I've started a survey on adminship and its procedures, to find out if a substantial majority of editors believe that certain changes should be made to our procedure or precedent. Your feedback will be greatly appreciated! :) - Mailer Diablo 15:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The tools we use for counter vandalism have improved in leaps and bounds; and its been key to maintaining Wikipedia stability. However, I've found even with these tools blatant vandalism is getting by our overworked first responders. I stopped going counter-vandalism a while back as real life got in the way and new admins and tools seemed to be doing the job.

But recently I've been running VF 3.3 in the background while I browse Wikipedia then scroll through the backlog about once every hour or two. Now while there isn't a lot of vandalism to clean up; there is a significant amount of blatant vandalism I still come across like this which took almost an hour to be reverted.

So I'd like to recruit and get a little help recruiting people to effectively use this passive tool so that we can catch this blatant stuff that slips by. I suppose a mini tutorial would help for new and experienced users alike not familiar to VF:

• English VF 3.3 download here
• Run file and click Connect button, ideally run VF and browser in windows next to each (overlapping) to easily switch back and forth
• Go to configuration tab and ensure "Automatically remove old edits..." and "Show only IP edits." are enabled.
• Change the color scheme so that it makes sense to you and draws your eye to suspicious edits, while not tiring your eyes. (I recommend a dull color like gray for normal IP edits)
• Hopefully you have a tabbed browser, which will make opening/closing multiple pages easier
• Then go to Live RC tab and rearrange the columns so that you can see article, editor, +/-, summary together
• Begin looking for Admins and others (by looking for reversion edit summaries) and adding them to your whitelist (by clicking on Wlist column) so that you can focus on anon edits
• Begin looking for vandalism, clues include: [[WP:AES| (which means there was a blank edit summary), large +/- numbers, especially for sub-sections (big changes in the article), bold edits (which are highrisk edits)
• When you reach the bottom of the list click "clear list" button and distract yourself with real life for a while as a backlog builds and do it all again! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RoyBoy (talk • contribs) 04:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Hopefully we can improve and organize our 2nd-tier Counter-Vandalism response. Feedback welcome, and if I should improve/post this elsewhere. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If you click on the User Lists tab, there is an option at the bottom to automatically import all admins to your whitelist. Also don't forget you can blacklist anyone you see vandalizing. Dave6 ^talk 06:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, never really worked properly for me (admin import); but good suggestions. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the good people who have worked very hard to unite WP:V and WP:NOR into the brilliant WP:ATT have all gone to sleep, so I'm asking you all to have a look at it, because it has now gone live! It is scheduled to replace WP:V and WP:NOR in one week. (I hope most of you have already heard about it, and that I'm posting here as a mere formality.) --Merzul 04:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I will look it over. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

ILIKEIT. Good work to SlimVirgin, Jossi, Pmanderson, Merzul, Hiding, et al. Teke ^(talk) 04:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

OMG, you're kidding me. Now what. Will WP:ATT acquire and merge WP:RS and every other core policy as well? Then will Jimbo have to break it up? Hbdragon88 04:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because this is an invalid slippery slope argument, and you know it ;) It's actually not so much the merger that I like, but the far more appropriate terminology. You will no longer have to explain to people why they can't "verify" something by their own analysis. In short, the main benefit here is that we avoids the oxymoron "verifiable, not truth", which is a source of much confusion, IMO. --Merzul 05:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's just a summary of V and NOR; there's no change. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it changes absolutely nothing wrt current policy, but I do think attribution is a better word. This will not have any impact for any of our experienced contributors, but it will help new editors understand "verifiability" better. To make it very clear, in terms of life on Wikipedia for our main projects, I promise that nothing will change due to this policy. --Merzul 05:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we pinch WP:A off Wikipedia:Announcements? I would imagine it would be used more for this than for the less-visited <15 edits since the turn of the year announcements page. Proto ► 10:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How sly do I have to make this? Will WP:AT(&)T acquire so many of our core policies to the point where Jimbo(Department of Justice) will have to break it up? Hbdragon88 00:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Some people have no appreciation for wit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, WP:ATT, would be sly enough... and don't immediately Assume Bad Wits, we're not all from the US. Still, I guess that's no excuse, sorry for not immediately appreciating your cunning word play, I do now :P --Merzul 05:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Newtownards has been making legal threats in his edit summaries. I've warned him twice, but if some admin would keep an eye on him that would be kick ass. Natalie 15:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are his/her contribs and talk page. Natalie 15:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. Hopefully the warnings you've left will be sufficient. Please update us if the situation continues/worsens. Having said that, I've seen serious legal threat problem situations, and I don't think this is one in which we need to warn the Office to expect papers. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Race and intelligence (Research) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), this article was started yesterday and has less than 50 edits but is already 58KB in size. Given the nature of the subject matter I question this article's rapid development. I'm I a bit off on this one? (→Netscott) 17:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if this article is a WP:CSD#G4 candidate. (→Netscott) 17:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be. It might be a fork of Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). WP:AGF, the individuals who started it did a draft off wiki to get it into a decent state before posting it here. On the surface it doesn't look like anyone did anything fishy here.--Isotope23 18:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Isotope23, I'll get back to AGFing. :-) (→Netscott) 18:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, seeing a mature article suddenly appear would pique my interest too. It is the exception around here rather than the norm.--Isotope23 18:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be a fork, it's simply the "Research" section of race and intelligence broken off to form a new article in summary style fashion. I don't see what's surprising about new articles being long and well-developed either, I draft all of my articles off-wiki and I'm sure plenty of people do too. --bainer (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I've just been seeing too many poorly written stubs lately. Don't get me wrong, I love seeing people draft up a good article before they post it here.--Isotope23 00:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please close Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laurel_Nakadate? The nomination has been withdrawn. If this is not the proper place for this request, I apologize. Please tell me what is. --Selket ^Talk 18:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Closed as speedy keep, because the nom withdrew and nobody wanted it deleted. --ais523 18:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Serafin has been evading his block, and has been continuing his disruptive editting. He was blocked on 19 January for 1 month, but since then has made 100+ edits see here, most of which have been personal attacks and none of which have been useful contributions. if you will read Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Serafin you will see how problematic he has been. He has been banned from both Polish and German wikipedias (sometimes known as Aserafin, Bserafin, Cserafin), further indication that his actions are not likely to contribute anything to the English wikipedia. if that wasn't enough of a smoking gun, I would like to direct you to a talk that took place between him and another polish-speaking editor, User_talk:Philip_Gronowski. Much of the discussion is in Polish, but Philip was kind enough to translate it for me here. the most incriminating part is where he states You can rest assured that I will be doing everything to close as many articles as I can. This was commented soon after the all the articles he had been editting were protected, and he had been blocked for a month. Can someone please block all his sockpuppets to allow the normal editors with good intentions to continue on wikipedia. and if he uses another anon IP, perhaps semi-protect the pages he has been seen to frequent.

--Jadger 18:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It is simpler just to block with ACB. Yuser31415 20:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

what is ACB? and has it been done?

--Jadger 03:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

An editor asked me if I would delete User talk:Fourstrings@earthlink.net and User talk:I think I just stuffed a toy truck up my ass. They are both protected redirects to redlinks. I am assuming this would be ok since they are redirects to now-deleted userpages, but since they are protected I thought I'd ask here first. If yes, can I assume it is ok to delete protected userspace redirects to redlinks in the future (Of indefinitely blocked users)? This isn't the first time I've encountered one of these and I wasn't sure on what I should do. Also, should I unprotect after deleting? (or does it auto-unprotect? Yes, I'm a new admin :)) VegaDark 03:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

CSD R1, I believe :). As far as I know page protection stays when pages are deleted, but I can't confirm it. Experiment and see :P. Yuser31415 06:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Or CSD R2. It's up to you, they are both appropriate. Yuser31415 06:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Page protection goes with the page itself. Go ahead and delete them. (ie I'm leaving them for you) Viridae^Talk 07:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Done and done. Thanks for the help both of you. VegaDark 09:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved discussion to WP:AN/I#Disruptive editor? to keep comments about BabyDweezil in one place. -- ChrisO 14:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The Category:Disputed fair use images is terribly backlogged. There are many images in there that have been tagged for many months and never taken action on.

I've done a first step to try to bring that category more in line with the process outlined at WP:CSD. I added instructions to {{Fair use disputed}} telling taggers to give the proper notice to uploaders (as required by CSD I7), and to use {{db-badfairuse}} if the issue has not been resolved after the waiting period. I also created the user-talk notification template to go with it, {{No fair}}. However, to reduce the process overhead, my preferred solution would really be to bring the whole thing in line with the process of {{nrd}} ("no rationale") and {{rfud}} ("replaceable"), i.e. create a dated category queue that leads automatically into CAT:CSD. Right now, to get an image deleted if it is a clearly invalid fair use, i.e. a plain copyvio, is paradoxically more difficult and more work than getting an image deleted that is perfectly legal but just "replaceable" for the sake of our free-content ideals. It shouldn't be like that. Thoughts? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been a long time vandal on wikipedia known for making well over a dozen sockpuppets, not including I.P's. We have since designated him his two most well known alias' User:Martin181 and User:Verdict... at first we believed that he just didnt understand some aspects of Wikipedia policy however i came incresing clear that the user had no intention of listing or paying attention (notable disruptions include the repeated reverts on the Brock Lesnar article to a previous version of his [as he believes only he should edit the Lesnar article] which has forced the page into numorous Vprotects stopping all edits). Many attempts through various means including personal emails have been made by myself, User:Lid, and admins User:Yamla and User:Woohookitty but they have all ended with the admins having no choice but to block the user puppets indefinitely. After months of personal attacks (on wikipedia and via email) and repeated breaks in wikipedia policy im looking for any ideas short of letting him forcedly keep pages like Brock Lesnar the way he wants them. --- Paulley 15:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Could someone go through and remove the obvious and unending harassment of me in this section Talk:James_Kim#The_James_Kim_.27Talk.27_page. I'd do it, but I'd like a third party to for impartiality. Someone made some inappropriate and off-topic comments on there months ago, and some people (or one person with proxy access) just will not let it die by continuing to harass me there and then often vandalizing my user page and talk page with the same IPs.--Crossmr 16:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm so glad we got rid of WP:PAIN. The harassment continues and no one wants to get involved.--Crossmr 03:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Antandrus has pruned the thread and I blocked the latest harasser. Looks like you've got a bit of a stalker on your hands, though... —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the whole thread. It was just too difficult to excise individual harassing posts (there were many). Under talk page guidelines, threads which have nothing to do with improving the article can go, as you pointed out yourself there. It was quite clear there were some individuals bent on harassing you personally (I remember reverting a couple of them today). I hope this helps, Antandrus (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and could this go on AN/I next time? That board is more geared toward this type of stuff and will probably get you a faster response. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. Trying to figure out who the stalker is on that page would be rather difficult. A number of point of view pushers got really upset that I wouldn't let them fill the article with unsourced opinion and agenda, and of course the user who's off-topic comment I removed got quite riled up as well. If I didn't communicate with IPs so often I'd ask to have my page semi-protected (as I've seen it done on occasion) but get the odd legitimate question from an IP on my talk page so I wouldn't want to lock them out.--Crossmr 06:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what to do as this is my first time coming to the determination that I am in weak opposition to a block issued. I have notified issuing admin user:Yandman that he may have incorrectly blocked User talk:Marshalbannana. Please post to my talk page with any advice on how to handle this determination. TonyTheTiger 19:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

My first step is usually discussion with the blocking admin -- sometimes they'll know something I don't, or there were sockpuppets/deleted edits/some other skeleton in the closet. If that doesn't yield anything fruitful, I see if they'd be willing to see the block reduced or lifted. If the two of us can't reach some sort of agreement, then bring it to the community for a larger discussion -- AN, AN/I, maybe CN now that we have another. Something like that, anyway; there's no set rules, and some people do come directly to the noticeboards. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If you seek ample evidence, go to my talk page and click on "history". All IP adresses can be traced to the same town, that of Jacknicholson/Marshalbanana. I'll try and sort this out tomorrow. yandman 20:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's an email I got from User:Jesup explaining the situation:

Marshalbannana aka Marshal2.0 aka Jacknicholson (indef-banned for puppetry) has a long history of puppetry and anon-IP edit-pushing (on Katana, trying to insert a youtube video for months, eventually resulting in full protection being required). After I (Wikipedia User:jesup) accused him/Jacknicholson of sockpuppetry here, he started abusing my user page and later (after user was sprotected) my Talk page occasionally (still doing it as of last weekend).

Appears to be a high-school student from somewhere in the south, perhaps Georgia, on a dynamic IP (BellSouth) which frequently changes or he forces changes.

