Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts WP:AN WP:ANB 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

Just noticed my block has been reset and extended to two months for block evasion following this discussion. Unfortunately, I yielded no response to this comment. What can I say? Of course I'm ignoring the rules when it comes to doing minor mainspace edits, and why wouldn't I contact friendly people I have had positive contact with in the past, like Privatemusings or Casliber? So, what's the score here? My block is reset and more than doubled in duration for harmless contacting wikifriends (oh how I despise that term, but it's somewhat true in the cases of e.g. PM and Cas) and apparently also for stuff like this (or e.g. [1], [2], [3]). Could someone please introduce some sanity, or at least honesty? Make it indef rather than two months. Two months is designed to drive me away for good anyway, which will eventually happen, but entirely on my own terms (namely when I finally manage to curb my obsession with things like messed-up formatting and other inaccuracies). I fully intend to continue doing such minor mainspace edits where necessary and I may occasionally contact old "acquaintances", too. If that's unacceptable, then Wikipedia and me will have to agree to disagree. But please at least make it official in that case. Again: I do fully intend to continue evading that block with minor mainspace edits and the occasional comment or question on some friendly users' talk pages. Please do not remove this as trolling. I feel this is a legitimate request for clarification from admins. If nothing else, please at least give me some clarity and officially declare the quoted edits as unacceptable to the tune of extending a block from three weeks to two months. Also, please take into consideration that I'm having a hard time not editing when I see an obvious minor error, not asking a pal when I have a question or contact them in response when there is something noteworthy (or just plain funny) going on. I don't feel I've done any wrong with the edits -- other than evading my block, which in turn shouldn't be a self-serving institution with no need for checks and balances and some sanity. 78.34.134.4 (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Block evading to complain about your block being reset for er block evading???? Frankly I'm tempted to extend it again. Have you never heard of the unblock template? Don't reply here, Use your talk pageSpartaz ^Humbug! 06:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not asking to be unblocked. And the catch-22-type irony which you comment on is inherent in Wikipedia, not in my decision to post this thread. 78.34.134.4 (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A block means you're not supposed to edit, period, until the block has ended. Not "you're not supposed to edit except to fix minor formatting issues and to chat with friends." This is like telling a child "you're grounded except for playtime, birthday parties, and to go to the movies with your buddies." Any other admin who wants to extend this block has my full support.GJC 07:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, to me it seems more like saying "you're grounded, and no TV, and no phone, and no doing your homework and no helping with the chores. " 78.34.134.4 (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's an odd analogy, because Wikipedia isn't a job. I'm going to reset the block and block the IP.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What would the collateral damage be on a rangeblock? I'm clueless about how to calculate such things.GJC 07:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a major German ISP and the block would cover a /16 (60k some odd addresses).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, thank you very much, Ryulong. I for one do indeed see work on Wikipedia as a volunteer job, and I will certainly continue to ignore all rules that keep me from improving it. As I said: Go indef if you honestly believe the little edits I'm still making are (intentionally or otherwise) harmful. You know, that's what blocks are supposed to do: Protect Wikipedia against harm. But that's not what you guys appear to be interested in. It seems you are more interested in demonstrating the power of the system, even if it makes no sense whatsoever. So sad. 78.34.149.223 (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh, this IP is blocked for three months as well. At this point you should have realized that you are not to edit the English Wikipedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Suit yourself while I continue to ignore all rules that prevent me from improving Wikipedia. Two months and a week now (in addition to the original three weeks) for "block evasion" with the intent ... to make minor edits and some harmless talk page comments. It's not even supposed to make sense, is it? 78.34.144.149 (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It makes perfect sense. Let's go for another analogy: If you were a volunteer in, say, St. John Amulance, and you were suspended for improper conduct, would you expect to continue being allowed to attend duties and treat people? Of course not, same applies here. _TalkIslander 12:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Two words: Make me. Also, the ambulance doesn't allow anyone in without even registering, that's where the analogy ends. And you have to receive formal education and pass exams to work there, too, especially if you want to work in the administration. On a more (or less) humorous note, I wonder if my block will be reset/extended if I stop editing anything but mainspace. 78.34.151.162 (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone mind if Everyme's block was extended to indef? seicer | talk | contribs 13:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I have been saying from the start, by all means please do it. 78.34.151.162 (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected this page for a time. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seicer, if you are reasonably certain that the IP is indeed Everyme and not someone acting like him (I have no opinion, I have not followed the history of it), then by all means, change it to indef. Fram (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that is def Everyme, I support the ban if it matters. MBisanz ^talk 13:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support an indef block, but I don't see how we'd do it on the IP... as for the account, there seems to be consensus to indef-block, so I've gone ahead and done it. _TalkIslander 13:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I indef-blocked on my understanding of the situation, and of the apparent consensus. If anyone strongly disagrees with me, go ahead and unblock/reblock for a period of time. _TalkIslander 13:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the user pages that Everyme redirected to User:Everyme, hasn't he already had a number of indef blocks? Grsz¹¹ 16:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see here for a list. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was explained to me some time back, but I still didn't quite understand it. Is Everyme blocked or banned? It sounds to me like he was blocked, yet the same blanket rules applied to banned users applied to him (e.g. no edits whatsoever). So really, what's the difference, in his case? I'm struggling to see any difference between a block and a ban. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block="Nobody has unblocked him yet"

Ban="Nobody would be willing to unblock him".

It's a question of semantics more than anything else. – iridescent 17:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Blocked" means that they have been prevented, in the system itself, from editing Wikipedia. "Banned" means that the community has decided the editor should not be editing; this can be "topic banned" meaning they should not edit articles about a certain subject, or "site banned" meaning they are no longer supposed to edit Wikipedia at all. Site bans are typically enforced by blocking the editor in question. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, we know that. However, what Iridescent is describing is the more literal difference between an indef block and an indef site-wide ban. _TalkIslander 22:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what we do, we know that he probably already has another account that he's already using---only this time we won't know it's him. Personally, there is an old adage about the devil you know vs the devil you don't know.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was just clarifying for User:How do you turn this on. Indented a little too far, I guess. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyme, you know I like you, but this is poor form. Rather than evade your block to contest its details at a noticeboard, please post a request for one of our code monkeys to nick a transclusion template from the old WP:CSN board so that you can walk the straight and narrow while you present your position. You have many virtues as an editor, but civility is a problem. You know how to reach me by Skype and email. I'm a sysop at three other WMF projects and would proudly mentor you at any of them. Let's take steps in the right direction. Sincerely, Durova^Charge! 00:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ditto here. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest something as this tit-for-tat IP post and block is nonproductive. We have had one RfC and maybe it is time for a forum again at another, or here, we can open a case to discuss options. Ultimately, are we at the point where Everyme's participation is a net negative or can something be salvaged toward 'pedia building? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every time I see this page (admittedly not very often!) I see Everyme being blocked, asking to be unblocked, or complaining about being blocked but not unblocked. Is there a place where one can see why he/she/it was blocked in the first place? (Just curious.) --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 03:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some relevant recent threads in reverse chronological order, i.e. most recent first: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive491#User:Everyme, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive489#Everyme, and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#Remarks_by_Everyme. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Very instructive indeed! --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 18:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time to protect the talk page? Grsz¹¹ 14:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I am wondering. It seems as though Everyme is intent on continuing to use it for discussion other than requesting to be unblocked. He is also requesting that certain people don't comment on it, namely myself and Grsz11. If he's not going to request to be unblocked, I don't entirely see why he needs it. _TalkIslander 14:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forget that - Everyme's continued incivility, plus his assurance that he has no wish to request an unblock, has led me to remove his access to his talk page. Unfortunate, but there you go. _TalkIslander 14:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so here's the story:

AussieLegend and I wer edit warring on Windows XP. Eventually, I gave up, sick of it, but no. Aussie had to virtually "stalk" me. She reverts almost all of my edits, (legit ones), nominates everything I create for deletion, no matter what, and attacks me in clever non-direct ways. I was wondering if someone could just...block her for a day???, please??? I am tired of getting on wikipedia and having him/her (think it is a her) harass me. Please, can someone intervene? Anyone? It would be appreciated with the highest level. --Encyclopedia77 Talk 23:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What edits of yours, besides your edits to Windows XP, your unexplained removal of discussions, and your editing of other people's comments, has AussieLenged reverted? AussieLenged gave a good reason for reverting your edit to Windows XP, and there is now consensus to revert it. In spite of this, you kept reverting those reverts. What's wrong with nominating pages for deletion, as long as there is a valid reason? You keep leaving harassing messages, such as [4], [5], and [6] on User talk:AussieLegend. If anyone here needs blocking, it's you. - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I have had serious concerns about Encyclopedia77's edits since his/her first attempts to bulldoze those edits into Windows XP without discussion. The only person actually edit-warring was Encyclopedia77. I even had to warn him about possibly breaching 3RR.[7] I certainly wasn't the only one reverting his edits. Two other editors also took exception and reverted.[8][9] Invitations to discuss the edits on the talk page, by way of edit summaries[10][11] and invitations on the user's talk page,[12] were fruitless. Ultimately Encyclopedia77's response was deletion of the discussion, twice.[13][14] The list of unacceptable edits by Encyclopedia77 is considerable. For example, when I tried to discuss the edits at Windows XP he edited my comments on his talk page to change their meaning.[15] After I changed them back and left a warning about doing that[16] his response was a silly comment on my talk page.[17] He has deleted content from my talk page archives[18] and accused Josh the Nerd of being a sockpuppet.[19] As recently as today, after having suggested that he acquaint himself with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines several days ago,[20] he has again deleted content, this time from my talk page.[21] Encyclopedia77's editing style and general actions raise a number of red flags making me somewhat suspicious that his vandalism days aren't completely behind him and he certainly bears watching. To be fair, and assuming good faith, I don't think all of his "errors" are malicious and he needs some mentoring. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would seem there are some rather major concerns with 77's editing and behaviour looking at the diffs and contribs. Incidentally, as someone who's been on the other side of a content debate (I wouldn't really call it a dispute) from AussieLegend before, I've found them to be civil, to favour discussion of points of contention, to put their point forcefully but not to engage in ill means to do so. We've been quite able to reach acceptable compromises from different points of view. Orderinchaos 07:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you Reverted 2 times in a day, Aussie. Even then, if I make "redundant" templates abd images, so? Others do, too. like the {{VandalNoticeSmall}} template, some onn't like the {{repeat vandal}} template. See {{test5}} and {{test6}} and {{block}}. They're redundant, arent they??--Encyclopedia77 Talk 14:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with making justified reverts twice in a day. Reverting more than 3 times is where you get into trouble and you've come perilously close to that, which is why you received a 3RR warning.[22] You also get into trouble by posting false and unjustified warnings to user talk pages, as you did not long ago to mine.[23] Perhaps you'd care to explain that before somebody lists you here. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a warning, not a "You did it!!". Besides, you have attacked me. Those warnings are justified. And your response to "...redundant templates and images"...? --Encyclopedia77 Talk 20:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please show us this "attack" you speak of. I'm not familiar with those other templates you brought up, but if they are redundant, then perhaps they should be nominated for deletion too. Why aren't your defending your templates in their deletion discussions?

P.S. If you hadn't reverted this edit of yours, I would be creating a report for you on this noticeboard right now. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now seriously considering listing after this edit, which added {{VandalNoticeSmall}} to the page of a user that has never been blocked,[24] unlike Encylopedia77, who has been blocked twice.[25]. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My response re templates is pretty much what Josh has said. I'd also add that {{test5}} was nominated for deletion and there was consensus to keep it, which you would have known if you'd checked the talk page. As for your Warning, warnings are posted in response to actions. What action justified the warning? --AussieLegend (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Possible ethnic block voting in ArbCom elections. 20:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the point in having alternative accounts when they just end up stopping being used? For example, Hersfold (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has the said account and La Pianista (talk · contribs) has La Sockista (talk · contribs). I would like to see more alternative account usage please, preferrably in rollback. Thanks. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 05:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? I could see forbidding rollback to anyone with alternate accounts, but I can't imagine a good reason to encourage rollbackers to have alternate accounts.—Kww(talk) 05:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I mean they could be used more often, like when they're on public computers. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 05:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is this thread about?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public accounts. If someone is working from a public computer, it is necessary, but not required, to use an alternative account to prevent the risk of compromization by hackers. See WP:SOCK#LEGIT for more. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 05:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I have both AuburnPilot (talk · contribs) and AuburnPiIot (talk · contribs). I prefer not to sign in with my admin account when using a less than secure connection (like from my BlackBerry). Both accounts have rollback, but that's more of a convenience issue than anything. - auburnpilot's sock 05:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c with AuburnPilot)Actually, I think you're misinterpreting the policy. Alternate accounts are generally discouraged. They are tolerated for the reasons listed at WP:SOCK#LEGIT. For reasons of transparency, we would prefer that all editors keep all of their edits under the same name. While some of us (I use User:Aervasock) do choose to access Wikipedia through a non-privileged account when not on our home computer, that is certainly not a mandate, nor even a suggestion. It's just an allowable option.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have User:Orderinchaos 2 as an AWB account. It means that my edits on my main account, with which I have admin access, are more readily open to scrutiny without people having to wade through uncontroversial semi-auto edits. Orderinchaos 09:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of your giant flamboyant signature? John Reaves 08:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing myself.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please help monitor the move war at Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno Karabakh. Despite a failed move request, the article has been moved back and forth over the past few days. Aecis·(away) ^talk 09:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I move-protected the article. Ruslik (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm mistaken, Image:Zappa 16011977 01 300.jpg, which is on the Main Page, wasn't protected until I uploaded a local copy just now (it's now cascade-protected). I could be missing something, but there was no local copy previously, the image isn't protected at Commons, and yesterday's TFA image was protected this way, so apparently something hasn't changed on me and made doing this no longer necessary. It would be nice to have an adminbot to do this, as I'm not really fond of seeing various anatomical images when I start up my Web browser. If I did unknowingly screw something up, please tell me. —Slowking Man (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I'm seeing that other Main Page images aren't explicitly protected either, so I'm obviously missing something. Someone mind linking me to the software change or whatever it is? —Slowking Man (talk) 10:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images in English Wikipedia no longer need protection before appearing on MainPage due to cascading protection. Cascading protection does not apply to images hosted on the Wikimedia Commons. This means that the images still need to be protected manually by an administrator on the Commons project, or uploaded to English Wikipedia to allow the cascading protection to work. User:Zzyzx11 used to protect MainPage images at WCommons. He stopped when User:MPUploadBot was inaugurated. However, User:MPUploadBot was blocked a few weeks ago. Since then, various MainPage Mopsters (most often it's User:BorgQueen, sometimes me and others...) have been manually uploading and protecting WCommons images when (or before) they appear on MainPage. No clue when User:MPUploadBot will be unblocked. So, if you see any WCommons images on MainPage, please make sure that they are {{C-uploaded}} to English Wikipedia. If not, cascading can only protect local edits, such as cats and FP templates, and vandals can upload junk at WCommons to spoil our MainPage. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, so I was right after all. Okay, thanks for confirming that I'm not totally absentminded. I'll try to keep an eye on upcoming Main Page images, and if any other admins reading this could pitch in, that would be great. —Slowking Man (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just speedy deleted Category:Halfricans as an attack page, because as the category page itself noted[26], the term is exclusively used to disparage its subject (people of half-African American descent). As another user noted, we wouldn't support Category:Uncle Toms or Category:Feminazi, and this seems to have some characteristics of those.

The speedy deletion seemed appropriate as the "general" criteria specifically apply all namespaces including categories. However I appreciate the speedy deletion of categories is rare, and this particular category may well be controversial. I've therefore brought this here for review, and am happy for it to be overturned if I've misinterpreted the policy. Anyone else have a view? Euryalus (talk) 11:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good call as far as I am concerned. Did you comment to the creator? JodyB _talk 11:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine. G10 == General, not namespace specific. We can speedy delete from any namespace if the item in question is something nasty. Good call on this category. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 11:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't comment to the creator (User:Kilby6), but another editor has warned them about creating attack pages. Euryalus (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced it was really an attack page per se. I suspect he intended to create a category for Limbaughisms. In any case, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. JodyB _talk 12:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But see which articles were put in it. By all means WP:AGF that it wasn't meant as an attack, but it could be considered an attack and thus deletion was fine. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 12:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the past few days Sceptre has been continuing in behavior similar to that which has resulted in him being disciplined in that past, and as I'm not an admin and have been in personal conflicts with him before, I'd prefer not to get directly involved with him myself, but rather let an admin who's had more experience dealing with him take care of this. On the Osama Bin Laden article, he's been unilaterally removing sources from the article which cite individuals or groups that have referred to Bin Laden as a terrorist, claiming that the article calling him a terrorist is a violation of WP:BLP, and yelling at other users in his edit summaries such as here and here. (Nevertheless he's incorrect about the article factually stating that Bin Laden is a terrorist, as it only reads that certain groups/individuals have referred to him as one and cites sources to back these claims up.) I posted a comment about this on the article's talk page claiming that it seemed like he is trying to cause drama for drama's sake and is essentially acting like he owns the article by giving his own opinion on it more merit than the current consensus. In response, he accused me of "wikistalking" him (just as he's accused me and many other users of in the past, including one other user whom he edited warred with over this article, though just to be fair, the user did facetiously call him a "terrorist sympathizer" right before, which was also uncalled for). I'd personally like to stay out of this one since I've been in a few ugly conflicts with him before, but I think his behavior is uncalled for and is strongly reminiscent of the behavior with had him recently blocked for three months in the first place. If he keeps going on like this, I won't be surprised (or sorry) to see him blocked again, though this time I'd like to see him wait the block out, as it was rescended a few weeks before its expiration (which I thought was unfair considering that even while blocked, he continued to engage on his talk page in the same disruptive behavior that had him blocked in the first place, though that's ancient history so I won't go into it further.)--ParisianBlade (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've told Sceptre about this thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Without wanting to go into the shouting, which is unfortunate, Sceptre does have a point in that use of the word "terrorist" is discouraged. Wikipedia:Words to avoid says:

"The terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" carry an implicit viewpoint. "Extremism" and "terrorism" are pejorative terms, frequently applied to those whose cause is being opposed. Similarly, the term "freedom fighters" is typically applied to those whose cause is being supported. These words are inherently non-neutral, and so they should never be used as labels in the unqualified narrative voice of the article."

