread for a review of messages left on user_talk pages. Raul654, who on the Communications Committee approved it? -- Jeandré, 2006-12-15t11:36

I thought you did - at least, that's the impression I got from your first email to them (We would welcome such research. It may be best to conduct phase two on the users' talk pages instead of the article talk pages, tho placing invitations to participate on the article talk pages would be fine - maybe linking to your or Sharlene's user pages where more indepth information could be posted.) I guess I just assumed if you were on OTRS you were a member of the comcom. Raul654 23:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This must be the colleague of Hickerca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who started out by spamming article talk pages before I advised her to only target user talk pages. For the record, I don't agree with any spam, however well intentioned. But it doesn't look commercial, and if the committee accepted it, so be it. However, I don't think they need two accounts to do this. yandman 07:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that if the editors targeted for this survey agree. Makes more sense if the sampling group of articles had a survey template so participation can be voluntary, rather than directly soliciting off article edit historys'.--Hu12 12:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I would consider this unsolicited and certainly not what people signing up to wikipedia might expect and it is therefore effectively spamming.

• The research methodology seems catastrophically flawed and any conclusions draw by the study will be dubious - the problem being subjects may partake in the study multiple times, or at least are being invided to do so - I've just ignored the 3rd opportunity to submit, see my talk page 4th December, which was my second time I completed the study (I naively assumed that this would prove to be a different series of questions from that which I had been previously asked) and now 14th December. The mutiple posting to my talk page to contribute is surely sloppy methodology and the survey's front explanatory page states "anonymously recorded" so there can not be any data validation to prevent this problem.
• Despite requests to Jeandré to become familiar "with conventions before you add messages to even more users", postings are still added to user talk pages without section headers which is disruptive. We have of course a policy of not biting newcomers, as a requirement of assuming good faith for those who are here to work on the collaborative project, however this survey is not contributing to the project.

In summary I feel the systematic targeting of wikipedians is intrusive/spamming and not the purpose of user talk pages. If people really feel this is a useful study to further undertanding of wikis/wikipedia, then would not a single posting to say the WP:CLINMED project page be sufficient ? David Ruben ^Talk 02:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Besides the flaws with the project itself, I would be unopposed to this if it was completely opt-in and voluntary (i.e. a message about it posted on one of the many boards around here; perhaps the creation of a new board for this purpose). Spamming in this way really doesn't seem like the way to do it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we need an opinion from the Wikipedia Foundation on this ? Not so much about this specific example (although some form of Admin concluding assessment and response seems warranted) but about wider principle of external researchers wanting to research the wiki process by contacting/recruiting wikipedians (I think by nature we're a helpful lot, but the project does come 1st) ? David Ruben ^Talk 05:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I posted a message at WP:AIV earlier regarding 24.151.106.196. I can see that (aeropagitica) removed my report with the comment "IP vandals blocked. LIST CLEAR." but I can't see any record of anything on the IP's page. This is the first time I've reported someone for vandalizing articles, I'm just wondering if I've missed something. 172.143.63.173 23:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• The block log says they were blocked for 1 hour on Dec 12. ---J.S ^(T/C) 23:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that previous block by Deville from 2 days ago, but I couldn't find any record of (aeropagitica)'s action today though, as they've vandalized again since the original 1 hour block. 172.143.63.173 00:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Put a note on aeropagitica's talk page. Seems like a honest mistake. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks, I've done that. 172.143.63.173 00:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this was an honest mistake on my part when I was cleaning out the noticeboard during an AIV shift. It does get busy there at times and I've had more than a few edit conflicts when I've been working on a large backlog! Apologies to all for any inconvenience. I will endeavour to be more careful in future. (aeropagitica) 16:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to build a consensus on vandalism user subpages. I do not think they are acceptable according to Wikipedia's policies, and should thus be done away with accordingly. But first, some background information.

For those of you not aware, a vandalism user subpage is a page created with the sole intent of being vandalized. Typically users will transclude these onto their user pages and leave some text along the lines of, "Vandalize this". To me, these are obviously a bad idea, as they encourage vandalism. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vandalism warehouse, and I don't think it's an appropriate use of WMF's servers to be hosting places for vandalism.

One major problem with the vandalism subpages is that they create a bit more work for admins. By their very nature, they attract vandalism, and often a bad kind of vandalism. I've seen some pretty vicious personal attacks in these subpages, which creates even more work for Wikipedians and admins, who have to patrol these abominations and remove all of the vandalism that is too bad to be displayed (like the aforementioned "He also masturbates while thinking about his mother."). It's a terrible misuse of admin resources to have to patrol pages that are vandalism magnets; it's much better simply to get rid of the magnets themselves.

Let's look at the kind of culture these subpages promote. They encourage the notion that vandalism is acceptable. Per WP:BEANS, this is a bad idea. They dilute Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission by saying "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but also a graffiti wall." Just look at the risk-to-benefit ratio on vandalism subpages; there's all negatives and no positives. Userspace was not created to give users total freedom to create anything they want on Wikipedia, and I do believe vandalism is beyond the pale. Also, they create the tricky issue of somehow trying to determine when someone has crossed a line; obviously if someone posts "You're a stupid cunt" on a userpage, they can be blocked for a personal attack, but if they post this on a vandalism subpage, they have some measure of defense by rationalization: "Ohh, but they wanted vandalism, I didn't really mean it." I can only see this leading to more problems and friction between users. Personal attacks should never be acceptable, and we shouldn't give the people making them any sort of excuse to try to make them.