He seems to have started vandalising my userspace too, but Luna et al. are quick to revert it. However, this trick seems to have got past unnoticed. I'll reinsert it tomorrow, if only to please my bureaucratic urges.. yandman 22:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and there's this at ANI. yandman 22:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This individual keeps posting the same personal attack on my talk. Given his/her attitude it seems like a warning would be more strongly received if it came from a third party. Natalie 20:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Gave it {{bv}}. Half-inclined to just block an be done with it -- high probability this is a trollsock, as I'm reading it. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I would say you're probably right - he appeared right after We have 6 heads was blocked, who got in one vandalistic talk message to me before being blocked. Sigh... children.Natalie 20:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Instead of individual admins blocking accounts that have bad usernames, why doesn't Wikipedia just modify the software so that names that contain certain key words (e.g. fuck, shit) can't be created in the first place? That would save the admins a lot of time.--71.155.168.90 20:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Because software can't make a judgment call - many real, proper names across the world happen to have "shit" buried in the middle of them. Also, the software can't make judgment calls in the opposite direction - User:Sh1t would be blocked by a human, but not by a computer. 〈REDVEЯS〉 21:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I daresay it would be possible (use letter-number regexp). 99% of usernames containing "fuck" or "shit" are bad anyway. Yuser31415 21:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Shitomi" would be legitimate, whereas "Shitonme" would not be.
However, this is a solution looking for a problem. Let's just leave the system as-is; if it ain't broke, don't fix it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is it really necessary, is the real question. I've looked at the user creation log occasionally, and out of, say, 100 names, I've never seen more than 2 that were inappropriate, and more often 0. And in my experience, most people with inappropriate usernames turn out to be vandals, so they get noticed and blocked pretty quickly. Natalie 21:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I still remember the Scunthorpe Problem, I have no faith on automatic systems. In all cases WP:RFC/NAME works pretty well. --Asterion^talk 22:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The major point with this is that inappropriate username accounts aren't a problem until somebody starts editing with them and these are quickly dealt with at WP:AIV and WP:RFCN, many accounts are created and never used RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This might be an inappropriate place to put this, but I was just wondering if anyone else has had problems with logging onto wikipedia? I've had to delete all my cookies and temporary internet files to get back on and my watchlist hasn't changed since I first started having problems 40 minutes ago RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I did too, but it is fine now. — MichaelLinnear 23:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ya, it was hard, but I got through it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I had the same problem not too long ago and I'm still experiencing some problems when editing. But with this piece of crap my parents call a "computer," I'm not really surprised. // PoeticDecay 23:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure we'll get a report about it, but the load balancer went down and no backups of the config could be found. As soon as they moved the A record over to the IP of a backup load-balancer, everything came back up. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well thank god its back up, I started having a nervous breakdown! RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

During the Great Power Outage of 2006, I think some came close to suicide. It wouldn't have suprised me at the the time if #wikipedia had caused freenode to crash. Teke ^(talk) 05:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ooohh yeah, and the article links to the Great Power Outage of 2005. I was just an IP occasionally fixing back then, so it just left me bored for a day. Teke ^(talk) 05:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

After much discussion and back and forth I have added a section and subsection to WP:UP arrived at by a number of the parties involved in this. I invite those who have been following these developments to review this new section. As well as the talk that developed it. Thanks. (→Netscott) 23:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat ambiguous for new users. I know what it means but I doubt a newbie would. Viridae^Talk 23:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

True, this addition is meant as a citeable reference for folks to use in encouraging users to remove simulated MediaWiki content. At this point it has been left like that to avoid teaching users about how to simulate MediaWiki content and also to avoid instruction creep. (→Netscott) 23:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The version I put online didn't have the Jimbo quote ref. that is currently showing which is rather out of place now. That was added by User:Yuser31415 who I requested to remove it. (→Netscott) 00:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, its not a major quote and consequently seems irrelvant. Viridae^Talk 00:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy for anyone to remove it if it seems out of place. This is a wiki, after all :). Yuser31415 03:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be removed ... rather, the language should be made stronger. The "you have new messages" joke is merely annoying ... but someone could spoof the donation link and that would be more than annoying. We should definitely have it written down that spoofing the interface or any official content is not permitted. --BigDT 05:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

BigDT, there's a big lack of consensus gray area in terms of consensus to do what you are talking about. Before editing in support of your thinking I would highly recommend you properly research this as this was the source of serious disruption for the past few days. Cheers. (→Netscott) 06:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I am here requesting that my indefinite block of Nirelan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be reviewed. I had originally blocked him because I found that he was using sockpuppets to game 3RR at Dave Winer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). After Nirelan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) showed up, I extended the block to a week. The block expired recently, and it was brought to my attention that he edit warring, again, I blocked him, as his only major edits are to Dave Winer as well as a handful outside of that article. Now that I look back on it, an indefinite block may have been a bit much, but disruptive activity like Nirelan's should not be allowed to continue.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• There are a few more edits at Special:Undelete/Guitar Programming.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be trimmed down to between two weeks — a month. I don't think blocks on users like this should be done unilaterally; if the same disruptive editing continues after the block, take it to the WP:CN (I doubt much resistance will be found). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted and changed to a month.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the user Ken Perlin (talk · contribs · count) has edited about himself. The edits are in good faith, but it cannot be said for sure if the editor is Dr. Perlin himself. I request an admin to look into this matter. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 11:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guideline does not prohibit it, though it is suggested that the subject add to the talk page rather than the main article. As he is a new editor, he was likely not aware of the guideline. I left him a note on his talk page referring him to the guideline. — ERcheck (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Could an admin please urgently purge this revision [1] from the edit history. Staines, the subject of the article, claimes that the Guardian newspaper published a retraction of the referenced article and has threatened anyone who links to it with libel suits.[2] [3], [4]. I'd also recommend purging *this* edit when completed. Cheers, DWaterson 09:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

And also references on the talk page. Cheers, DWaterson 11:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The user was told on his talk page. This story has been mentioned on half-a-dozen blogs, and *all* have since referred to Staines legal threats and taken them down, so I think the anon's claims that he's just referring to a 1986 Guardian article innocently (and 1986 Guardian articles are not exactly something you'd just stumble on - it's only been mentioned on these blogs (and copied from one to another, and each now accompanied by legal threats)). Nssdfdsfds 13:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. I propose a solution on the Paul Staines talk page.62.136.238.65 12:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody interested in this? Fys has also joined the battle now. See my talk page for some more discussion. Nssdfdsfds 16:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack there from Nss.. who is wikistalking me. The article in question is still available on several blogs. I'm not suggesting we do link to it, but merely linking to it does not open Wikipedia to a libel risk even if the article was held libellous. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 16:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. The fact is that this incident which previously just involved the anon IP now involves you as well. There is most definitely a battle, as is obvious from all your reverts and the series of posts on my talk page. You accusing me of wikistalking seems to me be the real personal attack. Nssdfdsfds 16:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop implying that I support inclusion of the article when you know full well I don't. You are wikistalking me, reverting all my edits and nominating pages I have written for deletion. You can't hide your actions behind the cloak of claiming it's a personal attack. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 17:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to your silly wikistalking allegations on my talk page. I will not be wasting more of my time on them. Nssdfdsfds 17:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Another personal attack. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 17:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What's personal about that? 1. The allegations are silly, as I've already explained on my talk page. 2. I have responded to them already, so you are wasting my time bringing them up here, where we are trying to clear up a legal issue, not conduct petty squabbles. Nssdfdsfds 17:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The one reliable reference we had linking Staines to the Guido Fawkes blog has been taken out. If Staines is litigious then we are exposing Wikipedia to a big risk. I have tried to take out scandal sheet refs, but I think someone else is tinkering about putting then back in.

Ok, we now have at least two newpaper articles that link him to the blog.--62.136.238.65 03:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

An admin has been closing AfDs with different standards for deletion than some others expect. While specific instances can be taken to DRV (having been raised with him first), the issue is perhaps that there is lack of shared understanding as to what "rough consensus" might mean. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus perhaps gives insufficient guidance. Wikipedia:Consensus states the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision. Wikipedia:Supermajority - a rejected policy but perhaps the content is useful because it reflects past decisions, states consensus is two-thirds or larger majority support for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD). Specifically what is the appropriate closure for only 56% delete out of a vote of 16 - ie 9:7 with also an 8th keep vote from a new user? --Golden Wattle ^talk 22:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please let us know what AFDs you are talking about. AFD is not a vote, the closing admin must and does take into account the quality of the arguments. Proto ► 22:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

When I get a moment I will post at DRV so specific merits of the case can be considered. My point in raising here is have I missed something - the standard for consensus was 75% - translated as the range 60-80%, 56% seems too far outside that standard notwithstanding the merits of the argument. If it is to do with the merits of the argument beyond numbers providing consensus then surely the closing admin should comment to that effect - he didn't, not even when asked politely on his talk page, from which I conclude a different standard applies. Is that standard agreed?--Golden Wattle ^talk 22:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible to give you a straight answer without knowing what AFD you are talking about. AFD is not a vote. If we have 50% of people in an AFD discussion arguing for deletion because the article violates all kinds of policies, and 50% arguing for it to be kept because "it is awesome", it will be deleted. Proto ► 23:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What Proto said. Please, don't take anything to DRV if your only objection to the closure is that vote-counting gave a low number. Friday (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Surely, if the article "violates all kinds of policies" or there is some other reason for ignoring the numbers, the closing admin should specify that, not say merely, "The result was delete." and refuse to comment [5] when queried politely as to the rationale for his decision. What I am seeking here is a clarification of the guidelines for deletion, ie that if consensus is less than say 60%, then further rationale should be given in the comments by the closing admin.--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 15 contains three relevant requests, all were closed without clear consensus as per simple numbers and no rationale was provided by the (same) closing admin. I am more than happy to accept that the arguments are important, but then the weight placed on those arguments has to be articulated in the decision.--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is no policy or guideline that says that an admin must specify her reasons for closing an AfD the way she closes it. Many of us do so out of courtesy when it's not obvious, but we are not required to. If you'd like to introduce such a policy, you need to do so on a community-wide level; there's no point in complaining here. Chick Bowen 04:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

However, it is a good idea to provide something more than "the result of the discussion was", not least because it prevents discussions like this one from occurring in the first place. Remember the adage about an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure. Uncle G 03:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The deletion guideline for admins states quite clearly rough concensus should be achieved - closing AfD is not on the whim of an admin. Rough concensus is a numerical figure unless there are other factors taken into account - that figure has been expressed previously as 75% for AfD or at least in the range of 60-80%. I think admins are accountable beyond mere courtesy to explain their decisions when they are not obvious as per the guidelines -ie when they are ignoring the numbers and considering the weight of arguments. Is that not a shared view? That is the issue I am exploring here - not so much making a complaint. My complaint has been made at DRV where it belonged.--Golden Wattle ^talk 04:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but I don't share it. Consensus is never numerical. Someone making a nonsensical argument will always be ignored, no matter what, whether they agree with the consensus or not, whether I happen to mention it in the closing message or not. Chick Bowen 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean that there is no accountability in AfD ? The closing admin can do as he pleases and need not explain why he did it ? Tintin 05:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about no-accountability? There is WP:DRV for deletion review. The process is not perfect, but it is not incomplete either. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Closing an AFD (or other) discussion often does require a significant amount of judgement, and numerical vote counting is certainly not required and is in fact discouraged. However, I do agree that the closing admin should explain his decisions, especially if queried. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 05:43Z

I have no difficulty with reaching a conclusion that is not number driven, my difficulty is with the lack of explanation of that decision, including after querying. DRV does not incidentally provide the form of review necessary - the DRV debate for the article which drew my attention to the differing standard or lack of explanation (whichever I can't be sure since the closing admin won't reveal his reasoning, illustrates that DRV does not provide accountability, the closing admin hasn't contributed his raationale there and it is a review but not of the decision making because it can't because the rationale for the decision has not been provided (maniacal laugh). Some of that debate focuses on the issue that consensus isn't about numbers. Wikipedia:Consensus is policy and does actually mention numbers - therefore to ignore the numbers, surely you have to explain yourself.--Golden Wattle ^talk 09:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't push the "WP:Consensus lists numerical thresholds" point; it won't help you because anyone that has experience with AFD discussions knows that !vote percentages often don't mean anything (much more so than at RFA), and in fact hurts your cause because it's too easy to refute. I think your main concern here is the lack of explanation when asked. DRV may be the right forum in theory, but in practice, I have often seen participants of DRV say "keep deleted" if they agree with deletion, without considering whether proper procedure was followed. Refusal to explain admin actions is really a conduct issue and the forum for that would be WP:RFC. However, if this is an isolated incident, I would let it go, since admins do have discretion in closing AFD discussions. Bring it up at RFC if objectionable conduct persists. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 21:07Z

