Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Requested Lock of Kurdistan Article by Administration 2 Jason Gastrich 3 Me 4 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian 5 Congressional Edits / 143.231.249.141 6 Muhammad Drawings 7 AfD closings 8 AfD move 9 POV/Vandalism from proxy 10 Safe Sex 11 Please STOP... 12 It's back... 13 Need help 13.1 my first change 14 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski 15 3 Tools 16 User:Turkmen 17 Bling-chav 18 Question on the new "Belvedereposter" sockpuppet 19 User:PPEist 20 Blocking of User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 21 User:GoatSe 22 More about East Sea, East Sea (disambiguation), &c. 23 Possible imposter of me? 24 Need blacklist help 25 List of athletes found guilty of using banned drugs 26 3RR 27 Old/orphaned VfD 28 Blocking an IP but allowing trusted users from that IP 29 Correcting image username 30 Sock Bug 31 VIRUS link 32 Request for rollback privileges poll closing soon 33 Accidental block (urgent) 34 Civil? 35 RFAR on Xed 36 RFAR on User:TDC and anonymous Earthlink editor 165.247.xxx 37 Jason Gastrich 38 User Bookofsecrets 39 Ambi and deletion 40 User:216.15.56.42 41 User:Chadbryant 42 Get-back-world-respect 43 Simon Says 44 Brainhell 45 History cleansing? 46 Saudi Arabia 47 Willy on Wheels 48 More Muhammad cartoons problems 49 195.93.21.41 50 What the hell? 51 User:Userboxes 52 List of drum & bass on-line purchasing sites 53 Copy vios/image tagging - when is enough enough? 54 WP:POINT Situation 55 Block evasion 56 Administrator not acting professionally 57 Semi-protection for Gettysburg Address 58 "invisible character" usernames 59 Molise Croatian/Molise Slavic 60 Russian copyright tags on TFD 61 Server lag...error and JS script 62 New section

[edit] Requested Lock of Kurdistan Article by Administration

ADMIN badly needed in Kurdistan someone keeps writing political propaganda saying Kurdish flag is criminal and banned in Iran which is false. They even add a fake link which has nothing to do with the flag to make false justifications.

[edit] Jason Gastrich

Jason Gastrich (talk • contribs) has been warned a few ties about civility; this [1] seems to me to be unacceptable. Any reason I should not issue an npa3 warning, and act on it if he continues? I have an ongoing dispute with Gastrich (see also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich, which shows some history of attacks) but this is neither to or about me, so I see no reason not to issue a formal warning, but I want to do the right thing. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion about this fellow on WP:AN/I plus a RfC at the obvious place. I blocked him for 24 hours earlier for various stuff. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think a block now would hinder the RFC process. I will leave a not on his Talk page to that effect. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to give Jason a short leash at this point. We've indefinitely blocked users (BigDaddy777 comes to mind) for far less than what Jason has done. So right now I say let RfC work and see what happens. But there has to be a point where we say "enough". --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Jaulern is yet another sock of his. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich is sufficient to indef-block the known and suspected socks, only one of which (Turkmen (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)) is currently active anyway. For values of active which encompass being temporarily blocked for disruption, obviously. I will do that now. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 12:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Me

Hello, I am blocked user Jimbo Wheels, and would like a way of proving that I am certainly not Willy on Wheels so that I can be unblocked - how do you guys suggest I go about this? The current way I am trying on my talk page doesn't seem to be all that productive. (Posting this from an anonymous ip - 84.9.94.232 - but please reply on my talk page.

Cheers,

Seymore

Oh, and also - first of all why were my edits to Huntingdon Life Sciences reverted by that guy, and secondly the link to Huntingdon's stance on ethics is a 404 - it should point to http://www.huntingdon.com/index.php?currentNumber=4&currentIsExpanded=0 and as I was clearly saying I was trying to do that until I was banned. This stinks of knee jerk reactions and a refusal by you guys to even countance that I might be acting reasonably just because of some mindless vandal. Why the hell should I be presumed a vandal without making edits like a vandal? You are letting the vandals win. I am pretty annoyed by this, but even more annoyed by the way that you are ignoring me.