If you go look over at WP:CSD, you'll see that global criterion for speedy deletion #3 is: "Pure vandalism, including redirects created during cleanup of page move vandalism." Thusly, vandalism subpages fall under a criteria for speedy deletion, unless and until we come up with some inane policy that "Vandalism is never acceptable, unless the user wants it." Since I really don't see that happening, I will be deleting all of the vandalism subpages that I come across, and I would encourage all of my fellow admins to do the same. --Cyde Weys 14:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've had the same position since I first saw one of these: they don't help the encyclopedia and as you point out can cause extra work and/or harm. I would support a move to delete them all, adding appropriate verbiage as necessary to Wikipedia:User page or other policies and guidelines as appropriate. While normally I am opposed to rules creep, this is not rules creep per se but a clarification of what Wikipedia is not, and of the exisiting rules. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur: I fail to see why WP:CSD#G3 fails to apply. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Nuke'em. Thatcher131 15:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Even mentioning vandalism on a user page - or any page - violates WP:BEANS. What encyclopaedic purpose do these pages serve? Anyone? Guy (Help!) 15:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • None…but I think you need to provide some context for your first comment. "My main activity on Wikipedia is fixing vandalism" is hardly an egregious beanstuffing slogan. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • So vandalism subpages don't harm anyone, but don't help the encyclopaedia and encourage trolls, therefore should go. Yet subpage galleries of all the pictures on Commons containing nudity don't harm anyone, but don't help the encyclopaedia and encourage trolls, but should stay. I don't get that. Bafflement at double standards aside, any and all "vandalism subpages" should go. Userspace subpages should either help the encyclopaedia, or be deleted. Wikipedia isn't free web hosting. Proto::► 15:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • • Are you referring to user subpages like this? (warning: not work-safe). FWIW, before I posted that, I commented on Cyde's talk page in support of nuking the vandalism subpages, and I still support nuking such subpages. Carcharoth 15:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• I think Cyde's policy will create more work for admins (now we have to check all userpages if they have a vandalism section??), and is completely unnecessary. Like most policing of userspace, it creates unnecessary drama in the name of "but this does not help building the encyclopedia" without actually helping to build the encyclopedia. Most of the "vandalize this section" sections I have seen on people's userpages were not used for real vandalism, but by usually vandal-fighting Wikipedians having some fun. Keeping Wikipedians happy builds the encyclopedia. Kusma (討論) 15:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please don't try to turn this on its head and suggest that I am calling for more work. It's clearly less work to simply remove these vandalism subpages than to have to continuously patrol them and clean up the nonsense they inevitably generate. I'm not suggesting that we patrol through every single userspace, looking for these things to delete; merely that we delete them as we run across them. --Cyde Weys 15:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, I misunderstood your intentions, and apologize for not thinking more before accusing you of policy creep. Userspace is not a free speech zone, and at the very least vandalism subpages whose owners don't clean up personal attack vandalism there should be deleted (now I am turning this into policy creep). I shouldn't have used Geogre's "good" vandalism section in a way that looks like I encourage "bad" vandalism pages like Fredil Yupigo's free-speech zone. Kusma (討論) 11:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• (posted after edit conflict) I think these pages should be covered specifically by a mention among the speedy deletion criteria at WP:CSD if they are not already. My feeling is that these are like the blank concrete walls of a highway underpass - taggers will fill any open space with graffiti and there are some who would argue "better there than on the building next door to my home"; the analogous argument here would be "better to provide an out-of-the-way place for scribblers to do their stuff than in article-space". However, I don't agree with that argument - these should be done away with, not necessarily only based on their falling under 'vandalism' but also because they are explicitly (when invitations to vandalize are involved) for social networking through shared contributions aimed at a goal other than improving the encyclopedia and therefore fall under part of WP:NOT ("Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site"). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think some social networking "vandalism" can be good for the atmosphere, see the sonnet section of User:Geogre. Kusma (討論) 15:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It sure as hell shouldn't be called vandalism then. Call it a "sandbox" or whatever. --Cyde Weys 15:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Certainly not all social networking involves vandalism and not all social networking is banned from Wikipedia; that networking that facilitates creation of the encyclopedia should be preserved and in moderation encouraged. Let's put it this way - any speedy deletion criterion needs to be applied using common sense and any page that is deleted under CSD can be taken up for undeletion - including 'valid networking exercises' where they can be considered for preservation in the Wikipedia environment. CSD is a broad, fast and crude instrument - which is why it shouldn't be applied letter-of-the-law style and notifications of CSD action need to be put on user talk pages so that remedies for recovery can be applied. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we are ignoring the big problem here, and is those fake You have new messages things... GRR! Ummm, oh ya, the vandalism thing, a sandbox is for learning, practicing, and testing wiki markup that is fine. But if it does not serve the encyclopedia and causes extra work for the community then it cannot be justified. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • "Fake You have new messages things" ... huh? I'm not sure what you mean. 'New message' notices generated as the result of vandalism to your user talk page, perhaps? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • No, some people actually write fake "new messages" banners and put them at the top of their pages. When you click on it, it doesn't take you to your own talk page, but to somewhere like Practical joke ... though I've seen some trolls making it go to much worse places. And yes, I have been removing those on sight. They're just plain annoying. --Cyde Weys 17:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh, ok. Sorry for making you spill some BEANS to educate me. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Lol, fergot about the beans. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that vandalism subpages fall under CSD 3 and should be speedied. There's no valid reason to have them here. If people want to goof off, they can use the sandbox. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If Cyde specifically talks about the User:Geogre#Sonnet_Vandalism then this piece of the social networking does not contradict the goals of the project and may even somehow encourage creating encyclopedic content. In general, I assume that whoever created a sandbox in his userspace is responsible for cleaning it from bad vandalism. If not G10,G11,G12,G3 are still applicable, no need for the instruction creep Alex Bakharev 23:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We're not talking about sandboxes here, we're talking about vandalism subpages that are explicitly labeled for, and encourage, vandalism. Indeed, in many cases, simply changing the name could make it acceptable. --Cyde Weys 00:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've put a note on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion that refers to a permalink copy of this discussion. I think a reasonable consensus emerged and my thinking is that further discussion would be best to pursue over at WP:CSD. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been accused of being a sockpuppeteer by User:BenBurch. This sockpuppet accusation is false. There has been no request for Checkuser; instead, the false accusation has been used as a vehicle for interrogating me, with varying degrees of hostility and incivility, for the past five days. On his own Talk page, this individual has addressed me with the sentence, "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on." I am asking whatever administrator reads this first to resolve Ben's accusation. Declare me guilty or innocent, and let's move on. I've been editing without registering an account for about three years; most of my edits have been for errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. This practice has two significant features: it's never led to any arguments or animosity before, and it is a much needed service. I continue to have a lot of work to do. -- 68.253.133.63 04:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Are you User:BryanFromPalatine? Alex Bakharev 05:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, I am. And I would venture to say that the only "bad" thing that 12ptHelvetica and I have done is to express opinions that differ from those of BenBurch. I would add that he has posted the sentence, "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on," addressed to me, then quickly deleted it because he knew I had seen it. I'd appreciate a prompt and amicable resolution of this issue before proceeding with any more edits. -- BryanFromPalatine 13:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you specify where that message was left. I don't see it on your talk page. I did see some edit warring over the sockpuppet investigation notice, and civility and AGF warnings to you from User:Fairness And Accuracy For All. -- Donald Albury 18:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BenBurch&action=history Please review the series of edits between 20:33 and 21:12 on 5 December. Ben and I were having a conversation. He knew that I was on his Talk page, editing. He knew that it was a two-way conversation and that I would see that remark immediately. He posted it and, seven minutes later after he was sure that I'd seen it, he deleted it; and at 21:12, he deleted the entire conversation. This isn't the only personal attack I've received; it's simply the most reprehensible. I must admit that in response to Ben's provocations, I have engaged in behavior that was less than amicable. F.A.A.F.A. is Ben's tireless defender, supporter and agent in all things Wiki, far more persistently than 12ptHelvetica has supported me, and behaving in many respects like a meatpuppet himself -- though I won't make that accusation. The obvious distinction between the Ben/FAAFA relationship and the 12pt/Bryan relationship is that 12pt and I have extensive edit histories spanning 2-1/2 or three years, independent from each other; but they were done from unregistered IP addresses. A review of the archives from Ben's talk pages proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has a very contentious history here. -- BryanFromPalatine 15:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You started that conversation civilly enough, and BenBurch was not polite in his replies, but you let yourself get dragged into an argument. Ben's comment was definitely out of line but he did remove it himself before anyone spoke to him. As that incident is now ten days old, and you made a point of quoting it in your reply to him after he had removed it from his edit, I'm not inclined to do anything about it now. I do think it would be best if Ben apologized for posting that comment, however briefly it was up, but I think this calls for dispute resolution, not admin intervention. -- Donald Albury 16:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • That remark isn't the point of this request for admin intervention. What about the meatpuppet accusation? What happens with that? Is it just going to be an open-ended inquisition, with Ben and FAAFA declaring it "proven" the moment I refuse to tolerate their interrogation any further? I'd appreciate an admin stepping in and resolving that matter one way or the other. Bear in mind that the hostile exchange on Ben's talk page started on 5 December; the sockpuppet accusation was made on 10 December. -- BryanFromPalatine 16:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • • The sockpuppet case has not gone anywhere. It's over. This looks like a dispute between you and BenBurch, and frankly, I'm not interested in taking either side in this dispute. I strongly urge the two of you to be civil, avoid personal attacks and pursue dispute resolution. -- Donald Albury 01:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

User:XP has been involved in a heated, but polite, discussion in a Request For Arbitration [6] discussion. This discussion [7] is followed by dozens of Admins, the majority of whom disagree with User:XP's opinion. [8] Admin User:Chairboy has blocked User:XP as a sockpuppet of a banned user, User:Rootology. No rationale was given for how these users were determined to be the same. User:XP had a multi-month long edit history [9], and denied being User:Rootology when asked. [10] I am concerned a legitimate user may have been silenced by hasty admin action. I request admin's not associated with the Request For Arbitration [11] User:XP was commenting on ask Admin User:Chairboy for his rationale in blocking User:XP. If inadequate rationale exists, in my opinion the user should be unblocked. Abe Froman 18:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to discuss the methods used to support the block, the evidence is square, solid, and the identity of the user as a sock puppet is not in doubt. I appreciate Abe's interest in the matter, and his concern for a fellow editor is both commendable and in the best spirit of Wikipedia. Because of the sensitivity of the issue and the history of the blocked user (Rootology), I invite any administrator who is interested to contact me off-wiki. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't call myself completely uninvolved, because I have commented in the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan arbitration case, although I have no experience of editing in the same articles as Seabhcan, MONGO, or XP. I will say, though, that I'm satisfied in this case. Sockpuppetry evidence is never made public, as it would teach people how to avoid detection. In public, I'll say that Rootology was known to be using sockpuppets, and that it was fairly obvious that XP was a sockpuppet of somebody. Regarding the specific evidence that linked the two accounts, let's imagine we had an abusive user who constantly made the same spelling mistake — one of which he was completely unaware — and who was known to use sockpupets. Abe, do you think that it would be a good idea for the administrators who knew about it to post here exactly what that spelling mistake was? Chairboy seems, as far as I can tell, to be completely uninvolved in this case. On his talk page, he has said that administrators who would like to know more may contact him. As one who has dealt with this kind of thing before (detecting sockpuppetry, circulating the evidence privately to other admins and to the ArbCom mailing list, and accepting that uninvolved administrators could carry out the block or not, according to their judgment), and as one who has seen some of the evidence in this case, I'd like to say that I'm completely satisfied. AnnH ♫ 19:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am a regular Wikipedia contributor, and have not before seen secrecy cited as an integral part of how this project conducts business. Perhaps I am naive, but I would still like an admin uninvolved with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan to investigate the rationale behind User:Chairboy's indefinite block of User:XP. That is all I am asking for. Abe Froman 19:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Chairboy could e-mail his evidence to me. I'm willing to review it. Would that do? Thatcher131 19:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. Abe Froman 19:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131 has the data. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have had my suspicions about XP for quite some time, since he started editing the MONGO/Seabhcan RfA pages. Thanks, Choirboy. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Having seen the evidence I agree it is a very strong circumstantial case; about as good a match as you're going to get without finding a mistake like mis-signing a talk post. I will say in addition to the private evidence, it is worth noting in the XP's contribution history that he went out of his way to antagonize MONGO on several AfDs even though he had never edited the articles in question. Of course, XP can always appeal to Arbcom. Thatcher131 00:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Abe, I trust Thatcher131, although we have different views about a lot of things, I respect his integrity and I am impressed how he has helped me several times before. Travb (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this Thatcher131. I'm satisfied with the review. Abe Froman 00:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

1 ) He is lying

please read a sentence he typed in his user page

Wikipedia seems to have a lot of nuts, and this user decided to stay away from it for his own sanity ~ Srkris .

