Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents: July 26, 2005 - July 30, 2005

Contents 1 Holocaust Revisionism on Reinhard Heydrich 2 Urban75 3 User:Sortan/User:CDThieme 4 User:Jguk 5 Massacre at Hue 6 Possible sockpuppets of Environknot 7 Atrivo (porn link spam) 8 WP:CP 9 Money for Featured articles? 10 Vandal Alert: 64.12.116.133 11 Image sorting 12 Template:Db:a1 and Template:Nn-bio 13 Recent changes 14 Plautus 15 Harry Potter and the Votes for Deletion 16 on the lighter side 17 User:Breakinguptheguy 18 Regions of the US 19 Red stop hand in Test4 template 20 Sandbox gnome 21 Image:Map of Athabasca Region.jpg 22 New Delete templates 23 User:24.30.157.246 24 Conspiracy projects! 25 VfD - MuggleNet 26 -Ril- is blocked 27 User:Sam Spade

[edit] Holocaust Revisionism on Reinhard Heydrich

Help! For lack of a better term, there is a newbie user writing neo-nazi and holocaust revisionism statements on the Reinhard Heydrich article. I am about at my third revert. user is removing references to the Holocaust, deleting all info that Heydrich may have been of Jewish descent, and also stating that he was a misunderstood person who was really warm and caring. We need admins to help the reverts on this clear case of disruptive POV edits. Any help would be welcome. -Husnock 13:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked him for 24 hours for revert-warring. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Urban75

There is an ongoing dispute on this article. User:Ernestolynch, also editing anonymously, has continually reverted it against a consensus. Unfortunately, I have been rather drawn in to this and hoped somebody else might protect the article in order to encourage some discussion on it. Warofdreams 16:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, its protected, so work it out on the talk page, and edit a temp page if needed. I'll be back in 12 hours to try to see how the discussion is going. - Taxman ^Talk 23:34, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sortan/User:CDThieme

A couple to watch out for. As soon as Sortan runs out of reverts, CDThieme reappears. The Sortan account appears to be up to little good (making edits in controversial areas) and is a likely candidate as a sockpuppet. Current best guess is CDThieme - but they're already stirring up trouble on the BC v BCE and yoghurt v yogurt front. I wouldn't be surprised if more were to follow, jguk 19:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

There appears to be more than one editor that is reverting you, and not all of them are Sortan or CDThieme. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 20:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't what I was saying - I'm fully aware that there is a small number of editors making politically-motivated edits against what the community has recently decided - and you'll notice that it's not just me that's reverting them. My comment here is merely to highlight my suspicions that Sortan is a sockpuppet account, that judging by edit histories, there is a strong possibility that he is CDThieme, and that the Sortan account is not being put to good use, jguk 20:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jguk

Someone to watch out for. The Jguk account appears to be up to little good (making edits in controversial areas and trivial articles about cricket) and is a likely troll. Is stirring up trouble on the BC v BCE and yoghurt v yogurt front. I wouldn't be surprised if more were to follow. Has engaged in a revert war on Fu Hsi against every single other editor [1], for a total of eight reverts. Has engaged in similar actions elsewhere. Sortan 20:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

If it's 8 reverts, shouldn't he be blocked for 3RR violation? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 20:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Not all in a single day, but he has a habit of coming back to the same articles each day to do his reverts. Sortan 20:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Hold on, I appear to not have looked at the above section. Are you aware that your userpage shows that you are a suspected sockpupet of CDThieme? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 20:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was added by Jguk... I'm waiting for someone to do ip checks to clear me of his accusations. Sortan 20:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I was advised to by someone on IRC. The edit histories show it to be a strong possibility that CDThieme and Sortan are one and the same. Certainly the Sortan account seems to have a somewhat dubious history - largely involving itself in the midst of well-known disputes. It's easy enough to get two ip's, so maybe Sortan/CDThieme's showing off that this is what he's done - but I'd be very surprised if Sortan is not a sockpuppet (and as User talk:Sortan shows, I was not the first to mention it), and CDThieme seems to be the most likely candidate, judging by edit histories and edit patterns, as noted above. Hence the heads up, jguk 20:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, why do you waste so much of your and other people's time reverting repeatedly on the date issue? While I agree BCE/CE is an relatively uncommon contruction, that is used in WP out of proportion to its real world usage, it is certainly more of a waste of time going around and reverting it everywhere. It is so much better for the project just to let it go. I'm not sure why I am wasting my time here though, since this is not an issue that requires the AN, nor do I believe you will come to your senses and stop wasting everyone's time. - Taxman ^Talk 21:07, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Massacre at Hue