Yeesh, what is it with this 'we do not have to explain' kick lately? First people claiming that they can just say 'BLP' and not have to explain what they thought was 'controversial' and now this. Yes, you have to explain. Always. It's called 'collaboration 101'... or Wikipedia:Etiquette if you prefer the official site guideline. If the reason isn't obvious (as in... if someone asks what it is) then yes, you need to explain it. People explaining themselves is a fundamental courtesy without which Wikipedia couldn't function at all. --CBD 12:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Now subject of an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (2nd RfC)--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been meaning to try this for a while. I've created what should be an index to the archives of this page: User:BenAveling/admin index. If people think it's useful, I can probably fashion it into a bot. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks great (except for the encoding problems). For questions such as "When was the ban of Someuser discussed", it should be very useful. Kusma (討論) 11:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Somethings going odd in the initial download, but I'm not sure what. I guess it's do to with the character set being used. I'll have a go at fixing that tomorrow. The links should still work, even if they look a bit odd. Any other problems anyone can see? Ben Aveling 11:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No problems that I can see. But man. We need to get you bored more often! :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If this is to be useful, we really need to start renaming threads with useful descriptive headings referring to the exact page or user under discussion. I've just renamed this thread - and I suggest we encourage people to rename threads with specific titles from here on in.--Doc^g 13:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Still banging my head against the long characters. And there's one or two cases where the redirect gets slightly confused, it hits the right archive, but not the right section in it. (Which may be a wikimedia bug in how multiple spaces in headings get handled under some, but not all, circumstances.) Anyway, I'll have to redo it when/if I work out how to handle long characters better, but I think it broadly works. Is it useful enough as is to move to, say, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/archive index and link from somewhere? If so, I'll do the same thing for ANI as well. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've moved User:BenAveling/admin index to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives and linked to them from Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox and Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox all. I'll now generate User:BenAveling/AdminIncident index and User:BenAveling/Admin3RR index. If everything looks OK to everyone, I'll move and add them as well. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This could be a useful thing elsewhere. There was a recent discussion at WT:RFAR about rejected cases not being archived or listed somewhere. This sort of index would help in locating these if the TOC from the page history of WP:RFAR could be scanned like this. NoSeptember 09:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Reading the history is no problem, but there would need to be something specific for the script to look for. It's not obvious what. What would help would be if we changed the template so that instead of:

1. (cur) (last) 02:20, 5 February 2007 Paul August (Talk | contribs) (→Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/0) - Decline)
2. (cur) (last) 02:19, 5 February 2007 Paul August (Talk | contribs) (→Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/1/0/0) - Accept)

We had something more like:

1. (cur) (last) 19:02, 5 February 2007 Barney Rubble (Talk | contribs) (→Arbitrators' opinion on hearing 'Fred vs Wilma' (4/1/0/0) - Accept)

Without something like that, it's hard to know what to look for. I guess it would be possible to say something like here is the first and last times that an edit was made to a section with this name, but I'm not sure how useful that would be? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking more in terms of the bot looking at one version of the page for each day, and picking up the case names from the headers, just to show what cases were open at that moment. Then the scanned headers could be alphabetized with a link to the version it came from. It would miss the exact moment the case was removed from the page, but would make it easier to find cases nonetheless. If someone doesn't remember the date that a case was filed, just having the date is good; as is being able to check the index to see if a user or an article has been the subject of a proposed case before. NoSeptember 13:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that could work. Recovering the full history will mean at least couple of hundred lookups but it won't have to be done often. Once that's done, it might be useful to use binary split to find the very last version of each case, but first things first. Good idea. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the Arbitration Committee Clerks and helpers could probably assist in compiling whatever index or information was required, especially if the arbitrators endorsed the idea. Doing it in a way that doesn't require major reconfiguration of the entire RfAr page would certainly make it easier. Newyorkbrad 01:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Who'd have thought that a short, innocuous essay on measures by which Wikipedia could be considered to be failing would cause so much ill feeling? First people tried to re-write it so that it said Wikipedia was succeeding. I got blocked for trying to prevent them from doing that. Then the bowdlerised version got moved to my user space while I was blocked. Now User:JzG has deleted the link from the original location to the present location. Not only that but he's also protected it to prevent recreation.

Given that the essay was linked from slashdot, it seems not unreasonable to provide a redirect so that people wanting to see what was written can do so. In addition, JzG has stated that cross-namespace redirects must be deleted. However, WP:RfD clearly states that 'a cross-space redirect out of article space' is deletable, not just any redirect that an admin decides they don't like.

Thoughts, anyone? Worldtraveller 23:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you were blocked for three-revert rule for this edit war [6][7][8][9][10]

That said, I believe the redirect should be left there so people can find the essay. While there were issues with ownership of the essay when it was in the namespace, it is now in user space. There are also a lot of people coming to this essay from outside WP. Will others support restoring the redirect?--Alabamaboy 23:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why Wikipedia needs to host demolition job essays on itself. We're not a soapbox. There's plenty other sites that will only to happily host this for you. Plus, essays in project space are actually improperly so called, they are corporate works that are open to ammendment. So people are entitled to change it to whatever. So, even if it was allowed, it will not be the essay slashdot featured - but something else. If you want a monographed essay, it needs either to be in userspace or off-wiki.--Doc^g 00:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted WP:FAIL and Wikipedia:The sky is falling, redirects to the essay. I would suggest moving the essay to Meta and creating a soft redirect there, but I am not sure if the essay would stay in Meta for longer than here. Redirects to nowhere are not useful, being them in the main namespace or in the Wikipedia one. -- ReyBrujo 00:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

So, Doc, you actually think that Wikipedia editors should not be allowed to point out potential failings of Wikipedia? Worldtraveller 00:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The title alone seems to be pushing a point of view that is far from proven. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• This article and this section are patent trolling. I guess it worked since I'm responding, but still. Please don't feed the trolls. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• You hit the nail on the head.--Doc^g 00:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

  Really? It seems like intelligent constructive criticism to me. What am I missing? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Worldtraveller has done tremendous good for Wikipedia, with all his featured article writing and other efforts. His input and thoughts should be welcome, even if they are critical. We should be able to accept criticism and have discussions on how to make Wikipedia better. I think the focus on where the essay should be detracts from more constructive discussion. I'm also not interested so much on specific metrics used to judge whether an article is "good" or whatever. My main concern is about the rise in (seemingly so) in vandalism, tendentious editing, harassment, and other things that (1) make the editing environment less comfortable (2) less productive, as I'm increasingly sidetracked to deal with administrative tasks and maintaining articles. If we can find some ways to improve the situation, so that editors can be more comfortable and productive for long-time users as well as newbies. The way that Worldtraveller has been treated is very bothersome to me and poisons the well. I'm really in no mood to edit and work on articles. It's disheartening. --Aude (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The reaction to this article probably did more to prove Worldtraveller's point than an evening of RC patrol would have done. On a good day, I may have a total of an hour to work on WP. Most of that time is taken up checking my watchlist and reverting stupid edits in those articles - and not a one of the articles on my watchlist is anywhere near as good as the ones Worldtraveller is associated with. Risker 00:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I read this when it was first linked from Slashdot, and I'm surprised to see so much angst about it. It seemed like a reasonable examination of some things the principle writer was interested in, and it just didn't seem all that controversial. I don't remember seeing anything I haven't heard others say. It seems like a more useful response would be to let the guy have his say, and then write and link to an essay of your own, Why Wikipedia is Succeeding Brilliantly. Maybe I'm missing the point. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

From User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles:

7. Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

Jimbo goes on to explain that we're not talking about unconstructive bitching, but thoughtfully presented critique. I guess readers can decide for themselves whether Worldtraveller's points are constructive or not. I found the essay an interesting read, although I don't agree with everything in it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hence my earlier point about keeping the redirect to the essay. Will others support this?--Alabamaboy 00:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No. This is not about respecting or not respecting Worldtraveller's grievances (I respect them just fine, I'm in discussion rigt now with WT about this). It's about WP:OWN, pure and simple. The essay made several salient points that were well worth making, but it had some issues that others wanted to correct. That's how Wikipedia works. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Rarely I do anything controversial, but for the sake of readers following bookmarks and links to this page (to find the essay) the redirect page needs to stay. I have restored it, and if anything this needs to follow process and go to AFD. Please quit edit warring over what IMHO are petty details and wikilawyering. --Aude (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, this specific link is bookmarked 26 times on del.icio.us For a page that has only been around a few days, that's a lot. Surely there are scores of other links and bookmarks that people have out there. --Aude (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the sort of analysis we should be encouraging. It seems well researched, accurate and thoughtful, and can only lead to an improvement in the project. Self-criticism is vital. Tyrenius 06:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is dumb. Regardless of the merits or flaws of the essay itself, it has been widely read, linked, and discussed; bickering about what namespace it belongs in and where the redirect should go is bureaucratic and lame. There isn't an eyeroll big enough for the argument that we should let masses of slashdotters' bookmarks go dead because of an obscure internal policy that doesn't even really apply here. Opabinia regalis 07:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I missed out here, but wasn't part of the original problem that the original author wanted to own the essay in question? If so then the redirect would just seem to be a way for him to bypass that need by keeping it in userspace, whilst providing the "benefit" of an "official" url. The brief statement and valid link which is there at the moment looks like it sidesteps the issue of broken bookmarks, but I guess this should ultimately go. --pgk 08:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Anybody who is more concerned with the essay than with the reaction to it is missing the big picture. We should encourage this type of analysis and critique. The ability to look critically at the project is the exact thing that is needed if the title of the essay is to be proved false. Frankly, I think the essay should be moved back to project space and all the redirects restored. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing was created as an essay. It was linked from Slashdot. It contained numerous points that were contested. The originator was unwilling to allow any edits to it, resulting in a lame edit war. It was userfied. I deleted the redirect as a cross-namespace redirect and because you don't get to take your ball home if someone points out you're getting the rules wrong. I suggest it stays that way. We really do not need people setting up essays, flatly refusing to allow them to be edited,. getting them on Slashdot, and then asserting ownership (by whatever means). Links back to the essay from Project space give all the coverage and publicity but without the "owner" allowing the Wikipedia community to challenge the assertions in any way, which is fundamentally against the Wikipedia ethos. Fundamentally against. Either it's an essay in project space and gets edited mercilessly to fix the problems which numeorus editors pointed out with is basis, or it is a user page in user space. WP:NOT MySpace, you don't get to have your say as the only authoritative version. You just don't. This has nothign to do with not allowing analysuis and critique, the critique was fine as long as other editors were allowed ot give their context, it's all about saying "This is my essay that Slashdotters see, and nobody else can correct it".

For the record I am perfectly happy to have the edited essay back at that site, or nothing, but pointing everybody back to an essay WP:OWNed by a particular editor is simply not right. It wold, as far as I can tell, be unprecedented to allow a user to override the "edited mercilessly" clause in this way. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Allow it to remain in user space. We cannot censor users for criticising Wikipedia, but they cannot claim ownership over Wikipedia space. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to say that actually I thought it was a perfectly legitimate essay, and the edited version was shaping up reasonably well, the problem is not that it criticises Wikipedia but that the editor asserts ownership. If someone wants to poke a stick at Wikipedia without it being in any way challenged for accuracy or interpretation, they need to do it on someone else's servers, is all. Combining high traffic with WP:OWN is a very bad idea. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

allowing the Wikipedia community to challenge the assertions
I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of an essay. An essay is to present a point of view. An essay doesn't need to and in fact really shouldn't try to present all points of view. I haven't looked at the history, but if the attempts to challenge the assertions were for the purpose of trying to correct factual errors, then you have a point. If the purpose of the challenges was to present an alternate point of view, then you don't. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The 'ownership' stuff is bullshit. Everyone's happy to trumpet all this 'this is a wiki, anyone can change anything', but you all implicitly assume that User:WillowW's altering of the essay so that it concluded that Wikipedia is succeeding was backed by Consensus. You seem to not get that obviously, the only consensus view is that 'Wikipedia might have problems and it might not', and altering an essay so it says that is hardly useful work. Some rather more sensible people were challenging the assertions of the essay, not by removing all critical material, but by discussing on the talk page. That's really quite a useful thing. JzG appears to not want any discussion of a critical position to happen.