My question is that if user srkirs stay away from wikipeidia for his own sanity why he editing in wikipeida using varios IP Address 59.92.xxx.xxx ?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Srkris
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/59.92.63.37
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/59.92.66.141
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/59.92.87.12
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/59.92.83.98
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/59.144.27.187
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/59.92.38.148
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/59.92.50.88
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/59.92.46.102
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/59.92.59.162

2 ) He is spamming He is the owner of some website like Chembai.com, rasikas.org(PunBB.org Forums ). He tried to put weblink like chembai.com, rasikas.org etc in almost all article to promote his personal website.

3) He is trying to put images and images belong to Chembai in various article. And editing that article to show Chembai and his other fans/relative are great and others are nothing in carnatic music especially Yesudas and M. Balamurali Krishna. And trying to emphasize chembai.

4) This is a request to admin that please don't allow Aum (OHM) or Flag of India before any user name. It may be an Website of USA , but we have to Keep our Values.

5) He is pretending that he is a scholler in Carnatic music.

6) A blocked user should not try to edit any article . But he violate the law in the wikipedia.

7) He is threatening some users with some wiki rules. and he is not obey the rules.

• if the above mentioned are not matching with character of user srkris any body can remove this .

thanks and bye Pluto.2006 07:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand half of these. Please provide diffs. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The guy has a definite point here even if his English grammar is a bit sub-par. For some diffs, take a look at these ones to Chembai:

[12][13][14][15]

and the ones to Carnatic music:

[16][17][18]

It should be noted, however, that the IP 59.144.27.187 simply seems to be making your normal newbie test edits and may be unrelated. Those edits were in September though, so it is equally possible that it was User:Srkris prior to his creating an account, as he officially joined in October. Does this need to go to checkuser, or is the evidence good enough for blocks of any recently used IPs already? There are numerous similar diffs, I found those ones in about 45 seconds. --tjstrf talk 12:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

He appears to have a possible account sock as well: User:Harikw, who keeps edit warring over the picture to use on Carnatic music for no explicable reason[19][20][21] and conveniently appeared after the page was semi-protected. --tjstrf talk 12:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Harikw indef as a sock of Srkris‎, and increased Srkris‎' block to 21 days from today for evasion. Please review this if you think I was in error, but it seemed clear to me. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

IMO, the chances that Harikw is a sockpuppet of Srikris is quite low. Their editing style and contributions are very different. Tintin (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Since I am not completely sure I have unblocked the user and apologized. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Chinese River Dolphin is needed to be moved to Baiji. Baiji was a disambig page but has now been moved to Baiji (disambiguation) so that Chinese River Dolphin can take its place. Could someone please move Chinese River Dolphin to Baiji.

The Chinese River Dolphin is not an accepted English term, Baiji is.

Thanks Chris_huh^talk 12:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

umm the BBC uses "Chinese River Dolphin" http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/66.shtml Geni 13:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

And CNN call it 'Baiji' - [22]. Proto::► 13:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The Worldwide Fund for Nature (China) call it the Yangtze River Dolphin, which has more Google hits than either of the other two names. [23]. Proto::► 13:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Baiji gets by far the most results on JStor (and everyone I looked at seems to be about the Dolphin) from academic journals. So um... an argument could be made pretty much any way. --W.marsh 15:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Also way more on Google Scholar. [24] Honestly since all 3 terms are used, the pagename really isn't that critical... no need to rush into moving it just because the story just broke. A movewar would be a bad idea. --W.marsh 15:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Everyone knows the news often gets things wrong, particularly when it involves anything slightly scientific. Google results overwhelmingly give Baiji as more common than Chinese River Dolphin or ["Yangtze river dolphin" Yangtze River Dolphin]. The only reason news agencies use Chinese River Dolphin is so that the average punter can understand what it is in the headline. Since anyone looking at more information about it on wikipedia, the fact that it is actually called Baiji is probably the most important thing to know. IUCN list it as baiji, not Chinese River Dolphin and so do almost all others. The WWF should know about this stuff but again, are only putting it as Chinese River Dolphin so that the public are aware of where it is, really they should have it as baiji and then say that it is a river dolphin from the Yangtze in China. Whats the problem here, its quite obvious it should be baiji. Just look at Boto or Orca: the most common name is used, even if it is from another language and then the other name that some people may know it as is listed. Chris_huh^talk 11:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Baiji gets more hits because it has multiple meanings. Search for "baiji + dolphin". Proto::► 12:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The debate on the content of Pacific Western University has spilled into WP:CFD. One editor has claimed that Category:California Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPVE) and its subcategories were created to give Pacific Western University the false appearance of accreditation. Since Pacific Western University has a notice about action by the Wikipedia Foundation Office on the article, I think administrative oversight of the related category debate may be appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 17:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You probably want to drop Guy a note as he is actively editing this article. --Spartaz 17:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Could an administrator look at recent edits to Category:United Methodism? The category was turned into a redirect for Category:United Methodist Church following an undisputed nomination for renaming on 2006 November 2. Since then, Pastorwayne has added text and parent categories to Category:United Methodism. This seems to violate the spirit of turning the category into a redirect. It may be appropriate to discuss the issue with Pastorwayne. Dr. Submillimeter 19:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

More eyes needed here, please, we have a batch of single-purpose accounts inflating this unaccredited university (categorised as a diploma mill in Senate testimony), which has included creating a list of "notable PWU people" (most of whom are, of course, not notable at all), adding PWU "degrees" to existing biographies without the relevant qualifier that the school is unaccredited, that kind of thing. It's all strongly reminiscent of Gastroturfing. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Cleft.jpg is apparently a bad image, only for use on pages it is specifically allowed. Despite the fact that on the MediaWiki:Bad image list page it lists the pages it can be used on (eg Cleft of venus), on those pages it's only shown as a link rather than as an image. Can this be fixed? Fishies Plaice 22:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

For misuse of his administrative tools and failure to relate appropriately with other administrators, MONGO is desysopped. For misuse of his administrative tools, as well as disruptive conduct in edit warring and incivility, Seabhcan is desysopped. Seabhcan is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. He may be briefly blocked by any administrator for any edit which is deemed to be a personal attack or incivility for up to 24 hours. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 08:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I just indefinitely blocked Rugby 6666 as a sockpuppet of the above. I extended to 3 months the block on Rugby 666 for sockpuppetry and personal attacks here. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Currently theres a discussion occuring at Image talk:Pitch drop experiment.jpg about whether this image can be used on wikipedia under permission with a fair use claim.

The reason behind saying it cant is that the image can be reasonably reproduced, in this case the experiement has been running for 79 years at the time of the photo 73 years had elapsed. The occurance as photographed happens once somewhere between 8 and 12 years based on previous occurances, next occurance will be between 2008 and 2012 from this experiement.

I'm not looking for comment on the image or its use. What I'm doing is using this example to question the current very narrow definition of "reasonably reproduced" that is resulting in editors running around tagging images without thought as to the practicalities of the reproduction.

I believe that there should be some requirement for the editor claiming it can be reproduce to actually demostrate or provide the reproduction. This is opposed to current situation that enables a person to make such a claim without any need to verify that claim. If editors dispute article text we require them to cite from reliable soures all facts yet we dont have the same requirement when applied to implementation of image copyright policies. Gnangarra 01:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't get to choose what is or isn't fair use: courts do that. Our fair use policy reflects our current best estimation of what a court will consider fair use. And the burden of proof is always going to be on the uploader (because they're the person legally responsible) not one someone who questions that. You have to understand that Wikipedia already has the most liberal (indeed, foolhardy) idea of what a court will consider fair use. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

