I received the following unblock appeal by e-mail, with permission to post it. What does the community think?Durova^Charge!23:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Please don't indulge these people. They've been trolling us consistently for at least three years and are continuing to do so by having people post their messages here after being rebuffed by OTRS and unblock-en-l. Their most recent socks have just be rooted out and blocked after a lot of work both on and off site by administrators and checkusers both on WP and other non-foundation projects and their IPs shut down by checkusers. See theANI thread on Solumeiras for Lar's description of their longterm abuse and his description of the discussions among checkusers. Also note Matt's comment from 18 months ago that I linked to on ANI. Once again, these people are playing us for fools. They may have been 16 when they started, but they continued until as recently as yesterday. If they want to have their ban reconsidered they need to go away for awhile and stop trolling us on multiple fronts first because we've heard, "I'm sorry, I've learned my lesson" before. Many times before. As for forgiving Willy on Wheels, well, that's rather telling as there are admins, CUs and foundation people who believe that these are the kids behind the WoW abuse and it's rather ironic that the sockpuppetSunholm happened to be the one who removed WoW from the list of banned people claiming that WoW was welcome here. Please, don't be sucked in by these people.Sarah02:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the email because I think they've manipulated Durova into posting on their behalf because yesterday a checkuser hardblocked their IP. If anyone wants to see the email it'shere.Sarah02:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hell no. They've been saying the same things onthe BJAODN wiki. I don't trust them at all. And there's evidence that they've run XRumer, via an account and one or two IP addresses.03:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above, everytime we track down and block we get the same sob stories, claims of aspergers, claims of autism, mental illness, it's x and they've had their web access remove, the original from the sunholm/sunfazer days along the lines of "it was a public ip, but my friend who is the network engineer has reassigned it to me" etc. etc. It's long past being old. --81.104.39.63 (talk)07:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I wasn't manipulated. I received a request and put it to the community for discussion.Durova^Charge!19:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no interest in (nor has anyone demonstrated any reason to) unblock(ing) this account. This is another example of someone who is paying the price for abusing the community's trust. -Philippe |Talk19:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, I was, and am still, trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. I know that you have a standing offer to do this for users who have sat out a reasonable time (is it 6 months?) without using socks to evade their blocks and bans and causing other disruption to the project, but this person was caught using socks just the day before they emailed you this request. They have literally just been banned and we've just cleaned up after and blocked their recent socks. And the only reason I could think that you would post this for them was if you were manipulated and not aware of the facts. Their emails are full of lies and I'm not prepared to waste time refuting all their blatant lies other than to note here, for the record, that the people who were emailing OTRS, unblock-en-l and various editors and admins, myself included, under various pseudonyms to complain about the blocks and to protest their innocence and so on were using the IP 82.42.237.84 and this just happens to be one of SunStar Net/Solumeiras's IP addresses. They've been trolling us for at least three years, causing the most unbelievable amount of vandalism and disruption, and they are continuing to troll us now. I still have Matt Brown's words from eighteen months ago ringing in my head: "The person/people behind this IP are playing us for fools; don't let them do so again."Sarah00:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And seriously, there's no need to respond in a heated manner. I have not supported this bid for reinstatement. Just because I have a standing offer under certain conditions doesn't mean every request I relay comes with any endorsement.Durova^Charge!02:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm being heated. Not in the slightest. I'm just having trouble understanding why you're doing this given the circumstances. That is all.Sarah02:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I originally blocked this user for 3RR, content deletion, potentially libelous statement reasons. However, after seeing their comment to me on their talk page after I left the block notice, I changed the block to indefinite. The editor has also usedUKC CASSA (talk ·contribs),CASSA (talk ·contribs), and74.78.174.145 (talk ·contribs). Finally, the editor is part of a WP:COI/N noticehere. If anybody has an issue with my escalating block to indef, feel free to comment or reverse. --Gogo Dodo (talk)08:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, harassment and disruption aren't on at all.Stifle (talk)10:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"Next time it will be kids". Gahahahaha...JuJube (talk)01:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In response tothis report atWP:AN3 I blocked88.64.91.102 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) for 12 hours for edit warring onFuturama (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views). However, the individual has a dynamic IP and returned minutes later with a new IP and a few personal attacks for good measure. So I blocked84.56.0.140 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) for 24 hours for edit warring and personal attacks.

Predictably, the individual returned again to revert war on the article with a new IP. What is my best course of action here? I've considered:

• Blocking each IP in a game of whack-a-mole
• Semi-protection
• Full protection (since there is an underlying content dispute)

However, none of the above seem satisfactory to me. Thanks.CIreland (talk)22:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If they seem to be targeting one article, the first step could be semi protection, which I have done here. Then you can either block individual IPs or try a range block, depending on the situation.Crum375 (talk)22:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response.CIreland (talk)22:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I’d like to start a discussion about dealing with accounts who respond to accusations of sockpuppetry with “It was my roommate, we edit from the same computer and have identical interests. Why, is that not allowed? No one told me, I had no idea.”

The current policy atWP:SOCK already addresses this, (even more so after Jehochman’s recent addition) and notes that it can be treated the same as sockpuppetry. However, the “Why, is that not allowed? No one told me, I had no idea” part of this means that what will actually happen is an accusation of sock puppetry, followed by this defense, will result in the user being “notified” of this provision, and told not to do it anymore. One free pass, as it were.

Yes, I know about AGF, and once in a blue moon, I suppose the dog really does eat the homework. But no teacher automatically accepts this excuse, and says “well next time, keep the homework away from the dog, but you don’t need to turn your homework in this one time.” At least none of my teachers ever did. Giving puppeteers one free pass before there is any consequence greatly increases the likelihood that this gambit will be used by everyone accused of sockpuppetry.

In cases where the existence of a similarly-minded roommate is a distinct possibility, I’m resigned that the solution above is the best we can do. If I had any great ideas, I’d propose them, but I don’t. Instead I’m asking for a discussion to see if anything can be improved, and Jehochman suggested AN might be a good place to discuss this.

The only thing I’d throw out there is a suggestion that in the future, we might consider actively attempting to disprove the excuse whenever possible, and imposing much more severe consequences on those who abuse it, so that others aren’t encouraged to try the same thing. In other words, at the very least, I suggest we find out if the student actually has a dog or not. --barneca (talk)17:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The other problem is - why _isn't_ it allowed? We are, in these cases, holding two adults responsible for one another's actions with absolutely no basis. Assuming that it really is two different people,why are two different people who live near each other and have similar interestsnot allowed to both edit? Checkuser data interpretation techniques have gotten more sophisticated and I've noticed that the checkusers have been getting more confident in saying they are sure that it is or is not the case; so if we are in fact reasonably sure that it is two different people, why should these be treated any differently from two people who are geographically remote than one another? —Random83218:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Two separate people most definitelyshould be allowed to edit from the same computer, as long as they either disclose their interconectedness, or avoidediting revertingedited for clarity per Lara's comment below the same articles or voting in CFD'sditto. I think that's what most people have always assumed, and that's what Jehochman's clarification of WP:SOCK a few hours ago puts into writing. I'm more concerned with this being a free pass to sock with no consequences. --barneca (talk)18:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The comment I'd have is why can't there be a warning when a person registers that their IP is tracked and they shouldn't edit the same topics from a common computer.MBisanz^talk18:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