It should also be noted that this directive is the subject of a slow-burning debate on the related talk page, but there does not appear to be any consensus to overturn it at this point. Now, if anyone can be referred to as a terrorist, it's OBL, but Sceptre's edits, as far as I can see, are not unduly disruptive or incorrect, and in some cases are an improvement (such as changing "terrorist" to the more specific "jihadist"). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Jihadist is actually extremely POV. It implies that Bin Laden's actions are a valid jihad. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Words to avoid doesn't apply here - it's not being used in the unqualified narrative - a sourced reference to say that intepol and other law enforcement agencies have him listed as a terrorist is just that - a sourced reference outlining the position of those organisations. If they were writing "the terrorist Bin Laden" he might have a point (which I cannot find in the history). Leaving aside the content issues, What I cannot take in good faith are comments like Don't you think following a minor around is creepy? ? Are we now allowed to make backhanded slurs on other editors as sexual predators? Sceptre wants to call notice to his status as a minor - great, he should go and sit in the naughty corner for a bit until he grows up. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the "creepy" edit is here: [27] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

em? I lined to it in my post? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the content dispute itself, I haven't been keeping up with it on a regular basis and it wasn't my main concern. My main concern was the immature way that Sceptre is going about participating in the dispute (the yelling in edit summaries; the accusations of "wikistalking) which I think is very inappropriate. The dispute itself may actually be legitimate, but if so Sceptre should behave as an adult if he expects to be treated like one in my view.--ParisianBlade (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this kind of conduct why Sceptre was blocked in the first place? And wasn't he only unblocked because he was being given a last chance? Jtrainor (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not real familiar with the situation, but yeah, it does look like he was on his "last chance" a couple chances ago. He needs to be shown the door- he's apparently unable to behave like a reasonable adult. Friday (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also unfamiliar with the case and I thought this was bad, but looking through his history I'm surprised he's been here this long; he is a liability in my opinion despite any good work he gets done.--Patton123 21:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, he's been immoderate, using ALL CAPS IN AN EDIT SUMMARY, and he violated assume good faith by making false accusations of stalking and somebody having creepy interests in minors. Prior incidents have lead to final warnings and indefinite blocks have been imposed and shortened twice. I believe the behavior this time is not bad enough to warrant a ban, therefore, I suggest we ask Sceptre nicely to stop making accusations against other people, and if he agrees, wewatch a bit longer to see if the behavior improves or worsens. Jehochman ^Talk 22:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he could just play nice and work on Doctor Who episodes, everyone would benefit... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've blocked him until the 9th of december, the expiry of his block that was lifted early. He asked for an unblock and promised to behave in an adult fashion and clearly failed to do so. Protonk (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would we have blocked someone else if they did not have Sceptre's prior history? I'm not sure this would be on ANI were it another user. That bothers me a little bit. Still I understand if given the circumstances we treat him as being on a shorter leash than others. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[E/C] The incidents that led to his previous series of blocks were attacks on Giano and Kmweber. Within a week of being unblocked he repeated the type of personal attack against the same editor that had caused a previous block. On December 1, Sceptre compared voting for Kmweber for ArbCom to voting for a pedophile for PTA.[28] (after complaints, he redacted the comment). His comment to ParisianBlade seems like a personal attack as well.[29] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last ref is hardly a personal attack; he's heatedly describing changes to the page, unlike Parisan, who puts "trying to cause drama again" in the edit summary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• To joshua: no, I wouldn't have. I also would not have blocked him for this if we wasn't on a last chance reduction of a formerly indefinite block for personal attacks, stalking and harassment. But he was. His block was shortened with some consensus at AN/I to three months (to end Dec. 9). Later it was lifted (and consensus was reached about that) provided he comport himself like an adult and edit mainspace. This flare-up and flurry of accusations doesn't fit that at all. So I just reinstated the rest of the 3 month block. Protonk (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the block FWIW; I used to have a rather positive and congenial relationship with Will/Sceptre but he seriously went off "the deep end" a few months ago, and I continue to be saddened by his descent from a quality editor and respected admin to an instigator and propagator of lame fights and his descent into incivility for incivility's sake. He may have valid points to make, but his shocking incivility prevents others from considering them. Its a shame, really. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. I wish I was seeing the encyclopedia benefit from high quality/GA/FA Doctor Who/Lost/House/Road articles minus drama. The readers of these articles are the ones punished when Sceptre gets blocked. I do, however, think it is important to point out that ParisianBlade's recent edits have been mostly about Sceptre. Seraphim♥ 22:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse this action. I was pretty sure this would happen; Sceptre has not been away for long enough to get the disputes out of his system. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess I made a nub mistake and hardblocked it. It's been changed. Sorry. Not sure how far back the ip blocking goes, I guess. Protonk (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Would we have given a five day block to someone who didn't have Sceptre's particular history? No, we would have called them a SPA and indef-blocked. For all the fuss over "contributions", I frankly really don't see much benefit in continuing to treat him with kid gloves when he chooses to be disruptive - I heavily doubt Dr. Who articles will suddenly vanish from the encyclopedia without Sceptre around. There's always plenty of people willing to contribute to the various pop-culture stuff. Badger Drink (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True but Sceptre is one of the few people who actually contributes to those articles well. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I think if he were to go, someone else would rise to take his place. While this may seem counter to general "Wiki" philosophy, I believe that in certain situations, too many cooks do have a way of spoiling the meal - the final push to GA/FA status being one of those situations. Hence, people who have the capacity to contribute in a manner much like Sceptre back off, out of a desire to not interfere. The general culture against "me too"ism prevents said editor's voices from being seen much on Talk pages and the like - but it would be folly to assume they're not out there. Badger Drink (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite arguably this block should have been indef. Sceptre was supposed to have been on his last chance already. Giving him more isn't really justified, but I hardly care now anyway.

• BTW, "jihadist" is hopelessly wrong. "Jihad" is a traditional Muslim concept of justified, defensive warfare whereby certain behaviours (the killing of innocents, for example) are strictly prohibited. It also a wider sense as "struggle" - overcoming the evil within yourself, for instance, can also be described as jihad. Bin Laden and his lot totally fail these tests, I think. Moreschi (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jihad as an agressive war is certainly not outside the traditional concept of Jihad. This is made worse by the fact that some argue that any attack to reclaim an area that was historically Islamic is defensive in nature. But yes, jihadist is in any form hopelessly POV. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. The problem here is essentially that of Muslim tradition doing one thing and saying another. While Jihad in the Koran is not particularly aggressive early Muslim history consists of, well, large-scale violent conquest. Moreschi (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not agressive in the Koran? Mohammed takes over the entire Middle-East as Jihad. Not much of that was anything remotely resembling defensive war. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I said, difference between theory and practice even then. But lines will always be blurred. The Roman Republic never unleashed the legions until it had thoroughly convinced itself that it was under threat, even against the most negligible adversary. Same process no doubt at work in the early days of Islam. It's surprisingly easy to persuade yourself that you're in serious danger, and must therefore do one to others before they do one to you. Moreschi (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • As inhabitant of a territory that to had to fight for 800 frigging years just to reconquer what the Jihad warriors had taken from us, and which is still being claimed by the most radical muslims as the arab territory of Al-Andalus, I'll say that I find Koran's most ardent proponents to be a tiny little bit on the "too forward" category, independently of what the Koran actually says about Jihad. As Moreschi says, one thing is what the Koran says about Jihad and a different thing is what people calling themselves "Jihadists" (or, more accurately, people looking for validation to their lifes from a superior instance) will interpret from reading it. The point here is of Osama considered himself a Jihadist, if I have read it correctly. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the previous blocking and unblocking admin, my comment on this situation is Sceptre proved himself willing to undo his vote commentary, which is exactly the kind of behavior we look for, being able and willing to remove your problematic comments is a Good Thing, no matter what whining comes of it. Second, in my judgment Parisianblade inflamed this situation. This doesn't excuse Sceptre's behavior in anyway, but baiting restricted editors is a no-no. Third, all in all on balance, Sceptre's behavior seems to be run of the mill, this editor needs a trout and tea break, no reason to make a production out of it. In the time of his unblock, he did good work, responded to reasonable admin intervention, and also got into trouble: its not like we havn't seen that out of a lot of other editors on this wiki. Also, can we please not get into an argument about terrorists and jihad and such?--Tznkai (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else aside, I just have to say, the thought of Osama Bin Laden coming out of his cave to sue us for libel over a wording difference amuses me. Grandmasterka 23:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No remember the concern is Do No Harm. Obviously there's serious harm from labeling Bin Laden a terrorist. Someone in the US Government might read this and decide to put him on the no-fly list. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Jeez, look what happened when wikipedia called Ted Kennedy a senator? :P Protonk (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Joking aside, I mostly agree with this summary. ParisianBlade has not been the voice of reason. Sceptre is indeed often willing to respond to criticism. The argument about terror vs. jihad. vs. whatever-else doesn't belong here. But I don't agree that his actions were run-of-the-mill or were within the bounds of normal editor responses. Protonk (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, calling him out for "trying to cause drama" definitely wasn't the best way I could have handled the situation and I tend to have a low opinion of him in general because from my perception he has a bad habit of acting unilaterally and thinking that his opinions override consensus and in certain situations trying to edit Wikipedia from a non-neutral POV for his own personal gain (e.g. removing legitimate references to specific websites from articles simply because he has a problem with the site). There was an incident awhile back where we got into an edit war and he ended up reverting my notice of the edit war from WP:AN and lost his rollback because of this, since then I've had a hard time dealing with him. If you'd like though, put a restriction on me interacting with him directly for a certain period of time (if I have a concern about his behavior, I should just report it to an administrator instead of confronting him directly because this just inflames the situation more often than not).--ParisianBlade (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an administrator and unfamiliar with Sceptre's case, but the other day I asked him to reconsider an unnecessarily inflammatory and inappropriate statement, and he reconsidered and even removed it. From reading the WP:ANI thread dealing with Sceptre's early unblock, I understand there were concerned voices. I believe Tznkai bears the unthankful responsibility of watching over Sceptre and keeping him out of trouble, otherwise it's just another case of giving enough rope ... I guess Sceptre was responsive to my concern because I didn't order him to do anything but asked him to think about it. Which brings me to what I actually want to say here:

