Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Current issues

BetacommandBot and Fair use

When starting the current Fair use tagging I planned 3 phases, but since Phase 1 has caused so much grief, I'm going to break Phase 2 into three parts. Also Im going to explain all the parts and my current time table.

Phase 1

• identify and tag all images with less than 20 characters, excluding templates, and skipping pages that have the non-free rationale template.
• this will re-start July 1^st, 2007 and should last no more than five days to tag the remaining 5478 images that meet that criteria.
  • this uses {{missing rationale}}, {{missing rationale2}} and {{dfu}} /or {{nrd}} depending on the upload date.

Phase 2

• check the image description page text for the title of at least one pages where the image is used. tag the image and notify users (per policy you have to state where you need it and why. and this only tags images with zero valid fair use rationales.)
• this will start on July 15, 2007 or when the image backlog from phase 1 is under 1000 images (which ever is longer).
  • I would like input for templates to use for this section. Im thinking the same templates as Phase 1.

Phase 3

• repeat phase 2 for every image use.
• this will start on either August 1^st, 2007 or August 15, depending on the number of images Phase 2 encountered. again this will also follow the 1000 image, or date (which ever is longer) method.
  • I would like input for templates to use for this section.

Phase 4

• have a bot remove images instead of tag images that fail Phase 3.
• this will start no less than 30 days or 1000 images (which ever is longer) from the completion date of Phase 3.
  • I would like input for templates to use for this section.

Suggestions and advice are welcome, personal attacks and complaints can be filed at /dev/null Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to take a large step towards being closer to being legal with our FU images. ^(H) 01:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too - I'd also just like to thank you for all the hard work you've done on this project; I know you got a lot of grief for it, but it's worth it. --Haemo 03:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest looking for the phrase "fair use rationale" as a section heading. There are many people (including me) who do not like to use any template to say that the image has a fair use rationale but rather specify the page layout by hand. --soum ^talk 07:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Or anywhere in the page, not just as a heading. Obvious variants "fair use reasons", "fair use justifications" and so on.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Searching the entire page for the etxt has some obvious disadvantages. If something like "I will not provide a fair use rationale" is written, then also it will pass the analysis. Thats why I suggested leaving entire sentences out of it. Or may be ignore all instances of "fair use rationale" and variants and still some substantial (50+ characters) text should remain. --soum ^talk 10:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

what im looking for in phase 2 & 3 is if Image:foo.jpg is used on page Bar, Does the text of page Image:foo.jpg contain the word bar. so it shouldnt matter what templates are used. But I would like help creating templates to notify users of the improper fair use rationales. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 12:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If an image includes a rationale, but does not say "Fair use rationale for article X" or "This rationale applies to article X" or whatever, but is used only in article X, we can assume good faith and conclude that the rationale was meant for that article only, and that the user inaverdently overlooked the fact. Rather than assuming the user does not understand fair use, or is trying to get us sued or whatever. In that case, what about using the bot to add the reference to the article? --soum ^talk 13:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

the issue is does that rationale cover said image use? its too difficult for a bot to judge the validity and what text makes up a valid rationale as there can be many permutations of the same idea phrased 1000 different ways. But one key to a valid rationale is saying where you claim the rationale is for. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you clarify phase 4 for me.What do you mean by "have a bot remove images" ? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If [:Image:foo.jpg]] is used on page Bar and blah, Does the text of page Image:foo.jpg contain the word bar and blah. If it only finds blah the bot would remove it from Bar but leave it on Bar Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 12:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

How will this work for redirects? If I say "this image is fair use in bar", but bar has been moved to or merged into blah, will it be removed from blah? --NE2 11:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I presume it means he will orphan the images from articles where the article name isn't mentioned on the image description page. -N 08:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In substantial discussion at WT:FAIR#Way forward, there is broad support for throttling to bot to 300-500 images or image-uses per day, a proposal put up by User:Eagle_101. This is a reasonable amount for third parties to be able to look at, and to add rationales for, when fair use is appropriate; rather than creating another impossible tag mountain that is more than can be humanly processed in 7 days or 10 days from tagging.

Note also broad consensus there to suspend CSD I6 until July 1, to give time to process the existing tag mountain without unnecessary collateral damage; and to rewrite I6 when not suspended to be 7 (or 10) days from tagging rather than from upload.

It would be a mistake to tag images so quickly that I6 had to be suspended again. Jheald 09:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Im doing a dry run now to get an Idea of how many images would be caught in each phase right now. when thats done Ill post the preliminary counts. But at last count phase 1 had ~5k images. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 12:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

300 images a day is way too low. As Cyde said, at that rate it's going to take forever to tag all the said inappropriate images. -Pilotguy hold short 13:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand said there were around 5K images. So @300 per day, it wont take more than 3 weeks, which should be acceptible, IMO. Remember tagging is not the goal, purging the offenders is. Thats not bots who will enforce it, its humans. And deleting images take a lot more effort than anything else. --soum ^talk 13:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No reason to go at a snails pace, not unless it is making mistakes. At least 1000 a day, bots do work like that all the time. ^(H) 13:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Bots might, but people are another story. Mister.Manticore 15:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You must be mistaking in what you remember Betacommand saying, because we are dealing with a lot more than just 5,000 images. At the snail's pace of 300 a day it will take way too long. The answer is to increase human participation, not throttle down the bot. A single person can easily handle 100 images in a day. It's not much work, just a lot of deletion. The directions for how to handle these tagged images should be presented in a very clear manner and advertised widely on such places as this board. --Cyde Weys 15:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but I think the idea is to give people time to write fair-use rationales. It is possible that among the huge piles of tagged images, there are some that could have genuine fair-use rationales. I'm all for getting bots to do the work, but is it not possible to rig up a bot to post notifications on the pages of all the uploaders and/or the talk pages of the articles using the images? On the other hand (my view), just announce in various prominent places that a large number of fair-use images without rationales have been tagged for deletion, then, after a set period of time, get a team of humans to delete them and replace the red-links with a placeholder image (straight removal of red-links might pass unoticed), and then allow a longer amnesty period of a month or so, in which people can request undeletion to add a fair-use rationale. That way, those image that are genuinely required will probably be rescued, those that weren't won't be, and in any case, most fair-use pictures should be obtainable again if really needed, and a fair use rationale added to the new upload. Carcharoth 15:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth the bot notifies all users in the file history of an image,(except for a few users that I have on an ignore list), it also tags the image, and it leaves a note on the talk page of all the pages that use the image. Oh and to boot im currently working on a wikiproject notification opt-in option for the next round of images. and the 5,000 article count is to finish phase 1. phase 2&3 will generate a lot more images. that 5k count is the remainder of the original tag run that netted over 25,000 images. phase 1 is the loosest phase and should catch the fewest images. I expect phase 2 & 3 combined to identify 60,000+ images that need fixed. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the time to write fair use rationals is now, or even yesterday. The images are still left with the tag for a week. If we lose any fair use pictures they can just be re-uploaded. ^(H) 15:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I quite agree that fair use images, if genuinely fair use, are probably widely available and can easily be reuploaded. So why not just delete all the fair use stuff now? Carcharoth 16:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Or, for that matter, they can very easily be undeleted. I've caught a couple of images on my watchlisted articles that got shuffled off the wiki coil because they didn't have rationales. Just undelete and provide a rationale. Voila, problem(s) solved. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That requires a list of admins willing to carry out undeletions on request from non-admins. Carcharoth 16:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Or, even simpler, non-admins can create/re-create the talk page, and use {{editprotected}} to request admin assistance for the undeletion. Or would that be technically an incorrect use of that template? I would suggest that the rationale be provided before undeletion takes place, and that talk pages be restored along with the image (is that the default setting?). Carcharoth 16:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's remember (Cyde and H n.b.) that this is not about deletion, for deletion's sake.

Our objective here is the Foundation's requirement on us to achieve full compliance on image rationales by April 2008, and our obligation to wikiusers to manage this process with as little collateral damage, and as little undue bruising as possible. We should all keep in mind one of the fundamental injunctions of the project: Don%27t_be_a_dick Don't be a dick.

From what I have seen of BCbot's taggings, the clear majority of the images do have an acceptable fair use on the project. What they don't have is a rationale. There are people now gearing up to supply as many of those rationales as possible. It is reasonable to try to accomodate them.

BC reckons that there will be about 60,000 usages that will require rationales. At 500 taggings a day, that works out at 120 days - so about 4 months, well within the April 2008 deadline. And it may actually turn out to be fewer usages in the event, if BC can circulate his draft list to projects and other interested parties ahead of time -- so we may get there even sooner.