When the edits are coming from the same IP, it's not so much an issue that they're editing the same articles, as long as their not backing each other in conversations, or avoiding 3RR by alternating reverts, etc. At that point, it doesn't matter if the accounts are one person or two. Sock or meatpuppet, either way is unacceptable. Am I wrong? Do you block people who share an IP and only edit constructively?Lara❤Love18:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well no, the concern is abuse (or what looks like abuse), not erecting a wall between people that live together or know each other in real life. But a Checkuser wouldn't really be run on two editors only editing constructively, so this shouldn't be an issue. I'm not interested in knowing about anybody's personal life, I don't need to know it it's a friend, roommate, partner, etc, or if the user lives in a dorm with one IP, or anything. A short "This user, andUser:Foo share an IP address and recognize the requirements ofWP:SOCK", placed onUser:Bar's page, should do it. The question is, whether something can be adjusted to make it more difficult for one person to rely on this explanation to shield him from consequences the first time he's caught. --barneca (talk)18:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember a case where 3 people worked in the same office with a common IP subnet. They agreed not to edit the same articles and declare the common IP, which was acceptable. Barneca makes a good point that a checkuser wouldn't be run unless something suspicious was going on, so 2 editors not-meatpuppeting and making constructive contributions, probably would go un-noticed.MBisanz^talk19:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The checkusers also have some discretion here. Two accounts who both trace to the shared IP of a large university or corporation may very well be independent. Two accounts who tandem-revert a single obscure article and trace to a single residential IP are violatingWP:SOCK, regardless of whether there are two people taking turns at the keyboard or one. It probably ought to be intuitively obvious that this is gaming the system, even if it's two people, particularly when they see their "adversary" blocked for 3RR. As has been noted, this was not an innocent case of two people with shared interests, but a case of overt tag-team edit-warring. The bottom line is that our policies are intended to facilitate the goal of writing a collaborative encyclopedia. This sort of editing is disruptive and counterproductive whether it's one or two people manipulating the accounts, and it should be dealt with accordingly.MastCell ^Talk20:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest a template notice is rustled up that people can put on their user pages if they are aware that their IP is shared with other users (be that a community, corporate, university or household sharing). There is no need to explicitly name those other users, unless there are other reasons to make the community aware of such connections between accounts. In other words: a notice for checkusers to read and be aware of information they need to interpret the checkuser data correctly. If people are unaware that their IP is being shared, then they will have learnt a lesson the hard way. Or a similar notice can be displayed for people to state "as far as I know, the IP or IPs I edit from are not shared with other users".Carcharoth (talk)09:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we get some help atWikipedia:Requested Moves? There is abacklog going back a full month. Any help would be appreciated. --Woohookitty^Woohoo!10:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a crack at the backlog, but I need to head off for the day. If someone else could jump in, it would be appreciated.Vassyana (talk)12:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision may be reviewed through the above link. Further to the relevant findings of fact,Waterboarding and all closely-related pages are subject toarticle probation (full remedy); editors working onWaterboarding, or closely related pages, may be subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, whereby any edits by that editor which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, may result in a block. (full remedy).

Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block length shall increase to one year (full enforcement). Before such restrictions are enacted on an editor, he or she must be issued with a warning containing a link to the decision.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK (talk)14:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The last link should be linked toWikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding#Enforcement by block rather thanWikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Enforcement by block (which is to a non-existent anchor).x42bn6TalkMess18:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for that—thank you for noticing.AGK (talk)19:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that onWT:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, some people have been wanting an image of the GNU logo.Well, it took me a while, and I had to look on the source coding for[1], but I finally uploaded the logo (at right) and would like to put it onthe page. Unfortunately, the page is full-protected; could someone put the image on there? Please?17:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, never mind, it was already uploaded (already uploaded on left). But can someone still put it on the above mentioned page?18:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, are seriously suggesting thatthe logo of the GNUfree documentation license is actually non-free? A few things: 1) the image is already on the Wikimedia Commons, it is a free image. 2)Image:Gnu-head.png is a free image as well, so you mistagged your image, and you can remove the non-free rationale as well. 3) If it was non-free, it wouldn't be allowed to be placed onWT:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, perWP:NFCC, but since it is free, it can be if someone wants to put it on there (but more than likely they would be puttingImage:Heckert GNU white.svg on there, not your image). —18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a little hesitant about implementing the suggested change, above, primarily because I am unsure of the legal status of that page. Whilst I would not go so far as to say adding an image to the page could, in some way, compromise the page's text, I do believe we need to use some discretion in applying the Wiki ethos of "be bold" to the sole copy of this site's license.