You are illustrating the definition of disingenuous. Arriving in this community with that user name is like showing up at a synagogue social hour with a nametag that reads Jesus Hitler. If your name choice had been an unfortunate coincidence, you would have thanked the person who suggested you change it and quickly complied. I am aware that I have just fed an obvious troll, but will happily extend the block as an act of contrition. No more conversation. alteripse 12:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well for the moment I will use this username, and I think you will be able to watch my contributions over time and see how wrong you are. But the synagogue thing is an interesting comparison. It would indeed be a silly thing to do going to a synagogue called Jesus Hitler if one were named Francis Drake. But if you were actually named Jesus Hitler, it would be reasonable to expect perhaps some disbelief, but also for this to be suspended if you were to produce (for example) a driving licence. The same applies here. JW2 12:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I for one believe that your name really is Jimbo, Seymore. Oh, wait... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Seymore is my nickname. Seymour is my middle name. JW2 12:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a good faith request. If the guy's a wrong un then he'll be blocked for more than just having a name that spooks people. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The guy's last name is Wheels? I don't think so. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Dissinterested third party here, but I also run a forum website. Banning someone just because their membername is similar to a (or some) membernames of those that have violated the ToS (Terms of Service, or site policy) seems rather unjust. I fail to see why anyone would be banned just for this kind of similarity. Similarities do not prove that they are the same person, this seems more like a corrupt administrator who's policy is ban first, ask questions later which is also rather detrimental to the community. This looks more like a power-trip than anything else. Ask me about how we deal with repeat trollers at Varus Online. (Lady Serena 21:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian

This arbitration case has closed.

The indefinite block will remain in place and the remedies will apply if and when Gibraltarian (talk • contribs) is unblocked by an administrator. It is recommended that he not be unblocked unless he has assented to the conditions imposed by the Committee's decision.

The remedies involve a personal attack parole and two forms of probation on Gibraltarian. In extreme cases he may be blocked for up to one year if he breaks probation or parole. These remedies apply to his sock puppets also. Please see the final decision for full details.

A notice has been placed under the block notice on his user page, and the usual notice of the final decision has been placed on his talk page.

For the Arbitration Committee. Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, this is the page where you want to record blocks. He's hitting us once or twice a day, every day. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. That was my first arbitration case close. I'm a veteran now--three cases! Woohoo indeed, Kitty! --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congressional Edits / 143.231.249.141

(moved it to the rfc's talk)

[edit] Muhammad Drawings

This has been under heavy attack and is linked to from the front page. I've semi protected which has calmed things down a little but people are still removing the images from the article. Could someone keep an eye on it as I have to go now? Thanks Secretlondon 09:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Qatarson for 24 hours for WP:NLT for threatening to report us to the authorities, repeatedly. Secretlondon 09:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Woohookitty has un-semiprotected. Secretlondon 10:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Augh. This article's talk page makes my head hurt. If someone uses another exclamation mark or hastily constructed analogy, I'm going to vomit. --DDG 20:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD closings

A non-admin has closed a number of AfD votes, blatantly out of process attempting to railroad through his desired result. I have created a list of those closings, here: User:Jonel/Review. Administrators are asked to review these closings. -- Jonel | Speak 21:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Then the non-admin should probably apply to RfA if they want to do tasks normally left to admins. Or they should go to RfC. They shouldn't strike poses about it here, though. -Splash^talk 21:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The non-admin had been under the impression that adminship was no big deal. He noted that there was a two-day backlog on AfD closings and decided to try to help out. He realizes the error of his ways, and will not close any more AfDs. -- Jonel | Speak 21:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The non-admin should be encouraged to close unambiguous "keeps" (or similar, such "merge", "transwiki", "redirect" etc), as it says in Wikipedia:Deletion process. When the non-admin closes ambiguous debates, the non-admin must reasonably expect that an admin (not this one, incidentally, who doesn't recall overruling an AfD closure) might amend that closure. -Splash^talk 21:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If the non-admin had been told that instead of being accused of blatantly circumventing process to railroad through a desired result, and the admin amending the closure had not deleted the article three times without any discussion whatsoever, the non-admin would have retracted his closing. What do you recommend be done about the other nonambiguous closings listed on my subpage? -- Jonel | Speak 21:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused by your list: are these AfDs those that were closed by any non-admin, or by the non-admin in question? Some of these are very old and I don't think require any sort of review. --Deathphoenix 21:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Those are all the AfDs that I have closed (I am the non-admin in question). -- Jonel | Speak 21:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I'll take a stab at some of the newer ones. I'll endorse any I agree with, but I won't yet mark any that I disagree with yet. Some of the older ones (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet keyboard) don't appear to be closed by you, however. --Deathphoenix 21:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops, that should be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet keyboard (2nd nomination). I'll fix the link. -- Jonel | Speak 21:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help. We don't all have a ramrod up our behinds.;) --Tony Sidaway 21:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A little while ago, when I first tried to help out on the VfD backlogs as a non-admin, I closed a lot of ambiguous VfDs as "no consensus" and there wasn't an explicit note telling non-admins not to do those types of VfDs. If those closings were to occur today, I'm sure I'll get a lot of angry messages demanding that I only close unambiguous AfDs. :-P --Deathphoenix 21:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The explicit note is on the Wikipedia:Deletion process page, which I missed while reading Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. The closest thing I found on either of them to non-admins closing discussions was this paragraph on the Guide to deletion page:

An AFD decision is either to "keep" or "delete" the article. AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep". The AFD decision may also include a strong recommendation for an additional action such as a "merger" or "redirect". In many cases, the decision to "keep" or "delete" may be conditional on the community's acceptance of the additional action. These recommendations do represent the community consensus and also should not be overturned lightly. However, these are actions which can be taken by any editor and do not require "admin powers". If they are challenged, the decision should be discussed and decided on the respective article Talk pages. A second AFD discussion is unnecessary. (Italics mine)

I've closed 95 AfDs, many of them less than perfectly unambiguous. This is the only one for which I've yet caught any flack. If DollyD hadn't recreated the article, I would never have even noticed that I was doing anything anyone had a problem with and would still be closing AfDs. Having now been pointed to the Deletion process page, I would like to make sure that the AfDs I have closed have been properly closed. -- Jonel | Speak 21:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you mis-read that paragraph. Let me highlight:

In many cases, the decision to "keep" or "delete" may be conditional on the community's acceptance of the additional action. These recommendations do represent the community consensus and also should not be overturned lightly. However, these are actions which can be taken by any editor and do not require "admin powers". If they are challenged, the decision should be discussed and decided on the respective article Talk pages.

Thus, the actions that "can be taken by any editor" refer to "additional action." For example, votes to "keep pending verification" implies that anyone can go and verify the article content. howcheng {chat} 22:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Reading that again, yeah, I definitely misread it the first time. Sorry. -- Jonel | Speak 22:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There are a few that some issues. I'll discuss them on your talk page. howcheng {chat} 21:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Jonel | Speak 21:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Closing an obvious keep as a keep is something anyone can do. Closing an obvious delete as a delete is something anyone can do; non-admins should just tag the article for deletion with a note about the AfD result--but they should probably say "closed by non-admin" because a review of such a deletion would be in order and any deleting admin should be warned that he needs to do that.

Ambigious cases? I'd say that most of those can be closed "no consensus" too. If there is no subtantial agreement on the correct action (absent copyright infringements, which must always be deleted) then the deletion policy applies: "If in doubt, don't delete." But such actions can be fairly controversial, and if you really can't wait for a deletion discussion to be closed it's best to ask an administrator experienced in AfD closes to do it for you, --Tony Sidaway 15:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD move

The article nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Buffyverse:_See_also_(complete) has been moved by user:paxomen in the middle of the nomination. It would be great if somebody could move it back, as it seems to hinder the AfD process, per some comments I read last time s/he did this (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Buffyverse Wikipedia articles).

Also, when the first AfD was successful, s/he simply recreated the list in a different title. Can it just be speedied?

Thanks. Dave 23:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A recreation of deleted content can be speedied. Apply {{db-repost}} plus a pointer to teh Afd if it isn't at an obvious location, please. DES ^(talk) 00:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Dave 00:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The link to the AfD discussion has been fixed after the move, so ther is really no problem with teh move that i can see, as far as the AfD process goes. The only reason moves are discouraged is that they often break such links. DES ^(talk) 00:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, it wasn't moved; it was cut-and-pasted before. I forgot. Dave 00:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved it based on discussion with others in the deletion forum since it would seem the new title would be more appropiate, and made the move very clear in that deletion forum. Also the claim by Dave that I simply recreated the list in a different title is completely untrue, and Dave knows this having closely looked at both articles. In fact the new article which Dave has once again nominated for deletion contains hundreds of links and is now a comprehensive list of every topic relating to Buffy/Angel (the old list contained about thirty links). The article List of Buffyverse-related topics is more appropiate as an alternative to categories as it offers links to discussion pages, links to 'revision histories', red links of articles yet to be created, and potential annoatation by myself in the weeks to come. Dave, you have already nominated the article for deletion, please do not intentionally mislead people. -- Paxomen 17:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV/Vandalism from proxy

What do you think of a block on this (very well known) IP? Here's some edits they have made since being unblocked:

1. Blanking part of Jim Nussle [2]
2. POV pushing / removal on Marilyn Musgrave [3] (see further revisions for sources)
3. Blanking part of James K. Polk[4]
4. "Greatest President ever" on James K. Polk [5] (Unsourced, untrue, testing?)
5. Removal of true statements Tony Trupiano [6] Thad McCotter [7] (see further revisions for sources)

~ Cheers —This user has left wikipedia 14:26 2006-02-01

I don't think a block would stand for long, based on the last unblock. Has anyone made any progress talking to the network admin's and working out a solution to bypass the proxy so that more fine grained blocking can be done? If not, someone with the necessary skills should. - Taxman ^Talk 14:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

IP was blocked for 3 hours —This user has left wikipedia 15:28 2006-02-01

Post blocking there is still more vandalism: In the article for Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) removing references[8] to Tom DeLay:

"Musgrave received $30,000 in campaign contributions from former majority leader Tom DeLay's ARMPAC."