This is not about how much we can delete. It is about how with least upset we can get compliant. Jheald 23:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

One comment from a non-admin who is working in an area (numismatics) where many images have unknown copyright and thus must be considered to be fair use. I have been reading everything I can find about writing a fair use rationale. I have asked questions at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. I have tried to supply a valid fair use rationale on all images I uploaded. I assume I'm doing something wrong though, since I've used the exact same text for multiple images, which I'd like to replace with a template, but templates are supposedly not okay for fair use rationales. I have read many other users questioning why templates are not okay, or how to write a fair use rationale, and not getting sufficient answers. I certainly do not feel confident that I am doing things right, and do not know how to help fix the currency images that are currently not correctly tagged. So, until the guidelines are more clear, I can't see that it's time to tag more images. If it's so easy to write fair use rationales, can User:Betacommand or someone else tell me if Image:East Africa 1 cent (KM22).jpg has a valid rationale? Can you explain why I can't use a template for this and all the other coin images I've uploaded for the same page? If I and some other editors can get a little more help now, I think the bot will need to tag a lot fewer images as we go through and clean up. Ingrid 02:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

that is a red link image and Im not an admin, so I cant tell you either way, But see WP:FURG for a guideline on writing rationales. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot the ":Image". I fixed the link above. I've read WP:FURG, and followed it as best I can. But I ended up with what should be a template which makes me think it wouldn't be accepted. Ingrid 02:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

and you would be correct. you need to state why you need Image:East Africa 1 cent (KM22).jpg in that specific article. why must that page have Image:East Africa 1 cent (KM22).jpg on it? why cant we just delete the image? why must East African shilling have an image of the coin? see where my questions are going? if you can say that the page doesnt require the image then the image use is not compliant with fair use. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Now I'm stuck wondering who gets to decide if the page needs an image. I feel that it does, since the coin is described thoroughly, but a text description simply can't convey everything about it. But would a table of each type of coin produced with an image (where available) for each one be considered a gallery? I know I can convince the bot (at this point anyway), but I don't want to make any more effort to improve the article (in my view) if it will simply be deleted later. Ingrid 17:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is an idea, you are correct that table is basically a gallery. Instead of using a table why not have a section on the page about each coin? (I havent read the article but let me shoot a few ideas out) in that section have a history of the coin, has there been changes in the design? where did the design come from? what is the symbolism behind the markings/words? when was it first

minted? how long has it been in production? those are a few ideas. But if you get the idea behind those questions and similar ideas and put it in a section about a coin and use the image there, there will not be a problem with the usage of the image, and then make sure that the rationale on the image clearly states the need for the image on that page and there should not be any problems. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jheald, I love any opportunity anyone gives me to bring this one out: Don't be a fucking douchebag. --Cyde Weys 02:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't me that titled that essay. I'm just saying it is something we should all bear in mind here. If the essay had been titled "Have a sense of balance and be excellent to one another", I would have linked to it as "Have a sense of balance and be excellent to one another". It's the content of the essay that's relevant here. (Read it, it preaches good sense). My apologies, I am sorry, if you identified the title with yourself personally. Jheald 08:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

just a heads up my old numbers are way off, here are my current numbers and Ive only checked up to the images starting with C (I'm somewhere in that letter). Phase 1: 47 || Phase 2: 27046 || Phase 3: 25712 || Total: 52805 those are the images that are not compliant. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ive finished my pre-lim counts and they are: Phase 1: 2863||Phase 2: 135658||Phase 3: 123472||Total: 261993 Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

strike that there was an error in the checker. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: Phase 1: 5609||Phase 2: 143494||Phase 3: 19897||Total: 169000 Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

that is 48.9855% of our images. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

CAT:CSD Nag

I know this must sound annoying, but could somone deal with the pages and images CAT:CSD as there's now more than 115 pages there. Astrovega 02:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There have been larger backlogs...I've deleted about thirty pages already. Sr13 07:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Damn it, I managed to empty it yesterday (look!) Neil ╦ 07:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know how many items are listed each day? It would be nice to have a few more admins to deal with some of the admin backlogs. Vegaswikian 08:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice, Neil ;). Not sure how many items are on each day, but you're right, Vegaswikian. I'm starting to hack at it a bit now... on this note, Images for Deletion has a large backlog as well... Haha, you can never run out of things to do here :). CattleGirl ^talk 08:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And I've got it empty again (with, I believe, some help from CattleGirl). Now, if everyone would stop creating articles and uploading images forever, we'd be great. Neil ╦ 08:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Very rough count for the last 24 hours gives some 3750 deleted pages (all namespaces, talk included). I haven't broken it down between Prod, CSD, AfD, MfD, ..., and I of course haven't counted which pages were listed on CSD but not deleted. Still, it seems like a rather quiet period for deletions. On the other hand, the last 24 hours, only 2150 pages were created (and not yet deleted) in the main namespace as well. I suppose it will get busier again in September or so... Fram 09:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The CSD backlog is usually around 300 at 8AM UTC, I'd call today a slow CSD day ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That's because I have nothing to do in work today, and have spent all morning deleting and fixing rationales - I've nearly cleared all the CSD and image speedy backlogs. Neil ╦ 11:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ta-daaah! Neil ╦ 11:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I nearly had a damn heart attack when I saw it completely empty...I haven't seen that in months at the least. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In the 24 hours mentioned above, there were 3853 actions listed in the deleion log, of which 73 were restores. These actions, split to namespaces, come out to:

• Main namespace - 1603 (41.6%); talk - 285 (7.4%)
• Category namespace - 111 (2.9%); Category talk - 17 (0.4%)
• User namespace - 260 (6.7%); User talk - 29 (0.8%)
• Template namespace - 36 (0.9%); Template talk - 6
• Images - 1466 (38%); Image talk - 29 (0.8%)
• Wikipedia namespace - 9; Wikipedia talk - 1
• Help - 1

This seems to indicate that the image deletions account for almost as much as article deletions - each of which is close to 40%. Od Mishehu 12:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Purely subjective and based on the last few hours deletin' I've done, but I would say around 20% of image deletions are images that have already been deleted at least once before. Neil ╦ 12:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I'll agree with the images being a good percentage of deletions. It's mainly because of us tightening down on fair use images, I would think. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• In response to Neil - can't we SALT images? >Radiant< 12:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There are some at WP:PT, for example Image:Pump.jpg. non-admins can't upload there. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Radiant - I believe we could, but probably a better development would be for the uploaders to always be notified via their talk page when an image they uploaded is tagged for deletion (this does not always happen) - this would inform them as to what they should be putting on images they upload. The requirements are now so strict and convoluted, I bet a lot less than half of the image uploads actually remain. If I go through my deletion log, I see lots of bluelinked images which now have the correct tags (clearly some people do learn). Neil ╦ 13:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't the size of the backlog, but the fact that it takes so long to get an imaged speedy deleted after tagging. The last two I tagged, according to the log, waited eight hours to be deleted. That doesn't sound very speedy to me. There's just too many jobs and too few admins. Astrovega 13:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Er... maybe I'm crazy, but eight hours doesn't sound that bad to me. Part of the problem is that the category gets the most attention when it's backlogged; if all the admins deleted just ten items a day, we could keep it well under control. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How bad is the need for more admins? I've been kicking around the idea of making a request, but since Wikipedia:Nominations for sainthood is such a daunting process, I'm hesitant. Nevertheless, every time I check Special:Newpages and retrieve the standard 50 articles, I see at least three articles that deserve speedy deletion -- mostly non-notable bios, attack pages, and spam. Thoughts? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Increase the emancipation requirements - require 500 edits before you can create a page. That would solve an incredible amount of problems with new pages. Neil ╦ 16:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That just might work, too. Incidentally, 3 speedies out of 50 is way better than it was when I was doing more NP patrol, back when anons could still create articles — back then it seemed more like 25 out of 50. The decrease seems to have been mostly in the easy cases ("hi mom!!1!"), though; the ones that remain seem to fall more often into the trickier categories where you actually have to spend a few seconds to tell if it's a speedy candidate or not. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I know I must sound like the Time Cube guy to you experienced users, after about a month of poking around and trying things out, Wikipedia really looks like one of the world's truly great bureaucracies - nothing happens until an admin approves it, and there just aren't enough admins to approve everything in a reasonable amount of time, concentrating power in the hands of a few. I'm going to keep editing, but I'm going to stick to fending off vandals and doing other meaningful tasks rather than try to get anything deleted. Astrovega 15:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you think there aren't enough admins, maybe you should find reasonable users to nominate at WP:RFA. Od Mishehu 15:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's ironic that just when [C:CSD]] is at a constant low, thanks to some admins focusing their attention there, you are complaining that it is too hard to get anything deleted. We can always use new good admins, but deletions is one of the things that run rather smooth nowadays (with the usual exceptions of course). Fram 12:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of images with fair-use rationales

Hi there, is there some kind of problem with the tagging and deletion process of fair-use images? I've noticed User:Naconkantari has been deleting a lot of these images. These images had been tagged as being marked as fair-use and lacking a rationale but in response to this tag, a rationale had been added. Is the bot tag now being used as a deletion mark with no further checking? TimVickers 19:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Examples? I know there was some initial confusion with a change in the tag, the change being to say once you've added a rationale remove the tag. When the rationales were added, did you remove the tag? Have you discussed this with Naconkantari? --pgk 19:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The one I came across was Image:Britannica.jpg, I'm sure the tag did not mention that I had to remove it when the bot first added it. When did this change? Yes, I've mentioned this problem on their talk page, but since there seemed to be quite a few other examples I wondered if it was a wider problem. TimVickers 19:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is - there was some confusion with the template, which originally read "add a fair use rationale, don't remove the template" then was changed to "add a fair use rationale, remove the template" - Naconkantrari then we around deleting images with templates not realising some had fair use rationales - if one was deleted that shouldn't have been, Naconkantrari (or most other people - I will, for instance) can restore it. WilyD 19:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In that example it does appear the template changed after you added the rationale, find any more like that and their shouldn't be a problem restoring them. --pgk 19:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the reason. I've undeleted it myself since that was the only problem. OK, thanks. TimVickers 19:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/FURG#Naconkantari.27s_deletions. Dragons flight 20:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I posted on ANI here to try to get some help reviewing the thousands of images Naconkantari deleted on June 6; tomorrow I'll have a look at how many people are willing to take part and we'll divide up the workload. If anyone is willing to help, please let me know. Naconkantari originally stated that he'd manually review the deletions, but he did not even begin to do so, and he hasn't been active since June 8 so I worked through his backlog of undeletion requests today. TomTheHand 00:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

So like...