I do believe the page's function is to be an exact replica of the license itself. The image may be interpreted as a cosmetic improvement—something that will affect the text of the page no more than, say, changing the skin with which an editor views the page. On the other hand, it may indeed raise a few eyebrows. Perhaps we should simply avoid any problems altogether, and simply leave the page be?AGK (talk)19:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There is an experienced editor (who I won't name, but has been around since 2004 and has nearly 17,000 edits), almost invariably fails to leave edit summaries (other than automatic ones). Polite requests have been made about this going back for some time (two years!), but none of these requests have ever really been acted upon. Although this is only a nuisance, other editors find it rather frustrating: in general, can anything be done about this behaviour? Thanks, --RFBailey (talk)20:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We could ask the user to change their preferences so that they will be reminded to provide an edit summary when they try to save a page without one. That's what I do, and I have had edit summarys 100% of the time since I changed it.J Milburn (talk)20:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If the user is amenable to change, that's a good suggestion, but if they've been asked before and don't care, you can't really make them. I mean what are you going to do, block the guy? Using an edit summary is not required by policy.^t_c20:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec with both the above)I've come across a couple of editors of varying length of service who are non-summary people. I've tried asking, pleading and threatening, but to no avail. These people are often very poor communicators - that would explain the lack of summaries and the lack of response (or promises to change that are not followed through). The problem is that trying to make an otherwise good editor use summaries is unenforceable. We don't have access to their preferences to turn the summary-demand thing on; there will be no support for blocking a good editor with poor communication skills just for the latter problem. I suppose we could addWikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Force edit summary alternative to their monobook.js, but would there be a consensus of editors that forced behavioural modification is something we should be doing? And we'd need to protect their monobook.js if they just reverted us, which could be a drama magnet. Perhaps we just need to be a tadpointy and keep hitting them with{{Summary}} until they get sick of it and start using them? ➔REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt20:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The "bad communicator" assessment is probably right: of the 17,000 edits in question, only about 400 are to talk pages of any kind, and only about 40 in the Wikipedia: namespace. --RFBailey (talk)21:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So, if the editor in question made 16,600 edits, +400 talkpsace edits, and doesn't use edit summaries (which is annoying, butmeh), what's the problem? Are the edits vandalism? Are they disruptive? If an editor has stuck around long enough to make 16,600 edits, I don't imagine I'll need an edit summary to know that he/she is doing good work for the betterment of the encyclopedia. If any one particular edit is in question or possibly conroversial, it's only one extra click on the "diff" to see what the edit was exactly. This seems a good faith post on AN, but it also seems to be a solution in need of a problem. You are know 2 cents richer. | |21:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The short answer isno. If they don't want to, they don't have to.WilyD21:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, I agree with you (except about the "solution in need of a problem" bit - I see no solutions in this thread, problem-seeking or otherwise). I can't speak for RFBailey, but when you have a non-summary editor who is editing across your watchlist, no matter how well you know of them, you're bound to click (diff)just in case. If it's ten edits across ten articles, all saying [Correctedfoo to saybar], you will look at the first one then move on. If it's ten edits that say nothing, youwill check all ten. Similarly, if you every have reason to look at their contributions - say for an obvious good-faith but nevertheless dubious edit on one article + curiosity - if there are no summaries, it's hard not to examine every edit; if the "dubious" edit is marked [Correctedfoo to saybar because offoobar] and all the others are too, then you know that the AGF you're naturally feeling is correct and don't check. In other words, not using edit summaries wastes editor time, due to editors here being, by and large, human beings. ➔REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt21:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I Overspoke there. There is no solution in need of a problem because, really, there is no solution. It really comes down to recognizing the dedication of a user I suppose. Anyone that has made 16,600 mainspace edits, IMHO, deserves community trust. I don't anticipate that I, or any other editor, would have the time to find 16000+ edits to be, in your words, dubious. But I completely understand the frustration. I use edit summaries always and I greatly appreciate them from others. But, what can you do? (Rhetorical question, doesn't require an answer) | |21:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Keeper76. You take the good with the bad with every editor. If the good is 16,000 edits and the bad is zero edit summaries, that's pretty good overall IMHO. I assume the person knows that a lack of edit summaries increases the risk of getting reverted. If s/he is aware of that and decides that's an acceptable risk, there's not much you can do. —Wknight94 (talk)21:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ask really nicely. Maybe offer to give a barnstar after the first 1,000 edit summaries.Wikidemo (talk)00:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries are nice, but not required. It's not like it's a blockable offense to not use them. —Rlevse •Talk •03:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a means of avoiding scrutiny. Ironically, it may also be attention-seeking behaviour, as outlined and demonstrated by ➔ REDVEЯS. Not using edit summaries is highly disruptive, at the time of the edit and as part of the page history/cygnisinsignis05:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Or they're just a little lazy, or think their contributions can speak for themselves. Either way, assume good faith please. I wouldn't call good faith editors making thousands of quality article edits "extremely disruptive" simply because they aren't using edit summaries.Mr.Z-man06:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither would I, please don't misquote me. It should be obvious that I am describing how the behaviour might be disruptive - I'm not assuming anything! The options you present are probable and frequent causes, but not justifiable in a long term contributor. Until one knows otherwise, by checking the unexplained contributions, the editor remains unknown - multiply this by the number of watchlists they appear on. Thiscould be self-serving and arrogant behaviour or an ignorance of the advantage to others in using summaries. It should be policy, if it is not already.cygnisinsignis08:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, just to nip this silly "anyone with tons of edits is probably a good editor" thing in the bud, I don't see a need to assume this. Obviously, I can't judge without knowing who the hell everyone is talking about, but I've seen editors who'll make hundreds of editsa day that each constitute no more than adding a single word or punctuation mark (to the same article!). So yeah...don't be silly. And yeah, always assume good faith, blah blah, etc.Someguy1221 (talk)08:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I must own up to being a culprit in this regard myself - I have a few more than 17,000 edits (five times that many - I need a life), but don't give that many edit summaries. In my case part of the reason is that many, if not most, of my edits are minor, and in a lot of cases, I don't see no-summary minor edits as much of a problem (and, given that it often takes longer to write the edit summary than make the edit, can be very time consumikng when you're on a "batch-job"). With non-minor edits, though, I try to make some sort of effort, though I do often forget (probably because of the minor edit thing). I know we now have an automatic edit summary added for new articles (where the edit is given by the first line of text added in). Perhaps something similar could be done for edits to exiting articles, adding an automated summary showing the first line of text changed? That might at least make things more transparent to watchlist-readers.Grutness...wha?08:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What a good suggestion! I don't do many 'batch-jobs', but I sometime use a 'paste note' function in my browser with the appropriate edit summary.cygnisinsignis08:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I love that suggestion. Anyone know a way to get enough support that the devs would actually listen to it?Someguy1221 (talk)08:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As something of a background note, the Arbitration Committee looks unfavourably on editors who fail to use edit summaries (viz.Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis#Edit summaries), and I personally agree with that. Edit summaries are nothing more thancommon courtesy, and there is no reason for them not to be used at any time.

Implementing a technical measure which makes edit summary usage mandatory is something I would strongly support. Whilst it is indeed possible to get round it (e.g., by using an edit summary of "+", as I see a number of editors using), such behaviour really is something that we need to tackly user-by-user; mandatory usage of summaries may not solve this problem, but it will be a start, and I would very much like to see it brought in.AGK (talk)19:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

First it needs to be made mandatory as a policy, which unfortunately will never happen. One user saves 10 seconds of his time skipping the edit summary, then a lot more other users have to waste their time on this diff. Alas. —AlexSm03:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"+" is a prefectly legitimate edit summary:Wikipedia:Edit_summary_legend#Addition_of_text.Daniel (talk)06:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm another one of the users who doesn't use edit summaries as much as others might like. I do it when I think that the edit does not speak for itself, or if the change is significant in my opinion. I don't bother if it's just a spelling correction or something minor. I also don't bother when I make many consecutive edits to the same article after the first edit. There have been cases (many months ago) when I wrote a nonsense edit summary just to fool mathbot into thinking I used edit summaries. If I were "forced" to use edit summaries, I would do that again.Shalom (Hello •Peace)05:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesthis actually conform with policy? User:Dorftrottel 01:28, February 17, 2008

Meaning what? Clearly a better place would beWikipedia:Requests for checkuser under criterion F. cheers,Casliber (talk ·contribs)01:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Meaning private information not voluntarily disclosed. User:Dorftrottel 01:44, February 17, 2008

Clicking "Edit this page" on the AFD log for today shows a proper entry, which seemingly has been done wrong. There is also a delete vote right at the very bottom of the AFD page, which also seems malformed.D.M.N. (talk)12:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the delete comment from the bottom and informed the user on their talk page. I guess it's related to the listing where the subpage content has been added direct to the AFD not on the subpage, but am not certain. I can't create the subpage, but you just need to create the subpage, copy the stuff across from the AFD page and then update the transclusion to use the subpage. --81.104.39.63 (talk)12:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have also removed the malformed entry forA.M. Juster. —Edokter •Talk •12:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have created the folowing pageWikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c to attempt to centralise discussion on BCB andspecifically its NFCC10c tagging operation.
MickMacNee (talk)14:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If an article linked from the main page is undergoing heavy edit warring/vandalism, is it usual to fully protect it? I was under the impression that we keep MP-linked articles open to editing. --ChrisO (talk)15:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unless the vandalism is at an extreme level and it cannot be dealt with barely, then semi-protection forToday's featured article would be considered, but otherwise, the regular protection policy applies to articles not on the Main page.Qst (talk)15:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a bot account unused since 2005 and it appears to have admin powers (there are logs of it deleting things although there are no rights logs for it). I think it would be a good idea to desysop/block this account. -Nard02:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The name "script" indicates it is probably part of one of the Mediawiki (the software running Wikipedia) update scripts, that was used in a previous update (possibly the Phase III update). There is no need to touch it. Also seeUser:Conversion script.Prodego^talk03:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The user page says its a holdover from when Admins couldn't delete articles. Its controlled byUser:Tim Starling, so I'd start there if I had questions.MBisanz^talk03:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It does not appear to have administrator rights, although it does run with a bot flag. Nard, did you intend to say that its userpage gives theimpression of it being an administrator account?AGK (talk)12:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That takes me back--there were a few articles we couldn't delete because of some odd bug in the database. The bug was fixed ages ago; I'm pretty sure the account is dormant.Mackensen(talk)20:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:MediaWiki default is another good laugh. :-) Anyone have any more?Carcharoth (talk)23:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