I would appreciate some help at Talk:Massacre at Hue. The page is currently protected to stop an edit/revert war but one party seems more interested in challenging the legitimacy of everyone's actions in getting the page protected than in actually engaging in constructive dialogue. Thryduulf 21:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible sockpuppets of Environknot

Hey Fred,

I was wondering if you could look at two users who I think are a reincarnation of Enviroknot.

The first is User Ni-ju-lchi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ni-ju-Ichi

If you look at his contributions, and look at his first one, you see he edited the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyeshield_21_%28anime%29. If you look at the history of that page, you'll see that the only other person to ever have edited it is Kurita77 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kurita77), the user who was found out to be a sockpuppet of Enviroknot. After editing this page that only one person has ever edited before, Ni ju Ulchi goes on straight to edit the Jihad article as Kurita did. This and his style of writing convinces me that he is in fact a sockpuppet reincarnation of Enviroknot.

The second user is User:Existentializer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Existentializer). He also is a newly created account that started his first day to edit the Jihad article. He also spoke like an experienced wiki editor. The funny thing is, however, that he removed the sockpuppet template from Ni Ju Ulchi's userpage (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ANi-ju-Ichi&diff=19581061&oldid=19122847). If you can remember back to Enviroknot's arbitration, you'd know that he often did this to the userpages of his other sockpuppet accounts. The final piece of evidence is a seemingly harmless edit on the page "Cranky Kong". Amazingly, both Ni-ju-ulchi and Existentializer have had interest in this page if you look at their contrib history. So in conclusion, I was wondering if you could do an IP check on these users to confirm if they are in fact Enviroknot (which I'm sure they are) and then ban them.

Thanks

(An email from Yuber (talk • contribs) Fred Bauder 23:17, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Atrivo (porn link spam)

I have just taken the seemingly extreme measure of blocking some 8000 IP addresses for a year. The addresses in question are a netblock of Atrivo, and have been used for widespread pornographic link spam (ex: [2]). A Google search turns up page after page of results where Atrivo is reported as the source of link spam and trojan horses, and does nothing about the complaints.

The range in question is 69.50.160.0/19, and I'd recommend other wikis block it as well. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• That makes sense... my feeling was that it was a spam-bot utillzing dynamic IP addresses... or is that what was happening? Either way, that's a headache that nobody needs to deal with. 8000 IP addresses... mind-boggling. --Chanting Fox 00:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

No need. I've blacklisted the domain (see m:Spam blacklist) - any attempt to save a page with a hyperlink to that domain will fail. You can go ahead and unblock the range - no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. →Raul654 00:47, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

It's not a single domain, Raul. They spam different domains over time, and creating new ones is trivial. There is no baby, this is a host, and should never be editing pages anyway. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The host in question apparently sells blog (and I'm guessing wiki) spamming scripts to its clients. They've got another address range that it probably wouldn't hurt to block.

And see also it:Wikipedia:Elenco degli IP bloccati per spam/Atrivo, if you can read Italian. Also User:Nigosh/linkspammers. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CP

Could some admins with an itchy deletion finger help reign in WP:CP, its getting quite backlogged. If you haven't dealt with copyvios before It's pretty simple, anything that is clearly a cut and paste copyvio (and not from a Wikipedia mirror) get deleted. Pages that have copyvio free text on a temp page need to be moved from the temp page back to the right name.

I'll be pretty happy if the easy ones get deleted and the messy ones (permission clamined etc.) are left for me or someone else to sort out later. Thanks--nixie 01:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

On it, been meaning to test out my new buttons =) Sasquatch′↔T↔C 05:13, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Money for Featured articles?