What would happen if I tried to block myself? I almost just did it, but if it worked I'd have to bug someone else to unblock me. (Though I guess this constitutes bugging people to answer my question. Oh well.) My suspicion is actually that it just gives an error message of some kind? --Masamage ♫ 05:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe you would still be able to unblock yourself. I've seen it happen to other admins. -- bulletproof ^3:16 05:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It would work, and you would be able to unblock yourself. —Centrx→talk • 05:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

But uhh... If you don't mind me asking... Why would you want to block yourself in the first place?-- bulletproof ^3:16 05:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There have been users in the past who asked to be blocked for a set period of time so they wouldn't be tempted to edit (like if they wanted to take a break). Lrrr IV 05:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out my block log, I have blocked myself a few times to test things. Viridae^Talk 06:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I know of two administrators who have accidentally blocked themselves, one of them three times! In all cases they unblocked themselves indicating that the previous block was in error, and lived happily ever after. Hesperian 06:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I just wondered what would happen, is all. X) --Masamage ♫ 06:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at El C's block log for some mildly amusing accidental self-blocks and unblocks. Carcharoth 10:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Formerly, blocking yourself was a very common way of trying to break the addiction. It's now supposed to be wrong to do it, but I don't actually know why it's wrong. Many of the old timers will have blocked themselves for particular times to take time off the project. Me, if I want a break, I just read some of the talk pages on the policy pages that are going haywire. That usually gives me all the motivation for time off I could wish. Geogre 11:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should block on request and allow self-blocks, provided we disable the autoblock so there is no collateral damage possible. Kusma (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking Policy says that self-requested blocks are not permissible, because of possible collateral damage. As I recall, this rule was introduced at the time when Wiki software had no option of disabling the autoblock. If we have the disabling option now, it might be the time to reconsider this part of the blocking policy. Andris 15:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

just unblock yourself saying oops. Ive blocked my self by accident before (I was using vandalproof) its no big deal, just unblock and move on. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

So when we say "collateral damage" what do we mean? (Also, what's autoblock do?) *learning learning learning* --Masamage ♫ 19:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Autoblock is the function that automatically blocks the IPs of blocked accounts. So, if Willy on Wheels is on IP 127.0.0.1 when he is blocked, all users who use the IP 127.0.0.1 will be subsequently blocked if they try to edit. By the same token, if you block yourself, and you're on 127.0.0.2, all users on 127.0.0.2 will be blocked if they try to edit. "Collateral damage" is a term for the blocks that can wind up on friendly accounts due to blocks of vandals, and is the reason that people aren't supposed to self-block or request blocks for themselves. ♠PMC♠ 20:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• That makes enormous amounts of sense. Thanks! --Masamage ♫ 20:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Point of fact: autoblocks only last 24 hours. So in the above example, the Willy on Wheels account may be blocked for 48 hours, 1 year, or infinitely, but in each case the autoblock will only be set for 24 hours. As far as I know there is no way to adjust an autoblock, either, except lifiting them upon request. Natalie 06:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested indef block of an IP

Resolvedblocked, ao/acb — Scientizzle 02:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been in email contact with district representatives of Upper Township School District. They wish to have IP editing from 209.204.71.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) indefinitely blocked, due to repeated vandalism, stating:

we believe it would be best for all involved, and it doesn't prohibit members of our school community from making meaningful contributions to the site. They would just have to either log on as a verifiable user, or they would have to make the contributions from home. Either way, they would still be able to contribute while keeping the vandalism to a minimum.

I've not yet done so, but I believe an indefinitate anon-only block of this address sounds like a reasonable course of action. The District Technician is confident the IP will remain static and is amenable to the idea of placing a notice on the talk page to contact the school principal or supervisor for any future questions regarding the IP's status. Any thoughts or suggestions before I move forward? — Scientizzle 15:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me, so long as there's a clear notice on the talk page explaining how to address the block should the IP be reassigned or something. We should probably encourage school administrators who take an active role in dealing with vandalism from their school's computers. MastCell ^Talk 16:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite is, as the proverb goes, a long time. How about setting the block for, say, a year and then they can reevaluate how it's working out. Newyorkbrad 16:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Instead of going knocking their door every year, how about indeffing it, and have someone notify us when its Whois record changes? Like the sysadmin there? As further failsafe, we can create a different category be created for them. And then code up a bot that periodically checks their WHOIS status and alerts of any change. --soum ^talk 16:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Worst case scenario if that changes, we will have a unblock request stating that the situation changed, and an admin could look up the DNS records. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Newyorkbrad 16:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If the IP changes and restricts someone not from the school district from editing, I'm sure we'll hear about it pretty quick :) -- Renesis (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

With our luck, the IP will probably be assigned to Fox News or Qatar next week anyway :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input...I think I'll do this:

• Indef block, anon only, allowing account creation
• I'll leave a clear message stating that the IP was blocked as requested by district officials ("contact them if you have any questions") but that editing while logged in should not be a problem
• I'll leave clear unblock instructions in the case of IP reassignment or a change of mind by the district
• I'll buy the school officials a bag of cookies for being proactive in helping to prevent further vandalism! :)

Cool? — Scientizzle 17:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds... er... fair and balanced, though I'd actually disable account creation (I typically do this with school blocks, since it jibes with the template, and the school administrator can always email us for account creation if needed). MastCell ^Talk 18:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's done. And I went with account creation blocked. Thanks everyone. — Scientizzle 02:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

HeivenDuarm (talk · contribs) unblock request

This new user appeared today and redirected the user/talk pages for indef blocked Drennleberrn (talk · contribs) to his/her own pages. I indef blocked HeivenDuarm (talk · contribs) as an obvious sockpuppet of Drennleberrn. I declined HeivenDuarm's request for unblock on the grounds they were allowed to contribute positively with the direction to request an unblock through their main account. HeivenDuarm reverted the unblock denial as "trolling" and included a call to unblock longtime blocked sockpuppet Crayolacrime (talk · contribs). I protected the talkpage to prevent further abuse of the unblock template and given the call to unblock a long stale sock, I suspect the person behind this account has been around for quite a long time. Long story short, if anyone wants to review the denial of request for unblock, the page protection, or any of my other actions in regards to this account, feel free to do so.--Isotope23 16:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• This edit is all I need to see. I fully endorse your actions. If Drennleberrn is not banned he may get it if he insists. MaxSem 17:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• This edit justifies it even better, I think. WilyD 17:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• I should mention that the "positive contribution" HeivenDuram was making to Wikipedia was a redirect of "Great jumpin' monkeys" to Monkey Island.--Isotope23 17:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• This person has already made lots of socks to push spurious AFDs on Wiki articles. --MichaelLinnear 23:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Using Talk pages to Communicate with the media.

I've found an experienced editor (User:Jreferee) who feels it appropriate to use an article's talk page (Talk:David Chase) in order to explain a series of edits (vandalism and otherwise) to the article. Media articles on vandalized Wikipedia articles are daily fair in the press, and we may as well sort out this matter for future reference. It's my opinion that an article's edit history provides sufficient explanation and that talk pages should not be used to address the media or highlight for them actions taken by vandals. As a result, I think the subject matter might interest others here. I'm certainly interested in hearing more opinions on this matter. Rklawton 18:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I added the talk page post, you deleted it, I reposed it and asked you to work out our differences on my talk page. However, I appreciate your letting me know about your post here. Had we continued this matter on my talk page, eventually one of us would have thought of reviewing the post in the context of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines - How to use article talk pages. Since the post was not directed towards improving the associated article, it was subject to removal per the guidelines. I removed it per the guideline. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Dialup ip addresses and 3R

When a user is using an IP address that changes several times in a 24 hour period -- perhapse they are using a dialup accout that allocates an IP address on demand. What is the procedure if they are in breach of the WP:3R rule? It seems pointless blocking the IP addreess, so can a 24 hour protection on the page that is being edited in breach of the 3R rule be applied? Is there a guidline that covers this? --Philip Baird Shearer 18:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/69.157.117.117 --Philip Baird Shearer 12:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use of Images on Led Zeppelin

Fair use policy with regards to images confuses me enough that I wanted to ask here for some guidance. On the Led Zeppelin article, there are four shots of the group performing live. These are fairly high res screen-shots from various DVDs. None of them have fair use rationale provided, but that could probably be easily fixed. They are all used in the Hebrew Wikipedia article, which is Featured there. However, I have to wonder if they are necessary/appropriate at all, as it should not be impossible to find free images of a 70s rock band. There has got to be some image around that somebody would provided under creative commons or other free license. As screen shots on the articles about the DVD, they might be reasonable, but they are not used there. One of the images is used on the Heavy metal music article, which also appears to heavily rely on non-fair images. Another is used on Royal Albert Hall ostensibly because the band performed there. Same with Madison Square Garden. Interestingly, none of them are used in articles about the DVDs where they have fair use rationale. I labeled 1977-04-30_Pontiac_ALS.jpg as disputed fair use a while ago and it has now been deleted. The same issues were in my m ind there as well. Thanks. —Gaff ^ταλκ 18:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I am so glad that I posted my question here hoping that an experienced admin could give me some guidance. The response has really helped shed light. —Gaff ^ταλκ 06:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest taking the question to the Village Pump Policy page? Corvus cornix 16:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:UAA and WP:AIV

These two noticeboards should be combined. There is no point in creating an additional page for admins to monitor and for users to have to learn the shortcut and remember to go there, when just having one page would be just as simple. Yes, AIV wasn't technically isn't supposed to have usernames, but there's no reason why blatantly obvious violations couldn't go there instead of to a whole new page. Neither page ever has much of a backlog, so we don't have to worry about the combination making the unified page unmanageable, and both have, essentially, the same phttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&action=edit&section=34 editurpose: to make obvious blocks where no discussion or difficult decision-making is necessary. A system where there was just one page for both of these tasks would be far more efficient than the current one, and would, albeit only slightly, decrease the huge amount of learning and memorization of pages for new users. --Rory096 19:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