This violation occurred 14:16, 1 February 2006.

In the article for Congressman Dan Lungren (R-CA) removing references[9] to percentage of vote received in defeat for for Governor of California:

"Lungren received 38% of the vote."

This violation occurred 01:05, 2 February 2006.

[edit] Safe Sex

I wanted to draw some attention to a struggel I've been having with an anon IP on the Safe Sex article. I was trying to make the page more neutral getting rid of pharses like "Use a Condom" and be objective - as an encyclopedia should be. But I keep getting reverted, along with anyone who believes the same as me. I have used up my 3rvts and don't want to exceed it so I was wondering if there is a compromise that could be made. Chooserr 00:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Um, yes, you kept tyring to slip in comments about HIV and AIDs being unproven, and this isn't the place for this anyway--205.188.116.200 00:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I was just making a point, read the conversation, before making snide remarks. Oh and at the end of the conversation the IP 64.12.116.198 accused me of Trolling, which is a Personal Attack. Chooserr 00:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Not if you're a troll, which you do seem to be--205.188.116.200 00:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Please stop making personal attack, I'm not a troll. I've contributed whole articles to wikipedia, and I don't make personal attacks. Chooserr 00:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Really, so you're not currently in the process of spamming all the users in the Catholic Wikipedians Category to reinsert your HIV comment?--205.188.116.200 00:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
          • • I'm not spamming them all look for yourself, I've just posted comments on the pages of the few who've helped me in the past. And I'm not attempting to restore anything about HIV but just to make the section on bodily fluids more neutral and objective. 64.12.116.198 doesn't appreciate this, and is reverting (he's exceeded 3rvts by the way). Oh yeah, it also seems that you might be him under a dynamic IP. Maybe an Ammendment should be made the the 3rvt rule for reverting IPs who often attempt nothing but vandalism. Chooserr 00:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Not feeding anymore--205.188.116.200 00:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not a Troll and you are a non-user. You can't even get an account. You have to hide behind a dynamic IP making things harder for real users who like to follow the rules. Please can some real user help me out, or review the case. I'm not a troll. Chooserr 01:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's AOL, which sucks. I'll rangeblock both ranges. NSLE _(T+C) 01:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, that was a horribly inappropriate response--64.12.114.9 01:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please STOP...

Stop protecting articles linked from the main page. This is not a new policy and yet it's becoming a daily problem for those of us who patrol WP:PP and WP:RfPP. I don't care if the article is being hit every minute. Pages linked from the main page can only be protected to clean up lingering vandalism. That is all. I know. There's an edit war going on as well, but honestly, SP wasn't meant for that anyway. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection was used for an edit war? Absolutely not. WP:SEMI is not for edit wars, much less for articles linked from the Main Page. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! Anything linked from the main page should not be semi-protected. Please see User:Raul654/protection. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What happens if George W. Bush is linked from the main page? enochlau (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Then we don't protect it.--Sean Black (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think most folks just don't realize what's linked off the main page. There are, after all, quite a lot of things with links on any given day. I think it'd be a good idea to have soem sort of "quickref" box on WP:RFP that's somehow updated with all the articles that are linked off the main page on any given day. Maybe one of you technowizards can figure out the best way to do that? · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 01:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that sounds terribly complicated. We only have Special:Whatlinkshere, not Special:Whatlinksgofromhere, after all ;).--Sean Black (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, would it be? Is there anything similar anywhere? Maybe like the open tasks template? · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 01:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, that would be nice, but I fear at the moment we'd have to do it by hand unless someone writes up a bot to do it. Hands up, anyone? Also, we'd need a suggestion for making the backwater that is RfP more prominent, or having said box appear somewhere prominent. We could transmit it into admins brainchips, I suppose, when the Foundation gets around to issuing them. Absent a technical solution, I suppose reminders on talk pages of thusly protecting admins, and notes like this on a periodic basis are the best means of alerting people. I imagine it's usually an honest enough mistake. Oooh, perhaps we could add a list of "current mainpage articles" to the CVU's messagebar thingy? -Splash^talk 01:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