If someone edits evolution so that it's actually all about creationism, and someone else repeatedly reverts back, are they asserting ownership? Worldtraveller 10:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Groan. Wikidrama galore! Actually, ownership issues apart, it was good to see someone finally raise the point of the infuriating lack of importance that we attach to quality articles, and our wrongheaded and somewhat rabid fondness for quantity over quality. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is useful. But if he keeps on reverting other users' edits, it's an WP:OWN issue. We are not against censoring him. Just that Wikipedia space should not redirect to his userspace. WP:OWN and high-traffic are a lethal concoction. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe not lethal, but certainly against the principles of the project. The best result is obviously to have the essay back in project space and edited by those who want to extend or clarify it. As far as I can tell the only person who has a serious problem with that is Worldtraveller. Pride in one's writing is one thing, WP:OWN is another. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Why exactly should there not be a link from where the essay was to where it is now? Do you understand that there was not a redirect, but just a link? Do you understand that changing an essay so it says entirely the opposite of what it said originally, without getting any consensus for the change, is disruptive, and that reverting disruptive changes has nothing to do with the 'ownership' you're bleating on and on about? Worldtraveller 12:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't have "official" versions. Maybe if we did the degradation of featured articles which you and others identify would be less of a problem. But rightly or wrongly we don't have that. Here's a possible solution: somewhere around there is a Slashdotted template, which I think allows for diff-linking the version they linked, to go on Talk. Why not subst {{High traffic}} on Talk and add the diff link? Guy (Help!) 17:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're under the impression that I added the link to the older version. That was not the case. I've been a bit mystified about how you kept on reverting it quoting WP:OWN - I see your mistake now. Worldtraveller 17:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly believe Guy is wiki-lawyering to find any available excuse to cover from public view a widely publicized analysis of the state of Wikipedia. The soft redirect page linked to the original essay, as well as the rebuttal; how more balanced could the situation be? The talk page for the original article contains a wide variety of extremely useful discussion about the current issues with the Wikipedia model and what should be done to fix them. The censoring of the article and its associated discussion is intolerable, and if it continues it clearly indicates that wikipedia has already failed and it's community has come under the control of a totalitarian regime. (Caniago 13:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC))

This is so disgusting that JzG is wikilawyering over the redirect page. Not only was the essay by Worldtraveller linked there, but so were several other opposing and "rebuttal" essays. Honestly, I have no clue where those rebuttal essays are now and can't find 'em. You are depriving me to be able to read those, in addition to scores of people coming in from bookmarks and external links into Wikipedia from reading the essay by Worldtraveller. The page should not be unilaterally deleted. If anything, this needs to go to WP:AFD. --Aude (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand Guy's point about ownership. I'm not saying that's what happened, because I wasn't involved in the editing, but it is a legitimate concern. I don't think Guy is wikilawyering or trying to cover up anything. At the same time, I don't expect essays to be individually balanced, but to balance out in the aggregate by other essays from other points of view. Everyone can edit it, of course, but rather than completely change the direction of the essay it would be better to write another essay elsewhere. I mean I could in theory go edit Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man to be instead about Superman's obligation to save the world, but I would do better to write about that under a different title. I thought the disambiguation page was useful. Would linking to a particular version of the essay be helpful? Restore the page, and add a note at the top, "This version [link] was linked from Slashdot on Wednesday" or something? Of course someone could host it off-site, but I'm not sure that's the best outcome for Wikipedia. Let me say too that for someone from outside going to read about how 'Wikipedia is failing', it looks bad to get This page has been deleted, and protected to prevent re-creation. I don't think that's the best option for the long term. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping Guy or anyone else from forking the essay by Worldtraveller and creating a version they think is "right". I would indeed like to read responses to Worldtraveller's essay and other viewpoints. Right now, all those links are gone and denied to me and outside readers coming in. --Aude (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom, thanks - and don't get me wrong, I don't think the essay has to be balanced or anything, we're pretty clear about essays being held to a lower standard of neutrality than other content, I just don't see how we can allow one editor to assert absolute ownership. Aude, I don't want to fork it, I want the original back and being edited. If Worldtraveller is content to allow the thing to be edited, and accept that some of the original critiques may be contextualised or explained, then I have no problem at all. For me, the best result is to have the essay back in project space and being edited. Sure, from time to time someone might "subvert" it, but we can deal with that in the usual way. It's not like we've never been there before. This is absolutely not about Wikilawyering, it's about WP:OWN and WP:SOAP and WP:NOT a free webhost and a whole lot of other things that get violated as soon as we allow people to start insisting on their version of something. It's a route down which I think many of us would rather not start. So: let's have the essay back and editable (and edited), by all means. Anyone who wants to do that is more than welcome. But please please let's not have any more of this disgruntled "here's the version I think was right" stuff, it's not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Guy (Help!) 13:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If returned, I think it is best in his userspace, but it can still be edited by anyone, userspace is not that different. The first edit I would make is to the title, it is pushing a POV that is not proven or generally accepted here. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Title is not especially important, it's a critique and the fact that we still have 1.6 million articles and are a top-ten website (more or less) says everything you need to know to balance it out. We all know that mathematically speaking bumble bees can't fly, and it's not like this is the first time we've been told Wikipedia can't possibly work is it? Guy (Help!) 14:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay; can we restore the essay and edit it normally? My first edit would be to add a link to the version that people saw from Slashdot, and any See also links that aren't already there. I'd like to hear from Sir Nicholas before I undo his protection, but I'd like to have something informative up again as soon as we can. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, no problem whatsoever with that, I've just done it, but linking to the Slashdotted version? No thanks. This is a Wiki, if something is broken we fix it without pointing to the broken version. Not that there's a lot broken about this, but we don't need to have ownership issues and silly "yeah, but I said it better" disputes. Just edit the thing, and if it gets subverted then some of us who agree with the original can edit it back. Just like we usually do. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, if slashdot wants the old one they can go through google cache or history, nobody gets to choose the POV displayed here. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. And I think there are enough admins who are sympathetic to the spirit of the thing that we can be reasonably sure it won't get subverted again, or if it does, not for long. Christ, that was like pulling teeth! I really thought it was a blindingly obvious call, but apparently not. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have suggested that the name be changed to "How Wikipedia can be better". That essay is simply making up criteria for success and applying it, nowhere in the mandate of Wikipedia are any of his criticisms mentioned. I could say the Apollo mission failed because they didn't go to Mars, but it carries no weight because that was not their mandate for success. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think that the essay as it stands should redirect to a copy of the original in userspace. Obviously, nothing is owned on Wikipedia, but an essay in userspace should not be altered by other users. After all, because the essay is a part of the user's domain, it would be assumed that the content has been written by that user (unless it's a talk page, obviously, or a misc placeholder page). .V. _[Talk|Email] 14:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The user's domain? Have you read WP:OWN? Essays in userspace are no more owned than essays in Wikipedia space. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, however, if an essay is edited in a userspace, the outside editor should mark his changes clearly on the essay (unless it fits consensus.) Not doing so would be akin to changing someone's "About Me" section; while nobody owns that section, it's still bad form to misrepresent someone's work... and chances are, things in userspace are likely to be attributed to the user unless explicitly said otherwise. .V. _[Talk|Email] 11:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent essay! Please maintain it carefully. People should be careful not to nerf it either. Instead, try to figure out ways to fix issues (unless you're sure it's a feature, not a bug, if so, argue so). Use page as checklist! Strike items that you fix ;-) . --Kim Bruning 15:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC) What, that's not so easy, you say? ;-)

• Keep The essay does point out some failings of Wikipedia. I am going to improve the essay quality when I get time, because I see so many people have contributed and made references for the essay Wikipedia is NOT failing. --Parker007 17:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC) One of the most pathetic essays ever written. They even removed my 2 cents from the essay. Just Delete It. --Parker007 01:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been dealing with Matrix17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) on and off for a week or so now. He is creating quite a bit of content that isn't of very good quality and he seems to have something of a problem with formatting his articles, as well as what constitutes acceptable external links and sources for a biographical article. It is kind of hard to tell from the way he archived his talk page, but several editors have brought this up to him and his [[11]] would appear to be that he resents being told to do things the right way (I'm not sure what the blocking thing is about; other than telling him he would be blocked if I saw him adding unsourced rumors to WP:BLP again, he's never been blocked... just warned). Despite the fact that he's been told some basic markup, this makes me think that he just expects others to follow him around and clean up the articles he creates. To me that is unacceptable. I'm not trying to be hard on this guy, and at this point he is starting to wear out the patience of the editors who have come in contact with him. Any ideas here? I don't think anyone wants to follow him arond wikifying his articles until the end of time. At this point I'm not sure anything I say to him is going to have much of an effect because I suspect he thinks I "have it out for him". Anyone had a successful approach to getting an editor to start contributing per policies and guidelines?--Isotope23 00:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've placed a vandalism warning on his talk page for a specific edit of his. I've also told him to not remove the warning b/c that is also vandalism.--Alabamaboy 00:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that I don't think the Censure edit was meant to be vandalism, he just doesn't seem to understand the concept of what a good sourced edit is as opposed to opinion or rumor, even after the concept has been explained to him. Warnings are probably not going to do a lot of good given his response to every previous interaction... that is why I'm fishing for another approach here. He's obviously run into a similar problem at se.wikipedia.--Isotope23 03:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of warnings is not vandalism. Many people get this misconception due to old obsoleted discussions and templates. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, didn't know removal of warnings was no longer considered vandalism. Can you provide me a link to that change so I'll have it for future reference. Anyway, while I agree most of Matrix17's edits were not vandalism, the Censure edit seemed to be clear cut vandalism, while attempting to speedy delete black people was borderline vandalism. I do agree, though, that the large issue with this user isn't about vandalism but about making properly sourced edits.--Alabamaboy 15:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the diff of the removal. I think people were abusing the warning templates for established users and it became a vicious cycle as part of edit wars. But editors are allowed to remove warnings. --Tbeatty 18:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Alabamaboy 22:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any attempt from Matrix17's part to even try to align himself with how articles are written, sourced and formatted. I've cleaned up quite a bit of his articles and have seen some improvement initially. But now we're back to him not caring at all when others corrects his submissions or try to contact him on his talk page. His Censure-article addition found itself to Talk:Wikipedia instead and he has been blocked two or three (Block log on sv-wp) times from the Swedish Wikipedia for basically the same behavior he has shown here, albeit he has toned down some of his attitude.

We can't, after all, hold his hands for all future, so someone should really point out to him how contributions to Wikipedia are made and how a user should behave towards his fellow wikipedians. --Strangnet 00:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Straw_poll needs closing, new opinions are decreasing and repetition of old opinions are increasing. I was rather involved, so I cannot, and should not, close it myself.

Please, remember not to vote count, but to take into account the level of reason and compatibility with policy and guidelines(such as WP:CREEP, WP:OWN, WP:USER, and WP:NOT) each opinion carries. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no need to close this - it is an ongoing discussion. What would a 'result' prove but lack of consensus? Polls are very evil like that.--Doc^g 16:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, using a poll the decide a debate is unwise, evil I am not so sure about, however, using a poll, and the surrounding discussion, to help determine a consensus is just fine. A subtle point, but an important one. As for what a result would prove, we are waiting on this discussion to decide if a policy change should be made. I don't see a lack of consensus, perhaps by raw counting, but not if you consider the arguments. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Polls aren't evil, they're just not a substitute for discussion and one thing for sure is that the folks there are leaving comments in their !votes and others are responding accordingly. (→Netscott) 16:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well said, there have been arguments, and responses and even agreement. This is not an example of a poll, this is an example of a discussion assisted by a poll. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. Well, if every single admin has participated in the (crazy and unnecessary) debate, I would be happy to close it. It would be my pleasure, in fact :P. Yuser31415 19:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If every single admin has participated, then perhaps the debate is not crazy and unnecessary. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why so many people wished to poll over such a small issue that should have been resolved in about three statements. Oh well ... Yuser31415 23:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yep, this particular poll was definitely evil. >Radiant< 10:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that a solution has been worked out, it seems logical to close that poll assisted discussion out. (→Netscott) 10:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather afraid that I need to give an apology to all concerned that surrounds myself sending a whole raft of messages to people who had already contributed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia. For those who aren't aware of it, I was pretty annoyed that a very clear AFD had already been held and a clear consensus to keep the article was made. The article was kept. However, it was then (IMO, pretty reasonably) moved to the Wikipedia namespace. However, it was then soon added to MFD. This really got on my goat (as has other similar AFDs) as I really saw this as deleting the article through stealth. I argued quite strenuously against those who wanted it deleted and who referred to things like WP:ILIKEIT, etc. as I felt that this was unfair and missing the point. I don't apologise for that, as I didn't personally attack anyone, though I did message on person to ask a question and they found this to be somewhat confrontational.