AWP:SNOW request is requested by another administrator to closeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/2 Girls 1 Cup as it has no chance of passing.—Ocatecir^T06:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Any user, not just a admin can close an AfD as keep perWP:BOLD. I went ahead and closed it as such.Tiptoety^talk06:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I substantially disagree with this extremely premature closure (little more than 24 hours have passed since its nomination) and have reverted it. There are substantive arguments made for the deletion of this article, and AFD is not a vote.FCYTravis (talk)07:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The SNOW request is not due to the number of votes but because the article clearly meets Wikipedia's policies and the AFD does not have a snowball's chance in hell of passing.—Ocatecir^T09:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

We have deletion discussions for a purpose, we gain community consensus as to if an article meets wikipedia's standards (including the inclusion standard which can be somewhat dynamic) and in the process our polices, guidlines etc. develop. We don't let one or two people just decide --81.104.39.63 (talk)10:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And no one is trying to let one or two people decide. But when you have one editor trying to force an issue through despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and the nomination has no chance of passing and is clearly way off mark, that is the criteria for a early closing due to SNOW.—Ocatecir^T15:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"when you have one editor trying to force an issue through" it's best to let one or two others push it the other way? There are several editors indicating that it should either be deleted or redirected (not a such an AFD outcome, but certainly an opinion that it doesn't warrant it's own article), it isn't merely one person, this isn't a speedy keep. --81.104.39.63 (talk)17:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there are users who disagree withWP:SNOW closer, than it does not meetWP:SNOW standards. We should let it continue. Apologize for the "incorrect" closer.Tiptoety^talk05:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I must recommend thatImage:DawnOfTheBlackHearts.jpg be added toMediaWiki:Bad image list since they may be attractive to vandals because of its explicit nature. —19:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest not to; it would be a violation anyways to add it anywhere else (since the image is fair use).User:Zscout370^{(Return Fire)}19:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting vandals care about fair use policy? :) —19:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh,linking to a fair-use image is not a violation. But I think vandals can find better images to do their thing then some graphic album cover. —Edokter •Talk •20:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly my eyesight isn't the best, but it just looks like a heap of smudges to me. What is it supposed to be a graphic image of? --Tony20:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like some kind of vaguely gothic massacre.Mackensen(talk)20:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Oi, I would get your eyes checked and your close Mackensen ;) This image is of the album cover of Dawn of the Black Hearts, showing the real life suicide ofDead (the musician), having slit wrists and a shotgun wound to the head, brain matter coming out. Understand why I recommended it? In reply to the above, sure vandals can find other images, but I would rather them not have the chance to use it, likewise with other graphic images. —20:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I see the imagery, but I just don't see it worth adding to the bad image list.User:Zscout370^{(Return Fire)}20:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the amount of squinting and background research required to produce a "shock" response, I would have said that the scenario you described is beyond the outskirts of likelihood. However now that you've brought it up onWP:AN, nothing would surprise me. At any rate we have apparently been advised "for performance reasons" to keep the bad image list "fairly short, say less than 10 KB", so we should probably not be adding everything thatmight (in the most imaginative sense) be used for vandalism. And trust me, there are a lot of god-awful album covers out there[2]. —CharlotteWebb20:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you'd think I would have done that for a shock response from editors, unfortunatly it's true. —21:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, sounds like you are assuming that I was assuming bad faith. Actually I was referring to the potential of the image (if ever used for vandalism) to shock passerby readers, which is low when the mind can't quickly and easily determine what the eye is looking at. —CharlotteWebb21:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I know your not. It's just my eyesight is pretty good (darn :P) when I stumbled across this image again and that is why I came here to recommend it. If the majority of you feel it shouldn't be added, then it shouldn't be. —21:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't even sure WHAT it was until Save Us described it. It looks cutesey enough to be a painting, almost surreal – it isn't a graphic, unedited, real life photograph of Dead that immediately shocks me.hbdragon88 (talk)23:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to request another set of eyes atWikileaks. The main site is offline, supposedly because of legal action, or a fire at a hosting company, or both, or something. Nothing in the news that I can find, but various anonymous IP addresses keep adding backunverified tendentious speculation in one form or another.Mackensen(talk)20:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've semiprotected it for a few days, to encourage these things to be brought to the talk page in case there are actual reliable sources somewhere. How does that sound?MastCell ^Talk22:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. If there really is a court order it should be easy enough to substantiate.Mackensen(talk)22:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Can this be done? I tagged a few manually but figured maybe an admin has the ways to mass tag. IP 165.21.154.XXX are from singnet. seeTemplate:Singnet.--165.21.154.92 (talk)22:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like we used to have a bot that did it ... --Kralizec! (talk)22:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo has declared independence.[3] This is obviously going to lead to additional heat in an already very heated area of the wiki. Keeping a few extra eyes out in related articles is probably going to be needed.Vassyana (talk)23:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that suredidn't take long. Going to be some crazy editing for a while. --Ricky81682 (talk)00:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the user as well and have gone ahead and watchlisted the article.SorryGuy00:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The inevitable edit war has started. I'm headed out for the night ... I don't think this has reached protection-needed status yet, but I would be willing to bet that it will soon, for any who are watching it. -00:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see alsoWP:KOSWATCH for a public watchlist of Kosovo-related articles. Problematic editing is affecting more than just theKosovo article. --ChrisO (talk)01:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that link has been useful. As for the actual article, though, it seems to be getting worse with the introduction going back and forth.SorryGuy01:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Reminder/request: Please watchlistWaterboarding. Due to a recent RFAR atWikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding#Article probation this and all related articles/pages are under indefinite probation. Discussion is underway for a US-centric fork of this, and at long last activity has resumed, sliding right back into the same old circular arguments with the same people again pushing certain points of view. Please watchlist this page. Uninvolved admins have a free hand due to probation to enforce things liberally here. Thank you.

Resumed activity primarily takes off atTalk:Waterboarding#Dispute_resolution. Thanks.Lawrence §t/e00:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

ReadWikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence presented by G-Dett.

Gary Weiss is awriter and some people here question whether or not he is capable of talking as if he were someone else. Well, duh.Writers do that all the time. Gary is aninvestigative journalist. Some question whether he would lie or be sneaky. Well, duh. That is a prerequisite for being an investigative journalist. Some wonder about motivation. He has written books. To sell books, you need a topic people care about (like wikipedia) and a hook or two.

"Tombstone’s most famous tourist site is the Boothill Graveyard, where many of its legendary gunslingers and historical personalities are interred. Boothill has within it a Jewish section, which went unnoticed for over 100 years; a memorial was added in 1984. [148] [149] The small Jewish burial ground has no remaining headstones, and only one grave – that of a child. [150] He died in 1889, when he was one year and four days old. There is still a small stone marker for the child in the burial ground today, next to the memorial. His name was Sam Harris. I would like to be able to say that User:Samiharris was created one year and four days after Mantanmoreland was created, but he wasn't. He was created – for what it's worth – one year, three days and ~three hours after Mantanmoreland.