For the pitch drop experiment we have the specific permission from the author (who is the official keeper of the experiment) to use the image on Wikipedia. For some reason the author does not want to release the image under a free license. It is a typical case of the trade off between the quality of encyclopedia and the freeness of its content, the law has nothing related to it, this is simply the matter of our policies and preferences Alex Bakharev 03:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In this particular case, there is no legal issue because the copyright holder of the image has granted permission for us to use it. The only issue is one of Wikipedia policy. Replaceable fair use policy could allow use-by-permission images that are replaceable or supposedly replaceable, until that replacement is put on Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 03:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Finlay McWalter says "Our fair use policy reflects our current best estimation of what a court will consider fair use." It is very very important to understand that this is totally false. Fair use differs from nation to nation and in America is far more liberal than what we allow at wikipedia. Do not treat Wikipedia fair use policy as refecting the law as it does not. Most important, understand most wikipedia talk about fair use is about images while most fair use law concerns text. Also understand that this is not settled law so no one has absolute answers regarding fair use. Even more complicating is that Wikipedia has recently changed from allowing fair use images that help the encyclopedia to not allowing such images if, because of wikipedia's current high profile, we can get the images under a free copyright license like GFDL. This is because Wikipedia is about free as in freedom not just free as in no cost. WAS 4.250 03:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that McWalter was simply generalising, but WAS' clarification is important to understanding our guidelines. Jkelly 04:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The specific example is a trigger only and the current example. What I'm asking is when an unsupported statement is made such as this case an editor has claimed a free image can be produced that the person making such a claim should have some onus to support such a claim. We rightly dont accept unsubstanciated claims in articles why should an unsubstanciated claim be aceptiable when implementing policy. Gnangarra 04:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As has been mentioned above, if one wants to republish unfreely licensed material on Wikimedia servers, the onus is on you to establish that it meets our criteria for doing so. We're going to be conservative about this. If this seems arbitrary or confusing to you, I'm sorry, but there is really no chance that we are going to ask for a citation from a reliable source when an editor expresses concern that a fair use claim isn't compelling. Jkelly 04:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Theres nothing confusing about an abitrary decision I'm sorry you cant see that I'm asking how could a policy be implemented when its based on an individuals unsubstanciated claim. I'm then also aking why such a policy exists. When you consider this is a regular occurance maybe the use of 'fair use images should not occur as is the case may other language wikipedia. Gnangarra 05:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

My interpretation is that it is for the party asserting the claim of fair use to present reasonable arguments for why the image is not replaceable (or repeatable), and not the other way around. --Oden 08:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is a fair assertion but once those assertions have been presented continued arguements should also have some burden of proof requirement, here in lies the issue. Image foo.jpg is being used under fair use editor A come along and says that fair use cant be applied because another image can be created. The uploader responds with the reason as to why it cant be yet editor A still maintains that it can be. Uploader again asserts that it cant and provides additional reasonings as to why, editor A still maintains that it can be quotes FU policy. Editor B agrees with the uploader assertions so questions editor A claim who just again quotes FU policy that a free image could be created. this circle continues. End result is a lot of very heated discussion spilling onto pages of AN, RFC, ARBCOM or even worse outside of wikipedia but provided that editor A is willing to continue quoting FU policy the issue is never resolved. Unlike any other content disputes there is no burden on the person making the accusations that the image doesnt comply with FU policy to support that claim. Normal end result is that the uploader gives up, leaves or reduces future contributions, editor A claims a victory image gets deleted and another article becomes abandoned without further improvement.

So what we have is policy thats damaging wikipedia either it needs to be changed to include a burden of proof on all parties for continued dispute or alternatively the continuation of fair use needs to be terminated. Gnangarra 15:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh? You could make up a silly scenario like this for any policy on Wikipedia. The point is that once the uploader has provided reasons as to why the image would be irreplaceable, "just continuing to quote policy" will do Editor A no good; if they believe the reasons given are invalid, they should explain why. Now, if the reasons for irreplaceability advanced are clearly not compelling, it is possible that the image will be deleted whether or not A responds; if, on the other hand, the reasons are compelling and A fails to respond with counterarguments but instead just quotes policy, the image will likely be kept. --Robth^Talk 16:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

On Image talk:Pitch drop experiment.jpg someone has just pointed to the following pics at Flickr [25], [26], which prove that it is possible for the general public to take pictures of the experiment. Unfortunately these particular images are all rights reserved, so we can't use them either, but as far as I'm concerned they prove conclusively that the image we have is replaceable. —Angr 21:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Calapez has recently uploaded about 600 copyright images with no fair-use rationale or indication of source. As far as I can tell, they are mostly low-resolution logos that would probably pass for fair use as long as the source and a basic rationale are included. But it's probably going to take a long time to sort this all out. I thought I'd bring it to someone's attention here in case there's something that can be done to help. (If these images all came from the same source, then maybe they could be tagged automatically?). I've left a list on his talk page. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 17:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it normal practice, if not policy, for the closings of RfAs to be reported here? Should I be reading some sinister reasons into it not having been done in this case? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? It's a couple of sections above this one. --Conti|✉ 20:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit-conflict] Conti beat me to it, but it is right above. Prodego ^talk 20:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

what's the hell is desysopping? (My dictionaries do not have this word; I think it is a spelling mistake?) I wish to know what happened? -- ALM 20:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a wikipedia-ism for the most part, although sysop is a longstanding computer term, see the jargon file I suppose. "To Sysop" is to give someone administrator access, which means adding a +sysop flag. So "To de-sysop" (or just desysop) is to remove that access. --W.marsh 20:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Desysopping" =no longer one of the Wikipedia:Administrators. -- Infrogmation 20:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

When I was newish it took me a few days to figure out that "sysop" is a synonym for "administrator" here. See WP:ADMIN. Newyorkbrad 20:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. Somehow I missed it while looking thru the Table of Contents. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Understandable, if you were looking for "MONGO", because the case is captioned after Seabhcan. Newyorkbrad 20:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, as I write, both are technically still admins (MONGO, Seabhcan). As far as I can tell, no (legitimate) request has been made on m:Requests for permissions. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

They have been desysopped for about 22 hours now, the notice went striaght into the Permissions archive. NoSeptember 21:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

How come it doesn't show up in the rights log? Database lag? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Steward actions are recorded in the Meta rights log e.g. [27]. Dragons flight 21:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's there. NoSeptember 21:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not an admin anymore...my last admin action was a speedy deletion[28]--MONGO 21:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you like me to block anybody for you, dear? Bishonen | talk 21:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Anybody I can have a word with, MONGO? Which way Tokyo? Bishzilla | grrrr! 22:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

A recently new Wikipedian (User:Davnel03) has decided to close some AfD topics despite not being an admin and replaced the articles which have unanimous delete results with the deletedarticle template. I've now told him about how the AfD system works and he's ok with this but I would please like a admin to help clean this mess up. Here are the articles affected by this:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tribute to the Troops
  • WWE Tribute to the Troops
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RAW is Owen (2nd nomination)
  • RAW is Owen
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Global Warming Tour
  • WWE Global Warning Tour
  • UK Rampage
  • First WWF UK Event
  • WWF at Royal Albert Hall

Thanks in advance. --  oakster  TALK  21:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Got it.--Kchase T 21:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Deskbanana 21:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou very much. --  oakster  TALK  21:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion isn't working very well tonight. Some blatant attack and nn articles I have speedy-tagged are still awaiting deletion:

• Nob head
• DC Care
• My Case Against God
• American Chronicle

Also the 3RR violation I posted over an hour ago is unresolved - I'm not sure how long that usually takes though. StoptheDatabaseState 00:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The only remaining article of your list above has a {{hangon}} applied, and should go to AfD. Jkelly 00:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Now up to 306, which strikes me as a bit excessive. --Calton | Talk 07:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair warning - about sixty-five of those are my {{db-web}} tags. I did a run-through of the Category:Website stubs and tagged any that said "It's a website" and nothing more. I skipped (I hope) any that had been to AfD of had any claim to notability, however small.
152.91.9.144 07:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we need a report that CSD is backlogged every morning? It's a time zone thing, and usually gets sorted fairly quickly once people wake up. Guy (Help!) 08:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I should note that we have an automated backlog warning system - User:Dragons flight/Category tracker/Summary. It's found on WP:BACK and transcluded by several active editors. (Radiant) 15:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I discussed this with Naconkantari, but this may need a greater audience.

I caught the edits of an IP, 207.69.137.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), quoting some strange book as a reference for his edits to various articles. Then we found Neil SookDeo (talk · contribs), the author of the doctoral thesis and book that he is using as a reference. I've tried to undo his edits (all of which were in good faith) per WP:NOR. However, since another user reverted me, I would like to ask if there is an actual conflict of interest with Neil SookDeo here, as all of his contributions are essentially spamming his book (and doctoral thesis).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear administrator(s),

A page that I started is no longer there. It was under 'unified performance management'. I have just recreated this page as when I searched for it, it was not found. So I checked the deletion logs and still no trace?

If there is a reason why it was deleted I would appreciate if someone told me why. Also if it was deleted, should it not be coming up in the deletion log?