I hope User:Brian0918 won't hate me for this, but I noticed his add on Talk:Norman Borlaug (todays featured article) where he asks readers to consider paying him for his work on that article. I was abit surprised to see it, and thought I'd ask here what the general opinion/policy on this is. Shanes 01:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

So much for contributing for the furthering of human knowledge. Anyhow, said editor has a sizable amount of quality contributions to back up this request, and as far as I am aware, it is perfectly legal for an editor to receive donations by means of PayPal or such, but I am quite sure that discussion and advertisement of said donations are to be carried by means of e-mail or User pages, not by means of Talk pages. There are, however, some obvious problems with this becoming a popular concept, so it would be best if Zeus volunteered an opinion, but that's probably not going to happen. As far as my personal opinion goes; we are creating an encylopedia because we enjoy the idea, we became admins because we care about Wikipedia's future, but more importantly, we are creating it together, so it sounds unfair that a single editor receives a monetary reward for his work. --Sn0wflake 02:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

QED, eh? -- BRIAN0918  03:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Quod Erat Demonstrandum? --Sn0wflake 03:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You beat me. I was also gonna say that it's probably not gonna happen. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Just from the standpoint of avoiding clutter and linkspam on talk pages, I would suggest that users refrain from requesting donations in the article Talk namespace. If an editor really wants to have a PayPal link on his User page, it's probably not acutely harmful...though I don't know if it's really in the spirit of what we're doing here.

My big concern is what happens when a vandal edits the PayPal link to point to another account. There's some serious opportunity for fraud and theft, and I'm not sure that we want to open the door to that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I had already thought of that and was planning on watching the talk page for the entirity of the test (1 day). -- BRIAN0918  03:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The security issue is of definite concern, but I'd also be very wary of associating — or even be seen to tacitly approve — solicitation of donations by and to private individuals on Wikipedia. Perhaps a new addition to WP:NOT should be Wikipedia is not a begging bowl.? --khaosworks 02:45, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I think it goes against everything that we're trying to do here. I have profoundly negative feelings about this. Joyous (talk) 02:53, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

You do realize anyone can sell any of the text on Wikipedia for profit, right? -- BRIAN0918  03:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Umm...IIRC, the GFDL says all GFDL-liscensed content must be free and linkback to the original source. Am I wrong? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Yep, you're wrong. ;) Anybody is welcome to sell the content for whatever price the market will bear. However, the copies sold must still maintain the GFDL license, notices, and authorship info. Since Wikipedia is readily available to anyone with an internet connection, I imagine that you'd have trouble selling it for a high price. People might still be willing to pay for a convenient version on DVD, or with some other 'value added' features on top. I understand that the German Wikipedia sold CD copies as a fundraiser a while ago...? The GFDL makes our content free-as-in-speech—anybody can edit it and republish it. It doesn't have to be free-as-in-beer—you can sell it for money if you want to. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I see that Brian even asked Raul654 about it, and got a definite "no, no, no". And seing the consensus here (as well as my own opinion that this isn't right), I am removing Brians add now by reverting back to the original full talk-page (it wasn't so big it needed archiving). Shanes 02:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Just to complete the point about security; to prevent PayPal links from being tinkered with, we would have to protect User pages. Then, as anybody can probably guess, admins and the Wikipedia itself would receive quite a bit of cricticism. We would be accused of whatever idiocy the more creative vandals and socks can come up with, and to make up for this, we'd have to protect User pages by default or something along those lines. And... no. Just no. This is simply not a good idea. --Sn0wflake 02:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Meh, it was just a test. If it makes you feel any better, I didn't receive any donations, and I'm still tens of thousands in debt. You all seem to be firmly against the motives of a current project on the German Wikipedia, briefly discussed here and translated on my talk page. While I wouldn't support my Borlaug test, I do support this effort. If you want to discuss anything, leave a message on my talk page. -- BRIAN0918  03:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound rude, but... no, forget it, there is no way of saying this without sounding rude. Nevertheless, I am sure all who have expressed their views on this matter feel you are a great contributor and that your work is very valuable. In truth, I like the idea. I have been trying to braistorm a decent reward system for the Wikipedia ever since my first month here, but there is simply not much way of going about this and still being fair and not causing some level of indignation from the general community. --Sn0wflake 03:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Hell, if I could make money legitimately from Wikipedia, I'd be all for it. But it does seem to be a bit contrary to what we're trying to achieve here, and raises all sorts of tricky questions. Don't get me wrong, Brian, you're an excellent editor, and I do sympathize about your financial situation, but perhaps this is not the best place to ask for help... at least not in that manner. --khaosworks 04:39, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't serious about using Wikipedia to pay off my current and future debts, I just thought it would be funny if I sounded that way. -- BRIAN0918  03:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