One point that was made during the creation of WP:UAA (which was not that long ago), was that a username in violation of policy is not a form of editing abuse, which is what reports made to WP:AIV concern. I don't know how much weight that argument has, but it was mentioned. Leebo ^T/C 19:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if reports made to AIV currently are for editing abuse, but then people started reporting usernames, reports to AIV wouldn't just concern editing abuse. Problem solved. --Rory096 19:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[ec] I believe that the crux of the issue is that "AIV" stands for "Administrator intervention against vandalism" (emphasis mine), which WP:U violations are not. AIV backlogs should be cleared as quickly as possible, as often the integrity of various articles is at stake (not to sound too dramatic), whereas username violations aren't quite the issue. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's MUCH better to keep them separate for several reasons, the main one being that if there are 10 vandals on AIV waiting to be blocked, you want me blocking the ones causing a problem rather than the ones whose only problem is a username. --BigDT 19:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with BigDT. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, it is good that the boards are seperate because it keeps important issues in WP:AIV and admins who are actually interested in usernames can deal with the username problems. GDonato (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

But it doesn't really make a difference! There's no point in having an entire additional page whose biggest backlogs can be cleared in about a minute, and whose purpose fits rather well with another page. --Rory096 20:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec) So perhaps there should be different sections separating usernames from vandalism, or perhaps by priority. Blatant username violations only take a few seconds to block anyway, so does it really make much of a difference? Anyway, there's very rarely a huge backlog on AIV, and UAA, judging from the history, almost never has more than 4 users on it at a time, so it's not much of a change. Also, if the two pages were combined, admins who only monitor UAA might help out at AIV, and admins who monitor both wouldn't have to waste time switching between the two (not that it probably makes much of a difference anyway, but meh). --Rory096 19:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to have a page with both lists, can't you just make a page in your userspace that transcludes them both? —David Eppstein 20:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That... damn, that's a really good idea. I'm gonna make a few tweaks to see if I can add both noticeboards to my admin page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it ain't pretty, but User:EVula/admin#Faux AIV Noticeboard and User:EVula/admin#Faux UAA Noticeboard work fairly well as shortcuts to both noticeboards. I might do more work to make it look nicer, but for now, that's fine. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't AIV used for usernames violation not so long ago? I think it is best that both noticeboards are kept separately, for the same reasons as above. The reports at WP:UAA would add more traffic to WP:AIV that is backlogged often enough without. -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Unofficially, yes, it was used for usernames, though they were supposed to go to RFCN. AIV backlogs are rarely very bad, and can usually be cleared quite clearly if someone's actually watching. Anyway, just having an additional section in AIV would solve the problem, we don't need an entire new process for this one task that is very rarely used (compared to other pages, traffic at UAA is tiny). More processes is NOT a good thing! --Rory096 20:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The major problem with AIV handling username problems was that unless usernames were blatant, admins referred them to RFCN, a very bitey place for newcomers. UAA allows admins that have a strong understanding of the username policy to evaluate all usernames there without clogging up AIV and without the need for RFCN all the time. Secondally, users with username infringements are not vandals, and should not be labelled as such. Admins that don't wish to monitor usernames don't have to watch the page, they can concentrate on AIV, the 2 boards being kept seperate simply organises things much better. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it not the same with UAA? The description of that page says it's for blatant usernames, and those that require discussion are sent to RFCN. Let's not play semantics here; the purposes of both pages are basically the same, to block obvious violations of policy, whatever we call it. Having two separate board may "organize" things, but it's creating more unnecessary processes that help to make Wikipedia a very difficult place to contribute for newcomers, because there are so many things all over the place that have different names and slightly different purposes. We should consolidate where possible, and this is definitely a place where it's possible. --Rory096 20:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Since creating the new noticeboard for just usernames things have gone much better. Things are going just fine. This is a solution looking for a problem. ^(H) 20:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think ryan has an excellent point when he says that jsut because the username is innapropraite does not mean they are vandals. Often it is the opposite. It is offensive to label a good faith editor as a vandal. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The names aren't important, we can alter the name. Either way, these two processes should be combined. --Rory096 20:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh... don't take this the wrong way, but perhaps you should be more familiar with the process(es) before making suggestions about how to improve them. We don't arbitrarily rename users; WP:U-violating editors are indefinitely blocked, but are welcome to register new accounts (considering the fact that they rarely have actual edits, this presents no issue) or they can be unblocked so that they can request to be renamed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait what? I meant we could rename the process, not the user... --Rory096 20:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, my misunderstanding. Gotta be more specific; when talking about renaming the username noticeboard, saying just "name" lends itself to confusion. :)
At any rate, I'm still opposed to the combination of the two boards for the myriad of reasons that everyone else has presented. I applaud your desire to improve the way things go around here, but I think you're just plain wrong (and, to be fair, a lot of the people who are arguing against are the ones that would be the most affected by the combination). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that having UAA instead of RFCN isn't better, but having less process pages would be even better than that. Combining AIV and UAA would reduce the amount of bureaucracy, which is a good thing. If something is a good thing, why shouldn't we do it? --Rory096 20:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Plus the general consensus was that username violations were in the way at AIV, the majority of people welcomed the move to an area where admins interested in username could watch it. It is a fundamentally different type of violation than vandalism. ^(H) 20:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Having a different section on AIV would work just as well. Anyway, when were username violations on AIV, and who said they were in the way (there are very few username violations that end up reported, and they're easy to handle, so it seems like it wouldn't be much of a problem)? --Rory096 20:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Having it on the same page in another section would not allow for separate watchlist items. Frankly I have seen the benefit of the separation, but I have not seen any evidence of a problem caused by the separation. ^(H) 21:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite simply, it's just more crap that people have to know in order to contribute. Yes, it wouldn't cause problems for you, or most experienced editors, since they already know about it, but what about all the new contributors who have to learn about all these processes that we have? There's no point in making even more when we don't have to. --Rory096 21:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No the username violations went to WP:RFCN, not WP:AIV most of the time as AIV would redirect them there. RFCN is not really well suited to dealing with User:a;sfdoiawpefpwermpaescifoeapvnrpaesmrsdpc, but that name is not vandalism. Its not hurting anything to have the additional page. Much ado about nothing :) Also the vast majority of reports are generated by WP:TWINKLE, so the only people really seeing the page are the admins. And rarely do new users ever get involved in watching the new user feed anyway. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not much ado; a change would require very little effort. Yes, we don't want to use RFCN, but that's the old system, and with the new system, UAA is very similar in terms of how it works to AIV, and the combined page would make it simpler for users. As for new users, I don't mean anons who edit once and leave, I mean people who are just joining the community. --Rory096 21:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As of now, UAA seems to be working fine. Why is this such a pressing issue as to be discussed on AN? Couldent a proposal be drawn up or something? My opinion is it does not appear to be broken lets not create a hubub and drama. Lets write articles or something? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? It's not a particularly pressing issue, just a minor annoyance, which is exactly why I mentioned it here. Creating a proposal (besides defeating my entire point of having less process), would be overkill for such a minor change; a simple discussion is far more efficient, and I certainly wouldn't categorize it as hubbub or drama. --Rory096 21:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Minor annoyance to who? Seems like the admins are ok with this, (they are the ones that have to watch it after all), and the vast majority of reports are done by users that don't even know or care where the reports go. Just a thought. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's exactly because there are so many process pages that people can't learn all of them that people don't know where they go. Perhaps we should make Wikipedia less of a hopelessly disorganized bureaucracy so that newer users can more easily learn all the pages, in case they have to do something without the help of TWINKLE. --Rory096 21:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[ec]Merely combining two distinctly different boards, which is something that every single person in this discussion has opposed (with the sole exception of you) is not something I'd call a "minor change". You've yet to explain how this is a legitimate need that needs to be addressed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, it's not a huge problem; Wikipedia won't explode if it's not done. It's a legitimate need because it's making Wikipedia more difficult for new users to "learn." No, it's not a horrible problem, but yes, it is a minor change that would make some difference. Just because others oppose it doesn't mean it's a change that would make much a difference, and this discussion probably is more effort than any extra effort it might have taken to either do the change, or the extra effort necessary for new users to learn the change. --Rory096 21:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

But... you're not showing that anyone is legitimately and consistently being confused about where to report username violations. Someone reports it to AIV once, is told not to do it again and where to report it next time, and then they know. And, with all due respect to the users, but the very administrators who "have to watch both boards" should have equal say in such a matter, and we've voiced our opinion: it's optimal the way it is. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not the effort involved, it is that we think it would work less effectively if we did as you describe. ^(H) 21:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I can understand that, and that's fine, but it seems to me that many people above didn't really say that. Oh well, it doesn't matter. I suppose this little debate is over. --Rory096 21:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Rory, while it is clear that you disagree, consensus seems to want it as it is now. ^(H) 21:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's not a big deal. --Rory096 21:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You can do a page that includes both noticeboards, but that would be unwatchlistable, though (not that you can't watchlist both pages separately and still use your page for editing). -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Private island

Two users have edit warred in the past regarding the External links sections of the article. Hawaii-guru (talk · contribs) and Islomaniac (talk · contribs) To correct the situation I removed all links and locked the article on March 2nd. Recently I got an e-mail from "Mark Amherst" Markamherst (talk · contribs) (aka Islomaniac) asking if his http://www.privateislandsblog.com/ could be put in as an External links since it was non-commercial. I added the link, despite being a blog, since it seemed to have decent coverage on the subject. Shortly afterward I got an e-mail from Cheyenne Morrison (http://private-islands.blogspot.com/) claiming that Blogs aren't allowed on Wikipedia (not accurate, though close enough) and that Islomaniac's blog is a parody of Cheyenne blog. The easy solution is to not allow any external links and maintain that status quo; but this claim of parody has caught my curiosity.