Thank-you in advance,

perfman

The article is still there: Unified performance management. Viridae^Talk 11:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's probably a glitch, the server backend has been having synchronization problems. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-18 11:18Z

On another note, I just added a copyvio tag to the article, it seems to be word-for-word taken from the website associated with it: [29]. Anchoress 11:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

...? Do you have a question? Viridae^Talk 11:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

<Sigh> What the hell is the Undo function (which I have heretofore not seen) supposed to do? Is it an admin function? Then why does it not appear to work? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 11:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a function avaliable to all users that allows you to undo a specific edit of a page without affecting the rest of the page. To be used for past vandalism etc. It does not always work, if the following change was a rollback to a previous version for instance, you cannot undo that edit. Viridae^Talk 11:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Good for fishing WP:SPA linkspam out of articles, in my experience. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I must be missing something. Where is that function? Am I stupid? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it either. So you're not the only stupid one, FP - where is this magical new button? Proto::► 14:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

On old diff pages e.g. [30], next to the date and time of the newer revision. the wub "?!" 14:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A temporary injunction has been passed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris. All editors listed as a party to this case are banned from editing Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University until the case is settled.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 11:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please fix, lots of admins required. Cheers, Moreschi 21:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of images that have been tagged with User:Mecu/nffh this "template." It was created yesterday by Mecu (talk · contribs) and is being added to any personal-type photo, including those used on Wikipedians' user pages. It states that "The given reason is: Unencyclopedic and Wikipedia is not a free file host. The image appears to have no encyclopedic value and is not used on Wikipedia (excluding vandalism)." Is this appropriate or not? This isn't a speedy deletion criteria, so basically, the user has created policy and a matching template for the policy. Metros232 21:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

They aren't speedy deletion candidates. The images should be listed on WP:IFD. J Di ^talk 21:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Note there is a discussion thread on the image speedy deletion criteria at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Speedy deletion criteria for images?. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

So what's the appropriate course of action here? Rollback the edits where Mecu added the tags? Metros232 21:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Images apart, CSD is still backlogged, guys! Best, Moreschi 22:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

When is CSD not backlogged? The name CSD is a lie. Would anybody support a name change? J Di ^talk 22:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like the best solution, but look at each edit before you roll them back. J Di ^talk 22:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we name it "Category for Semi-fast deletion?" :) ---J.S ^(T/C) 01:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What do people want, a decent verification that the CSD justification is valid and a reasonable attempt at avoiding unnecessary or bad-faith deletions, or quick results? Anyone who feels strongly motivated to patrol and reduce CSD backlog should head over to WP:RFA. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we be deleting Categories from from CAT:CSD which do not appear at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working#Ready_for_deletion or is appearance on the 'Ready to delete' list a formality that is not necessary? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

T'would think that any {{db-author}}ed could be deleted. But other than that, even something {{category redirect}}ed should be aired on WP:CFD by process. Is there anyother speedy criteria which would be okay? // FrankB 16:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Recently we have seen MONGO and Seabhcan desysopped, FeloniousMonk "counselled" and I've seen some other issues here and on the mailing lists which give pause for thought. I wonder, do we need to have some place where admins can let off steam and get support without the whole world looking on? I note that the mediation committee have a private mailing list, I wonder if that might be an idea for admins. This is not to allow the cabal to work more effectively in secret, but to give a (hopefully) troll free environment for discussion of issues related to performance of admin duties. Another option is maybe a permanently protected noticeboard. Or maybe it's a crap idea, I don't know. Just thinking out loud, really, mainly because I think we (as admins) should really have been able to stop MONGO going off the rails, and I really feel we failed him. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It might not be a horrid idea in theory, but openness is paramount to proceedings here. As a lowly editor, I'd need a lot of convincing that there's a reason admins can discuss things about my class of user in secret. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

From another "lowly editor" - not a bad idea, but unless I'm very much mistaken isn't there already an admin-only IRC channel? People do occasionally need a place to blow off steam, though, which is fair enough and can't really be a bad thing. Best, Moreschi 17:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::Sometimes altercations on Wikipedia spill into the 'real world'; if it appears that events might be leading that way, the ability to discuss off-wiki is something that can resolve matters without catastrophic outcomes. If it's just a matter of bad behavior and civility and hot heads that need to cool, that's one thing; but if people are looking for one another in the real world to face off or confront or attacking through family and profession - that's when additional tools and processes are needed to keep things from turning from a simmer to a boil-over. I don't know the details of the desysopping that Guy mentioned above, so I'm not sure if this exact thing happened in those cases or not. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with IRC is that it is transient. Mailing lists and Wiki pages can be accessed by multiple people in different time zones (he said from GMT-land). Guy (Help!) 18:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, someone else on GMT! Rare being! Fair enough. Why not an admin mailing list - particularly given the discouragingly high rate of admin burn-out? Worse than all the junior tennis players I've seen over the years - which is saying something, trust me. Moreschi 18:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

An admin mailing list sounds not too bad, as long as it is publically viewable. Otherwise I really dread "It was discussed on the mailing list" kind of decisions. Transparency is important. --Conti|✉ 18:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if you had a mailing list for admins that wasn't public (and if it were public, it wouldn't be a place for "blowing off steam," because it would be just like doing so here), the folks who howl about the "Admin Cabal" will have even more fuel for the fire than they do now. And we definitely don't need to offer up any more ammunition in that department. I admit, it would be great to give the admins a place where they can go off if they need to - but privacy in a project like this is a bit difficult to call for, I think. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with a private forum for admins, we already have an IRC channel. It is okay to talk in private as long as our actions are based on publicly disclosed information. The idea of a noticeboard that anyone can read but only admins can edit is a fine idea, with full transparency. I would love it. Though it's talk page should be unprotected so people can still comment in a non-disruptive manner. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't the problems being discussed here affect Admins and non-Admins alike? The distinction is that Admins have additional tools available to them, but the triggers, personalities, experience levels, and consequences for Wikipedia cross the Admin/non-Admin divide. Therefore, shouldn't there be a process for producing private discussions to resolve differences and 'blow off steam' that is accessible to all Wikipedians in some fashion? There isn't any need to create an Admin-only communications channel, because often the circumstances that Admins find themselves in that lead to explosive decompression involve non-Admins as well as Admins and communications that by definition excludes a party to discussion is not part of the solution, it's part of the problem. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, don't you have some editors on Wikipedia with whom you feel slightly close and friendly? Like users you have worked well with? You can discuss that on each other's talk pages, e-mail each other, or go onto something like AIM. There are so many options available for everyone. What about Member's Advoctates? There should be a messageboard where people can say anything they want, within reason without having to see it brought up against them. If they break policies dramatically there (like WP:ATTACK they'll be banded from the board... Cbrown1023 20:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The IRC admin channel really isn't that great for what Guy describes anyway... I wouldn't go there for support, for various reasons you'd be more likely to just get frustration and smart remarks. The list would actually have to be active admins only, not friends of admins, people who got de-sysopped, random people the list owners like, etc. However due to the obvious concerns, it might be a good idea to give a few trustworthy non-admins access (or read-only access)... Newyorkbrad, Badlydrawnjeff, Daniel Bryant, I dunno, whoever we could agree upon, to just ensure that the list doesn't get out of hand. --W.marsh 20:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, divide and rule. How will you decide which of us peons are trustworthy? Catchpole 21:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

We'll start by not considering anyone who's made comments like you just did. --W.marsh 21:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Just yes-men then? Catchpole 21:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Just people who wouldn't make every conversation we tried to have an annoying "admin abuse!!" episode. --W.marsh 21:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit strange to say you don't like the current admin channel because of some of the non-admins who are in there, then you go on to list a few non-admins you'd let into your version of the channel that are even more controversial than the non-admins we currently have in there. --Cyde Weys 21:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Imagine what he'd say behind closed doors. d:-P --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ooh-whoo-whoo, a sysopery! An admin hive where we can hatch our evil cabal plans! Me likes...--Kchase T 20:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that in principle anybody who asked nicely and is a "known face" would be allowed to subscribe (damn, is Newyorkbrad not an admin?), but only verified admins could write (so like a protected talk page). The difference as I see it it is that on Wikipedia you have to abide by various rules; although we can call a spade a spade, asking openly whether X is a spade could be taken as a civility violation, as would saying X is a spade and then having nine others immediately point out the crucial evidence you missed. I don't know, maybe it's a crap idea, but I have the strong feeling there should be at least one place where those of us who do sysoppery can put our feet up and know we won't be bearded by whichever nest of socks we're currently fighting. I keep coming back to the MONGO case, but also various other ArbCom cases, including WebEx and Min Zhu and more. Somewhere there should be a mechanism for finding out that you're going off the rails before the train crashes. It's a half-formed and possibly half-baked idea, which is why I brought it up for discussion. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Brad has been refusing invitations to be nominated for months, so it is his own damn fault. Dragons flight 21:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No special accommodations for me, please. My declinations have been purely a function of time-on-site and timing and that won't last forever (I won't say more out of respect for the no-advertising-one's-own-RfA norms). The others mentioned above would be strong candidates as well (I know each was unsuccessful once, but some of those issues have faded). Newyorkbrad 21:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, issues which relate to how Wikipedia is managed need to be transparent, and at least readable by all, so I am opposed to the creation of a truly private admin mailing list. If you need to blow off steam, people should be encouraged to do that with their friends, but not through a global admin mailing list. By friends, I mean here either real world non-Wiki friends, or by emailing other Wikipedians whom they trust. If someone has been involved in Wikipedia long enough to be an administrator, I would hope that they would have found individuals that they felt they could turn to for help and advice. Dragons flight 21:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree completely with Dragons Flight on this matter. I admit that when I do go into the IRC channel it's to blow off steam, and because I know I can find one or two people whose judgement I trust, and who will be willing to listen. I also find that when I'm idling there I'll be approached, now and then, for the same reason (privately, not in the main channel). This is a useful function, but it shouldn't be formalized. As always, of course, this doesn't take the place of official discussion and any action taken on-wiki you should be capable of justifying on-wiki. Mackensen (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• We could easily set up a board where all can read but only admins can chat (just keep the page always protected). Transparent, yet with limited access. NoSeptember 21:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That actually would be less useful than a pure admins-only board (not that I am advocating that, I don't really have a view one way or the other). Any concerns that an admin had about "speaking out" would still exist, while at the same time a non-admin use with an issue or a comment would be unable to post it. Newyorkbrad 21:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Something like this should have no connection to Wikipedia, or be controlled in any way by the foundation. The way to have this, if it is to be done, is for someone to go do it. Set something up privately and invite whoever you want to join. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Admins are simply people with the extra tools. They're not a social group, nor a legitimate decision-making group inside Wikipedia. Further social segregation of admins (and this mailing list would be that) is not desirable.Zocky | picture popups 21:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Everybody here has the right to talk to each other offline. I don't see any problem with an admin only mailing list. As I said before, decisions on the wiki should still be based on evidence on the wiki. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Zocky on this one. I'm very much against an admin-only mailing list - admins are just people with access to a couple of extra buttons; we're not any better, nor more special, than every other user on Wikipedia, and we should not have a super secret mailing list that only admins can see. If it were visible to everyone else, but only admins could contribute (and by admins I mean current admins), I would be less opposed but still uneasy. The thought of arbitrary 'approved users' being allowed to contribute but not everyone, is an idea even worse than an admin-only mailing list. Either everyone or no one, don't start making subjective distinctions. Proto::► 10:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has trolled other websites (but not here), been mis-identified as a troll here due to associations elsewhere, and been dealt with in a way that would make a troll weep with joy, maybe my input would be of some help.