1. It ain't his work. Nobody's work is their own once it's on Wikipedia. I've done a few Featured Articles that I get paid for delivering in person. Would I like to be paid? Yeah. We no canna do that, though. 2. We've got to be all volunteer all the time. The moment we cease, there are a host of folks who can line up and point to their deserving nature. 3. Nothing against this particular editor, but there are a few folks who write almost all of an article all the way to Featured status and a few who do a ton of "Britanica would be proud" articles that don't go FAC, and there are a lot of hands that could be sticking out. Geogre 01:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Nobody's forcing anyone to pay anything. It WAS my work, in that it took a lot of MY work to make it. This is in the same vein as "homework help" forums where you can say thanks for people providing help by making a paypal donation, or even more legitimately, Google Answers. (I'm talking about the German project, not my talk page test). -- BRIAN0918  03:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I am fine with this idea from a moral perspective. However from a practical perspective, it is scable only if the paypal link is restricted to your user page. Pcb21| Pete 15:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You all are confusing 2 important issues:

1. Wiki as a begging bowl - it seems if anyone asked for charity or just a donation, it may or may not be distasteful, but it is not a great cause for concern
2. copyright and contract issues - if the issue is related to a contract for licensing a copyright of "his" article, then it is a cause for concern. I can think of many possible problem situations with this. --Noitall 15:23, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal Alert: 64.12.116.133

Suggest 2 hour block to make vandal lose intrest.--Tznkai 03:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC) [3]

[edit] Image sorting

I was just wondering if a fellow admin would mind giving me a hand with the July 5 images on Phase II of WP:PUI? I think I'm the only admin that's been dealing with this page for a few months now and help would be greatly appreciated. Anyone? Thanks Craigy (talk) 04:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Db:a1 and Template:Nn-bio

I have noticed that some users have started to create specialized CSD tags for specific CSD criterion. I put Template:Db:a1 on TFD on July 26, and Template:Nn-bio on TFD on July 27. Because, as one who processes CFD, I feel that they are instruction creep and the less templates added to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, the better. So if you are another admin who does CSD, you might also want to make a comment. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

What I think would be a better solution, and what I've done myself a few times is create a subpage in your userspace, put the template information there, then when you want to use the specific template you can do {{user:"username"/"templatename"}} and there you have your own personal template. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C ----- 05:47, July 27, 2005 (UTC)}

^{Must strongly disagree with adding userspace templates on main article space pages. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)}

^{Must also strongly disagree with forgetting to close off a sup tag in a sig... :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 08:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)}

^{[edit] Recent changes}

^{I don't know how to modify the recent changes page, but the Wikireader notice can come down, it finished on the 25th.--nixie 00:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)}

^{The page is Wikipedia:Recentchanges. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)}

^{[edit] Plautus}

^{Guess who's back? →Raul654 03:49, July 28, 2005 (UTC)}

^{Now now, Raul. Assume good faith. ;) Snowspinner 03:54, July 28, 2005 (UTC)}

^{[edit] Harry Potter and the Votes for Deletion}

^{Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince_-_Full_Plot_Summary has been up for deletion (see entry) for 10 days now. TheCoffee 04:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)}

^{I've deleted. Someone with more tolerance of instruction creep than me can close the debate. Snowspinner 04:22, July 28, 2005 (UTC)}