You guys wereso set up. He's gonna make a lot of money with his nexttell all book calledCorruption at the 'Pedia.WAS 4.250 (talk)02:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know this guy. Are all his books this thin, with mostly blank pages?-- (Talk)03:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Who are "you guys", other than all of us, including you? You seem to be very pleased about all this,WAS 4.250. Do you have a stake inCorruption at the 'Pedia or is this justSchadenfreude?៛ Bielle (talk)03:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Long story short. It appears that a long running feud between a group of administrators, and folks who were banned here on WP, is about to boil over the stove into RL, and it's now a matter to see whose hands get burned.SirFozzie (talk)03:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just giving a "heads up" to those who started with AGF and wound up with an "us vs. them" attitude. Maybe he'll name itShootout at the OK 'pedia. In any case, people need to remember what all they confided to aninvestigative journalist and act accordingly.WAS 4.250 (talk)03:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The ones whose hands get burned are always the ones who don't know when to let go. That's true here, and in RL.៛ Bielle (talk)03:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 –Blocked

This user needs a blocking. Had a final warning before vandalizngHerbert Hoover.Footballfan190 (talk)03:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 3 months. This IP is only being used to vandalise. -- (Talk)03:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed thatWP:ACC be replaced by a mailman list, further input would be very helpful. The thread in question can be foundhere. Thanks,SQL^{Query me!}03:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved toWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Avoiding drama with Betacommandbot during March 2008. 15:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a list of all pages in the User: namespace that don't have a corresponding user in Special:Listusers. Some of the pages are deletable underWP:CSD#U2, however, it seems that most are users who mistakenly created a page in the wrong place.User:Zizai:LY18 vs.User:Zizai/LY18,User:EricRodenbeck vs.User:Ericrodenbeck. Seems other pages are from when the Rename extension wasn't able to move subpages. Some of the other pages are apparently attempts at users "renaming" themselves. Still some other pages are tagged with "sock" tags, however, it's pretty difficult to have a sock puppet account if you've never created an account with that name. The last category of pages seems to be people who "created" doppelganger accounts (however, without registering the account, creating just a user page is pretty useless).

Quite a large mess. Any help cleaning up the list (specifically appropriate page moves and deleting the newly-created redirects) would be great. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk)16:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel like this would take forever. --PeaceNT (talk)19:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Goodness me :)AGK (talk)19:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. I went to the link, and I was too overwhelmed to even start doing anything (for now). Who has motivation? We need you!нмŵוτнτ19:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, I had to click on the links at random and fix them one by one, and there're nearly 4000 of 'em. Are there any tools that can help? :-S --PeaceNT (talk)19:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh my. Each one is practically a unique case. The first set, the "^pirate" pages, are leftover from a username change, but it's depressing to track this down to find the user had a change of view on WP.Gimmetrow03:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking we're gonna need to come up with some standard procedure here, like maybe a bot notifying anyone whose ever edited these pages that their going to be deleted at X date? Or a bot that compares page names to users andguesses who it belongs to, and copies it to their userspace?MBisanz^talk04:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Two ideas:

• I'm reluctant to move monobook pages. The users who created them often have such a page, and if not the misplaced one may have bugs. The original creator can get a notice. I thought the software wouldn't let anyone edit a .js page in another user space, or does it check if there is a user? Seems like a potential security issue in various ways.
• Could automatically move a page if the user who created the page has over X% of the edits. That could clear a good amount.Gimmetrow04:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, only admins can edit code pages outside a user's own space. CSDWarnBot uses a similar system I believe to decide who it warns of a CSD nom. I'd say any user whose made more than 25% of the edits to a page, assuming no user has made a higher percentage of edits, should be the one to "get" the page in their userspace. Shall I file aWP:BOTREQ?MBisanz^talk05:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

So any .js page must be from when the user of that name existed, before a username change? If so, then the user either didn't want it, or copied everything useful. On the percent, I was thinking more like 50%, and the first cut needs to consider the page creator heavily. I saw one page which had a ton of bot edits. If that doesn't catch enough, then start dropping the cutoff. I don't have time to write such a script, so go for the botreq if you want.Gimmetrow05:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Request filed atWikipedia:Bot_requests#Userspace_errors, feel free to edit the request requirements.MBisanz^talk06:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that the monobook pages would be there because the original ownerscouldn't do anything about them after getting their names changed, not because they didn't want to, because they couldn't edit them. For example,my old one is on that list. (Anyone who wants to delete it should feel free). I can't move it, mark it for deletion, or do anything else to it.--Dycedargж20:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted! --Stephen00:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I would think it would be quite reasonable to delete all .js pages for nonexistent users. After all, they don't work, so they serve no usefulness, and they can't be missed, because they're not doing anything now. If any user later goes looking for an old one, it can be easily undeleted and moved to the correct name.Chick Bowen06:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

They can be read and copied. Does it hurt to leave a note for the original owner before deletion?Gimmetrow06:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No; I'm just saying I wouldn't lose sleep over it if it simplified the process--I doubt very many of them are missed. I wrote that before I read MBisanz's bot request, which makes it fairly simple, though.Chick Bowen06:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Kahooper (talk ·contribs) has linked to his website, FantasyLiterature.net, repeatedly, despite the link being removed by multiple editors. Kahooper's opinion is that it should be included because of the review content on the page, done by individuals identified only by initial, with no evidence that they are notable or professional reviewers. I have mentioned this to him on his talk page, and placed a{{uw-coi}} on his page, but I thought a broader input from administrators might be more convincing - that several individuals have moved the link does not seem to be indicative of a problem to him. If I'm being overzealous, please let me know, but I think my interpretation of WP:EL is quite mainstream.WLU (talk)22:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Kahooper is a woman, actually. I am one of those who have been deleting these links, which have been inserted in multiple articles by bothUser:Kahooper andUser:139.62.165.173, whose IP resolves to the University of North Florida, where Kahooper is an adjunct faculty member. Kahooper has admittedhere that she is the owner of the Web site in question, and I view this as a clear case of linkspam and have treated the links accordingly.Deor (talk)23:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Which was my reading too. To date, apparently neither myself nor Deor have been sufficiently convincing.WLU (talk)00:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviewers are identified by name, city, occupation, photo, and other information on the website (http://www.fantasyliterature.net/reviewers.html). They were all invited by me because they are well-educated and write excellent and thoughtful reviews. Most of them are also writers. They are not random idiots. And, this is the reason I started the website -- to have a resource where people could find reviews that are interesting, informative, well-written, and neutral (i.e., not Amazon).