I'd like some advice, is it a parody... and if so does it matter? Is the blog sufficiently thorough to add it; or just not chance it. (my opinion is I'd like to have one decent external link, even if it is a blog; so far all other links of note are commercial websites) A checkuser could be helpful to ensure I can get the disputing parties to not use sockpuppets. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't put both, but that's just me. They just don't sound encyclopedic to me. x42bn6 Talk Mess 20:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

wouldn't put either? Not too clear to me. —Crazytales ^{(talk) (alt)} 01:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Buffalo Sabres and Lindy Ruff

A persistent IP vandal using multiple IP addresses continues to vandalize these pages, which are otherwise not being actively edited. Can we get a semi-protect on them until this vandal goes away? ATren 20:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFPP, although I would think that semi-protection might be a good idea for both articles. x42bn6 Talk Mess 20:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware of that page. Thank you. ATren 20:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Numb3rs fair-use images

Some devoted fan or fans of the American TV series Numb3rs are edit-warring over the obviously excessive inclusion of multiple fair-use screenshots in character articles, eight of them in Don Eppes, nine in Larry Fleinhardt, and twelve in the case of Charlie Eppes. Could somewhat with the appropriate links to the fair-use policy at hand have a word with Charlie Eppes (talk · contribs) or 68.224.247.53 (talk · contribs)? --Calton | Talk 23:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Feature request, feedback wanted

As an admin, I would find it helpful if a user's deleted contributions also showed up as a subset of their contributions list (ie like deleted versions of pages appear at the top of the history "View or restore 6 deleted edits?") that way when someone is reported as creating attack pages, being disruptive etc we can easily check their deleted contributions rather than requiring the name of the page that has been deleted to look at them. What does everyone else think? Anyone else want to add this to bugzilla for me in a clearer way? Viridae^Talk 01:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I would love that function. — Scientizzle 02:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This used to show up on Kate's Tool on the toolserver, but it was removed for being a privacy violation somehow. --W.marsh 02:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me :-P ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems we're getting close. --MZMcBride 02:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou both of you. Viridae^Talk 03:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Kate took down the deleted edits viewer because it included edit summaries, which sometimes contained libellous material or personal info. That was before oversight. Chick Bowen 04:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've wanted this for at least a couple years. Thanks for the links. Antandrus (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have wanted it for a while - just got around to writing down what i wanted though. Viridae^Talk 06:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be great :) CattleGirl ^talk 04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I for one would be way more useful at WP:AIV. Sometimes I just have to go, "Uh, I dunno" and wait for someone else to be bolder than I am. --Masamage ♫ 05:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sweet! I've always wondered why there wasn't some version of this function. I always get a little nervous blocking people for article creation vandalism. Natalie 06:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This would help admins find vandalism patterns which involve article creation. Od Mishehu 07:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sweet to have that! Sr13 07:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Even as a non-admin, this would be a great feature. I remember we used to have something to this effect, but I asked on IRC not too long ago for a list of my deleted edits and was told that they could no longer do it. - hahnchen 18:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Serious concerns about User:SlimVirgin and User:Jayjg, admins protecting admins? gangs?

I had typed this up yesterday and decided not to submit it, giving SlimVirgin the benefit of the doubt, but something came up that makes me deeply concerned about this. I found that there is some history and controversy related to these two and their style of admining? I have been earnestly editing wikipedia for some time now and have only recently entered upon any controversial articles as part of my interest in promoting NPOV in cases where it is difficult to attain due to prevailing moral and political opinions. Prior to this, I am especially proud of my work on Emergence in bringing it balance, and I think that my edit history on the whole speaks for itself - I am not a vandal, I am not here to disrupt articles. Most of my edits are on innocuous pages about Scale models and passenger trains. Despite all that, I fear I may have inadvertantly gotten myself on the wrong side of a powerful duo and wouldn't like to find myself blocked - I value my editing here a great deal, and especially the history of edits on this account, etc. I feel that I must speak up before SlimVirgin makes good on her threats and I am prevented from making a broad appeal to the admins.

I'll keep it as brief as possible. I made some proposals (Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Fact disputedfact value and Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Killing NPOV) for clarification on NPOV and additions to the text of the policy. While working on what I thought was a persistent pattern on Wikipedia of stating POV as fact, paraphrasing with bias, etc. in violation of existing policies, I came to holocaust. I then ran into a problem with several administrators who are parked on that article and enforcing a particular version of it (backed up by threat of blocking for "disruption"). Let me quickly itemize what I think are the key problems:

• SlimVirgin "lols" and quotes obvious WP:CIVIL violation by User:Rabbeinu on his talk page[1] and ignores another inappropriate comment by him on her talk page[2].

• SlimVirgin engages in a pattern of edit-warring and it is apparently impossible to get an admin blocked for it ("undoes the actions of another editor in whole or in part" right?) - just an example: ([3] reverts [4], [5] reverts [6], [7] reverts [8], [9] reverts [10]) - 3RRV denied by User:Heimstern with note that slim should "revert less often". Does the rule not clear staying "undoes the actions of another editor in whole or in part"? Because she did this previously (take your pick, two possible sets of 3RR violations from these edits ([11][12][13][14][15][16]) and 3RRV was denied by User:Tariqabjotu - an apparent ally listed below who also blocked me after User:Jayjg listed me for a 3RR which was totally unintentional on my part, a series of consecutive edits which were getting reverted by Slim without me realizing - if these aren't 3RR mine sure wasn't.

• Appears to have protection and cooperation of a group of like-minded admins (User:Jayjg, User:Humus Sapiens, User:Tariqabjotu, User:JoshuaZ)

• Above users ganged up to have me blocked (and protect Slim from being blocked) for what was really two reverts on my part, broken out into a series of consecutive edits - within literally a couple minutes my first and second edit had been reverted, but these were intended as consecutive edits, not an edit war.

• SlimVirgin indicates in edit summary that I am not to "modify lead" or introduce quotes and "counter-claims" on the article. Since when is someone not free to edit an article to try to improve it?

• SlimVirgin persistently (just for example [17], [18], [19]) warns that a clear content and policy dispute is "disruptive editing" and I am concerned that she may have me blocked for it by a friend without even peer review by impartial admins.

• Minor issue, but "SlimVirgin" is a potentially offensive user name and seems to me to violate the user name policy. How has this slipped by? Judging by the names that are summarily banned every day, how isn't this the sort of reference to "reproductive functions"? If people are banned for having "gay" in their username which is not even mentioned in the policy, how does this clear reference to "reproductive functions" go unquestioned? Seems that admins protect admins whereas new users get no consideration at all. There are cases of people being banned summarily for all sorts of innocuous names which are not directly covered by the policy.

Please see Talk:Holocaust, and I think these [20][21][22][23] edits mentioned above (that she reverted in whole or in part) exemplify what I am trying to do, which is nothing other than a good-faith effort to improve the neutrality of wikipedia.

I would like the edit-warring and threats to stop. I don't know SlimVirgin's history or if she is prone to this sort of conflict but she strikes me as someone who does not have the sort of impartiality that should be associated with administrative privileges. The wider problem of admins protecting admins needs to be addressed too - although that is such a fundamental problem of this system with its "discretions" and powers that I have no idea what could be done about it. Fourdee 11:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you focus on trying to change the admin system and dont focus on individual admins, SqueakBox 02:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the rest of what you say just yet, the examples of your edits that you give at the end there are hardly unproblematic. In this edit and this edit you rely on one source to assert a fact (a practice you complain about here) without identifying the source, but importantly without identifying that he is only speaking about terms used in a particular period (from 1939 to early 1942). In this edit you are simply removing information without explanation. --bainer (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't investigated the current situation in detail, but I would note that in the Wikipedia talk pages cited, you advocated an interpretation of NPOV that I found extreme and unconventional. If you are now trying to apply your interpretation of NPOV to the Holocaust, I wouldn't be surprised if it is creating friction. Dragons flight 12:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As I have had to remind certain people on occasion, Wikipedia is not the real world and, with that said, the title of Admin can not be equated always with a mature and sensible person. So, while not referring to the Slim situation (I know nothing about that person) I agree completely that there are some bad admins out there and there are “admin gangs” that pop up as well as people who badly abuse their powers. While some admins are upstanding and respectable people with jobs, homes, and the 2.5 children of the American Dream, other admins may be exactly the opposite. In particular, there is a growing number of admins who are college students and (not that there’s anything wrong with being a college student) it is a little scary to think about a 22 or 23 year old passing judgment or becoming involved in a dispute with someone twice their age and having the attitude on Wikipedia that those involved in the dispute should be treated as equals and as if they are the same with knowledge and experience which just isn’t the case sometimes. For instance, imagine you were a 63 year old lawyer working on a case and a 19 year old who saw an episode of Matlock came into your firm and told you how wrong you were. In the real world, you could throw the person out on the street but here at Wikipedia the person just be taken seriously and debated with as a mature party. Conflicts then erupt, disputes happen, and if the 19 year happens to be an Admin there might arise a situation of unfair behavior and abuse of admin powers. So, extremely valid points. Whether or not anything can be done about it, that is the true question. -38.119.112.187 12:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah 250 words or less please. Viridae^Talk 13:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