^{I've re-deleted since Everyking gave no reason for his undeletion of it and it wasn't listed on VfU. Angela. 07:07, July 28, 2005 (UTC)}

^{It is now on VfU, and also at Wikibooks. Angela. 07:23, July 28, 2005 (UTC)}

^{Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Crystal Ball) has now been up for deletion for 12 days (see entry. While I disagree with the result of discussion, the consensus seems to be to keep. TheCoffee 08:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)}

^{Ya. I submitted it, can't close it off. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)}

^{I don't think all that many will complain if you close a debate as a keep if you voted delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)}

^{Ok, this isn't Potter related, but since I'm bringing up neglected VFD nominations... Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Maddela has been around for 21 days. Aren't these only supposed to be up for a week? How do things slip through the cracks? And am I right to bring them up here? :p TheCoffee 13:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)}

^{These usually slip through the cracks because they were never listed on the actual daily VfD page despite being tagged. If you find pages like this, just list them on the current VfD page with an edit summary to say that this was not listed before, then let the clock run. --khaosworks 13:29, July 28, 2005 (UTC)}

^{[edit] on the lighter side}

^{I submit, for your amusement, wikipedia:editcountitis. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:12, July 28, 2005 (UTC)}

^{I don't find the CTS comment particularly amusing. Shouldn't this sort of article be posted on Meta? It does not benefit the community in any manner. --Sn0wflake 12:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)}

^{The CTS comment is actually meant about half-seriously, but it's a wiki so if you really don't like it I think you know what to do. If someone wants to move it to Meta, again, it's a wiki. I disagree that there is no benefit to the community. "Editcountitis" is one of dozens of neologisms used witout definition in this community, arguably so the "experts" can be distinguished from the "nonexperts" (see jargon). I think defining such terms is good for the community. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:32, July 28, 2005 (UTC)}

^{My only worry concerns editors making constant reference to it and turning the article into the next Wikipedia:Sheep vote, but otherwise, I don't oppose strongly to its existence, as it may have seemed on my first comment. I simply prefer a less humour-inclined article, but that is nitpicking, really. I'm glad you weren't offended by my somewhat blunt initial comment. --Sn0wflake 16:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)}

^{[edit] User:Breakinguptheguy}

^{This person is uploading copy and pastes from this site (which seems to lack an index, annoyingly). I've asked whether or not he has permission, but was ignored. Not sure what to do next... just mark all the copyvios? Dan100 (Talk) 09:12, July 28, 2005 (UTC)}

^{Just checked my mail this morning, the guy mailed me instead of responding on WP. He authored the site I linked to and is in the process of deleting it and moving the content to WP. Dan100 (Talk) 10:00, July 28, 2005 (UTC)}

^{[edit] Regions of the US}

^{Due to an edit war over different maps I've had to protect all the articles linked to in the intranational regions section of Template:U.S. regions - 21 articles in all. I've protected them and added the {{protected}} template to all of them, but ideally they all need the {{twoversions}} template as well. I don't have time to do this. Thryduulf 14:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)}

^{[edit] Red stop hand in Test4 template}

^{Should Template:Test4 contain a big red stop hand? Test4 is the "last warning" template. Please discuss in Template talk:Test4. Rhobite 01:25, July 29, 2005 (UTC)}

^{No, it shouldn't have this image. There is no point in having it: a quick message should suffice. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)}

^{[edit] Sandbox gnome}

^{Could I ask any of your advice?}

^{This may or may not refer to wikipedia but your metaphorical home as well.}

^{Let us say a kid wants to play in the sandbox but is polite and does not break any rules. I expect the kid to grow up eventually in the mean time, he spends his time in almost entirely in the Sandbox.}

^{However he went too far and accidentally destroyed part of it. He doesn't contribute anything though and so the anti-fun bullies totally ban him forever from the premises. Is this Ok? Comments?}

^{Please unban User:DrZoidberg.}

^{Best regards,}

^{--Jondel 00:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)}

^{It's quite impolite for an admin to override the decision of another admin/arbitrator on such cases - unless there is a very strong reason for it. So if the person who applied the ban is not willing to reconsider, you might as well ask a shoe to unblock him, as it will have the same effect. --Sn0wflake 01:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)}