However, where I did go wrong was to send a message to all the people who added a keep to the discussion informing them of the new MFD. I also erred in calling it a "vote". Several people found this to be unacceptable, and yes, it was. After reflecting on my actions for some time, I would therefore like to apologise to the community at large for violating WP:CAMPAIGN. It was wrong to do, and I should have known better. Should anyone wish to apply some sort of decision against me, I would appreciate it if they could first take it through ArbCom. I will certainly not dispute the facts, and in fact I will take any punishment that they deem necessary without protest.

I should note that this isn't a particularly easy thing for me to admit to, as I really felt at the time that I had no recourse but to send messages to these people. Something I now see wasn't particularly wise. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for owning up. I know, AfDs can be annoying sometimes. One learns from mistakes, and I'm sure you will learn from this one. Cheers :P Yuser31415 06:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Remember that two wrongs don't make a cat. That said, best to move on, punishment-free, even! El_C 10:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Feh, no big deal. Make sure you notify the delete !voters as well. For punishment, slap yourself with this WP:TROUT :o) Guy (Help!) 22:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe I'm being stalked by a user who is possibly using his IP account to avoid being blocked. I have apparently got on the bad side of User:Em0909153, when I noticed he/she was uploading a lot of copyrighted images of baseball players that were destined to be deleted as fair use images, and advised him on multiple occasions to stop uploading non-free images.

After a couple of user talk exchanges, I received this message from 24.184.177.78, titled "Loser alert". I assumed it was the same user, so I left a message at User talk:Em0909153 and got neither a denial or admission, but this response.

I gave up on trying to communicate with the user and decided to simply stay out of the way. But then, Em0909153 reverted my edits twice at Don Shula, and possibly again with the IP the third time ([12]), although I requested that the change be discussed in Talk. The IP account reverted another one of my edits ([13]) without giving a reason.

I have no doubt that the IP address belongs to the user, especially with the image vandalism from the IP address, using an image by Em0909153 specifically for vandalism.

What can I do to resolve the situation? Trying to communicate with Em0909153 seems hopeless. --Mosmof 07:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a notice on Em0909153's talkpage, to make him aware of your post here and ask him to remain civil. As for the IP and the account being the same user, that's too obvious to bother CheckUser with, considering the links you post and the IP's general contributions. This pair of edits alone is enough to convince me. Bishonen | talk 11:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. The flaming isn't that big a deal to me - I just don't want the user reverting my changes blindly, just because he's got a grudge. --Mosmof 21:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Chill77 (talk · contribs) is relatively new user who seems to be completely incapable of understanding what Wikipedia is. He started by repeatedly adding unconfirmed characters to Naruto Shippūden: Gekitou Ninja Taisen EX without any sources to prove it, and despite repeated warnings not to do this without sources, he continues to do so. His comments when creating the redundant article Sasuke Uchiha (Naruto) seems to indicate he thinks the site is some kind of fansite or forum where he can list his opinion and wishes about a ficitonal series. He doesn't respond to any messages on his talk page, and his continued editing after every time I warn him show he's either ignoring them or not understanding them. My patience with this user is down to nothing; can somebody please deal with this user and get him to understand that his edits are unconstructive and/or to get him to read the site's policies and rules? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-create3}} warning issued. If he keeps it up, next stop WP:AIV. Sandstein 19:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is about a non-notable engineer, and I have reasonable suspicion that the article was created by this individual, despite his claims to the opposite. I would appreciate if an administrator would look into the matter, and delete the article if he or she agrees. --Nevhood 19:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedied as nn-bio and deleted. --Ragib 19:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Nevhood 19:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Walter Humala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• commons:Walter Humala (talk • contribs • page moves • block log) Local: User:Walter Humala

Random discussions on IRC brought User:Walter Humala/Best sig2 to my attention. I went to put this up at MFD, as I was fairly certain that Walter Humala had been indefinitely blocked (I remember being part of the discussion). However, it turns out that he was unblocked, and I went on to make a batch MFD for pretty much anything in his userspace. This user was blocked for disruption in the past, and the bulk of his contributions appear to still be disruptive, especially flooding the servers with his creations and forked templates which solely insert "emperor" instead of "user". This user has even made his user page (and contributions) on the commons just as bad, including hosting his "Map of the Wikiempire" at the commons (the only reason it wasn't deleted there [until recently] was because he was not notified of its listing at the commons' IFD). While a community ban should probably be listed at WP:CN, the fact is that the administration should figure out some way to deal with his contributions before the community does.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is clearly a non-notable article on a RuneScape clan, but the author is contesting the speedy deletion. Would an administrator please look into the issue? Thanks. --Nevhood 23:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted it as a clear "non-notable group" article. Joyous! | Talk 23:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A heads-up for you all: I've nominated Pallywood for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pallywood). It's a neologism invented by pro-Israeli bloggers during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, along with "Fauxtography" and "Hizbollywood" - both were deleted months ago as original research sourced from non-reliable sources, as well as violating WP:NEO, not to mention duplicating existing articles. Unfortunately I suspect that this will turn out to be quite a controversial AfD, as people are already voting on the basis of politics rather than policy. Administrators may wish to keep an eye on it - in a sane world it should be an open-and-shut case but since it involves Middle Eastern politics, it's not going to be quite so simple... -- ChrisO 01:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Somethingoranother added WP:OR to the England article in the military sectionwhen this was removed diffhe then used a sock to remove the miliarty section from the Scotland article diff --Barry talk 02:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand how some users can block information about MegaMeeting.com in the Video Conference page. These are simple links that talk about the industry and provide information. There are more than 4 other companies that are have links back to their respective websites. Please advise me on how they decide what stays. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jasonrrichmond (talk • contribs) 04:00, February 19, 2007 (UTC)

• Well, it looks like several people have suggested on your talk page that you have a look at the Wikipedia external links guidelines. You might want to take them up on their suggestion. -- MarcoTolo 05:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure how this kind of stuff is supposed to go, but I believe that I have discovered a sock puppet (User:Pillhouse) of User:The UPN Vandal. He has made a lot of vandalism edits to The Simpsons Movie page.

Proof that this user is a sock puppet of the UPN Vandal: this is the edit made on the talk page of the Simpsons Movie. Compare this with edits of known socks: [14], [15] and [16].

This user has also created a dozen false soundtrack pages. The administrator who normally deals with that guy isn't on right now, and it would be nice to stop him before he creates another page. Thanks for the time, Scorpion 04:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

See also #5 above ('Libel risk on Paul Staines'). User:Pogsurf is repeatedly adding libellous content back to the page. This user is the same user that added the libels anonymously (as User:62.136.238.65), as reported above. I have reverted a few times, but he is very rude and abusive (see his contributions), so his attacks are likely to continue. Can someone revert whatever his latest edits are, if applicable at the time, and protect the page. Also the comments above about purging the libels from wikipedia still stand.

Thanks Nssdfdsfds 15:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Springfield Isotopes had an AfD that ended on February 15, 2007, the result of which was keep. User:Eluchil404, the closing admin, left a note at the talk page, noting that "Anyone interested in merging or redirecting should first seek consensus on this talk page." User:Scorpion0422, who had nominated the article for deletion, has now since redirected the article three times, without discussion at either the talk page or his user page. Please advise; this user, in my opinion, seems to have a tendency to disregard community consensus. --Maxamegalon2000 17:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've left him a note, but this isn't an administrative issue. Consider using the dispute resolution procedure next time, e.g. WP:3O. Sandstein 19:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I wasn't sure where to go with it. --Maxamegalon2000 19:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

We reached a consensus at the Simpsons WikiProject that the page should be gone. It should be noted that the above user has been shadowing me for no reason whatsoever. -- Scorpion 00:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No comment on the "shadowing" part, I haven't looked into that, but the consensus that the page should be gone wasn't really impressive (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons/Archive4, only three people seem to agree on this, two of them being the nominator of the AfD and a contributor to it), and doesn't really matter, as a Project doesn't WP:OWN a page, and even if a clear consensus would have been reached, it would not overrule the AfD. Also, such a discussion should be held or at least noted at the talk page of the article under scrutiny. To redirect a page immediately after an AfD resulted in a rather clear keep seems like a way to get what you want one way or the other. The fact that you redirected it to two different pages indicates that even you feel that there is not one obvious redirect as well, but that is a minor point. If there is a good merge candidate, discuss it on the article talk page, and proceed if there is consensus for that: but please stop redirecting the article. Fram 10:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi chaps, sorry to bother you. User:Semperkatolica moved my talk and user pages and I have no idea what to do to get them back. I've been accused of being a "phony editor/user", which a look at my history will reveal to be a false charge. InfernoXV 04:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed and restored. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Semperkatolica has now placed an {{Autobiography}} tag on the Jimmy Akin page with no discussion as to why he feels that may be the case. Corvus cornix 19:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been a lot of disruption going on tonight because of my block of and user talk protection of 203.87.64.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). After I made his user page into an archive, I discussed why I was currently cross with him, after which it turned out he posted on some blog of users who attack Wikipedia. This led to me blocking several IPs tonight thinking they were open proxies. Now, what the hell happens now?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've alerted the LGBT WikiProject that we can probably expect some disruption over the next few days. Gor, between him and Nkras, talk about persecuted... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think WP:LGBT needs to be involved. It's just some sort of blog that we're going to have to either identify and shut down for disrupting Wiki.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking that we get involved, more than this person began his campaign by edit warring on an LGBT person's article, so there's reason to suspect he may continue. In which case, we need to keep an eye out. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have recently noticed that there has been an increase in vandalbots, particularly in hours where vandalism is quite low on the Defcom scale (i.e. 4-5 scale) or at times where admins are not available (i.e. late at night in America or during work hours in America). For example, please see Pandora 45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Just want to keep you at alert. Is there anyway that bots can be made in order to quickly revert the pages that this vandal has made? HighBC, you have any suggestions? Real96 08:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This is actually the same sort of user that is mentioned in the above section, and I have merged them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The IP uses vandalbots? Please also see Tim_Ayeles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks! Real96 09:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's the IP. But it is the same vandalbot.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Tim Ayeles/monobook.js—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU#Disruptive site, well, it turns out that they're all one in the same.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Editor Insulator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has added and reverted to the Mel Gibson DUI incident a piece of original research that is essentially soapboxing based upon this video. In removing this from the article I have specified in my edit summaries the out of policy nature of his edits and after having been reverted a couple of times I explained more indepth how his edits don't correspond to policy to which he has responded while again reverting me. Would an uninvolved party take a look at this? Based upon what this user is saying in his response to my user talk to him, the solution to this will likely be as simple as reverting his last reintroduction of this material. Thanks. (→Netscott) 09:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree, reverted. Viridae^Talk 10:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Viridae. (→Netscott) 10:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Now we can delete it because Wikipedia is not Wikinews... Guy (Help!) 23:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice JzG, there's wasn't a consensus for such a notion. (→Netscott) 23:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Gads. Several pages with 57 links, just because a celebrity happens to be a dick? Oh well. Give it a year, and maybe people will have some perspective, and the lot can be merged back into Mel Gibson where it belongs. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 10:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

We frequently tell people things like, 'Wikipedia is not a travel guide', 'Wikipedia is not a game guide', 'Wikipedia is not a dictionary', 'Wikipedia is not a webspace provider', et cetera... usually just before we delete something that they have been working on. Needless to say this doesn't usually go over well. As such, I thought it would be nice if people could get out of the habit of saying, 'Wikipedia is not...' and instead say, 'Wikitravel accepts this kind of travel guide info', 'Wikibooks allows game guides like this', 'Wiktionary is the best place to put dictionary entries', et cetera. To that end I created the Wikipedia:Not Wikipedia page to start listing various places which ARE all the specific things which Wikipedia frequently is not. Please expand, correct, use as you see fit, et cetera. --CBD 15:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice idea... I like it. It might be a good idea to publicize this at village pump too. I agree we could be a lot friendlier if we were saying "WP:NOT a travel guide, but Wikitravel is and that might be a good place for your contributions."--Isotope23 16:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

(ec) That's a good idea for such a collection of where things can be posted, but I'm afraid that soon it will degenerate into either primarily just a listing of Wikimedia projects or into a place where everyone will be posting links for their own sites/ categories. Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic, though. As for telling people that their material isn't appropriate here, I usually prefer the more straightforward statement, saying that "your material isn't suitable here because Wikipedia isn't a [game guide, etc.], but for a list of alternatives see this page." - it gets the point across, while tacking on a reference to the page you just created. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea. One thought – and I'm just throwing this out here – would this be more effective if merged into WP:NOT? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but that's pretty long already. I did include it as a 'see also' at the end of WP:NOT. --CBD 19:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice page CBD :P. Yuser31415 19:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please make sure to double-check the entries on this page with the projects you are recommending. For instance, I'm not certain, but I think Wikibooks dumped their game guides a few months ago. FreplySpang 20:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed they did. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'll check, but they still have lots of things like wikibooks:StarCraft. --CBD 22:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