I think the problem is the attitude towards trolling: that trolls are "enemies" of Wikipedia. This is something I'm deriving based of one of Kelly Martin's blog posts. People treat them like enemies instead of just "problems", and this is what happens as a result:

1. They are "informed" - YOU ARE A TROLL. This will only make legit editors pissed, and will only give blatant trolls exactly what they're looking for. Any "subtle" troll is only going to rejoice as well, since if they're being subtle, this is going to cause arguments among the labeller and those who disagree.
2. People get angry - seems to be the biggest problem discussed in this thread. Trolls should just be prevented from disruption, people shouldn't get all angry over them. They end up taking it out on each other if they do. I've seen it happen here, livejournal, youtube, etc., and it's only because people get angry over it instead of just being apathetic.
3. People get paranoid about trolls - causing lots of legit editors to get blocked for looking even slightly suspicious. Or if not blocked, yelled at and goaded into getting blocked.

So the problem isn't that trolls can see the discussion - as a wiki, that's just unavoidable - the problem is how it's dealt with IMO. I've been in IRC with numerous Wikipedia trolls of varying degrees and they're not discouraged or stopped by the methods Wikipedia admins use - their eyes light up like it's Christmas, in fact. Stop making a big deal out of "FIGHTING" trolling and just prevent them without recognition. WP:DENY looks awesome for this.

And if Newyorkbrad, Daniel.Bryant, and badlydrawnjeff - all people I've seen in situations I've been involved in or IRC - are so "trusted", why not make them sysops? If I wasn't so unpopular I'd nominate Daniel.Bryant right now. BDJ too if it weren't for certain complications. Milto LOL pia 22:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I already nominated Jeff, it didn't go down too well... Guy (Help!) 00:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That suggestion runs along the lines of my preference for avoiding the t-word. I'm not fond of the idea of formalizing a cabalish chill space, although sometimes I've toyed with the idea of a humor page. If it weren't for WP:DENY I'd start Wikipedia:Dumbest vandals akin to America's Dumbest Criminals for times when I chuckle such as sockpuppets who refer to their blocked sockmasters in the first person and other self-defeating disruption such as this[31] to which I replied with this.[32] Durova^Charge! 00:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say 80/26 is a very strong showing, especially considering circumstances that bizarrely weren't taken into effect. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh, it was just an offhand remark about non-admins I find generally trustworthy, I also implied even if this thing did hypothetically happen we'd choose then. I wasn't saying like "here are the 3 greatest non-admins on the server". --W.marsh 00:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've never requested access to the admin IRC channel because I think it is inherently a bad idea... largely due to the same issues Zocky predicts for an admin mailing list above. I also agree that Wikipedia's 'standard response' to problems has gone astray... too often people take pride in 'stomping the vandals and trolls' when they should have been trying to get them to be positive contributors and just blocking them dispassionately when it became clear that wasn't going to happen. A 'place to blow off steam' accepts a priori that it is 'ok' to get steamed in the first place... it shouldn't be. That's what leads to 'meltdowns', 'going off the rails', et cetera... and any sort of 'release valve' for that is going to be a minor stopgap at best. Any time things get above the level of mild annoyance ought to be reason to walk away from that particular issue and do something else. Wikipedia is ridiculously huge. I couldn't do everything I would like to here even if I quit my job and worked on it every waking hour. There is always something else people could be doing instead of digging themselves deeper and deeper into a pit of anger. The idea that someone has to 'stand guard' over an article or subject is a poisonous and destructive one... let it go and there will always be someone else to step in and re-assert balance if need be. --CBD 13:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• General comment, although I don't know which subsection it should go in. Please feel free to move it to the appropriate subsection. I don't have a an experienced admin I can turn to for advice. If pressed, I'd probably ask the person who nominated me. I think some mechanism for asking for Admin advice, even if on a "protected" page (so that only Admins could write), although anyone could read, seems like a good idea. I should add that I seem to be on someone's E-mail list for requested admin actions, and, if asking advice on those, I wouldn't necessarily want his comments to be publically available, as it might be a copyright violation to repost E-mail, so some private channel would be appreciated. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zocky that the idea of further admin segregation from the community is outrageous and all its supporters should be ashamed of themselves. If the project badly needs anything, it's more transparency rather than another closed chatroom. All sorts of secretive communication channels that are basically untraceable represent the very opposite of what Wikipedia stands for. That IRC has been recurrently turned by admins into a crapfest abounding in incivility, is the perfect illustration of self-destructive potential of any attempt to create an elitist establishment within the community of editors. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's just hypothetical exploration of an idea, I don't support it so much as I think it should at least be considered. I resent the idea that we should be ashamed of ourselves for having an open discussion, which is the very thing you go on to champion. --W.marsh 16:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Right; whether it is a good idea or not, we might consider why people are considering such a thing. Or maybe it is clear why, in light of some of the comments here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it couldn't possibly just be a good faith suggestion to improve Wikipedia. We must have been trying to create a cabal and wreck Wikipedia. In light of our comments here, it's clear... --W.marsh 16:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you really need Wikipedia to "blow off steam"? The real world works much better, and no-one can accuse you of cabalism if you just go for a walk in the park every time you start getting pissed off. yandman 16:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's funny how this thread is becoming an example of why admins get stressed in the first place. All this "you should be our robotic servents" then accusing us of abuse and cabalism and everything else left and right, then we're the incivil ones and should be ashamed of ourselves once we say anything back. Admins are treated by some as a class lower than regular users... expected to just take endless abuse then go "for a walk in the park" if they don't like it. That's just crap. Go to any other site on the internet and see how much the admins bend over backwards to accomodate troublemakers, you won't find it anywhere but here. wp-en is unique in how extreme its expectations of volunteer admins are. --W.marsh 16:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... more light, less heat. Yes, Ghirla's comments were incivil and unhelpful... but that is not a reason to respond in kind or 'spread the joy'. Yandman certainly didn't deserve to have his suggestion be described as "just crap"... personally I rather like walks in the park. We don't have to 'bend over backwards', but we DO have to define a clear line between the "troublemakers" and ourselves... and not joining them in swearing, making broad accusations, and heated blowups is a good start. Ideas about dealing with stress are certainly a good thing to discuss - I just don't happen to agree with this one and think the 'don't let it get to you, work on something else, take a walk in the park' approach has considerably better results. --CBD 17:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I find this comment remarkably incivil and unkind. A "clear line" between troublemakers and admins is impossible to define, because the worst troublemakers are usually admins. On the other hand, the best editors (such as User:Wetman, User:Giano, etc) are usually non-admins. Yes, some admins are getting desysopped, but the process is too slow in my opinion. If more than one thousand admins have got enough energy today, I advise them to deal with an appalling backlog on T:TDYK, rather than discuss for hours where they could chat when they get tired of IRC and mailing list conversations. Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Case in point... admins are what's wrong with Wikipedia! Down with those people trying to improve the project! Comments like that make me want to stop contributing, or actually become the abusive admin people seem to think all admins are. If you care about Wikipedia you'd stop blathering such tripe. --W.marsh 18:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I find your statement that I'm "blathering tripe" insulting and demand apologies. I don't know anyone who thinks that all admins are abusive. Perhaps you do. Furthermore, your statement above that "all this "you should be our robotic servents" then accusing us of abuse and cabalism and everything else left and right", etc, etc. curiously echo a recent statement on my meta talk page: "my point is that we're editing Wikipedia in our free time, as volunteers, and people really shouldn't be telling us that we have to do anything, taking care of backlogs or not. Nobody pays me to do anything on there, etc". I call this attitude the doctrine of official admin irresponsibility. Since you voluntarily (sic!) assumed the heavy burden of adminship, it is too late to whine that "admins are treated by some as a class lower than regular users". No, they are treated not as "lower" or "higher" (there is no hierarchy in Wikipedia) but as a group of people who volunteered to do more work than mere editors. If you are not up to the task, you should lay down your tools. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Your attitude sucks and I really hope you don't drive away any good editors with it. Other than that I've concluded I really have nothing to say to you and will just continue to contribute as an admin the way I see fit (which clearly you disaprove of). moving on.... --W.marsh 18:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I take it this is the kind of behaviour that you would hold up as a standard? Broad negative generalizations? Only someone completely ignorant of what administrators actually do could make such a vapid, stupid, empty generalization such as that. Disgusting. Mackensen (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is immature to bully a non-admin on admin talk page. It is not the first (or the second) time that I witness such incivil outbursts from you in particular, Mackensen. Such epithets as "stupid" or "disgusting" which you liberally apply to your opponents do nothing to raise your esteem in my eyes. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It brings me no pleasure. I welcome you to point out where I've ever bullied anyone, admin or no. I'm telling you bluntly what I think of your remark, and I maintain that I have been no more uncivil than you have. I don't much care what you, Giano, Geogre, or Bishonen thinks of me at this point, and I gave up politely asking for civility some time ago. You make your generalizations about evil administrators just as you like, and I'll continue telling you, in language appropriate to the situation, that I think you're out of line in making such remarks. Mackensen (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you reserve this aggressive manner of discourse for IRC and other secretive channels you so emphatically defend. I will not post on this page after such a storm of insults and ad hominems, so don't bother replying. Bye, Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I say nothing in private that I would be unwilling to repeat in public. That I dare to have friends is my own concern. I suppose next I'll find out that I shouldn't discuss Wikipedia with my wife (not that she'd mind)? Mackensen (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be improving things. Implausibly I find myself disagreeing with accusations/insults thrown by both 'sides'. 'Who is being least incivil' isn't a great argument to have. Unless someone thinks there is a chance for real understanding and cooperation arising out of this, maybe it'd be a good idea to drop it. --CBD 18:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Mackensen but CBD is basically right... nothing's really going to come out of rehashing the "admins are evil" / "shut yo mouth" debate. But I'm not sure anyone's really expecting anything to come of it... just another episode of the usual venting. Blowing off steam, even. Too bad we don't have somewhere off-wiki to take this! :-) --W.marsh 19:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There are already far too many people here whose only goal is to become admins (some of them going so far as to state it in public). Creating an exclusive page (on top of the exclusive IRC channel) will only make them even more eager to be "made". yandman 17:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why they are so eager to suffer abuse as members of the cabal. -- Donald Albury 17:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably because they don't realize that actual cabalists spend much of their time fending off legal threats and dealing with other nasty things. Mackensen (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