While there is certainly a problem with cliques on Wikipedia, and it's also true that SlimVirgin can be a bit abrupt at times (aren't we all?), I have to say that in this case she has a point. I agree with Dragonsflight and Thebainer that you seem to have a rather odd view of NPOV. Some of your earlier edits (e.g. to Nazism - diff) seem a little questionable as well. -- ChrisO 23:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I came across Fourdee first when he wanted to change the Emmett Till article to say that the subject had been "killed", not "murdered", because no one was convicted (even though two people confessed). When he began to lose that argument he proposed the NPOV policy be changed to specifically prohibit designating deaths as murders unless there have been convictions. It would have also had disruptive effects on articles about genocides, massacres, etc. When that proposal was shot down he apparently started to go after those who opposed it, including these admins. This editor appears to shop for forums seeking better outcomes. While I haven't reviewed the case he lays out here, I've seen enough of his previous actions to doubt its merits. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the people in question were acquitted of murder. Fourdee 02:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I am not aware of any of these editors having anything to do with the Emmett Till article or the NPOV proposals, nor do I care to retaliate against anyone for disagreeing with me. People have opinions, why should that bother me or anyone else? This isn't about the content dispute, it's about whether there is a cabal or gang of admins who work together to silence opponents. Fourdee 02:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Having failed to bring rogue admins on the Hebrew wikipedia to justice (sadly, due to the size of their wiki it's a true cabal), I'm always on the lookout for admin "gangs" as it were, but here I think the problem lies in interpreting NPOV, not the admin's conduct. David Fuchs 01:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to find diffs right now, but Fourdee has been insisting that we call the Holocaust an "eradication project," and argues that we can't use the term "mass murder," because it's POV, given that not everyone was convicted of murder. We're also not allowed to say that every arm of the German bureaucracy was involved in the genocide (for which we have a good source, and which no scholar disputes), unless we can find a source showing that every single civil servant knew it was genocide. And so on. This has been accompanied by long talk-page explanations of how Fourdee is the only person who understands NPOV. It's tiresome, particularly as we're currently trying to improve the article, and most of his edits have been reverted.

As for my user name and "reproductive functions"(!), as everyone knows, my name is a reference to extra-virgin olive oil, which is not to my knowledge connected to reproduction, though I stand to be corrected, and knowing Fourdee I no doubt will be. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Same argument could be made for "gay" (happy) and "dick" (richard) and so on for probably anything - I guess "gaydick" is a valid username because it could mean "happy richard". It has the appearance of mentioning sexual function and there's sure no phrase "slim virgin" about olive oil or anything else. The only things that turn up in searching for that on google are pornography and rather detailed complaints about you. Anyway, maybe not "everyone knows" what it's supposed to mean.

The rest of what you said is, as a whole, false or distorted. At any rate, I would just like to be free from the threat of being blocked because of a content/policy dispute. And you appear to have made it clear you don't want quotes and counter-claims in the article so I think we are going to continue to have this dispute. Fourdee 02:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I honestly thought it was a reference to Virginia Slims o.O ... —freak(talk) 02:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Since when does virginity have anything to do with reproduction anyway? Your username concern reeks of trolling, Fourdee. —freak(talk) 03:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

shrug check out the usernames that are banned summarily every day. As to what Virgin means please notice the article mentions reproductive functions in the first sentence. This is a totally trivial issue I just mentioned it because I don't think any policies are being enforced uniformly or fairly. Fourdee 03:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I could say a lot here, but I'll simply point out that Fourdee insisted on removing the term "mass murder" as a description of the Holocaust because it was either a WP:BLP violation, or because it wasn't the "proper legal term", or various other claims. I then specifically sourced the term "mass murder". Unsurprisingly, I was immediately reverted, with a claim of "mixed cites, synthesis". Fourdee is right when he says this isn't about a content dispute, but he's wrong when he says it's "about cabal or gang of admins who work together to silence opponents." In fact, it is about his own disruptive behavior. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that's right. You can't combine sources like that and SV later removed that citation herself. That's a content/policy dispute though, not the reason we are here.

You linked to WP:POINT as disruptive behavior (there is a separate page Wikipedia:Disruptive editing) - WP:POINT describes ironic parodies to illustrate that someone or some policy is wrong, which is not what I'm doing. As to whether this behavior is disruptive that's what we're here for, and so far I have not heard any impartial (uninvolved) persons labeling this as clear disruption. I just want the question answered: is this behavior "disruptive" if so which parts of it do I need to change to avoid being blocked? Blocking for disruption is only allowed by consensus of "neutral parties" and I wanted the chance to make my case and ask for that neutral decision before it happens. Fourdee 05:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourdee has decided to enlighten other users about his opinions in new and innovative (read: totally unrelated) forums.[24] I don't know what to make of this exactly, but since the post doesn't address the article in anyway, I think it is trolling. nadav (talk) 09:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

My comments directly address the conflict there. I'm not sure what "trolling" means in this sense but I have always heard it used to mean something like "affecting a false position merely to get a rise out of people". I'm not playing around. Fourdee 09:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The word has other meanings. My use of the word was closer to WP:TROLL#Misplaced criticism. I'll assume good faith, but you should know that these kinds of posts come across badly. nadav (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

After reading the above and viewing the diffs, I have blocked User:Fourdee for a period of 48 hours for tendentious editing ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Could people please please (pretty please) stop citing essays when blocking people? I know that TE covers material that's already covered by other policies, but then, please, use those policies as support? It just looks bad. Really really bad. Bladestorm 17:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

ZOMG! SLIM VIRGIN! JAYJG! CABALS! ADMIN ABUSE! Will ^(talk) 17:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

He didn't cite it (i.e. as per WP:TE); he linked it. Big difference. El_C 17:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

True, and in any case, tendentious editing is a subset of disruptive editing, a widely accepted guideline the violation of which is grounds for blocking. I think linking the essay was just an attempt to be specific about the subtype of disruptiveness involved. For what it's worth, 2 unblock requests by Fourdee have since been declined, the second by me. MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk page protected; objections?

As Fourdee (talk · contribs) has posted his 3rd unblock template (6 minutes after I'd declined the second and warned him about abusing the template), I've protected his talk page for the duration of his block. The 3rd unblock request has been declined by ElinorD (talk · contribs). The block and page protection are again submitted here for review. MastCell ^Talk 23:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Question - as an admin, what would you do?

Here's a not hypothetical question for admins:

Someone joins Wikipedia today and starts making controversial edits. These edits make changes to articles (in this case, Cyclone Larry and Cyclone Tracy), changes to bits of the article that are included by the standard of the relevant WikiProject (in this case, WP:WPTC). This standard has consensus within the WikiProject and is followed for all articles (in this case, to include a comparison against the U.S. Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale). This user repeatedly removes this information after being reverted, claiming it's just a "guideline" (fair enough). But the guideline has widespread consensus (or even, arguably, unanimous support) within the project. The new user has come off as a dick (history of Cyclone Larry: an edit summary shows "WPTC has no rules, only guidelines, so this article has been guided back to the domain of accuracy"). This user has nearly violated WP:3RR.

What would you suggest? This obviously isn't going to go away with a simple slap on the hand. And what he's trying to remove has widespread support for inclusion which is unlikely to change, so is there really a point discussing the issue over again? Do we (meaning the majority) just keep reverting every time he tries to change it?

Thoughts? – Chacor 12:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No @ the keep reverting suggestion - the wikiproject does not have the power to dictate a subjects contents, I suggest you try and engage him on his talk page and talk it over. Viridae^Talk 12:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct on the first count, but what is important to remember is that there's widespread-to-unanimous consensus for what he's trying to remove. Regardless, if he tries to change it again any time soon he breaks WP:3RR, so... – Chacor 12:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're referring to The Snout? Here's an example edit. The editor was removing, from an article about an Australian tropical cyclone, a sentence about a classification system that is only used in America - and all the sentence said was that it's not known where the cyclone falls on the scale. What's the problem? I don't see how this is relevant to the article at all. --bainer (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, there is consensus to include, in non-U.S. storm articles, a general comparison against the U.S. scale. Regardless, having double-checked, the sentence he removed was rather incorrect (the guideline is to use the Joint Typhoon Warning Center's estimate as the comparison), so... moot point. – Chacor 12:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Some further tangentially-related discussion split to User talk:Thebainer. – Chacor 12:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you know, he's a vandal. Can't say I'm surprised. – Chacor 12:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that doesn't look too good. In the spirit of don't bite and good faith, I've left a warning/suggestion on his talk page. We'll see how he responds. MastCell ^Talk 15:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Rollback and watchlist

Is there an easy way to set the rollback function so that it adds the page you roll back to your watchlist? Fram 13:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

On Special:Preferences, click watchlist, then check add pages that I edit. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge that does have no effect - infact I use rollback over any revertscript when in particular I don't want the page to clutter my watchlist. Agathoclea 13:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

An alternative is to use popups with the preferences set to add pages you edit to watchlist, because popups actually "makes an edit" (i.e. clicks "save page"). Of course, popups is too much trouble for most admins. – Chacor 13:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yah, rolling back isn't actually editing... otherwise my watchlist would have exploded by now :/ Riana ⁂ 13:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Allright, thanks! Fram 13:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser block

First of all sorry if I am reposting this, it seems my edit wasn't saved the first time (browser crash)

I got asked on my talk page to enforce a block after a checkuser request that showed it was  Likely that User:Heqong = TingMing. Since Heqong was claiming his innocence on the case talk page, I assume he will fill an unblock request. I already blocked confirmed users, but I was wondering what the process exactly was on likely socks? -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a judgement call. Personally, I see an account which was dormant for 9 months; then suddenly after TingMing was blocked, jumped into the same articles, from the same POV, making 50 edits/day. Add in a "likely" from checkuser, and I'd say it smells like a sleeper account/sock puppet. My inclination would be to indefinitely block it, but I'll see what others have to say. MastCell ^Talk 16:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Passes the duck test. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

A "Likely" from a CheckUser is more than enough to warrant a block. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick Image question