From looking here it seems like it's not a black-and-white issue. But it's probably worth discussing this with someone from the Wikibooks community to see whether this would be more of a burden than a benefit to them. FreplySpang 00:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please move Guqin literature to List of guqin literature. --Ideogram 18:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please move Guqin societies to List of guqin societies. --Ideogram 18:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please request moves at Wikipedia:Requested moves. FreplySpang 20:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Both have been done, but in the future you can use Wikipedia:Requested moves to request such moves. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Ideogram 21:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The article L.ron hubbard is an attack site and I have already labeled it for speedy deletion - my question is, after it is deleted, should I redirect to L. Ron Hubbard? Or should I do it immediately? --Nevhood 18:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No, just blank and redirect. No need to delete :P. Yuser31415 19:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you would be interested in looking at Special:Contributions/12.135.51.149. The user has been wandering around CAT:RFU, I believe. Yuser31415 23:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Wfresch redirected List of deceased professional wrestlers to a category, and since the category was not as comprehensive, I removed the redirect. However, lokking at the edit history, the page is blank, and I cannot restore the list. Can an admin take a look and see if there was a double redirect or an improper move in the history? MSJapan 01:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The original list was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deceased professional wrestlers. Hope that helps. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I had that page on my watchlist, and never saw the AfD template. Was it done properly? MSJapan 01:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The deleted edits show that the AfD template was present from February 13th until its deletion on February 18th. It's been recreated twice since then, and I've now listed it at WP:PT. Chick Bowen 06:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Java7837 is adding a whole bunch of cats to articles, where the article is already in a cat that is a subcat of the cats that he's adding. I've indicated this to him, but he's ignored me. My understanding that it is not good practice to include both sub- and super-cats in articles as it defeats the whole purpose of categorization. Regards -- Jeff3000 01:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• You are correct. I've dropped him a line. >Radiant< 12:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am looking through the history of something that used to include this, but I don't know what it means. Will someone please tell me? Thanks, Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 01:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Posted on your talkpage... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I am assuming you read Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 15#Template:Policy2, but it did not give much of a clue. Template:Policy2 was created in January 2006 before ParserFunctions such as #if: was fully implemented. It was basically the same as Template:Policy except it included a space to list a shortcut. But after ParserFunctions became in use, the optional parameter to list a shortcut was added to Template:Policy, making Template:Policy2 deprecated. Hope this helps. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you! : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 01:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Lilphil212 is apparently the subject of Phil mondiello, which has been deleted at AfD twice. Aside from the fact that he has posted the article for the third time, he removed my db-repost tag. I went to his talk page to give him a good faith note not to remove CSD tags, but I saw he had already received warnings for the same conduct. Not sure what the proper action is in such cases, but I thought it was worth mentioning here. -- Butseriouslyfolks 07:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, his sole edits are his autobiography.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Techies please help. The Community noticeboard is missing something vital. It ought to have a link to the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline and a specific statement in the introduction that community bans for disruption require a consensus of uninvolved editors. The board is getting stuff like this[17] that specifically goes against the key provision that got the disruptive editing guideline accepted. If this is tolerated then we set up a situation where good people could get railroaded out of the community. The header ought to explain that involved parties can comment and provide evidence and should disclose their involvement in the dispute. Durova^Charge! 18:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlayRadioPlay! is heading for a steep decline into the pit of doom, if it hasn't already. I'm hesitant to sprotect - for similar reasons to the main page FA protection debate, but admittedly slightly different (because it will deny the users the right of reply) - but I was wondering if you thought we could/should because their mass-silliness keep !voting is becoming disruptive (this is only 2 days worth!). One of the few "delete" !votes has been attacked by a mob, and that mob has turned around and !voted keep in ridiculous numbers. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 18:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Holy sockpuppets Batman! Well, if you got a ton of time on your hands, you could leave a message that if any more "meatpuppets" attack the page, you will protect; if not, you could just do it, and say, due to abuse, that any new users can contribute on the talk page. Could run a checkuser, but might get the duck test response... Part Deux 18:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's deleted. It fails A7. It was a good faith nom, but a little too much good faith nom. Any issues take to deletion review. Friday deleted it, mostly because I was closing the debarte before deleting it. Hiding Talk 19:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. Quite an impressive list of deleters, really. Can't argue that the deletion was unilateral :) Daniel.Bryant 19:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Yuser31415 20:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Martin Luther King Jr. helped people and he has a page. Why can't Dan? He has the right for freedom of speech and, if you delete this, you are suppressing his right. AlixTheEskimo 07:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)". Wow. Teke ^(talk) 20:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the power of Myspace. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible for an administrator here on Wikipedia to get the original source information for this image. It is the subject of a deletion request due to insufficient source and the description page indicates it has been moved here. See also commons:Image:YoungGould.jpg. Lcarsdata 20:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• left a note at the deletion debate, but all I can see in the history is "A young Glenn Gould circa 1944 with his Dog and Budgie, from the Ontario Archives {{PD}}". Hiding Talk 20:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is what I found:

"A young Glenn Gould circa 1944 with his Dog and Budgie, from the Ontario Archives {{PD}}

---

{{PUI}} Source seems to be http://ao.minisisinc.com/Webimages/I0002768.jpg
Information at http://ao.minisisinc.com/scripts/mwimain.dll/1354/2/6/1958?RECORD:

• Digital Image Number: I0002768.jpg
• Title: Glenn Gould as a child, at his piano
• Date: [ca. 1940]
• Place: Toronto (Ont.)
• Creator: Gordon W. Powley
• Format: Black and white negative
• Reference Code: C 5-1
• Item Reference Code: C 5-1-0-133-2

Since we now the creator, Gordon W. Powley, and know at least that he is not dead 70 years (he cannot have died in 1934, since the photo is of ca. 1940 or later), I don't think Public Domain applies.--AndreasPraefcke 13:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) "

Hope that helps. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Canadian copyright applies for 50 years, IIRC. If it were first published in Canada, that might allow it to be PD. Ral315 » 20:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is PD in Canada, but not in the United States. Therefore, we need more information about the copyright holder. Is it Archives Ontario? If so, what is their policy? If not, it is likely going to take a great deal of detective work to figure out who to contact. Jkelly 20:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression only the law of the country of provenance counted in such cases? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is unfortunately complicated. This image might be in the public domain in the U.S. if it was in the public domain in Canada January 1 1996 per the URAA, but we also need to know its publication history in the United States. See this chart for a handy guide. Jkelly 21:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure, but I think Fut is correct on that point. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I was the only contributor (and creator) and had it speedy deleted in a fit of annoyance... this doesn't really need to go through DRV, if someone could restore it I would be most grateful. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 22:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen this listed anywhere, so I thought I'd bring it up. Wikipedia is currently listed as a "passive Corporate sex offender" at Pervert-Justice.com, because of our current attitude to paedophiles. You can see it here. I personally find the fact that we had one of the most notorious paedophiles and a leader of the "childlove" movement actively editing our articles absolutely horrifying. Maybe we need to be more aggressive about blocking paedophiles? I mean, I think Clayboy (talk · contribs) is an acceptable editor, but someone like Rookiee is hardly going to be unbiased... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Update: They also have a essay on the subject here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That website is nothing but complete bullshit. "We've left Wikipedia in the 'passive' category because they still have not taken a clear and unambiguous stance disavowing pedophile advocates from editing 'encyclopedic' pedophile articles. There are still pedophile editors on Wikipedia but some in the extremely large organization do seem to wish to rid themselves of such persons who are harmful towards Wikimedia's interests." There will always be pedophiles out there and there's nothing we can do to completely rid the world of them. What really bothers me is that they talk about Wikipedia being a breeding grounds for pedophiles and yet say nothing about MySpace, one of the most talked about websites when it comes to pedophiles. What the hell happened there? // DecaimientoPoético 01:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it disturbing. Personally I feel that it conflicts with the goal of having a safe editing enviroment as seen by a particularily nasty episode that just wrapped up. — MichaelLinnear 01:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Cute, they include Livejournal but not Myspace. This justice truly is perverted. --Golbez 01:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this the group that hatemailed us into banning Rookiee for... something... when he hadn't actually been doing anything disruptive or policy-violating at the time? They get their facts wrong 75% of the time and the rest of the time they exaggerate them.

If you want your children to be safe online, you don't let them use the internet, anywhere, unsupervised. It's that simple. --tjstrf talk 01:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

When I have kids, I intend to let them follow the exact same schedule in technology as I did. They get a C64 and an NES when they're 5, a 386 without a modem and a Genesis when they're 10, and they will be allowed online when 14. The point of this is because I know that I wasn't ready for the online world before that, and two, to give them appreciation of old-school video gaming. ;) Screw trying to police them, I'll just keep them offline til they can police themselves. --Golbez 01:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ohh, let them play X-COM: UFO Defense, that game rocks! ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So, you're going to let your kids online with a 486 running Windows 95 and Internet Explorer 3.0? Wow, I bet you'll get the vote for "most popular dad" on the block.... <grin> -- MarcoTolo 01:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Nah, that's when I let them get a real computer. :) And it would be a 486 running Windows 95 and Netscape 1.1, puhleeze. ;) --Golbez 02:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

People don't seem to get that this is an encyclopedia, with a NPOV, I would not worry about what they say. I would think this is a terrible place to prey on children, considering everything is permanently logged, including IPs, and the intense level of monitoring we do. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That essay is the perfect example of why these people really don't know a thing they're talking about. Thanks for reposting it. --tjstrf talk 02:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, It's hard for me to take that site too seriously. --Conti|✉ 02:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"We've left Wikipedia in the 'passive' category because they still have not taken a clear and unambiguous stance disavowing pedophile advocates from editing 'encyclopedic' pedophile articles. Damn straight. Pedophilic editors such as User:Clayboy need to be blocked on sight. El_C 02:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Whoa, whoa, since when did Wikipedia become the morality police? If someone is convicted of murder, should they be banned? Should we ban anyone who's been jailed? As long as they aren't doing anything to harm Wikipedia or trying to harm others through Wikipedia, I don't think its our purpose to ban people based on their activities outside of Wikipedia. Of course, everything should be done to prevent predators from being able to contact children through Wikipedia, but banning users because they might violate rules is absurd. Wickethewok 02:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Why? --Golbez 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Because the idea that anyone could think of children as sexual beings is icky. --Carnildo

That doesn't answer the question as to why they should be banned. "Ickiness" is not an objective qualifier. Try again. --Golbez 03:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That's about my view of the matter too. --Carnildo 07:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thoughtcrime, anyone? --Conti|✉ 03:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a provocation, as are the above responses. El_C 03:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My response is a provocation? Should it be banned? Also, didn't at least one of you lose adminship because of some misguided crusade against pedos? --Golbez 03:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Let sleeping dogs lie. — MichaelLinnear 03:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

One of you? I did not participate in a crusade. I am —and always have been— an editor and admin in good standing. El_C 03:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we have fewer cliches and more substance in the comments here, please? --Golbez 03:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Some old wounds haven't healed. Therefore things are better left in the past. — MichaelLinnear 03:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought the pedophilia userbox wheel war made it quite clear taht Wikipedia was gonna go crazy on any self-identified pedophiles. Hbdragon88 03:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have created a proposed policy to cover this issue. 04:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see why this is controversial, and I think I can at least sympathize with everybody posting here. I think... to me, maybe it's an issue of "Why are you here?" If you're here to help build and keep a neutral, informative, free encyclopedia, then I suspect I'll have no serious qualms with you -- that is, if they're wearing their Wikipedian hat. If, however, they're wearing another hat, and here for another purpose (promoting or practicing pedophilia, neo-nazism, whatever it may be), then I suspect I will have many qualms with their presence. That's what it comes down to, for me, I guess -- are they here to build an encyclopedia, or not? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing much what we can really do. While we did try to come up with some sense of the problem, based on the WEP:CHILD debates, but honestly, we cannot do much. While Pee-J is trying to do what they do, unless we catch the people in the act of preying on children, we cannot do anything administratively. Not to mention, people have a right to privacy here on Wikipedia and not everyone even decides to make an account. But I strongly urge anyone that if someone is indeed preying on children using Wikipedia, please let us know. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Our policy is that Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy or propaganda. That policy covers both advocacy of sexual assault of children and the witch hunters. Fred Bauder 14:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