Echoing Jayron's comment about "incivility for incivility's sake", this is precisely what is not needed. I too am among those editors who believe that WP:CIVIL is often used as a weapon and injustly and against common sense and against the encyclopedia's interest, particularly when good contributors get poked, pestered, and baited (all in a civil fashion) until they snap. This wasn't the case with the incivility referred to in this thread, and I interpret it as a misguided imitation of some of our more vocal contributors, because their outspokenness gets attention.

I would like to point out that it doesn't help when we applaud witty editors for clever and biting replies. Chuckle silently, but the cheering in the peanut galleries can lead to the misconception that there is something chivalrous about being rude. There isn't. Recently I saw someone characterize a very dismissive and sharp statement that led to a block as "pure class". I often disagree with these blocks of productive editors for being uncivil, but I also disagree with encouragement, backslapping, and the notion that it is somehow "cool" to be rude and witty. It's cool to be witty. Sometimes despite the accompanying rudeness, but never because of it. In a collaborative project, there is nothing recommandable about rudeness or hyperbole for its own sake. I ask Sceptre to think about this too. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ParisianBlade I think you're behaviour was fine...--Patton123 16:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err...I'm pretty sure these shouldn't be in the main article space... CultureDrone (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here; I can't make head or tail of it. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 17:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as Mister Alcohol is an active, unblocked account, I don't see why we would delete or blank it at an IP's req. Point at OTRS/MFD. MBisanz ^talk 17:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have done that, but the IP is not forthcoming about details. I have notified Mister Alcohol of this thread. --Rodhullandemu 17:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Soundvisions1 is currently applying {{db-i9}} tags to certain images with valid fair-use rationales. I've removed these, as my understanding is that it doesn't apply to FU images. Could someone else have a look and give a second opinion please, as I'm going off-wiki soon. Thanks. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 18:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a cut and paste, mostly, from my comment on the Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion where User:Tivedshambo made the comment: The source is irrelevant. No it is not. And considering the criteria is specific about these images (and will hopefully be made more specific by the proposed addition), as were the links and the portions of A.P's contracts I provided to for reading, I would say you should not be "clearing out WP:CSD". For others - L.A. Times v. Free Republic is an article I sent this editor to as well as Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches - "Reviewers should consider the commercial activities of the image's copyright holder and the image's role in those activities. Example that fails: An image of a current event authored by a press agency. Certain press agencies market photographs to media companies to facilitate illustration of relevant commentary. Hosting the image on Wikipedia would impair the market role (derivation of revenue), as publications (such as Wikipedia) would normally need to pay for the opportunity to utilize the image." I would also might like to point out that, even though this image is tagged as being from from A.P and the article is was taken from at MSNBC states "© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed." the above editor implied that MSNBC may have "borrowed the image from us or another source" and removed the CSD tag the first time. (Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 December 4#Image:Australian embassy bombing flag.jpg)

And for also the full CSD I9 criteria reads (Bold markup added by me): "Blatant copyright infringement. Images that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. This does not include images used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. This includes images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis. Blatant infringements should be tagged with the {{db-imgcopyvio}} template. Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images." A.P falls under this, and make it more clear I have proposed adding "and from press agencies such as the Associated Press (A.P)" to that just to make to even more clear. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter who's right as to the applicability of CSD:I9. The speedy tag should not have been replaced after it was removed in good faith. All of these images are already at IfD for discussion. Just have the community discussion. What's the rush? -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To everyone: In case i9 is not clear enough with the comment "This includes images from stock photo libraries..." perhaps it should be further clarified. Beyond that the Non-free content Policy, under Unacceptable use - Images, clearly states: A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your point is. The fact remains that the CSD was removed. The proper course of action after that is to have a discussion (which is already taking place at IfD), not to edit war and replace the tag. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, please back up. Issue 1 - images at IfD. In case you, or anyone else, has not looked, the Nom (not made by me) reads, in full, "recent photo by news agency. fails Wikipedia:NFCC 2 (they charge for this use, we are basically stealing this from them) and Wikipedia:NFCC 8 (this photo doesn't significantly add to the readers' understanding, seeing as it doesn't even show that much)." That alone is pretty clear but I did the leg work and found that A.P licensing doe snot allow for "fair use" of this type, it is already covered in the i9 CSD tag and thusly, I am the one who added the i9 tag. That is fully acceptable and is done all the time. What happened next is the really issue. Issue 2 - removal of the tag. Another editor came in, decided it was not a copy vio because a FUR was being used and than implied that MSNBC/AP "borrowed" this image from Wikipedia and removed the copyvio tag. That is the issue that kicked this off. I reverted because the removal of a blatant copyvio for the reason MSNBC might have taken a Wikipedia image is ludicrous. Now the editor said that i9 for "fair use" images but, as was explained in the actual nom, this is not really an allowed "fair use" image. The Policy is clear on these types if images and so is the i9 tag that was removed...again after it was restored by me. It takes more than one person to edit war but there is no requirement that a blatant copy vio needs to be discussed beyond the point it is confirmed as a being blatant copyvio. Certainly not because an editor does not fully understand a CSD tag and how it relates to these types of images. But even if they do not understand that the actual CSD when it is explained, backed up by policies and discussions and restored explains but still removed that is far more of an issue. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD tags can be removed by anybody except for the person who created the subject of the tag. They should not be replaced. Instead, other methods, such as XfD should be pursued. This isn't complicated. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it isn't. Lets start over. What is the real issue here? It appears clear, to me anyway, that the editor who removed the tag is not fully understanding of the tag itself or the policies and guidelines that define what a "valid fair-use rationale" is. Aside from me I do not see where you, or anyone else, has attempted to answer their question which is: "User:Soundvisions1 is currently applying {{db-i9}} tags to certain images with valid fair-use rationales. I've removed these, as my understanding is that it doesn't apply to FU images." My reply was, and is, there is not a "valid fair use" rationale being used because the image is not allowed to be used with one. The {{db-i9}} tag is being used because "images from stock photo libraries" are considered "Blatant" copyvios and it clearly says that. To confirm you can also look at the "Non-free content" Policy, under "Unacceptable use - Images", wjere ti is even more specific: A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos. Now a second opinion is needed. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's important not to leave likely copyvio's sitting around while the argument takes place. As wp:copyvio states, If the criteria for speedy deletion do not apply, you should replace the contents of the page with the {{subst:copyvio | url=insert URL here}} tag, and list the page at Wikipedia:Copyright problems; see instructions. If, after a week, the page still appears to be a copyright infringement, it may be deleted by any administrator. Looie496 (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point chunky, however if someone thinks the tags are being removed for bad reason (systematically over many images) I don't see much reason why we can't have the discussion here. Alternatively mass nom the images in question to an IFD to discuss the issue at hand. I will note that comments on *process* are not as useful as comments on the actual material at hand here.