Regarding the images,

• Image:MacOSX10-5.jpg
• Image:Leopard Finder.jpg
• Image:Timemachine-prescreenshot.jpg
• Image:IChat-prescreenshot.jpg
• Image:leopard_quicklook.jpg

just ebecause they were taken off a web page does not mean they are copyvios, do they? Especially they have a FUR (ignoring the validity at the moment). --soum ^talk 15:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid it does mean they are copyright violations. The screenshot tag is for screenshots taken by the user, not right click and saved from Apple's website. Neil ╦ 15:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No, my question is whether using a screenshot, even if it is from the developers' website, is allowed here under WP:FU as long as there isnt a public NDA-free release available? Of course with a valid rationale and a proper tag like saying it is a non standard fair usage, thats not the point of the question. --soum ^talk 15:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Saying as they are screenshots of an unreleased piece of software (OSX 10.5), I'd say they are fairly irreplaceable. That said, I doubt the iChat or Finder articles are severely lacking just because these pictures got removed... EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the suitability is an issue, which we were discussing at the article talk page, but it was not the point here. What I asked was just because a screenshot was copied off a web page, does it become a copyvio regardless of everything else? Yeah, I know the policy and as I interpret it, its not (assuming its irreplaceable and has a valid FUR). I just want to know if my interpretation is missing anything. --soum ^talk 17:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Does the page have a copyright statement? Guy (Help!) 18:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Which page? The Apple page? Yeah it does. But the question is not just about this specific set of images. It is about any generic screenshot of a copyrighted software. If any such screenshot is retrieved from the software title publishers' website, and uploaded here, does it become a copyright infringement suitable for CSD #G12? The way I see it is that FU still applies to it, so it is not a clear case of delete at sight (as these can be a valid fair usage). I just want clarification that I am interpreting correctly. Again, I am not referring to these set of images. --soum ^talk 18:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, it is a copyright violation in all cases. The interface is copyrighted and we reproduce it without a proper authorization. Fair Use is an exception that permits to infringe the rule, and I don't think there is any clear cut rule copyvio/non copyvio there. The fact that the screenshot has been taken by an apple employee and that apple is communicating using these screenshots is a risk factor. My own personal view is that the fair use rationale was valid (assuming there is no way to make the picture yourself for the moment), but I am not a lawyer. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

To answer Soum's question - if you have taken the image from a website, it is not a screenshot, by definition. A screenshot is an image you have taken yourself of a screen, not an image taken by someone else of someone else's screen that you right-click and saved. That is a copyright violation. Neil ╦ 13:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Neil. That is completely wrong. Whoever presses the print-screen button is irrelevant. It does not have to be the uploader pressing the print-screen button to qualify as a screenshot. Many screens are taken from promotional material released by their copyright owners. As long as these are sourced, and include a valid fair-use rationale, then they are OK for use. - hahnchen 19:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The stolen image of Mac 10.5 is being used on Graphical user interface, Mac OS X and operating system - definitely not fair use there (plenty of free images can be used to illustrate those). A fair use image could possibly be argued for on Mac OS X 10.5 ("identification of and critical commentary on the software in question"), but the {{screenshot}} tag is invalid - these are not screenshots; they are images stolen from the Apple website. Neil ╦ 13:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The time machine and Ichat pictures taken from Apple's website are also not fair use (just being used as decoration), ao have also been deleted as blatant copyvios. I strongly believe the remaining Image:MacOSX10-5.jpg image, now solely being used on Mac OSX 10.5 remains a copy vio, as the screenshot rationale is for screenshots, not a stolen propietary image based on a screenshot. Neil ╦ 13:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've deleted it. There was no source, and the rationale claimed it was a screenshot. It is a blatant copyright violation (WP:CSD#G12) - note the big copyright notice at http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/ Neil ╦ 13:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Apple can put all the scary warnings on their website they want. No-one is denying that they hold the copyright to it, but fair use and more specifically our non-free content says that using the images is allowable. Whether you or an Apple employee took the screenshot is irrelevant. Of course whether the images are being used appropriately i.e. with critical commentary is important. the wub "?!" 22:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted images for internal use only?

I came across Category:Images_of_Wikipedians_used_with_permission just now. It asserts that user-created copyrighted photos may be used *inside the project itself* if re-use is not planned. (It should be noted that the wikipedia logo is licensed similarly, and the community appears to accept this). They were all uploaded in 2004, before our current policies came into place. Is this allowed? This could open a can of worms with users licensing their user page photos just for themselves, or just for their wikiproject. -N 19:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say no, but I would ask the uploaders before doing anything. Ask them to rechange the license, and if that doesn't work, then come back here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No, a proposal for such a license have been shot down before, these are "legacy" photos taken during some meetup by Raul654 but not released under a free license because he had not asked permission from the subjects of the photos. Then they seem to have just sort of gotten stuck in limbo and a couple of users have found the tag and used it for theyr own photos as well. It's been years though so I's probably time to clear them out (move to an off site facebook type place or something maybe). --Sherool (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, they could be tagged with {{subst:orfud}} as they are non-free images not being used in any articles. ;) --BigDT 13:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Deco Da Man unblocked

I have unblocked Deco Da Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was blocked indef by Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for stupid sockpuppetry. Since Deco has apologised I'm giving him a second chance. Ryulong is offline for some time, so reporting it here. MaxSem 20:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a second chance, provided he's on a short leash. Of course, since almost all of his edits were in his userspace even before the block, he could stay blocked and it might not make much difference... :) MastCell ^Talk 20:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Though I'm not an admin, I'm willing to commit to keep an eye on him -- esp. since I was a major advocate of his release from blocking. Basically, this is a 13-year-old kid who's pretty smart, but needs to sharpen his discernment for what's appropriate to do or not do on Wikipedia. --Yksin 21:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Advise on a slowly ongoing problem

I just reverted warned two people on the Julianna Rose Mauriello article. The situation is this: There have been rumors spread on a nonreputable blog, speculating on Ms. Mauriello's sexuality. These rumors were spread by a known stalker of Ms. Mauriello, who also lifted private pics from her (now nonexistant) facebook. The two Wiki users in question added this gossip to the article and tried uploading the image to her article. It is a private image taken during Ms. Mauriello's 16th birthday party. I don't want to go to RFPP, because the vandalism is well, lazy (Given the subject, pardon the pun.) I warned the one user with uw-upload because that was the nearest thing I could find to this, though I don't know if it's appropriate. Any suggestions? Should I take a chill pill? The reason I know the image is inappropriate, by the way, is because an anon user tried to upload the same image earlier this month. Thanks. --Ispy1981 20:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think a chill pill is necessary; after all, we're talking about violations of WP:BLP here. I think you're correct to take a strong line against adding speculative, poorly sourced material and illicit images; you can use Template:Uw-blp1 and up. If continued insertion of this material is a problem, then come back here or let me know, as repeatedly violating WP:BLP is grounds for a block. MastCell ^Talk 20:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Not only is it a BLP violation, but she's only sixteen. This needs to be severely curbed. Corvus cornix 22:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies/advice. I have had the article on watch for quite some time, as a small favor to her family, and will report if it gets out of hand. --Ispy1981 00:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

On my watchlist as well. I'll keep an eye out for anything inappropriate. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT attacks on new user pages

I'm all for WP:NOT#myspace but lately editors have been taking it to the extreme. See for instance User:JimmySan. One sentence. One sentence. Deleting a new user's page for having a single sentence is ridiculous. I wrote a new paragraph in WP:UP (here that gained consensus for the addition here) that I thought might help stem the tide of this, but editors don't seem to have noticed. This is becoming a real problem. -N 21:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

category deletion v. depopulation

Recently, some admins speedily deleted a bunch of user categories without depopulating them first. I believe any categories should be depopulated if they are to be deleted. Populated categories that are deleted create unnecessary redlinks. If an admin is deleting a user category, the admin should inform all entries in the category first to facilitate depopulation. Think about if an island sinks with all people still on it. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely they'll notice it by seeing that the category has been deleted? It's easier for 100 people to make 1 quick edit each than for one person to make 100 edits. Friday (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

But many users do not periodically check the bottoms of their userpage. Redlinks on userpages are harmful to the project. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Harmful how? I think a category I was in was deleted once.. at some point I noticed and removed it, but it wasn't hurting anything, as far as I know. Friday (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

A category with a huge population should not be deleted summarily, period. Residents on an island should be informed when the island is sinking. A redlink category with whole lot of residents are simply ugly and detrimental. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It may be ugly, but it's detrimental to who? A little bit of ugliness of userpages harms no one at all. Moreschi ^Talk 10:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Shrugs, it's more that it's simply a sloppy admin action. We have workpages for the Wikignomes to "go to it". If you feel the need to speedy delete a category, but don't have the inclination (for whatever reason) to "finish", then simply post the category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working or Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/User, whichever applies. - jc37 10:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been working to depopulate these categories. I know how to find them and what to do to fix them. If someone wants to give me a list I can work off that, but either way, I'll get it sorted out. The bigger question for me is what to do when the user re-adds the category once it is removed twice despite an edit summary that asks them not to. Example can be found here. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of "support/oppose" redlinked cats people like to have on their user pages, and it's typically within the "leeway" we generally give. My general thought is: If they are determined to have a redlinked cat, let them. (As long as having it isn't disrutive in some way.) - jc37 13:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If a user category has an enormous population and the entrants like it, it probably should not be deleted. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 13:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but it should probably at least not be speedily deleted, in order to prevent disruption. "Speedy" closures, and speedy deletions are under discussion at several talk pages, and from what I can see, most seem to agree that the political issue cats should have been deleted, but that they should have been nominated first. (Though I wonder at following that up with speedily deleting even more cats...) At this point, let's just agree to both the former and the latter points. No comment atm about the political ideology cats, or the "other" group of cats summarily deleted (the latter of which I may still take to DRV). - jc37 14:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

oh yawn, more user page categories being summarily deleted for no reason at all except a few with nothing better to do have decided they don't like it. SchmuckyTheCat 23:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Creator of deleted page

Hi. Me and a bot operator are trying to find out if the bot made a mistake. Could an admin tell me the creator of User talk:Wikihermit/Archive One? Thanks, --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's Go Yankees!) 22:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The creator and only editor was User:Wikihermit. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks AmiDaniel. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's Go Yankees!) 22:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

PR person attempting to turn article into a press release

In the New York International Independent Film and Video Festival article, for a while a few anon users and one registered user have been attempting to remove all content sourced by reliable sources and replace it with completely un-sourced or press release sourced material. [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]

I personally suspect that people (person?) involved with this festival are behind these attempts. The only sourced parts of the article's history is criticism of this festival and the material they try to replace it with are press-release like material sourced only by other press releases. The registered editor, User:Beedyeyes, identifies them-self as Briege McGarrity, a "Publicity Event Producer Film Consultant".[30] Briege McGarrity seems to be associated with this film festival. [31] The need for proper sourcing has been posted in the article's talk page, edit summaries and on User:Beedyeyes and 71.50.64.3 talk pages[32], but User:beedyeyes continues to ignore warnings to stop doing this.