So this discussion started from a suggestion to help alleviate admin stress before messy things happen. Here are a couple of ideas to help reduce admin burn out from me.

Forced breaks. Make admins down tools say one day in every 14, or after x amount of edits, or if they have been online for more than 6 hours at a stretch. The actual limits are obviously debatable.

A buddy system - assign new admins a mentor who they can confer with, being in the same time zone may help.

Don't feel you have to respond to every request. Being an admin doesn't mean you have to have the last word.

Thoughts? Catchpole 18:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the general concepts of admins (and users in general) taking breaks from stressful stuff... especially if they are given options for other things to work on during their 'break'. Admin coordination/partnerting, through 'buddies' or otherwise, would also have several obvious benefits though being susceptible to accusations of 'cabalism'. Right now we tend to be 'lone wolves' until a dispute arises and then we get together to ponder it. Having more developed systems for 'handoff' of issues when there are potential conflicts of interest might be beneficial. --CBD 18:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think mentoring would be an interesting idea to explore. But that asks a lot of the mentors. Still, it would have been interesting if an admin I'd respected at the time I became an admin had mentored me... it took me a while to really venture into certain areas of adminship. I notice a lot of new admins are much more bold than I was though. --W.marsh 19:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

How about the idea of stressing to admins that getting the balance right is important. Do boring housekeeping admin tasks when other admin tasks are too stressful. Do self-reviews where you examine your behaviour in a stressful situation and think what to do next time this sort of thing happens. And if things are getting stressful, don't speed up. Instead, slow down and be more thoughtful, not less. Knowing when to stop, when to cancel the comment you've just written, when to sleep on something and deal with it in the morning, is the most helpful attribute an admin can have. Not all admins can be like that, but they can try and learn from what they have done in the past. Some of the contributors to this thread could look back here in a few days time and review how they acted, for example. Carcharoth 01:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

A little less drama from all sides would be helpful. And Ghirla does have a point - we're all admins because we volunteered to take on the extra tools. With power comes responsibility and, one would hope, maturity. If you can't take the occasional sniping without getting upset, then you probably shouldn't be trusted with the extra tools, let alone fending off legal threats. Zocky | picture popups 19:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• I guess I should be de-sysopped then. The constant bickering about "admin abuse" is annoying. I'm all for being held accountable, but people saying that admins are the biggest troublemakers on Wikipedia is just very insulting. --W.marsh 19:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to fight any kind of additional social gap between Admin and Non-Admin. Creating any-kind of "special" space for admins widens the gap further. A wide gap can cause a large number of unintended negative consequences.

These tools we have... delete/block/protect... are tools that in a perfect world everyone should have. It's not intended to be a status symbol and should never be treated that way. ---J.S ^(T/C) 19:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, this 'the admin cabal is evil' attitude coming from some quarters perpetuates the perception of a class divide. We are just users, after all, who have been entrusted by the community with some extra tools. We do need to consult with each on the appropriateness of the use of those tools in specific situations but does not mean we are conspiring or forming a cabal. -- Donald Albury 22:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Any group of users are welcome to talk privately. This is not a class issue because non-admins are also welcome to pursue private channels of communication. As for accusations of cabals, don't let them worry you as they will occur no matter what we do hehe. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I respect JzG immensely, but I think the comment above "mainly because I think we (as admins) should really have been able to stop MONGO going off the rails, and I really feel we failed him" shows that at a subconscious level there is a class-divide. Don't get me wrong, I don't have issue with JzG's comment or the intent. I just think thier is a trend towards two separate communities. It's certainly not at a critical point, but it's something to be concerned about and keep in mind for the future. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose with wanton penguin lust. The existing IRC channel is at the best of times Romulus to #wikipedia's Remus and at the worst of time it is Jeckyll to Wikipedia's Hyde. Bitter, spitefull, and unaccountable. I cannot image any good coming of further accentuating the divide between the hoi and the polloi. - brenneman 10:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I just received an e-mail from Zoe detailing an email that she received from the latest sockpuppet of this banned user who is once again asking that I be blocked. The text is as follows:

> May you please block the User: Ryulong, due to "collateral damage", I 
> recevived a email from Jimbo Wales to email admins to get her blocked. 
> He has recently been emailing threating emails. I emailed him so he 
> could unblock me, but i recevived a email from him.

After which, there is a bastardization of an actual e-mail I sent this user after I found out she registered under "Ryulong" at the Japanese Wikipedia (but thanks to Suisui I have that account now), but with many embelishments. I urge any administrator who receives this e-mail to ignore it, as Zoe had, and simply just block the e-mail from this user who has been harassing me on- and off-wiki now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that I have blocked the IP 64.111.122.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) indef as an open proxy on Ryulong's advice (on AIV). I have listed it at WP:OP also to double check. If it turns out not to be one, then anyone feel free to unblock without having to consult me. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, all that Bobabobabo has been using lately are open proxies because we have blocked her home IP address.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I also received an e-mail containing an attached "message" allegedly sent by Ryulong, which I just ignored because it was so fully out of character. The message which preceded this obscenity-and-Pokemon-riddled document was a plea for me to block Ryulong -- for off-Wiki behavior. I'd forgotten about it until I saw this thread. Don't worry Ryulong, I have no intention of blocking you. :) Antandrus (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I did at one point send an e-mail to this individual at which I was at my breaking point, but it was nothing even close to what she's claiming I've said (I may have dropped the f-word, but not as much as she makes it out to be).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have received a number of emails from sockpuppets blocked as a result. They generally claim to be from a school and give me the address of a spam site, alumnidirector.com and an email address there, asking to be unblocked. Eventually one of these people claimed to be home schooled, directly contradicting earlier claims. I denied an unblock to this person, Jessica Johnson (jjohnson97@yahoo.com) given the lying and large number of abusive edits from that address and demanded that she stop emailing me. Note of course that alumnidirector.com is not the web site of a school despite claims to the contrary. --Yamla 19:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, seeing as Yamla has just given out the name of the latest sockpuppet e-mail, here are others that Bobabobabo has used in the past:

• apricetx@lycos.com
• aywanajp@lycos.com

As well as atkinson@alumnidirector.com who claimed to be the principal of the school (while editting under the name Ps3queen).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a heads up - got an email from someone saying that 72.177.68.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) should be unblocked because it is a school ip, and since I haven't had any contact to my knowledge of the sockusers at this address I assume they are just going down the admin list and emailing them all. Syrthiss 13:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

ARIN Whois [34] says this IP belongs to Road Runner, with a note that says, "Allocations for this OrgID serve Road Runner residential customers out of the Austin, TX and Tampa Bay, FL RDCs." I would say that we need an e-mail from a confirmed administrator at the school before acting on this. -- Donald Albury 14:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would heavily suggest you don't unblock without considerable evidence. I believe this is User:Bobabobabo [35], [36], [37], [38], and who has a history of stalking User:Ryulong and falsely claiming to represent a school in the past: See User:Bobabobabo. Patstuart^talk|edits 14:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The email address that Ryulong referred to as having been sent to me above was from Titanicprincess. Ignore and filter any more emails from this spurious account. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You may have me confused with someone gullible. ;) Syrthiss 00:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't you guys read? :P—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Cross-posting from my userpage:

Someone is making my life here miserable by claiming to be me and adding nonsense to my user page. I'm tired of this. If it's possible, Please delete my account so that I can just browse as a guest from now on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sean Canavi (talk • contribs) 15:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

This is the first request of this sort that I've received. I've looked around the contribution list and the history of his userpage. I don't see any reason not to grant the request, but I'd like to run this by some more experienced admins before I act. Durova^Charge! 16:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have accepted such requests, I let them know that it is not reversable, then if they request I delete their talk pages and block the user to prevent possible future misuse. However this is different than invoking the right to vanish(wow it really does sound like a magical spell). HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course a talk page should not be deleted if it has information relevent to ongoing issues. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• This looks like an external battle brought to Wikipedia, but it does seem that User:Sean James Canavi is an impostor and troll, so I will block that account. Guy (Help!) 16:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Too late! Donald beat me to it :-) Guy (Help!) 16:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't have to think long about that one. :-) -- Donald Albury 16:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've also deleted the trolling user's user page, which was an attack page for the subject. -- Renesis (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deleted. User and Talk pages can be, but should preferably be blanked and protected so the history is still visible. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is a better version of Template:Test:

Welcome to Wikipedia. While this may not have been your intent, your recent edits have been unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia, or if you simply want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you need any assistance, please contact the one who left you this message.--Azer Red Si? 16:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the current one. The first test message is intended for edits than are (or could be) genuine tests. If someone is trying to make constructive edits and failing, they need to be educated about what they're doing wrong. If someone is trying to be unconstructive, you can jump straight to test2. --Tango 17:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tango on all points. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As people may be aware, a recent rfc revealed that PMA was blocking good faith editors who apparently simply had a different political point of view than himself on pages he was monitoring. The rfc led PMA to resign his admin capabilities. However, I am still encountering editors who have been blocked in the past as result of this activity. This editor, Chicocvenancio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was blocked by PMA without any legitimate justification at all, during a period of rampant disruption involving a number of PMA's fellow Australian editors and admins. Where users who simply disagreed with one long term, high profile Australian editor were being attacked and blocked etc en masse.

Since User:Chicocvenancio has returned to wikipedia, I spotted the history in the user's block log. And it reveals an unseemly black mark in an innocent editor's record that I don't believe is warranted. Would it be possible for another admin to add a note to the block log of this user, to clarify that the block was in error. Without it, a fellow editor could draw a false conclusion about User:Chicocvenancio and assume that the user had been disruptive in the past. Which is clearly not the case. --Zleitzen 18:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The block log should not be used as a note pad. The user could always create a user subpage with any diffs to exonerating comments by other respected users, and then could refer anyone who may question his block log history in the future to this page. NoSeptember 18:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way to add a note to the block log, anyway? I guess by blocking him again with the exculpatory explanation in the text and then unblocking him, which seems rather convoluted... it's not like it's going to affect his annual salary review... let him consider it a badge of honor. I suggest also that you award him a Purple Star (it's at Wikipedia:Personal user awards#WikiProject Kindness Campaign and Dispute Resolution and is designed precisely to help take the sting out of this type of situation. Herostratus 18:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks NoSeptember. True. The user could do that, but then most inexperienced users are not aware of what "sub pages", "diffs", etc are. And it seems to be a lot of work for an innocent editor, who likely doesn't even know any other users, to create such an exoneration. I imagined it would be easier if an admin added a futher block with an attached summary "This block was in error". Which would clear the thing up in seconds. I wouldn't consider being blocked and accused of a falsehood a badge of honour, I'd consider it an unsavoury slur.--Zleitzen 18:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that admins don't agree as a group any more than any other random grouping of users. So when one admin adds a note to a log, it is not saying anything other than that particular admin believes what he has written. Exonerating notes in block logs is not a path we want to go down. As for the subpages, if the user is inexperienced in subpages, you can help him out. Only a user who is likely to get involved in edit warring in the future even needs to worry about exoneration at this point, you would be surprised how many good users have inappropriate blocks in their logs, but they get along just fine. NoSeptember 18:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. A false accusation of being a "sockpuppet" and a "POV pusher" that permanently and publicly stays on a users record without any exoneration at all is problematic regardless of whether one "edit wars" or not. If you receieved an accusation of being a "sockpuppet" and a "POV pusher" on your log, would you let it lie?--Zleitzen 19:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would let it lie (or create a subpage while it's fresh in my mind, if it were a complicated situation), and I know other users in that situation who have let it lie. A 6+ month old block is not going to be a heavy factor in an admin's decision to block in the future, only current and a recent pattern of behavior would be. People pass RfAs with negative information in their block logs all the time, a simple straightforward explanation is all it takes. Anyway, this user should be pleased to have you in his corner :). NoSeptember 19:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In February, Giano was blocked by Carnildo for a bunch of things (which was overturned quite rapidly). Later on, another admin instituted a 10-second block to make a note that Carnildo's blcok reason was incorrect. Hbdragon88 21:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this type of thing is neither uncommon, nor controversial. When a clear breach such this occurs, it is the most effective way of resolving the situation. I am surprised by the resistance above.--Zleitzen 22:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to initiate the novelty of block note wheel warring more than anybody else does, but a case this clear, where the admin was forced to desysop himself for misuse of the block button, should be corrected. I have made a note in Chicocvenancio's log. (The way to do it is to block for one second, please compare this recent thread). Bishonen | talk 22:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Good work Bishonen. I think that is wisest. I will return if - and probably when - I discover more of these incidents, which have entered double figures. Most of these blocks were amended shortly after by the admin or other admins. However, as I have noticed, skeletons keep appearing that went unnoticed at the time.--Zleitzen 22:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've indef'ed per WP:USERNAME, WP:POINT and WP:VAND. Comments appreciated. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see username problems, but it is clearly a vandal only account, good block. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The username (and point) issue: a direct reference to the "right to disappear" and how the user's intent was the opposite. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like it might be a reference to a My Chemical Romance song. (I support your block anyway) -- Renesis (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I might have bought that if the user vandalized something a bit more resembling that article... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone please block User:84.9.194.195 ASAP. Keeps making personal attacks on my talk page. [39] [40]. Speedy assistance appreciated. MRSC • Talk 19:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you like semi-protection? Durova^Charge! 20:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Would an admin please close the discussion on this - obvious sock-puppet voting, concensus is a speedy keep. I would also ask for some restrictions on users/sock puppets in this bad faith nomination/voting scheme. SkierRMH 02:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Though the AfD has already been closed, in the future, I would recommend providing a link to whatever page you're talking about. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

A Temporary injunction has been enacted in the above titled arbitration case. Dionyseus (talk · contribs), GuardianZ (talk · contribs), and Skinny McGee (talk · contribs) are placed on standard revert parole until the conclusion of this case. They are restricted to one content revert per page per day each, and may be blocked for 24 hours for each violation. Blocks imposed under this injunction should be listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 03:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

For anonymous readers - me, at least - the text of all pages appears very small. Could an admin fix this? Swearing is a sin 03:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems to have been an error in the sitenotice, which has been corrected. — Dan | talk 03:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. To original poster: If you still have a problem, try hitting CTRL + 0 (zero) (if you are using Firefox) or going to View -> Text Size -> Medium if you are using Internet Explorer. -- Renesis (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Cromoser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Microcon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have blocked this account from editing indefinitely as a sock-puppet of User:Microcon. Both have inserted the same linkspam into PIC16x84. For example, compare these edits: [41] & [42]. If anyone thinks I'm out of line, please say so. ---J.S ^(T/C) 03:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks the same to me. Justified block. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)