See the recent edits by User_talk:24.64.64.242 and User_talk:64.131.177.181 on the Fibonacci, Filippo_Brunelleschi, and Giovanni_Boccaccio pages. They are tricky triple edits that foil the diff mechanism. Looks like they did some tag-teaming too. You should block them pronto. This requires more wiki skill than I have. Good luck cleaning up their mess. (Spectrogram 03:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC))

24.64.64.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) appears to be static and I've soft-blocked it for a month. The other one I left a {{bv}}; we should keep an eye on it. Chick Bowen 06:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion, but particularly Category:Administrative backlog. What has happened to all our administrators? Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

We're all hiding. Shh... =) -- Gogo Dodo 05:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

CAT:CSD is backlogged? Alert the media! Hbdragon88 06:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see the headline now: "Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion backlogged. Is this the end of Wikipedia?" -- MarcoTolo 06:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What has happened is that the administrators are simply busy doing other things, Wikipedia and otherwise. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Candidates for Speedy Deletion backlogged; Netcraft predicts death of Wikipedia" - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As indefinitely blocked users get their user pages deleted often, it is not uncommon to see empty sockpuppet categories. Are these speedyable just as any other empty category if empty for at least 4 days? Or should we hold off on these? I've come accross quite a few so if I should be deleting them that is helpful to know. VegaDark 06:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. Viridae^Talk 06:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. VegaDark 06:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been trolling through CAT:RFU, and I happened to come upon two bad blocks. I wouldn't say anything here, but it doesn't look like any administrators are going through the unblock request at the moment. We have:

• User talk:24.128.186.205 - user appears to have been blocked simply for trying to work with images. This was not vandalism, but newbie problems.
• User talk:Brooklyn5 - this is definitely a bad block. This user was blocked for "vandalizing" another user's page by placing a {{db-author}} tag on it, but in fact, he is this other user. But, he can't login because he was blocked due to a WP:U violation.
• User:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen - continual censorship of articles. But this is edit warring, and deserves maybe 24 hours at most, and at least an explanation of WP:NOT. Not worth an indef block, IMHO.

Worst part: it's giving Cplot more ammunition to talk about "block happy admins", yada yada. Part Deux 09:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Gen. von Klinkerhoffen was not blocked for censorship but being a YTMND troll, primarily with using "For Brian Peppers" in his edits. The censoring I would have not blocked for (I was going to warn him, but then I saw the edit summaries). The IP is shared, and the block has an expiry. With Brooklyn5, I have no idea what's going on (looks like an impromptu username change without edit changing), so I'm not touching that.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. No need to fool around; Brian Peppers edit summaries clearly show he's a troll from somewhere, just like Colbert vandalism would. Part Deux 09:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Brooklyn's been unblocked. No need for alarmism, misunderstandings that lead to unnecessary blocks happen, and they are usually dealt with within reasonable time, that's what the unblock category is for. But thanks for helping to clarify the Brooklyn situation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

user:Durova kindly suggested that I may ask for additional and neutral addmins from here to review this Piotrus 3RR case. Contributor, who ran 3RR board initially also not object for this [18]. The prime concern is - was there violation of 3RR rule in presented case by Piotrus or not. Thank you in advance, M.K. 09:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

the user 62.6.160.99 is currently enganging in massive vandalism and claims to be a sockpuppet of long term vandal my name please block him/her.--Fang 23 15:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC) [19]

1ne (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has a bit of a problem. Check the last few deletions and undeletions - a wheel war over Category:Wikipedians born in 1993 and a suspiciously WP:POINTy undiscussed deletion of Category:Wikipedians born in 1989. Could someone who is friendly with this admin please go and have a quiet word. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I remain of the opinion that we should deal sternly with wheel warriors. >Radiant< 13:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • For those unfamiliar, I believe this administrator is in one of these categories and hence sensitive to the matter of precisely where the age cut-off for them should be placed. Of course he should step away from further deletions in this matter and I'm sure he will take guidance accordingly. Newyorkbrad 13:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yup. No evil intent, just an excess of enthusiasm, butin a very sensitive area. Needs a quiet word from a trusted friend. Guy (Help!) 15:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Agree fully. No need to rush in and browbeat him, just quietly point out that he's too close to the issue and that someone else might be a better choice to decide the matter. Essjay (Talk) 15:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• As it seems that "quiet point" is probably going to come from this noticeboard - given NYB has had a chat/linked him here - I might as well throw my hat into the ring. 1ne, although you may feel that an injustice is being done to Wikipedia, wheel warring only creates problems, and those problems aren't worth it on this category. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 18:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Wait, wait, wait, guys. I had a change of heart, I'm not trying to violate POINT. What I think is that we should delete categories for everyone under 18. What's wrong with that? Also, JzG, don't 'report' people you're involved in disputes with. Cheers! 1ne 22:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• The thing is that he's not the only one who redeleted that page. Several administrators have, while you restored it six separate times. Your actions are out of process, and definitely constitute wheel warring. What's wrong with his bringing attention to it here? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed. 1ne, please don't wheel war (and you did so on both categories). Ral315 » 23:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• How are the other administrators' actions not out of process? Deleting something with the reason 'page contained: foo' isn't a reason. 1ne 01:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• That's an automatically generated edit summary. I'm sure that if you have any question about the reason an admin deleted a page and ask that admin the reason, he or she will gladly tell you. Newyorkbrad 01:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• All of the other admin's actions were due to CfDs. Unilaterally restoring or deleting things that have gone through an XfD is generally not cool. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Then why did 'born in 1993s talk page state that it survived a CfD with no consensus? Ignoring that is not cool. 1ne 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• It references it, but the CfD doesn't exist. Kick whoever put that there. The CfD that was in the deletion summary was a delete. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• It was a UCFD, which means that it's not going to be found on the main CfD page. Do not pass go, whack the people who decided on that split. -Amarkov moo! 05:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• And the correct link is Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/November_2006#Category:Wikipedians born in 1993, which is indeed "no consensus". -Amarkov moo! 05:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it was a very bad idea for 1ne to remove the DRV from showing up on the TOC when adding his input. Almost as if he didn't want other people to notice it. VegaDark 06:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What, do you think I'm in on some sort of conspiracy? If you see my edit to this page, you'll notice that this is a glitch in my browser that happens when I add a new section. I was wondering why the formatting was broken, myself. I think it was a bad idea that you didn't look into my contribs to pages related to this one. If I had known I was attaching '&s to things, I'd have been fixing them. Vega, is this a big conspiracy to you? 1ne 08:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should try a new browser if that is the result of you adding new sections. VegaDark 08:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you shouldn't jump to conclusions. 1ne 08:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but I didn't jump to conculsions. If I had I would have flat out said that you were trying to get people to not see the debate instead of saying "Almost as if" you were doing that. VegaDark 09:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but perhaps you shouldn't suspect there's a conspiracy without convincing evidence. 1ne 19:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a stupid debate. Let's get back on task. Anyways... so 1ne has been wheel warring over a category. Newyorkbrad says he may have emotional connection towards that category. That makes sense to me. The wheel warring has come to an end. That is good. The wheel warring towards the 1989 category is no more. That is good. Did 1ne delete the category to begin with to disrupt Wikipedia for the sake of a point or because he's genuinely concerned about the fact that some people in that category are under 18? That is irrelevant; if we keep spending all this time on it, then it will have been disruptive. The problem seems to have died down. Let's get back to work. I myself have more homework than I thought; I should get started. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 22:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's now 21st Feb, How come this page is still protected? DXRAW 09:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

We decided we didn't need a weakly sourced attack page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The page will probably have to go through deletion review before it is allowed to be recreated. VegaDark 09:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Already there. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 21. I linked it there from the Talk page, to try to get all the crap in one place (I know, the triumph of hope over experience). Guy (Help!) 10:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I expected that to go up right at 00:01. Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Btw DXRAW, Jimmy never said that the page would be unprotected on the 21st. He said that the discussion could reopen then. Big difference. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

See [20]. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't but recognize a striking pun regarding an admin signing as "Nearly Headless Nick" :-) Duja► 15:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should warn him in particular that he risks becoming even more nearly headless? Hey, wasn't he involved in some controversial AfD closures too lately? Hopefully no webcomics, were they? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I do believe several of them were. *sigh* Webcomics. Oy. (So, when are we going to have an extensive discussion on how to judge the notability of webcomics that aren't covered by media outlets, don't have dead-tree versions, etc. but are fanatically followed by Internet fans, and avoid having this kind of thing showing up in every freakin' webcomic that comes around?) Tony Fox (arf!) 16:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What discussion is there to have? For a webcomic to have an article we need reliable independent sources and preferably someone at least vaguely dispassionate writing the thing, same as everything else. Webcomics aren't a special case. Ok, they're on the Internet, and we're on the Internet, and therefore it's easier to round up some fans to SPAm an AfD, but this is just a side-effect of our model - webcomics have no more reason to 'deserve' an entry in Wikipedia than they do in Britannica. It's just harder to organise a coach down to Britannica's head office, and have them tell the editors that Webcomic #15353 is number 5 on the Top 100 List Of Webcomics About Bicycling Furries Wearing Wooly Hats, than it is to post a link on a blog. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, and have opined on both sides of webcomic debates. The problem is that there's this seemingly growing revolt among webcomic creators and their readers that is vilifying Wikipedia because their articles are being deleted, and it seems to be a significantly sized group that's out there screaming about deletionism. The comic leading this section isn't the only one that's been taking potshots at us. My question, I guess, is whether we need to have specific guidelines for webcomics that we can point to, say "If you don't meet these, then let us know when you do," and make the comics mob put down the pitchforks and torches to actually try and meet the guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I say we bend the rules for webcomics. After all, they're writing nasty things about us! Seriously, I agree with Sam that the rules on notability are clearly stated.--Alabamaboy 01:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Lakerdonald (talk · contribs) is an Encyclopaedia Dramatica user who has had useful edits in the past. However, his/her recent edits are somewhat startling. Would edits such as this, this (also see edit summary), this, and his/her userpage constitute a violation of Remedy #3 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO ("Users who are current or past editors of Encyclopaedia Dramatica are...admonished to wear their Wikipedia hats while here.")? --Coredesat 15:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And it should also be noted that this user just violated WP:BLP on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 21/Brian Peppers. This is here instead of on ANI because I was not sure whether to block. --Coredesat 15:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

*Eye roll*. These users are literally pushing the envelope as far as they can. "Oops, might get banned now!"? C'mon. Just block the guy. If anyone can tell me how the statement "users are full of cocks" is anything other than WP:TROLL, I'll do it, but this is someone just trying to game the system. User is just hoping to get people mad, and then have some admins come along and say, "I don't know if we should block him..." Part Deux 15:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Seems like an obvious case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't sure how strictly to apply the ArbCom ruling. --Coredesat 16:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The user posted an unblock message but I denied the unblock on the grounds that this was absolutely a valid block.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Attacking Jimbo in the Peppers DRV. Genius. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody take a look at Atkins nutritional approach? I can't figure out what the heck is going on there. It's obviously a talk page, and after several bizarre moves from place to place, it's now sitting where the article should be. I'd fix it, but I can't find the article. Anybody have a clue? Kafziel ^Talk 17:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the article is at Atkins Nutritional Approach (with the capitals). Newyorkbrad 17:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up. A user had been somehow upset over contents on the talkpage, had tried to remove some passages, had mistakenly moved the talkpage to her userspace, then moved it back but not to talk space but article space, and with the wrong capitalisation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. That one blew my mind. Kafziel ^Talk 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

New admin? Wait till you've overseen some real good hard move-war somewhere. After that, nothing will be able to shake you. :-) --Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've closed this early for reasons explained at that page. Please review in case anyone thinks that continuing this for the full length will produce a different result or something else in the least bit productive. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that few of the "endorse deletion" were based in reality, I'm not even sure how you can come to an "endorse," let alone think there's any consensus given the discussion there and at the DRV subpage's talk page. You needed to reverse yourself twenty minutes ago. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of principle, I strongly oppose closing any discussion that has been open only 11 hours. For a lot of people, this means it will be over before they even saw it. Trebor 20:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame we don't all possess your positive knowledge of what is and is not reality, Mr. Brady Jeff. Mackensen (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I don't think that means you need to be a WP:DICK about it, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Nor am I trying to, and I'm sorry you chose to interpret my remark as such. Rather, I'm trying to suggest that simply stating, as a fact, that everyone else's concerns are non-existant, is unhelpful and is not the way to win arguments. Mackensen (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually detailed it better at the talk page of the DRV. It was, of course, soundly ignored in favor of a disruptive close, so what else is there to say? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I approve, we've spent enough time debating on that one, and no new information has come to light. Mangojuice^talk 20:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As it met standards before it was deleted, what did you expect? After 11 hours, how could you expect anything new to crop up. I may relist it on the main DRV page if someone doesn't do the right thing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I have some sympathy for Trebor's argument, I think it was a good close. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I see no 'I don't like it' delete arguments on that page.--Doc^g 20:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Really? I'm sorry to see that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Pace badlydrawnjeff (to whom I directed some remarks on the talk page of the DRV as to which I would welcome feedback from others), the consensus against re-creating the article is overwhelming. Personally, I would prefer retention of the outright deletion over redirecting to List of Internet phenomena, in part because the "People" section in that article is itself a WP:LIVING/privacy/notability horror show that needs substantial attention and clean-up. But I suppose we should leave that for another day. Newyorkbrad 20:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you've posted this in a few places already. Thanks for the input, there still hasn't been a legitimate, logical, rational reason for deletion given. Not that 11 hours is enough time to find one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