The main reason I think the links belong is that for most of your articles about fantasy authors there are links to several sites that are less informative than mine. Many have google ads (or other ads) and I saw one or two that were even portals (e.g., RealityEnds.com). Many have links to Amazon or other book sellers. It seems that the real rule is "no NEW links" and that some editors are zealous about reverting people's contributions. I am not meaning to sound obnoxious, but I really am trying to be reasonable. I am not promoting products and the website does not make money. Rather, I am, in good faith, trying to offer a resource that it useful for people who are interested in these authors. We have spent hundreds of hours preparing a resource that we feel is unique. We honestly review fantasy literature and just as often as we promote a book, we warn against another. We very often suggest borrowing books from a library, or PaperbackSwap.com and NOT purchasing them. I consider "spam" (as you call it) to be for the purpose of making money. Again, we are NOT making money. The small amount we receive does not cover our expenses, so I resent the implication that we are trying to sell products. If you take a look at the link I gave above, you'll see that this is not the case. I realize that you don't know me and that there are a lot of people who abuse Wikipedia, but I have good faith intentions and sincerely believe that the links fit the content and your guidelines.Kahooper (talk)03:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)kahooper

I've briefly looked over the site and do not see any especial issues in external links to it.Mangoe (talk)03:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPAM states: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose ofpromoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed" (emphasis added). The standard spam template advises the recipient to ask on an article's talk page for the link's addition if they have aconflict of interest with respect to the Web site in question. I came upon this situation while RC patrolling. Do you really think there's no problem with a site's owner's creating an account andimmediately using it to add links to her site to multiple articles in quick succession and then, after being warned,doing it again as an anon IP?Deor (talk)07:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What occurs in other pages is irrelevant to this page - if anyone objects to the external links in those pages, they can correct them. The problem isn't so much the initials as it is who the reviewers are. Are they professional reviewers? Are they paid? Are they recognized for their ability to review the books, beyond on that particular website? Otherwise, how is it different from linking to any publicly-editable websites or fora, which are not allowed. Who is responsible for editorial oversight? Is it you? In which case, what is your claim to expertise in this area? Are you a professor of literature or professional reviewer, with experience and recognition for your reviews? Is it the authors, which would mean the web page faces considerable conflict of interest from their oversight body. In order to be included when the addition is disputed, there must be indication that there ismerit to the page, that there is a good reason to link, that somethingnoteworthy is added to the page. Otherwise, we will be linked to every single individual with a fan page, book reviews and a web fora, which on the rather stubby fantasy author pages, will quickly overwhelm the actual text. The COI concerns precludeyou, Kahooper, from adding the links, but the comments I am making here would restrict anyone from adding them. We don't link to amazon.com for pretty much the same reasons - it's a sales site, and the reviews there aren't professional ones, they're essentially random opinions. Reviewing your list ofreviewers, I see a lawyer, a former high school teacher, a real estate broker, a masters student, a guy working for a financial corporation, Kahooper (an PhD in psychology), a national guardsman, an undergraduate student, the owner of a photography studio, another lawyer, and another master's student. None are professional reviewers, only a couple have education in literature or english, only one appears to be published in any way (and it is not his reviews that are published) (and most criminal of all, I see some positive reviews for Terry Goodkind and Christopher Paolini : ) shame on you!) Interviews to authors can be linked, but the reviews can not, in my mind.

Here is a partial list of other sites that we would open the door to linking to if Kahooper's were added, five out of six million showing up on a google search:

• • • http://www.geocities.com/fantasticreviews/
    • http://www.fantasyreviews.com/
    • http://www.fantasybookspot.com/
    • http://www.booksforabuck.com/sfpages/sfreviews.html
    • http://dannyreviews.com/s/fantasy.html

There are a lot of book review sites, a lot of people who manage to get interviews with authors (I've corresponded with Ms. Wurts myself, about her wikipedia page. Nice lady, very appreciative); as a minimum forWP:EL, I usually look forWP:RS-type concerns - "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Your webpage might be third party, but it's not published beyond it's page, I don't think it would be considered reliable, and fact checking and accuracy aren't much of a concern on a review site. But still, there must be an element of professional recognition. Anyone can publish anything on a web page, WP:EL helps determine what is worth linking to.WLU (talk)14:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm commenting on the content of the linked site, not the ownership. The interpretation ofWP:SPAM as forbidding one from linking to a site that one owns/participates in is incorrect. So what I think is that Kahooper was badlybitten. The discussion should be redirected towards acivil discussion of the contents of the contested site.Mangoe (talk)14:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mangoe's interpretation of this situation. I think Kahooper is just unfamiliar with all the intricate little guideline hoops and such that we require people to jump through, and people removed the links simply because they were added with summaries like "adding link to my site". I checked the one added to theBrandon Sanderson page, and found no reason to exclude the link to the book reviews. I think people need toassume good faith here and assume that Kahooper is actually just trying to help the articles improve by providing additional reviews. The site seems to be reasonably extensive, and it never hurts to have additional, decent reviews. ···日本穣^{? ·Talk to Nihonjoe}03:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In context, Kahooper repeatedly linked to her site, on a number of author's pages, and after the links were repeatedly she re-linked them. This is after having warnings placed on her page. It took a while to get her attention. Further, the discussion on Kahooper's page seems civil - though re-reading my own comments, they could have used less bolding and been more elaborate. I shall try to adjust accordingly in further discussion, thanks for the prompt Mangoe.WLU (talk)15:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

--

First, I did relink the pages that were removed and explained my actions on a couple of talk pages and often in the edit summary. I used a different IP address when I was at work, not to try to fool you (I’m a webmaster – I know you can see where it comes from), but because I was at work and it didn’t automatically log me in on the computer I was using in the classroom where my students were taking an exam. While I have used Wikipedia for years, I did create the account (which sounds like my own name) in order to add the links properly. I have not tried to be deceptive as you have implied. I sincerely didn't realize that this would be considered "spam."

Second, while this may not matter, I reiterate that the reviewers were chosen for their excellence for the purpose of creating a superior review site. A couple of them are highly ranked reviewers on Amazon and participate in their special reviewing program (Vine) there, one is paid for reviews in fantasy literature magazines (I can provide evidence), a few of them are published writers of short stories, two are lawyers, one is an English teacher, one is an English Literature masters student studying to be a literature critic, and I am a published college professor who teaches scientific writing. About Goodkind and Paolini, please see the pages and actually read the reviews before you “shame” me! We – shall I say it? – hate Terry Goodkind (I couldn’t even convince any of them to read the last book) and the only one who likes Paolini is the one who reviews for children and writes from their perspective.

Third, I understand your point that any review site could link to Wikipedia (really I do), and I completely understand and sympathize with your desire to link sites with merit. But, since one of the guidelines for external links is that reviews SHOULD be linked, I am hoping to convince you that we have more merit than most and ARE worth linking to.

Fourth, the question of whether I’m actually allowed to put in links for my own site is a different and legitimate one. According to Deor, I am not allowed to do that, but according to Mangoe, I am. I find it hard to believe that, if this is a rule, it is actually enforced. But, if we all agree that it is, I am willing to ask our readers to link to the site (if you’ll allow the links). I know that some of them have, but I’d rather do it myself so as to have them all consistent and make sure pages are linked correctly.