Other editors and I are bordering on 3RR. Can we have some help with this? Thank you. --Oakshade 22:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the page, given the edit-warring and reluctance of User:Beedyeyes, thus far, to engage on the talk page. In deference to the fact that they do seem to be a genuine newbie, I haven't blocked them for edit-warring but instead encouraged them to engage on the talk page. Once there's been some meaningful discussion (or if this user does not engage on the talk page) and you'd like the page unprotected so that editing can resume, you can ask me on my talk page or go to WP:RFPP and request unprotection. MastCell ^Talk 23:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection error

I keep getting an error message when trying to protect pages. It reads like this:

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

(SQL query hidden)

from within function "Title::purgeExpiredRestrictions". MySQL returned error "1205: Lock wait timeout exceeded; Try restarting transaction (10.0.0.237)".

Can someone help me fix this problem? bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 23:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that for a particular page or all of them? Just now I protected my sandbox for 20 minutes with no problem. —freak(talk) 04:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we delete attack pages or not?

Can uninterested parties look on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Digwuren/Petri Krohn's Story of Estonians? Currently the discussion is dominated by users named in inconclusive Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Digwuren. Alex Bakharev 00:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In these cases, don't we just mark with {{spa}} and let the closing admin decide whether to discount those votes or not? hbdragon88 00:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

What {{spa}} are you talking about? These are established users. And it is hardly surprising that almost only Estonian editors are interested in this topic. Colchicum 11:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know much about Estonian history...I understand the one user is mocking the other for his version of history but what's the actual dispute about? Just mocking somebody doesn't make it an attack page... -N 01:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Uh, no. The word "mocking" ought to have been a clue, there. --Calton | Talk 01:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• There is also a similiar page Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Petri_Krohn/Evidence. Both those pages should stay. There are no insults in them. We should be more tolerant regarding userspace, one of the legitimate usage of userspace is to help other wikipedians to understand with whom they are interacting. Also, is legitimate for wikipedians to question the edits of other wikipedians, this is part of a free debate which is helping to built a better encyclopedia. As long as no insults are used, I don't see reason for deletion.--MariusM 02:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I find it quite strange that Alex nominated that page, which is mocking Petri's views of Estonian history, for deletion on grounds of being attack page but at same time completely ignored User:Petri Krohn/Evidence where numerous editors are openly accused in wide variety of things from harrasment to holocaust denial.--Staberinde 10:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Splitting edit histories

Not sure this is the right place for this, but it isn't really an "incident", so if this is the wrong place, please direct me to the correct place. The most recent bombing of the al-Askari Mosque was added to the article for the first bombing instead of being given its own article. I moved the content for the recent bombing to its own article and removed it from the original article. I know it's possible to merge edit histories of articles, but is it possible to split the edit history of an article? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If this is a case where a section of an article was created over time as part of a larger article, no, there's no easy way to split apart only the edit history relevant to that section. At first I thought you meant that B was cut and pasted to C and A was cut and pasted to B, which would require splitting to fix properly, due to the development of unrelated content on top of content that belongs with the first move. —freak(talk) 03:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for checking. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Isarig POV pushing

User:Isarig, a frequent editor on all things related to the Israeli-Palastinin conflict, is POV pushing on House demolition, and I've just about reached the end of my patience with him. Can someone please take steps to reign him in, before I block him over it? Raul654 04:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You'd block someone who you were in a conflict with? hbdragon88 04:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe he's calling for someone else to intervene before he is tempted to go through with such an act.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits and meatpuppetry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hello fellow admins. Many of you will be familiar with Vintagekits (talk · contribs) an Irish editor who has been embroiled in a long-running and wide-ranging conflict with a number of English editors. Quite frankly, the behaviour of editors on both sides of this dispute have been poor, resulting in blocks being issued for edit-warring, personal attacks and incivility, e.g. [33] [34]. A case in point can be seen within the number of AfD's that have served as battlegrounds (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet). There has been allegations of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry from editors on both sides, and a glance at the AfD will reveal plenty of SPA's. A recent AfD inspired the re-appearance of a few SPA friends, resulting in a report being filed on suspected sockpuppets of Vintagkits. Consequent to this an editor provided me with compelling evidence of Vintagekits soliciting support off wiki to help, in his own words, with a bit of voterigging. The evidence is detailed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vintagekits. As someone who has been involved in collecting this evidence, I don't believe I'm the right person to judge how to use it in determining what, if any, action should be taken. I'm asking for the opinion of others, especially those familiar with Vintagekit's history. Thanks. Rockpocket 06:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The evidence on the page is circumstantial. Is there concrete evidence of solicitation, e.g. a post on a message board? Tyrenius 17:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Just spotted new material that answers the question. Tyrenius 17:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

See also my post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Vintagekits again. I know both "sides" have behaved badly here, but I don't think one wrong excuses another. In the absence of any commitment to improve from Vintagekits, and in the light of this new evidence of Vintagekits' failure to respect policy, I think we have to be looking at a longish block. --John 17:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, lets centralise this discussion. I'm going to take the liberty of merging the posts here over to the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and archiving this. Rockpocket 17:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kai (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Kai has been acting strange lately. He contributes to the Habbo Hotel article like myself, but lately there has been discussions about inclusion of hotel raids in the article, whether the article is written like an advertisement, disputes about Habbo Hotel being a game or not and other issues. Digging through his contributions, I found this vandalism warning to my talk page, prior to the English-only warning template on my talk page. Then a month or so later, he is vandalising my status box on my userpage as shown in these: [35] [36] [37]. Later on he awards me a barnstar on my talk page and adds "Why are you so cool?" to my editor review. I have no problem with the barnstar and the question and it is appreciated (I did the same to him and awarded him a barnstar for his kindness), but what confuses me is that one moment he is kind, and then he warns me for owning the article. Anyone else find something suspicious about his actions? –Sebi ~ 08:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh lord. Did you just happen to forget that we have a relationship outside of Wikipedia? I find this highly unnecessary... --Kai 09:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that relevant? You have vandalised pages in my userspace, warned me for WP:OWN unneccessarily and then treat me with praise and respect. What is going on? –Sebi ~ 10:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I obviously thought it was necessary to advise you of WP:OWN. In regards to the above, you knew I was having a joke, and why wait until now to complain... and what's the harm in giving a barnstar here and there. Kai 10:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist

Can a few people add Sivaji: The Boss to their watchlist. This is likely to be edited very frequently over the next few days and the editors (good and bad) will mostly be anons. Tintin 10:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this needs to be added on the pgkbot watchlist as well. One of the most expensive films to be ever released in India, was released only a few days ago and will attract lot of vandalism. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

<misza13> computer cvp add Sivaji: The Boss

<pgkbot> Added Sivaji:_The_Boss to watchlist, "No reason given". Expires indefinite

<misza13> bonkbonk :P

<misza13> XD

IRC Log Violation! IRC Log Violation! Censure! Abuse! Terror! Fattening!  ;-) Georgewilliamherbert 23:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, it was released just this morning. Tintin 11:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Image012 (2).jpg

Image:Image012 (2).jpg is the picture of an 11-year old which contains his contact information. Could somebody please speedy delete? Corvus cornix 23:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Has the user who uploaded been contacted? Neil ╦ 23:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes he has. Good good good. Neil ╦ 23:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Corvus cornix 23:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

Long story short: Gene Poole and I are in a dispute and he keeps adding a comment of mine that he took completely out of context onto this page (see here). I've MFD'd it (if you ask me it should be speedied) but I think his continual adding of this comment constitutes as abuse. He has threatened me before, and two administrators are already involved, but right now neither of them are online. What do I do? --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 23:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not the disengagement I asked you to do this morning...

Could you please let an uninvolved admin deal with his page? You have an obvious conflict of interest and it's just exacerbating things. I'm involved enough not to want to judge if that page constitutes a WP:NPA issue or an attack page, but if you'll leave it alone and let others reading ANI deal with it, it will help. Georgewilliamherbert 23:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to break any rules but I'm certainly not letting him slander me like that. That's why I keep reverting and why I left a comment here. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 23:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If this keeps up for another hour, I predict both of you will be blocked for 48 hrs to cool off. What is it going to take for the two of you to step back and stop provoking each other? Georgewilliamherbert 23:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

See note on talk page.--Captain Wikify ^Argh! 23:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)