^{Please note that he was warned repeatedly at his talk page. His inteterference with the sandbox also has many implications: many new users were not able to test Wikipedia features and he contributes nothing to this community. Frankly, IMO, breaking any part of Wikipedia is a bannable offence... Sasquatch′↔T↔C 02:07, July 29, 2005 (UTC)}

^{Well, he did this edit. That's enough reason for blocking for a while I think. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)}

^{No offence, but it was only a joke. :) the wub "?/!" 14:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)}

^{I see no reason to unblock this user. He has been constantly disruptive, despite warnings, and has done nothing useful. Wikipedia is not a playpen. Angela. 02:13, July 29, 2005 (UTC)}

^{DrZoidberg has been very disruptive. He's not a nice "sandbox player" like FonzieFan, who has taken some efforts to tone down his activities when asked. Jeeze...does anyone understand the psychological underpinnings of this phenomena? These sandboxers seem like something new, individuals who only, er, vandalize the sandbox. I mean, I'm greatful they are restricting their "playfulness" to there and not spreading it into articles, but I can't help wondering what it's all about. Func( t, c ) 03:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)}

^{I agree that Zoidy has been disrupting the sandbox despite being warned, and this is inappropriate. However I don't think he should be banned indefinitely. He has done a lot of cleaning in the sandbox (he even got the Atlas Award when he was first here), perhaps after being banned for a while he will have learned his lesson and stick to cleaning it (and leaving the odd surreal comment). Who knows, he might even become a proper contributor to articles, he should certainly know the wiki syntax by now. the wub "?/!" 14:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)}

^{I'm somewhat swayed by this argument, but you should take it up with whoever set the ban, they may have more evidence than we've seen. While the user has made very few useful edits, he may become helpful after coming back from the ban. It may be worth a shot, while making it clear he's on a short leash and will be banned indefinitely if he doesn't reform. With that givin a chance can't hurt too much, and might be worth the pain. - Taxman Talk 23:35, August 1, 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] Image:Map of Athabasca Region.jpg

I've got something strange going on at Image:Map of Athabasca Region.jpg. I found a larger version of this map, and tried uploading it; the result was a strangely pixilated version, so I reverted. But when I click on the 159788-byte version (the one I uploaded) in the file history, it looks fine. So I tried reverting to it-- same strange pixelation. It's probably something straightforward, but I just don't see it. TIA -- Mwanner 14:59, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps what you are seeing is the automatic thumbnailing; try clicking on the image. But this question would probably get better answers at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). --cesarb 15:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Automatic thumbnailing combined with the browser cache. Reloading the image page fixes the problem. --Carnildo 17:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks. Mwanner 18:16, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Delete templates

As those admins involved in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion have probably noticed, there have been a a few new delete templates that have been created recently, including {{nn-bio}}, {{Db:a1}}, {{Deletebecause/empty}}, and {{Deletebecause/vanity}}. Most of these new templates have been nominated for deletion, and are currently being discussed at Templates for deletion. BlankVerse ∅ 18:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• If you have not already done so, please make a comment on those discussions whether you would like to keep or delete these templates. I am a bit concerned that only a small fraction of those who have currently voted are admins. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • But I think that can mainly be attributed to the fact that admins do not use these templates. I think this is for the regulars users only as admins can simply press the delete button. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 08:19, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • The templates are useful for two kinds people:

1. Those nominating articles for speedy deletion, less text they need to enter to show common explanatory messages (saves time for people who would otherwise use {{db}}).
2. Those reading articles that have been nominated for deletion; if one of those templates had been chosen to nominate for deletion, it might be slightly clearer why the nomination was made.