How about the legitimate, logical, rational reason that many of us find the idea of basing an article on this subject to be horrific, despicable, and non-encyclopedic as well? And how about the fact that there are several hundred other deletion debates going on, on many of which I would like to see a strong case put for keep, instead of devoting continuing energy into continuing advocacy for an article that clearly is not coming back? Newyorkbrad 20:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. "Horrific" and "despicable," both terms I agree with, are irrelevant to the discussion. Non-encyclopedic? Well, I disagree, but we have ways to discern that, which this article met. If we're going to abandon our policies and guidelines here, why bother with any other disucssions if they don't matter? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You want "legitimate, logical and rational"? How's "Any article about this guy would amount to: He is a sex offender from someplace. He got a short sentence. He has become an internet meme because a number of people think he looks funny." Come on, man. I know you're on the extreme end of the inclusion spectrum, but that's all you could write about him, and even that would probably not meet BLP because it would be slanted towards negative coverage. Having said that, however, I probably would have let it run at least 24 hours before closing; I, though, am not an admin, and I respect Sam Blanning's judgment in this case. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure - the result was no in doubt. Sure, a minority believe it was the wrong result - but even they must admit that letting it run was not going to produce a different conclusion.--Doc^g 20:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It depends - if we expected the arguments to be weighted properly, I certainly expected a different result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Endorse closure per Jason Fortuny logic. (→Netscott) 20:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that was one of our shining moments. Ugh, the logic is nonexistent here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • How heavy should the sockpuppets be? There were plenty of those supporting re-creation. Mackensen (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Ignore 'em. Ignore 'em like those using IDONTLIKEIT arguments should have been. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
        • And the BLP concerns? Are those to be dismissed too, just because you're so sure they don't amount to much? Mackensen (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Nonexistent. The deleted article didn't appear to have any, and we could have easily edited any of those concerns. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
            • BLP was what I was getting at re: Fortuny. (→Netscott) 20:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Yeah, not an issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• I don't think there would have been any harm in letting it run one full day, but on the other hand I don't dispute the close either. Consensus was extremely clear, and among established editors it was truly overwhelming. "Brian Peppers Day" has come and gone without any great cataclysm, and we all survived. Time to get back to building an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with Andrew, this could be left to run, but the outcome would have been the same. This was clearly trending WP:CONSENSUS to keep deleted.--Isotope23 20:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Fully endorse closure - I wasn't around for this the first time, but from everything I have read, it was an embarassment for Wikipedia and there's no reason to make the same mistake twice. --BigDT 20:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• This is disgusting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• This was simply never going to be recreated, for many reasons. Jeff: please get off the soapbox. Others: there are many people abroad who are getting off on us tying our knickers in a knot over this non-notable alleged sex-offender "meme"-driven freak show. If ever WP:DENY applied somewhere, this was it. 〈REDVEЯS〉 20:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not on a soapbox, yet. I can certainly get on one if you'd prefer. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm suggesting a new NOT idea based upon a number of meme furthering articles I've seen turn up on WP. (→Netscott) 20:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Jeff, darling, you've been stood on the same soapbox since late last year. Adding another one simply wouldn't help... although it'd make you taller, obviously :o) 〈REDVEЯS〉 20:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I really don't think you want to go there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, we get it Jeff, you're righteously indignant. Now knock it off. --Cyde Weys 01:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well done Sam. Now let's all get back to building that encyclopaedia... Guy (Help!) 20:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thats what we were trying to do before it got closed early. This project while a good idea has many flaws. DXRAW 21:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• One fewer, now :-) Guy (Help!) 21:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, An article is not a flaw, Get your head out of your arse. Read this [21] for example DXRAW 23:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• And about five newer. Can I cash in on that abusive admin offer now, Guy? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• If you want, but do take the time to pause and reflect on the fundamental fact: the sum total of verifiable information here is (a) Peppers looks funny, (b) Peppers was convicted of a technical offence at the lower end of the severity scale of sexual offences, (c) a number of people chose to make fun of his appearance, resulting in his mugshot being pulled from e-SORN. Nothing else is actually verifiable. Not the disability, not the fact that he lives in a nursing home, not the cause of his apparent deformity, not the details of the offence, nothing about the victim or the context, no contemporaneous news coverage, Factiva, Lexis-Nexis and Google News all come up blank. We know next to nothing about Brian Peppers, the living human being. The only things we do know are either trivial or derogatory. I paid money for searches to see if there was additional verifiable data - there isn't. This is not the Star Wars Kid, who thought he was being cool and wasn't, this is someone who ahs absolutely no control over the situation, and furthermore whose "notability" rests solely and entirely on the fact that he looks weird. Only that. It's a random picture of some guy, taken out of context and used as an object of ridicule by people with absolutely no shame. And we deleted it, and we decided to keep it deleted. It's a trade: we get raspberries from the people who like to laugh at Peppers' appearance, in return for our self-respect and the clueful application of our policy on living individuals. I can't find it in me to call this anything but a good deal. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I knew you were only half serious anyway. --badlydrawnjeff

nothing pm lexis-nexis? that rather contradicts a claim amde here:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive74#Brian_Peppers.Geni 23:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

talk 23:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse close, nothing good was going to come of keeping that discussion open any longer. ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, per above. All useful arguments related to this issue are already well-known. It was pretty apparent to me that nothing good would have come from keeping this open longer. Friday (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen so many trolls in my entire life. —Pilotguy push to talk 21:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I would endorse the close as well. Article was clearly not going to be recreated. I say this, by the way, as someone who doesn't think either recreating it or salting it would be a bad thing. The issue is just too trivial, and ends up being a time sink. IronDuke 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Putting it out of its misery was the right thing to do, as consensus was clearly to delete. Thus ends, "Brian Peppers Day." ObiterDicta 22:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• I also endorse the close. I already explained how trivial any sources found on this guy would be, and almost all of the deletions were valid. Something deleted so many times clearly has zero chance of being notable, whether as a person or as a meme, and you're not going to find anything that proves otherwise per WP:BIO. One source of questionable value is not enough, and I would recommend reviewing the whole situation before accusing the closing admin of being abusive. --Coredesat 22:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • My review of the whole situation is how I came to the conclusion. Your continued assertions regarding supposed triviality simply are not true. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, regardless, all that can be established is that he is a sex offender, and the DRV was heavily trolled anyway. I don't really see how the "keep deleted"s were "not based in reality" - there were major WP:BLP concerns here. This is not a WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue, and even if you take any such arguments out of the equation, there still would have been consensus to endorse. --Coredesat 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I wasn't seeing a lot of heavy trolling, honestly, and there, again, were not a lot of BLP issues - certainly not so many that couldn't be dealt with via editing. I guess it depends on whether you think a consensus can be based on incorrect reasoning - Wikipedia:Consensus certainly doesn't. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong endorse. This is clearly the right decision. Good job. Nandesuka 22:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Normally I'd be among the first in line to cry for "hey, let's just follow our own rules so that our critics won't get any undue ammo", but heck, it's abundantly clear that there's no way out of this dead end right now. Basically, a) the Opposition hasn't been able to figure out why this person is really notable aside of some fuzzy ideas on... perhaps... I don't know... having some email forward notability somewhere? Uh... forwarded a bit from person to person... somewhere... and b) how to conduct this matter with all the solemnity required. We don't need a "just-because" revival of the article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. WP:SNOW covers the action. The degree to which this particular subject is a troll magnet might make an interesting sociological study, but we're an encyclopedia and not a social experiment. Durova^Charge! 23:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong endorse closure, I think we're ready to put this all behind us. --Cyde Weys 01:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I tried to exchange the Page Lamellophone (then a redirect page to lamellaphone with the page Lamellaphone /then the main article). I tried to do this by a ring move. The idea was to move "Lamellophone" to "Lamellophone1", then "Lamellaphone" to "Lamellophone" and finally "Lamellophoe1" to "Lamellaphone" (+ change some texts). Trying to move the redirect page "Lamellophone" to "Lamellophone11" did not work, the system complained that a page of that name already existed (I belive it did not). I then did the change instead by moving the content of the articles including the talk page content. However, the Talk page of "Lamellophone" now has the title "Talk:Lamellophone1", so it looks like the attempted move lead to an inconsistency in the data structure. It looks like there is a bug in the moove functionality. If possible, could somebody repair the problem (rename the talk page)? Thenk you Nannus 20:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Cut-n-paste move repaired. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont have time at the moment to take care of this issue but these images need undeleted.

these were orphaned to to a template issue can other admins please undelete? Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I added image links to facilitate undeleting them (you can see redlinks vs bluelinks) and restored the first three, but they seem to still be orphaned. Are they actually in use somewhere? --BigDT 21:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

They still have the orphan template, but all of the ones I've looked at appear to be in use. I've been restoring and then removing the template. And I'm working from the bottom up. -- Merope 21:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I restored all remaining images. I haven't gotten to removing the template, though. Nishkid64 21:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we're done here. Pats on the back all around. -- Merope 21:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please review the closing of the discussion surrounding the application of the trademark section of the manual of style to the article titles that include TNA iMPACT!? It appears the closing admin ignored comparative argument strengths, simple majority, and the manual of style itself in deciding a consensus was not met and therefore move was not warranted. Thanks. ju66l3r 21:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If reviewing this requested move discussion is not done here, then can someone suggest the next step? I know that there is deletion review, but I don't see a requested move review. Thanks. ju66l3r 23:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The image, "Image:H60566.jpg" exists under identical file names in both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Request that the Wikipedia image be deleted so that the Commons image will be used instead to the linked articles. Thank you. Cla68 03:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Marked. I subst'd {{NCT}} and it's still yelling at me for transcluding it! Hbdragon88 03:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, the articles appear to now be linking to the Commons image. Cla68 04:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Per Image_talk:Titty.jpg which says to ask on this board I would like to use this image in the article Mammary intercourse. Nardman1 06:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been deleted. Hbdragon88 06:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah; the user who uploaded it is a single-purpose account who has uploaded a few porn images that were deleted for no source/improper licensing, so my opinion was that GFDL-self couldn't be easily confirmed. Ral315 » 06:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fuzzy Zoeller needs full protection after article today about lawsuit. Already it's been vandalized. I also thin someone with oversight needs to delete the latest edit. --Tbeatty 14:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a separate page Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.--Jusjih 14:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I realize that. This is an ongoing incident that recently had front office action and oversight deletions. It needs attention. --Tbeatty 14:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is a mess right now. I tried to clean up some of the self-referential problems... --W.marsh 14:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted back further, it looks like you missed the vandalized "Fussy" stuff. I've fully protected for the moment whilst we sort this out.--Isotope23 14:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Be sure to have a look for vandalism when protecting pages, since once protected it can't easily be removed by editors. The protected version had some nonsense about a prosthetic penis, which I've removed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, I don't know how I missed that. Nice catch.--Isotope23 14:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What isn't documented at {{usernameblock}}, and should be (but I can't edit it to do so, it's protected) is that the template takes an optional parameter. {{usernameblock|reason for block}}, or even {{unb|reason for block}}, will replace the rest of the sentence following "blocked indefinitely because", up to the parenthetical "(see our blocking and username policies for more information)", with your own specific reason for the block.

That is, the boilerplate text -- ..."it may be rude or inflammatory, unnecessarily long/confusing, too similar to an existing user, contains the name of an organization or website, or is otherwise inappropriate"... -- goes away and is replaced by your own text.

If you enter:   {{unb|"Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales"}}
you get:

Your username has been blocked indefinitely because "Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales" (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

(and the rest of the template stays the same)

Please pass the word. For blocking admins to consistently use that feature would certainly cut down on our head-scratching at WP:RFCN over "Why was this name blocked?" -- Ben 15:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)