The problem here is we have a bunch of tags added by one person and the same tags removed by one other person. My suggestion is to have a sane discussion here or elsewhere (perhaps WT:CSD) about the particular class of images. —— nixeagle 20:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←From WP:CSD: CSD I9 "does not include images used under a claim of fair use". No mention of credible, valid, or otherwise. Therefore the tagging was incorrect. It's there in black and white. The correct tag is {{ifd}} or possibly {{subst:dfu|reason}}. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You just sated that the only thing i9 says is "does not include images used under a claim of fair use". Holy mouse turd batman! WTF am I reading than? I see: "Images that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. This does not include images used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. This includes images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis. Blatant infringements should be tagged with the {{db-imgcopyvio}} template. Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images." I am going to use your oneline reading as a new proposal a CSD. I am seriously done jumping between three locations. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"News Flash": I almost fell over when I saw this. We have have had proof all along sitting right here: Image:Marked-ap-letter.jpg. It is a letter from the Associated Press that is giving permission for two images to be used. But the very last paragraph should be extremely clear: "With respect to any and all other photographs in which The Associated Press is the copyright holder, The Associated Press reserves all its rights, and specifically does not agree that any Wikipedia publication of a copy-protected Associated Press photo in which a Wikipedia user chooses to upload would constitute fair use." Does anyone want to volunteer for A.P image patrol? Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we care if the AP agrees that our use is a fair one or not? The whole doctrine is based on the concept that the objections of the rights-holder are irrelevant if the user meets the established criteria for fair use.—Kww(talk) 23:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say the exact same thing. Thanks, Kww. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just came to say "Good luck, we're all counting on you." Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we care? I guess we should care when AP takes us to court over whether these constitute fair use or not. The objections of the rights-holder are certainly not irrelevant when they have the means to have their day in court. Now I'm certain the cries of "but they haven't yet" or "they haven't because they know we'll win" are sure to ensue. However, as indicated in my letter, it's possible to be be forthright and actually secure permission (OMG what a concept) to use the image. I did it with two of the best known images in the world. --Wgfinley (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There is an ongoing issue with these articles and a homophobic anonymous user who hops IPs constantly to post disgusting things about Beacock. While the usual policy is to RBI, the fact that this happens so constantly makes me wonder if there is something more permanent that can be done. JuJube (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, beyond semi-protection of the articles? I mean, it doesn't look too bad but if it's getting out of control there's always Wikipedia:Abuse reports for ISP reporting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like much has happened there lately. Hopefully the kiddies have moved onto bigger and better things. --Tom 16:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• AALIYAH2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I had previously blocked this editor for three days for uploading copyrighted images with no FUR (Please check both deleted uploaded images as well as the first revision of uploaded images which have been properly tagged by other users.), hoping that they would stop and communicate. But no communication occurred. At the expiry of that block they began the same pattern--uploading images without comment or rationale. When asked to stop this time, the user blanked their talk page and began vandalizing pages in quick succession.

Given this return to disruptive behavior and the vandalism of pages, I have decided to indefinitely block this account for persistently uploading copyrighting images, making misleading or malformed fair use rationales, and vandalizing a string of pages following warnings regarding the above. I suspect this block is largely uncontroversial, but I'm submitting it here for review. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block. This editor never communicated beyond blanking their own talk page, and Protonk's summary of events matches the contribs & talk page history. This editor was either unable, or unwilling, to discuss the possibility of following our image and copyright policies - and we shouldn't worry too much about which. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block. Clearly justified in light of the non-communication.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block: completely uncontroversial. I've encountered AALIYAH2010 a few times before, and they have been warned countless times for uploading copyrighted images and adding unsourced material, but sadly, they have never responded or made an obvious effort to stop. No issues here. Acalamari 21:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block: Yep MBisanz ^talk 21:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, when are editors supposed to report an incident to WP:AN/I instead of WP:AN? I thought that one was for more serious disputes, but I'm confused as to the difference between the two.--ParisianBlade (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, ANI is really for all disputes, especially time sensitive stuff. AN is really for announcements and things like that (such as announcing an ArbCom decision that concerns admins or announcing a change in the blocking tool). In practice there's no much distinction now. As a general rule of thumb if something needs dealing with it should be on ANI. If it needs review or general distribution it should be on AN. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua has the basic rundown. I find between the two that ANI sees more traffic (lol, probably because WP:DRAMA redirects there) but that no one is going to get really steamed with you if you post a request in the "wrong place". Both are kind of general noticeboards. Actually, it looks like ANI sees about twice the pageviews as AN (or has over the past week). Protonk (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the myriad number of pages to check here, there and everywhere, how do we feel about merging AN and AN/I? I too felt much of the content seems to have merged. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heck no! The thing is so big that we have to aggressively move to subpages anything that gets more then a few comments, and you want to merge the two? I would suggest a WP:CN (community noticeboard for things of concern to the community) and AN for things that require

administrators to handle?) if we do ANYTHING (and I don't think that's a great idea) SirFozzie (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No!  :) Too much going on in one thread. It's too bad. Dynamics of a system like this: popular, general processes are over-attended and parochial processes are backlogged. So it would probably be a net negative to split the noticeboards further. Protonk (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Fozzie and Protonk. AN/ANI can be hard enough for people with slow connections to cope with and mashing them into one giant page would be a nightmare. Sarah 04:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a lot of overlap, and people often use them as equivalents. Personally, I guess I figure it depends on how much the word "now" applies -- some threads need urgent attention and then become irrelevant after one or two responses (more AN/I), where others can serve as important points of discussion or announcement for a few days (more AN)... that's just my take on it, though. As has been mentioned, AN/I seems to get more traffic, and is therefore often more busy and noisy (sometimes that's good, and sometimes that's bad). – Luna Santin (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this section header is kind of like WWE's Raw vs Smackdown.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more like Thunderdome. Two noticeboards enter. Only one will leave. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we have to start wearing huge earrings and chain mail, I am sooo leaving. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I thought that was part of the standard dress code here, and have been wearing it ever since my RfA ... --Kralizec! (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make a mention of Jellydudes' attempted outing of an anon IP, User:69.182.20.148, on the associated talk page. I don't know if he's tried it elsewhere. Tealwisp (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like he does it a fair bit. Seems like more his being a jerk than actually attempting to out people. Nice to know that a sock has an obvious trait--makes it easier to find the new accounts. Protonk (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In less than one hour Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the Next update if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo}} to the top of the page and save the page
4. When the next queue is good to go remove this entire message from the board

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKadminBot (talk) DYKadminBot is operated by Ameliorate! ^(talk)

This arbitration case, formerly, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65, has been closed and the final decision is available here. Kuban kazak (talk · contribs) has been banned from editing Wikipedia-en for the duration of one year.

--Tznkai (talk), on behalf of the Arbitration Committee 04:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that he hasn't actually been blocked yet. What is the normal protocol here? Do we only institute a block if he tries to edit? Or is this just an oversight?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The case is also still "open". I figure this is just 'mid-clerking' and will be finished up. If so, I applaud the sentiment of coming here w/ the info before finishing up the housekeeping. Protonk (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All clerked up now. Protonk (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone enable account creation for this IP please? It appears that there is something awry with whatever WP uses to determine IPs. Brilliantine (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've left a message w/ the blocking admin asking them to take a look. Protonk (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ta. I reckon in a couple of hours when normal people over here wake up, all hell might break loose - my gut instinct is that the block affects a substantial portion of users of two rather large ISPs. Brilliantine (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I sent an email to the XFF project at meta. My question is: if it impacts so many users, how come there are so few contributions attached to it? Protonk (talk) 05:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because 1) This hasn't ever happened before, I have always been recognised by Wikipedia as my assigned IP and 2) It is the middle of the night. It is possible it might not be such a huge number of users, but this area of London is pretty densely populated and this ISP has become fairly popular recently, so it will be a significant number at least. Brilliantine (talk) 05:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, so you are saying that this ISP normally forwards XFF info but stopped recently. Roger that. Protonk (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Exactly, as in within the last few hours. The strange thing is that other sites like whatsmyip.com still return the correct IP address, so it is a wikipedia-specific problem. Brilliantine (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The problem has been temporarily resolved, as the blocking admin has unblocked the IP. However, I'm not marking this "resolved" as the XFF people haven't responded yet.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I originally denied the appeal against the block, but then went off to sleep, and saw the resulting discussions and discovery this morning. I think it needs to be resolved as a matter of urgency, as any new block may seriously disadvantage editors and anonymous editors. There have been new incidents of vandalism that at the moment are registered as coming from this IP account, and in other situations, another block may have been forthcoming. What I have done, however, is merely reverted the vandalism and formally issued a notice which I've kept at level 4 once it reached there. I've done that to show that there are ongoing problems that need resolution. However, leaving it as it is, unresolved, may well lead to other problems...  DDStretch  (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are still disruptive edits from the address, and the IP was blocked again today, this time for 2 days (block now lifted). However, until this matter is resolved, it is likely to continue to occur that someone will block the address. I would suggest putting a note on the talk page advising blocking admins of the situation, but I don't want to give the appearance of "a license to vandalise". Would short term blocks of 1 hour at a time be appropriate, at least until the situation is resolved? In other words, treat the IP address as if it were a sensitive IP address? StephenBuxton (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) This problem is being discussed below. I suggest that any further comments be directed to the thread below. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Jayvdb