I don't see how or why the new templates should be for the benefit of admins in particular, although you might find it easier to judge whether articles met the criteria that the nomination claimed, when one of the new templates were used. --Mysidia 01:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:24.30.157.246

User talk:24.30.157.246 mostly just acts bizarre, which isn't illegal, but they have only made one edit to a talk page, ever, including their own, out of hundreds of edits since May 1, 2005, and have broken several rules. A block might be in order? - Omegatron 23:59, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

You might be able to rely on Wikipedia:Vandalism#Silly vandalism, and vandalism is certainly blockable. Particularly since they've been repeatedly asked about what they're doing. -Splash 00:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy projects!

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The World Conspiracy Guild
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The Septeber 11 2001 Conspiracy Guild
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The London bombing Conspiracy Guild

As per Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not I do not believe these projects are remotely wikipedia material. I think they are quickie candidates but the user who crated these articles will not keep the template in place. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's put these up for VFD and see what other users think before doing anything. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 00:39, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Conspiracy: The London bombing Conspiracy Guild --Noitall 00:46, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD - MuggleNet

Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/MuggleNet has been around for a while. Consensus seems to have been reached some time ago, even if one discounts likely sockpuppets. Could someone close this vote? Ken 03:13, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Closed as a keep. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 08:17, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] -Ril- is blocked

User:-Ril- has been blocked from editing for 24 hours. The situation has presented itself where Authentic Matthew was put on WP:VFD. The vote was a disaster, and it got kept because no admin could work out exactly who voted what, etc. So it was run again, this time in a far more orderly fashion. The vote was about 65% to delete and the rest to merge or delete. Another admin closed it off, making it a keep vote. I concurred with this, though I do find the article to really pretty stupid and feel that it has major problems.

Anyway, it just go reopened by -Ril-, who readded a VfD tag and created Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew (consensus). I have:

1. Deleted this VfD,
2. Removed the tag from Authentic Matthew
3. Blocked -Ril- from editing for 24 hours due to disruption of Wikipedia,
4. Left -Ril- a note on his talk page explaining why he is blocked.

I have told him I will leave a message on WP:AN and WP:AN/I, so this is what I am doing. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I support that. He has done vfds in bad faith before.--Wiglaf 14:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

-Ril- also renominated Historical persecution by Muslims for deletion one day after the previous VfD was closed as "no consensus". The best explanation he's provided is "...you do get to keep re-nominanting stuff until a consensus is reached as to what to do with it..." [4]. Carbonite | Talk 14:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The most problematic aspect of these renominations is that they are always accompanied by -Ril- sending messages to everyone who agreed with him the previous round, (see [5], [6]). There is no rule against this, but it does produce an end result that is almost certainly biased. - SimonP 14:14, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. He & I got into an exchange over this very article. A week ago, my opinion was that it was a slam-dunk delete, but by the time the VfD vote rolled around, the article had improved to the point where I thought it was worth leaving alone for a while, just to see if it would continue to improve. -Ril- did not like my opinion, & argued with me on my Talk page over my vote. (Sheesh, it's just one article, I only have one vote, & if the VfD vote fails, it's not the end of the world.) After annoying me with (IMHO) POV arguments about how the article was wrong, I took another look at the article & realized that maybe my vote was misguided -- but by that time, the only way I would vote for its deletion was if -Ril- promised not to post one more word about this issue. -- llywrch 02:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sam Spade

Yes, again. I've mentioned this habit of his elsewhere, but I thought that I'd air it here. When approached by new Users with concerns and complaints that involve people towards whom SS has some antagonism, he takes the opportunity to make snide attacks instead of actually helping the users (the latest is here, but there are many other examples). I've never seen a case in which his behaviour has been of any help. Sometimes, when the User is suffering under a misconception, SS's response threatens to escalate the problem. For example, in this case if I hadn't seen SS's misleading bit of hole-in-the-wall poison-tongue behaviour the situation might have got out of hand; fortunately I did see it, and the affair was settled amicably. (SS assured the new User that his edits – which included repeated blanking of pages and reverting attempts to wikify his new articles – were all excellent, and I was just an admin who was behaving badly...)

I doubt that anyone can do anything about it, but I thought that I should at least draw it to the attention of the many, many editors who have prompted SS's animosity, in case they wonder why an interaction with a newcomer has spiralled rather suddenly into hostility and deadlock. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)