Lastly, I actually admire your desires and efforts for creating an excellent encyclopedia. I wouldn’t have the stomach for doing what you do. But, I think I have been perceived as being in bad faith and now I’m paying the consequences. I do not have much experience editing Wikipedia (though I use the site a lot), so I realize now that I did not use the proper procedures. I hope you’ll see that this was done out of ignorance of the culture, not out of bad faith.Kahooper (talk)18:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)kahooper

• We understand, don't worry - it's a very common newbie error. I'm sure that you'll have learned from this and I hope we can encourage you to add content to articles, which is what we're here for after all. I would strongly encourage you not to add your site to articles, but you are welcome to suggest a link on the talk page of any article, if you think the link satisfies ourlink guidelines - the content linked should ideally have some evident authority, be subject to some kind of editorial review process, and contain information of a level of detail inappropriate to a general encyclopaedia. In other words, it should support and extend the reader's understanding of the subject, and that should be evident to independent editors reviewing the link. As long as you let others do the deciding, and focus on expanding Wikipedia with content supported from reliable independent sources, you should avoid future problems.Guy(Help!)17:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User Norse_Am_Legend has been repeatedly vandalizing the pages for the Wild ARMS games, with his unproven theories that the games take place in seperate worlds. Various parties have contacted the game makers, who have confirmed that there is yet no correct answer to that belief, making it nothing more than a theory. I deleted these, saying that, but he continues to undo my edits and is threatening me with banning. I don't know if he can actually do that, but it worries me, especially as he is the one who is doing the vandalizing. It took us months to get the Wild ARMS pages back on track after the last time people pulled stunts like this, and some of their are still in need of a lot of work. Someone, please, do something!24.3.180.166 (talk)01:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is you who is misguidedly removing random amounts of information stating flimsy reasons that amount tooriginal research and complete nonsense. I'd also like to note that you have no idea what a talk page template is, and that you claim to have helped "get the Wild Arms pages back on track" when only a handful of users, most notablyNall have even touched them, and I highly doubt you're him seeing as how you're removing information he put in. -Norse Am Legend (talk)01:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no original research. If you can provide proof of your claim that the games take place in different version of the world of Filgaia, instead of the same one, please, provide it. The game makers themselves will answer anyone who asks the same way-as of yet, there IS NO OFFICIAL ANSWER TO THIS MYSTERY. Thus, those are nothing more than theories and should not be there. If you can provide proof, then fine, but if you cannot, you have no right to keep claiming your beliefs as fact.24.3.180.166 (talk)01:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You guys should take it toWikipedia:Dispute resolution. I would personally suggestWP:3O. Let a neutral third-party see it. --Ricky81682 (talk)10:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Now, this user has only been here a few days, and I would normally be able to grant him that, but he keeps causing problems withNew Edition-related articles. He continually removes maintenance tags without improving the article, and he copies already existing articles and putting them under virtually the same name but copyedit-ed (for example, if a person copied theAround the World article and pasted it into a new article calledAround The World). Comments and warnings have been left on his talk page from users (myself included) as well as from bots, but he still continues what he is doing. What can be done here?Anthony Rupert (talk)04:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Start with thewarning templates, if he moves into3RR, report him atWP:AIV? That's the typical procedures. If you want help here, you have to much more specific (which articles, diffs, etc.), because, personally speaking, I'm not going to bother to even try to figure out what the world ofNew Edition-related articles could correspond to, and where in that he is messing around. --Ricky81682 (talk)10:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • What does it correspond to? Just look at hiscontributions (as well as histalk page).Anthony Rupert (talk)16:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have developed a script which can be used to close an AFD discussion as keep, and remove the AFD notice from the corresponding article, in just a few seconds by pressing a single tab, under the following restrictions:

(1) The script is only known to work under a Mozilla Firefox browser

(2) Only one article is being considered for deletion, and it is directly linked via the code produced by substitution of the standardTemplate:afd2, or is otherwise linked by the first instance ofTemplate:la in the AFD discussion (if multiple articles have been nominated, the script will only remove the notice from the article identified by the first use ofTemplate:la)

(3) Presently, the script does not prompt the user for a closing statement, and should therefore only be employed where the rationale for the tenor of the closure is obvious. However, with a minimal modification, the script could produce an additional tab that would display a dialog prompting the user for a closing statement before effectuating the closure.

The script is found atUser:John254/AFD closure/monobook.js‎, and can be installed either by adding importScript('User:John254/AFD_closure/monobook.js'); to one's monobook.js file, or copying the code directly. The code for tab placement found inUser:John254/Addtabs/monobook.js is a minimal modification of a script written byUser:Voice of All. The functions for AFD closure themselves are loosely based onUser:Voice of All'sUser:VoA/monobook.js script (which, of course, was written for an entirely different purpose). The AFD closure script is activated by pressing the "keep" tab which will appear while viewing an AFD discussion. A slight modification of the script would allow its use for the closure of AFD discussions that will result in deletion.John25404:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It also appears that the script should not be used to close AFD discussions whose page titles contain any non-latin characters or accent marks, until its parsing of unicode characters submitted as url parameters is improved.John25404:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And it adds a parameterised{{oldafdfull}} to the article talk as well, I believe. --Stephen07:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Where does the "keep" tab go? I can't seem to see it.нмŵוτнτ07:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The keep tab should appear at the top of a window, only when viewing an AFD discussion, assuming that one is using a compatible web browser. It may be necessary, however, to reload one's main monobook.js file after installation to activate the script, which can be accomplished by pressing control F5 while viewing the monobook.js script.John25416:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that it removes the sort template by deleting the "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AFD" plus four characters (for the |, the code, and each "}"), but does it catch if there is a non-standard input in the category? For example, if the category code is "B", there wouldn't be a problem - but if the nom put "Biographical" instead, as happens frequently, would it cause the script to hiccup?UltraExactZZ^Claims~Evidence14:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The "len - (matchstring.length + 4)" figure is simply a boundary in the search for the category template. Once the template is actually found, the script ascertains the location at which the template call is closed by means of the following code:

         n = 0;         for(k = j; k < len; k++)         {           if(t.value[k] == "}")           {             n++;           }           if(n > 1)           {              break;           }         }

The final value of the variable k is used to specify the endpoint of the string being removed. Thus, the script will remove any text between the opening of the template call, and the closure of the template call as indicated by two "}" characters.John25416:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work, but the above was (no offense ;) clearly coded by a C programmer. there aremore efficient ways to do this in javascript. —Random83218:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In an effort to allow readers (Note, not editors) to have easy access to an "in universe" view of various fictional article, while also attempting to discourage "fan-craft" I have created a new template. It is in my userspace at the moment, and I have only put it on one article. I wanted to get some opinions on it. The main reason I created it is because people come here (to the wikipedia) expecting the find the sum of all human knowledge, as Jimbo once said. I understand that we cannot provide in-universe details for the fictional items, so this seems like an good half way point that satisfies readers as well as editors. Apart from theexample on the Everquest 2 page, here is another (For a star trek article):

You may find more detailed "in universe" information in aWiki set up specifically for this subject of fiction, such asthis one.

What do people think?Fosnez (talk)10:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the intent, but I'm concerned that it's basically giving undue prominence to a given external link. Also, I'd suggest thatthe village pump might be a better place than here to propose this.Sarcasticidealist (talk)10:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please place all further commentshereFosnez (talk)10:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm in two minds about this WikiProject, so I've come to AN to see if we can get consensus on what to do with this WikiProject. I forcibly shut it down a month ago (redirected it to some other WikProject) and then protected the redirect for said month. The issue here stems fromWP:ARBAA2: what we have here is ade facto independent republic,Nagorno-Karabakh Republic,de iure part of Azerbaijan, that this WikiProject is dedicated to promoting. The population of NKR is, by and large, composed of ethnic Armenians, and so is our WikiProject. NKR is a very hot-button topic in that part of the world:Nagorno-Karabakh War explains why. It's not hard to see why this project is a red flag for our Azeri users, and we've had quite a lot of conflict over NKR already. My gut instinct is to say the project is a bad idea - certainly as currently set up, seems designed to stir up trouble. I'm rather inclined to shut it down again, albeit permanently. Or is that not acceptable? Thoughts?Moreschi^{If you've written a quality article...}

And I already know what the participants in the Armenia-Azeri wars think, so pleasedon't contribute to this discussion, you chaps.Moreschi^{If you've written a quality article...}12:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How true! BTW it was actuallythis guy who works forHearst-Argyle Television.Jimmy Bimmy (talk)18:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Andthis guy did the "was".Jimmy Bimmy (talk)18:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay I have to admit - that's funny. —Wknight94 (talk)18:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And I'm actually the third person to congratulate the IP....Relata refero (talk)18:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Best read today, thanks JB! 18:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)—Precedingunsigned comment added byR. Baley (talk •contribs)

There is aBRFA forClueBot V andMartinp23 has asked for community input. Please take the time and take a look atthe BRFA and comment. Thanks. --Cobi^(t|c|b)22:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 –user blocked

Spot the difference!User:Police.Mad,Jock this account has obviously been made to make me look bad by users confusing the two, chances are its a sockpuppet. Would it be possible for this user to be blocked idenfinatly?Police,Mad,Jack (talk ·contribs)17:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Username blocked.17:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I really appreciate that =).Police,Mad,Jack (talk ·contribs)17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

---

Resolved

 –People uploading pics willy-nilly? Politely explain WP policies to them and don't be a dick about it. ~Riana⁂19:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if this has been discussed before.