I have no knowledge of the user or even the disputes at stake, but just wondering whether it was common practice to allow comments from a user who appears to be admitting to be a sock of a banned user. Brilliantine (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What comment? who is the banned user? (This summary is necessary for the dull witted like me. If the answer was in the middle of that giant WP:TLDR paragraph, then I didn't read it) Protonk (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NVM, I just rolled it back per Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. East indeffed the account. Protonk (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The funny thing is I don't generally agree with that policy, but there was something about that ramble that seemed to be disruptive as opposed to useful. Brilliantine (talk) 07:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't either. Honestly it seems pretty laughably unworkable. Most socks do hundreds of edits, usually good or neutral, before they are caught. I'm not sure why I would be expected to click "rollback" on all of them. However, it is nice to have it there, I guess. Protonk (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can a few neutral editors with checkuser privileges and knowledge of Sikhs, Khalistan and Human Rights, please look into this case? I hope the following 3 editors are not being wrongly choked just because their povs and article interests are the same. I see that all their means of presenting data to tell why they are wrongly blocked are being cut: -

• Beetle CT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Irek Biernat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Singh6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Beetle CT has asked for reconsideration on talkpage with some proof. Also check this ongoing resolution effort by some of these editors on the banning admins talkpage to get some perspective. Seems like before Irek Biernat and Singh6 could present facts like Beetle CT - Singh6 has been blocked again and now even the talkpage of Irek Biernat has been blocked stating "to prevent misuse". What talkpage misuse has Irek Biernat done? This new block on Singh6 and Irek Biernat is invisible one, which neither shows up in the page histories nor is listed on their respective user and talkpages, but only if their pages are in ones "watchlists". I can clearly see that muscle power had already forced these editors to compromise their personal information[30] [31] [ (which kinda reflects their helplessness). I have earlier editing experiences of these editors and feel that they are not uncivil or vandals by any means, but I cannot check if they are being choked without much proof. I have tired to get some valid information from the blocking admin YellowMonkey but the replies came about not so direct. Before we end up choking out 3 genuine editors by unleashing quick excessive muscle power, can we have some more admins look into detail? I've underlined detail with focus here because these 3 editors seem to have editing many topics which are against the POV of Indian Government, about custodial deaths and have been involved in many debated topics. Therefore, there is a need for looking into detail if that does not become the reason for the motivation of a block and choking out despite inconclusive evidence. Regards, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 07:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, there are some requests at AIV that have been sitting there for 10-20 minutes with no response, including one IP who is being very active right now and has vandalized 6 or 7 times since he was reported. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Man article is in much need of semi-protection again as its semi-protection has recently ended and the high level of vandalism has started once more. The article always receives high levels of vandalism when not semi-protected due to the subject of the article. Can this article, given the constant high level of vandalism it is subjected to whenever semi-protection ends, have indefinite semi-protection like the woman article? The article should be treated like those of country or religion articles which receive high levels of vandalism and are given indefinte semi-protection because vandals won't just disppear when the semi-protection ends. It's an article which will always receive high levels of vandalism if not semi-protected because it's not a current event which may draw attention then subside. Usergreatpower (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a high-level of vandalism. No edits today, some good and bad yesterday, nothing particularly requiring intervention. Nevertheless, you could still propose it at requests for page protection. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 10:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, I hate adding stuff to archived discussions, but, for transparency: I have blocked Topology Expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours for trolling this board with unsubstantiated accusations of abuse and, when asked to stop, for widening that to include others who he disagrees with. Review is welcomed, as always. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the merit, but I am relieved that you didn't block User:Moondyne and User: Sarah ;-) [39]

LOL :) Just noting here that a user, User:Michael Hardy, with one of the worst justifications I've ever seen following an unblock request at, of all places, a WikiProject talk page, unblocked him. I have reinstated the block, as after consulting with others, it could not justifiably be called a violation of WP:WHEEL given the obvious conflict of interest of the unblocking admin and the lack of due process or consideration. Orderinchaos 02:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the "conflict of interest" here? I think you are assuming far more unity among the math project than actually exists... — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The language and rationales provided by Michael Hardy before and since suggest a conflict of interest, not his affiliation with the math project (which I'd imagine would indeed be quite wide and diverse). My mention of the project was only insofar as noting it was a rather odd place for an unblock discussion to be taking place. Orderinchaos 05:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I completely agree it was not the right place to post a notice about a block. The user who posted it is only an occasional contributor on that page, and I have no idea why a notice was posted there. But there was no actual discussion about it. Someone actually removed the notice for a period of time, and even after someone else restored it nobody has commented on the block. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Orderinchaos 06:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I've unblocked this user. I find some of the behavior of those who blocked him to be unreasonable and in some respects disrespectful to me and to any others who might be concerned. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

Beggars belief. Michael Hardy unblocked Topology Expert because of something that someone else did or said? Because Michael Hardy was offended by comments made by the blocker? He might just as well have said "I have unblocked Topology Expert because he is about the same age as me." If this is not a flagrant abuse of administrative privileges, I don't know what is. Hesperian 04:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

h

This 3 days old article seems to be intended as harrassment, at least in its current state. --Túrelio (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gone, thanks for reporting. Can someone check Hasmonean High School for further BLP vandalism from User:Fcheese and possibly 217.206.* IPs that might have slipped through? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK. --Dweller (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am trying to create a Wikipedia account so I can upload some information. However, every time I try and create an account, I get the following error:

Login error Visitors to Wikipedia using your IP address have created 6 accounts in the last 24 hours, which is the maximum allowed in this time period. As a result, visitors using this IP address cannot create any more accounts at the moment. If you would like to request an account be created for you, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account.

I am not sure why this has come up, as this is the first time I have ever tried to create an account? Please may you give me some advice as to what I should do?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.167.221.3 (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are such problems with IP's changing periodically but try after a few hours. If it still does not work, note it here and you will get assistance (or an admin will know what to do and will assist you immediately).

Topology Expert (talk) 11:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like your IP has been blocked quite a few times. Are you a hoax (if it is not your fault, creating an account should solve the problem but that does not seem to work; best wait for an admin to respond).

Topology Expert (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is a problem with this particular IP address at the moment. Everyone on an entire ISP is appearing to edit from it. This include for example me, and also User:Sceptre (with the result that I was autoblocked when Sceptre was blocked yesterday), in addition to, judging from the IP address' talk page, many other users -- Gurch (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) There seems to be a problem outside the control of IP users who are classed as using this IP address at the moment. The problem described here is another consequence of this problem (see WP:AN#User talk:89.167.221.3 for more details.) In short, as far as I understand it: anonymous users said to be using 89.167.221.3 may not in fact be using this IP address. It is an unprecedented problem that does need some urgent attention. In the meantime, it may be best to assume good faith and help anyone wanting to create an account from there if possible (though I don't know how this is done myself.)  DDStretch  (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use the WP:ACC tool. Anyone with the ACC flag can create you an account, even if more than six accounts have been created in 24 hours. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) This problem is being discussed below. I suggest that any further comments be directed to the thread below. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are users/IPs allowed to remove block notices from their talk page? I know you're allowed to remove warnings, but I wasn't sure about block notices. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the only thing they can't remove is declined unblock requests during the duration of the block. MBisanz ^talk 14:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Cheers :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could someone look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/En Thangai and see if we could do a proceedural close? It's a batch AfD and some are worthy of keeping but looks like most never were tagged for deletion. -- Banjeboi 14:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses

See here

Back in July 2008, I cropped the image from the Gorgoroth page into Image:Infernus2008.jpg and inserted it into the Infernus article. However when I was asked to remove it and have it deleted, I did the former and I was unable to do the latter, instead changing the image to the giant rabbit expecting it to be speedily deleted. However this has never happened, and the older image is still in the history. Can this be deleted immediately please? Thanks very much. Dark Prime (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chuckle. A giant bunny under the name of "Infernus" is somehow ... could it be that bunny was the leporid equivalent to Basement Cat or something? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did we use the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch to remove it? Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If MBisanz did use the grenade, he at least didn't mention it in the log, which I'm sure he should have. It must say so somewhere in the deletion policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I delete something, it's dead before it hits the ground. :P MBisanz ^talk 17:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, just a minor nitpick, but surely that should've been G7 rather than G6, right? It's not that big an issue — deleted is deleted — but just seeing "CSD G6, non-controversial housekeeping deletion" in the deletion log doesn't really tell non-admins much about why it was deleted. Oh, and to Dark Prime: in the future, just add {{db-author}} to the page and it'll get taken care of. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a non-controversial housekeeping deletion. That doesn't mean more detail isn't desired, but rather that the difference is trivial.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted a wholesale set of changes at USS Liberty Incident see [40]. I reverted the changes as they used an unreliable and partisan source for one edit, removed relevant information (such as the fact the Liberty opened fire first on the Israeli motor torpedo boats), introduced a number of fringe and conspiracy theories with undue weight and included speculation with no supporting references. On past record I expect howls of protest about censorship and suppressing the truth. I would welcome admin oversight and comment on my actions. Justin talk 17:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I can't be bothered to read the whole thing in detail (article is way too long) and am not an admin, but at first glance the "The position that the attack was not deliberate is supported by the following arguments:" section you reintroduced appears to be original research, unless I am missing some sort of sourcing. I would suggest it needs a reference for each point. I am not in a position to comment further since I don't have the required knowledge to evaluate the sources which the edits you reverted cited. Brilliantine (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement was originally sourced but its now detached from the source. I'll fix it when I get some admin feedback. Each point is actually sourced. Justin talk 18:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute, albeit a thorny one. The Liberty attracts a strange confluence of conspiracy theorists, armchair security experts and anti-semites (Or conversely, people who would accuse others of anti-semitism without cause). As such, the article itself runs into FRINGE problems all the time. Unfortunately this isn't like the moon landing--there isn't a mainstream and accepted (and verifiable) story versus some crackpot. there is an unclear progression of events, muddy interpretations of actions, and rampant speculations present in otherwise reliable sources. This is something best handled at mediation, not AN. If you want, we can help you start a case there and find a mediator. Protonk (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I don't have strong feelings about the content, so it isn't really a content dispute. The essence of it can be seen on the talk page, where there appears to be a concerted campaign to put a number of fringe/conspiracy theories into the article. It was raised at WP:ANI here, where a number of admins expressed a suspicion of meat puppets working together. However, as you put it so succinctly the article attracts "a strange confluence of conspiracy theorists, armchair security experts and anti-semites (Or conversely, people who would accuse others of anti-semitism without cause)" so no admin seems to want to touch it. And those that do get some unwanted attention such as this [41]. I have a sneaking suspicion that the current campaign may have started there as I noted earlier, as the very same day editors arrived pushing fringe theories with undue signficance. It also seems to consume an inordinate amount of editing time if you have it on your watch list, so I have some concerns I'm getting a little undo happy - as I said to Narson recently I wasn't too sure that I threw the baby out with the bath water on my last revert. Justin talk 20:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the original complaint at ANI (in mid-November) about possible editing by meatpuppets, since a number of different users, most of them brand new, were taking turns doing the same revert. The problem of the meatpuppets seems to have receded. Most of what's happened at Talk:USS Liberty incident since that time has appeared to be a source-based discussion, with plausible reasons being offered by each side. The possible meats have stayed off the article itself. Of course, this is no guarantee that the current form of the article is in perfect balance. But there doesn't seem to be an urgent need for admin attention. Conceivably some people at WP:MILHIST might be willing to review the article and give their opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, I've done that. Justin talk 20:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Justin, when I said "it was a content dispute" I didn't mean to insinuate that you were on one side of the dispute, just that the presence of absence of that content is more of a content dispute than anything else. Sorry for the confusion. I think you are probably right about no admin wanting to touch it. I know a little about the subject and I'm loth to get involved. Protonk (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved editor objects to the very POV nature of this article (and bringing this "content dispute" to AN). I didn't realise that this AN had been raised, otherwise I'd not have reverted Justin's reversions earlier. However, unlike some people I did go through his reversion line by line and could see only de-merits in each and every one of his changes. Here they are: a) inserting a claim that a burning ship firing on approaching torpedo boats is somehow relevant to their subsequent attempt to sink it b) removing the WRMEA reference, needed for listing arguments (any partisanship is neither here nor there) c) the moving of Dean Rusk's by-line, which is harmful d) beefing up the claim that Israel used the wrong armaments to sink the ship (huh? torpedoes are the most highly effective!) e) removing the references, from US service-men sources, to a US submarine having seen and photographed the ship (with flag flying correctly?)

Perhaps more significantly (and easier for all to follow) is opposition to what I added - it seems that, in at least some knowledgeable circles, it is quite well known that Moshe Dayan (who had virtually carried out a coup on Israel's anti-war Prime Minister Eshkol 6 days earlier) warned the US that the Liberty would be attacked if it did not move away from Israel. (It was ordered to move away, inexplicably unless it was threatened, though these instructions did not get through). The sources I have are a highly regarded British television journalist and (later) presenter, Alan Hart, who was reporting in Israel at the time and Stephen Green, famous for trying (and sometimes succeeding) to get information released under FOIA. There has been no attempt to deal with the information, only reversions and a claim that, because the book comes from a minor publishing house, we can't use it to cite the author. What on earth is going on here? PR^talk 14:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another troublesome article on my watch list, Suez Crisis, [42], previously I had an issue with LOTRrules editing the infobox to claim an Egyptian military victory against consensus and previous discussions. LOTRrules sparked an edit war with multiple edits till I issued a WP:3RR warning. This evening i noted he'd introduced the same changes and reverted again within minutes of my changes. I would also welcome admin oversight and comment on this issue. Justin talk 17:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not "sparked an edit war". An IP had added "military victory of the colition forces" which is to an extent true but is not metioned. By adding "military victory of..." it is not only in violation of POV but Original Research. in But I have edited the article and added citations from reliable sources to proove that is was won by Egypt.

Furthermore, I am not in inviolation of WP:3RR. I had taken your advice. In case nobady had noticed the article is on real world perspective, not only on what other editors think on the article. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 17:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources that Justin didn't bother to read and reverted within mere minutes after I had added them.

1. Here it states the Egyptians, although battered and bruised, had won the war with the retreat of the coalition forces
2. Again reinforces the above idea
3. Further supports claims made

Also what other discussions? Kindly point them out to me as there are innumerable material from sources which support the idea that Egypt won a political victory. There were no citations added or the mere mention of the coalitions "military victory" in the article itself. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 18:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those source support the contention of a military victory, the Eqyptian forces were routed as specified in [1.] above. The infobox used to specify the difference between the military victory by the allies and the diplomatic victory by Egypt. That was the long standing consensus agreed, rather the POV edit you have inserted. And noting your talk page you have a recurrent history of such edits. Justin talk 18:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still you have not answered my questions and have attacked me. Nevertheless I forgive. (We are talking about the article in hand not my past history -- they are different than this). Kindly answer them. My "history" is not plagued with such edits. These things happen. I challenge. I Correct. that is what wikipedia is about.

In no where in the above sources is it cited that the coalition forces are "military victors". If they are I would kindly put it in if you find a valid source with my sources. But since you haven't, and many say it is a political victory for Egypt the citations are viable and appropriate for an article such as this. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 18:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also we are talking about the overall result of the war. Egypts was political, end of story. You wouldn't say that the Americans won a military victory in the Vietnam war even though their casualties were lower than the others side. But they still lost the war - ie the overall result of the war was that they lost. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 18:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it was a military victory would be basing an opinion on an article. Egypts pyrric victory which is cited as a political victory is true. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 18:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the text that is being fought over for now while the wording is talked over (The infobox makes sense without it). I have taken the issue up on the talk page, having read through the sources cited. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just undid vandalism on the Fly For Fun page and noticed that a couple editors asked for Semi-Protection on the talk page (I added my vote to it as well). Looking at the editing history there seems to be enough vandalism going on to warrant the Semi-Protection so I thought I would request it on here. This is the first time I am requesting soemthing like this so if I am in the wrong place please let me know! Thanks! Argel1200 (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is just one click away!-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. There's currently a rather large backlog of images moved to Commons that need to be deleted from here: Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons currently has 811 images, and Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons has another 1,614. Any volunteers? Mike Peel (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, volunteers for this task are always helpful, but I trust no one will mind if I remind anyone doing this please to follow careflly the instructions under "Before deletion" and "Files not to delete" on the category page, and note that many files tagged {{PD-US}} are, in fact, not acceptable at Commons and should not be deleted from here. Chick Bowen 23:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(And sorry to be issuing instructions without doing some of these myself--very very very busy these days. Chick Bowen 23:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)) [reply]

Information on the site

1. www.freewebtown.com identified as malware site by Firefox: (example [43])
2. www.freewebtown.com identified as problem site by Google: Google Safe Browsing diagnostic page for www.freewebtown.com
3. www.freewebtown.com identified by WOT Security Scorecard as: phishing, spyware, adware, malicious content, viruses