Problem: Wikipedia allows individuals to upload uncensored images of themselves, including pictures of genitals and sexual practices. Wikipedia allows people to be contactable through either their talk page, or the email mechanism. Wikipedia therefore provides the basic features of online services such as AdultFriendFinder, whose primary focus is not in writing encyclopedias.

Tentative proposal: Any account that uploads pictures of their own genitals or those of their partner, or themselves or their partner engaging in sexual practices, should have their email, user page, and talk page disabled. If the user then opens another account, they may not, under threat of blocking that new account and deleting the appropriate edits, make it clear that they are the uploader of the controversial content. Ditto for previously existing accounts. This way, users can continue to upload pictures, some of which may be encyclopedic, but Wikipedia cannot be used as a vehicle for arranging exchanges of sexual services.

Further study: We need to consider limiting uploads for certain categories, probably including penis pictures, which may grow out of control and beyond usefulness. A rating system operated by trusted users could help, but would require a development effort that cannot be met with current resources. I hesitate to endorse rabid deletionism w.r.t. controversial content that may be useful, but we're going to be faced with this problem, and will have to deal with it.

Regards,

Samsara (FA • FP)17:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that this is being used in this way? This sounds like a solution (and not a very good one - forbidding making it clear that they are the uploader, in principle, violates their right to attribution under copyright law) in search of a problem. —Random83217:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED andWP:NOT#MYSPACE cover this well enough for me. People who use Wikipedia for social network get blocked, whether they network with their genitals or not. --Jayron32.talk.contribs17:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware that we can monitor their use of the email function.Samsara (FA • FP)18:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The technical aspects of such a limited upload system would be interesting. I could upload an image named "left shoe.jpg" that might emphaticallynot be a left shoe, for example, and I might upload it on a page that does not typically deal with, er, "left shoes". We can compare uploaded images bit for bit with other images, but I don't know that there's an easy implementation of a "penis filter" that would catch an image of that type as it is uploaded. We can't filter for flesh tones, as we'd probably get too many false positives (a headshot would probably have the same proportion of flesh to non-flesh tones as... well, as other parts of the body, for example). I concur that bothWP:NOTCENSORED andWP:NOT#MYSPACE cover the problem for now.UltraExactZZ^Claims~Evidence17:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your concerns. What is wrong with a user uploading an "adult" picture and is then contacted on his or her talk page? Would you have the same problem if someone said on their user page "I like cars" and someone contacts them ("Hey I like cars too") and they get together. Wikipedia is not a social networking site and I have no problem blocking accounts created only to socially network. But this does not mean that a user cannot leave a message on another's user page that is not strictly "encyclopedic". Why do you think that users who upload "adult" images are more likely to only use the accounts to socially network? has that been your experiences? can you cite examples?Jon513 (talk)17:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If these images are being uploaded specifically for the user to network themselves, then there may be an issue with that particular user than we need to address. But to make it a starndard that constructive editors can't upload such images is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. There's nothing that says constructive editors who contribute to the encyclopedia cannot form relationships, sexual or otherwise. List an example of where this has been an issue, perhaps it (if it exists) is something to deal with. Otherwise, I don't see a necessity to make any changes in operation.Lara❤Love18:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that editors' relationships, acceptable as they are, need to be based on the characteristics of their genitals. Leaving that aside, the problem here is that we may not be aware of this going on, until someone leaks it, and sombody else goes to find some evidence that we weren't aware existed. This has the potential to be Wikipedia's biggest scandal yet. I've made a proposal above that does not limit people's ability to participate in the project, but makes it a little safer for everybody. Let's not argue about whether parents should be supervising their children etc. You know it goes wrong sometimes, and you know we don't want to be involved when it does.Samsara (FA • FP)18:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

All joking aside, your proposal _does_ limit people's ability to participate in the project (they cannot, under your proposal, upload images to illustrate a certain category of articles while also making edits in other areas and expect to receive credit for their work in both categories under a single identity). And you haven't explained how it is a safety issue at all, even any hypotheticalfor the children!!! argument (which you haven't actually articulated) doesn't work because you're not proposing banning the uploads entirely. —Random83219:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Some people really do make a big thing out of nothing dont they.Police,Mad,Jack (talk ·contribs)18:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)—Precedingunsigned comment added byPolice,Mad,Jack (talk •contribs)

I agree. This all does seem to be getting blown out of proportion. | |18:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be better to archive this discussion before someone violatesWP:DICK.Black Kite18:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This whole thread is about editor's violating other editors', well, er, um. You said it first. | |18:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see this as a situation we need to get our hands dirty with. It seems like a lot of work for nothing, really. If this is something that's going on, and it leaks, then that should be cleaned up on an individual basis.Lara❤Love19:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you have some experience handling these types of sticky situations.Ronnotel (talk)19:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I dont try to blow my own trumpet about it. But yesPolice,Mad,Jack (talk ·contribs)19:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)—Precedingunsigned comment added byPolice,Mad,Jack (talk •contribs)

Okay, okay. This is getting out of hand.Lara❤Love19:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not in my huge experiance in this area.Police,Mad,Jack (talk ·contribs)19:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)—Precedingunsigned comment added byPolice,Mad,Jack (talk •contribs)

Thank you for all rising to the occasion with your responses to this thread. ~Riana⁂19:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's always a pleasure to help fellow editors deal with the really hard issues.UltraExactZZ^Claims~Evidence19:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For the love. Will someone please archive this? Pretty please? | |19:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

When you say "hard" I assume you mean hard as in difficult?Police,Mad,Jack (talk ·contribs)19:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)—Precedingunsigned comment added byPolice,Mad,Jack (talk •contribs)

Ha! Best AN thread ever!Mike R (talk)23:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved

 –User left unblocked,Tiptoety^talk23:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've very recently blocked and then unblocked this user for what I perceived as a derogatory use of the term "Jew" bothhere andhere. Other than those diffs, I don't seem to be able to find anything that would warrant a block (hence unblocking my own block). Now that I think more about it, I think more admin eyes/opinions are warranted. Any thoughts about a reblock? | |22:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Have left a civility warning. His userpage is a little confrontational, but I think he needs to go a little further yet. -- (Talk)22:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Rod, user at least needs to be warned before blocked.Tiptoety^talk22:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I quickly unblocked and apologized. Thanks for the additional input, much appreciated. | |23:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)