Two editors have been restoring it to L. Ron Hubbard 1, 2, 3. Requesting uninvolved admins to evaluate. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. Including a link that directs readers to a "THIS IS MALWARE" shock page in Firefox and Safari (IE7 as well?) is not acceptable. BJ^Talk 00:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the entire domain is designated unsafe, is removal of the link from other articles also in order? ^LeaveSleaves _talk 00:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woo, /me gets to work. BJ^Talk 01:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not in order. My guess is that one person's directory has malware and thus Google and Mozilla think everyone needs to be protected from the entire site. Many of the links probably fail WP:EL for other reasons, but we shouldn't take these "malware alerts" at face value. --NE2 01:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to a site that leads the majority of users to a "This is malware, stop now" page is a Bad Thing. And nothing of value is lost anyways. BJ^Talk 01:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it's not just Firefox users? I went to freewebtown just fine in the latest version of IE. See also [44]. --NE2 01:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any browser or client that uses Google's data, the big three being Firefox, Safari and Chrome. I'm not aware how the IE7/8 malware system works so I can't say where they get their data. BJ^Talk 01:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the fact that some of the links might contain malware is a very discouraging thing. Plus the site is a website hosting community. How can in either case could this be considered a valid EL or a reliable source? ^LeaveSleaves _talk 01:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the official site for something it's a valid external link. I've seen short line railroads with official sites on a free service. --NE2 01:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with LeaveSleaves (talk · contribs). This site is simply not appropriate anywhere on wiki. Cirt (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a matter of what you or Google thinks. We can link to sites that meet the criteria, even if Google erroneously lists them as malware. --NE2 01:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The report by Google and other sites is correct. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's correct in saying that there is or has been malware hosted at that domain. Mozilla is incorrect in using that to block access to the entire domain. --NE2 01:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, scroll up: it appears that someone labeled Wikipedia as having child porn and so now all visitors from some major ISPs are being sent through a handful of IP addresses. We should avoid this sort of thing, and evaluate each link on a case-by-case basis. --NE2 01:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it's a site that contains malware (my guess is it's a false positive) is independent of the text being added. The PDF is simply a convenience link to a print source that may or may not be relevant. If the link is to be removed, that's all that should be removed unless there's consensus that the text does not belong. --NE2 00:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: 4. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you object to that edit, please explain why (preferably on the talk page, not here). There's no link now. --NE2 00:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you. Cirt (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a brief note on Misou's talk page regarding the 3RR, but since the link has been removed, I doubt it will be an issue. - auburnpilot talk 01:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After researching this a bit, I think this might be a false positive on Google's part. It seems malware distributors must have been abusing the free hosting freewebtown.com to spread their goods, but the host itself isn't doing it. For example, digging into the links from Bjweeks above - this list of malware found on the domain suggests that the malware was stored in individual members' accounts. I think the links should probably stay in place for now until more information can be found, as this might be a ham-handed mistake on Google's part. krimpet✽ 01:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this site has hosted malicious software over the past 90 days. It infected 50 domains. If you read the entire report at Google Safe Browsing diagnostic, it is a bit larger than a few members' accounts. Cirt (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a free hosting site like Geocities. Some of the members hosted malware, knowingly or not. --NE2 01:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list of article with links is here: User:Bjweeks/Sandbox. I don't suspect many of the link are valid under WP:EL but that takes a closer inspection. BJ^Talk 01:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unintentional or not, linking to domains hosting malware is unacceptable. This and 117 related/involved domains have been blacklisted. Of perhaps 200 domains, I removed anything remotely resembling a legitimate site unless it had malware - most were blatant spam (the most creative perhaps being incestlessons.net \o/). De-listing for legitimately useful domains will of course occur upon request provided malware is no longer present.

More information is of course welcome. I spent about an hour sorting through stuff, but I was (am) rushed, and may well have made a mistake. Thanks.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you verify that there is malware present on any of the links that are now disallowed? --NE2 06:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Everything I added was either pure spam (cf incestlessons.net) or had the nasty when I checked. The proportion of sites someone might want to link to which had malware was very low & as I say, they'll be removed upon request provided they're clean.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freewebtown doesn't "resemble a legitimate site"? --NE2 22:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well don, Mike. I note it's now on the meta blacklist. Good call. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Recall, I'm not an admin here.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone allay my curiousity? What was Light Characters in the Wheel of Time: a redirect to? --SSBohio 01:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was never a redirect or other page there. Perhaps you wanted Light Characters in the Wheel of Time series? --NE2 01:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what NE2 said. SSBOhio (Shouldn't you change your name now?...;) ), if a page is deleted it will show logs of the deletion to any non-admin (example for a page I deleted) giving you the reason for deletion. That sometimes (for pages deleted due to a discussion) leads you to a page where you can find out more about why it was deleted and what pages were related to it. Protonk (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now THAT version redirects as well. Redlink gone, and peace reigned throughout the earth. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I took a closer look, and it looks like the actual redirect that was deleted was Light Characters in the Wheel of Time:. I missed the : the first time around. And for me to become SSGN Ohio, I would have had to start out as SSBN Ohio. As I do not glow, I cannot be part of the Nuclear Navy. So, I'll keep my initials. :-) --SSBohio 02:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone familiar with blocking ranges block the range associate with this IP: 12.72.195.145. The vandal has been hopping all over this range and is on a big vandal campaign on topics related to Rudolf Steiner. Thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay Werdna took care of it...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, but I don't think it's over. Here's some more information: vandalism started with this edit but apparently provoked by this revert which was warranted based on the ArbCom ruling for Waldorf/Steiner articles. Subsequently two threats were made in Talk:Rudolf Steiner#rant essentially to hop IP addresses from a public library (12.72.19x.xxx) and perform scatter shot vandalism on any article remotely connected to "Rudolf Steiner" (there are 790 of them). So the following have been vandalized so far: Rudolf Steiner, Waldorf education, Anthroposophy, Eurythmy, Esotericism in Germany and Austria, Rudolf Steiner (film director). These 6 pages have been individually protected. Articles Johann Wolfgang von Goethe‎, Anthroposophical medicine, Biodynamic agriculture, Esotericism have been vandalized but so far are not protected. Thanks. --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the time stamps. All the vandalism occurred before this range block. A range block blocks all IP addresses associated with the several that have been vandalizing. The range can always be reblocked, rather than protecting a truck load of articles :P.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's back at Biodynamic agriculture and Anthroposophical medicine and going strong. Please put the range block on again. Thanks. --EPadmirateur (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been nominated for BAG, so per instructions I am posting this to invite comments at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Anomie. I will not watch here for replies; please reply on the nomination page. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 03:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any admins out there? Please go to WP:AIV if you can, we could use some help. Thanks. —Noah 06:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of message seems to be a common occurence these days. Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 09:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikia&diff=256191441&oldid=255789444 - not sure where the edit summary blacklist is. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even know we had one. If we do, could someone tell me where it is?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 10:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The spam-blacklist will catch edit summaries. Won't do anything about the ### DOT org though. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can now get notified when a user you have blocked requests to be unblocked. Opt-in here. (According to Peter this isn't spamming. Remove it if your opinions differ. _David^WS _(contribs) 17:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent tool. Thanks. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a good idea in both halves: to be told I've made a mistake or to be told I've made the right decision. Either way, everyone wins. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 18:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP hopper vandalizing topics relating to Rudolf Steiner that I reported yesterday is back (see this for details). Once again can an admin who is familiar with blocking ranges nail this hopper (unfortunately I have zero knowledge of how to do so :( )? Seems the 3 hour block wasn't enough to stop him. May need to instate a longer one this time.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several of these were reported to AIV yesterday, and I too blocked them for three hours each. Unfortunately I do not think a rangeblock is viable, as the IPs in question are part of the dynamic allocation pool used by one of the biggest American ISPs in the tenth largest city in the country. If I am reading the sub-allocation blocks correctly (and I may not be), but there appears to 130,050 IPs in this range that are distributed across the whole of the most populous state in the Union. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about blocking anonymous editing from a single public library. So we'd need to cover 12.72.192.* through 12.72.195.*. This looks very doable, and I think we could leave that kind of a rangeblock in place for a week. It is at most 1024 addresses even if all of those IPs exist. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has said that he will stop vandalizing these articles. Thanks for all your help. --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As described in a recent Wikinews article [45], in order to block images of naked children hosted on our servers, British ISPs are now routing all of their internet traffic to Wikipedia through six proxy servers, thus rendering it difficult, if not impossible, to block vandals without locking out enormous numbers of legitimate users. Now, far be it for me to suggest that we resolve this situation by deleting our images of naked children :) However, if these ISPs are going to proxy all traffic to us, it would be extremely helpful if they could implement a system of XFF headers so that we can identify the underlying IP addresses, as we did for AOL. Has anyone from the Wikimedia Foundation contacted them about this? Kristen Eriksen (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses. Also, XFF headers need to be sent to us. They (the IWF) may forward that if they can continue to block the material to anyone proxied through them. Protonk (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi im reporting a rather heated edit war going on in the Resident Evil: Degeneration article between an IP user and a registered user by the name of User talk:OsirisV. over the plot so much so that foul language has already sprung up. I suggest and admin step in before things get out of hand. Deus257 (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[46] is a picture of a postcard. Sorry, I didn't know the right place to report this, because I haven't used wikipedia in a long time, but this image needs to be deleted. It also should be deleted from wikipedia commons. If you do not believe me, look at the metadata of the image and ask yourself if that makes sense for a photo supposedly taken from an aircraft.