All good ideas. On the aforementioned cartoon article, we have people who are reprotecting the page despite being told of the policy. I like the CVU idea, especially since we know what the FA is going to be ahead of time. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It has been protected again by User:Durin. I have not unprotected it yet because I am not as familiar with main-page politics, but I was under the impression that this was frowned upon, and this discussion seems to confirm that. --DDG 21:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I've unprotected it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As have I. *sigh* Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Out of interest, where is this policy? I've never come across it before. Mark¹ 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not "policy", but the reasons can be found at User:Raul654/protection. --bbatsell « give me a ring » 21:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It is also in the protection policy itself. And it's followed by all of the RfP patrollers I know of. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's back...

CAoW--64.12.114.9 01:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion at WP:MFD. Though after it was deleted from the Wikipedia namespace, I wonder if it's not eligible for speedy deletion... —Locke Cole • t • c 01:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

John, you can pay attention to a private page on someones own account, yet won't give a damn about me? Please this is upsetting, and distressing. Chooserr 01:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

My name is not John and I have no idea what you're on about. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I was using it to mean anyone as in general - as in Jimmy which is what I meant to say, and I've taken a short break to calm myself, but what I mean is that I have been hounded by IPs and have written out several complaints and no one cares. Could you please take a look at the section below. Thanks, Chooserr 01:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need help

This is a copy from LNSE's talk page:

== Not blocked ==

64.12.116.198 has by far exceeded the 3rvt thing, and has now vandalised Safe sex yet again. Could you block him for me? Oh and can I revert it without getting blocked? Chooserr 01:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Good point--64.12.117.9 01:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

He also vandalised the create an account page Chooserr 01:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• as I said, you're dealing with a troll, who first calls me a coward for having a dynamic ISP, then blames 6 day old vandalism on me, yep--64.12.117.9 01:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please someone help me! This IP is very upsetting, I've just been trying to contribute, and then every IP in town, or atleast all IPs operated by this one person, have come after me joining up, and calling me names. Being called "Troll" doesn't usually affect someone, but when it's said repeatedly and no one does anything about it it starts to hurt. Please could some admin help me, Chooserr 01:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • "Just been trying to contribute" doesn't exactly sum up your edits. "Trying to push an anti-contraception POV" is rather more accurate. --SarekOfVulcan 01:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
      • • Yes it does. I may have a bias, but if the information is firmly grounded should it be ignored??? Chooserr 02:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• can somebody remove this nonsense from here?--64.12.114.9 01:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

64.12.x, please don't call User:Chooserr a troll. And please don't take advantage of your dynamic IP to break WP:3RR. User:Chooserr, if you're exasperated with a content dispute and the edit-warring is out of control, please feel free to list the article at WP:RFPP. Jkelly 01:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That's actually a good idea--152.163.100.200 03:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The edit summaries were inappropriate, but the anon didn't violate 3RR, as far as I can see. AnnH ^(talk) 01:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my first change

Changed 3 words, his response, which I still don't have the slightest idea what it means--152.163.100.200 02:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh you can drop the whole damn thing, I'm going to play in the corner you and your dynamic IPs immaturely boxed me into. Chooserr 02:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite know what that means either--152.163.100.200 02:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't quite know the english language, do you? Chooserr 02:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

personal attacks aside, what if anything does christmas have to do with birth control and quotation marks?--152.163.100.200 03:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski

This request for arbitration is closed. Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator. The article may be unprotected (and reprotected) at the discretion of any admin who deems it safe to do so.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute! Semi-protected permanently?! That's a violation of WP:SEMI. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The only wording that could be construed to cause a violation is that it says "A page can be temporarily semi-protected". That doesn't actually prohibit longer term use of it. And nothing says semi prot in this case is permanent either. - Taxman ^Talk 19:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear: "The article may be unprotected (and reprotected) at the discretion of any admin who deems it safe to do so." That's a normal application. Dmcdevit·t 19:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have indef blocked KAJ (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) as a sockpuppet of Johnski Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3 Tools

(moved from AN/I)

I recommend that admins add my monobook.js code to their monobook. I currently have Lupin's anti-vandal tool (which IP and fitltered edits), an Auto-AFD lister tab (when you click edit), EDIT: Afd closer and relist tabs, and a "revert as vandalism" link that appears near rollback but has a vandalism summary, other than the more vague rollback summary, so you can use either when fit. Have fun on RC patrol :)!Voice of All^T|@|ESP 06:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Not related at all to this, but do you have an automatic AFD closer too? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Opps, this should not be on Incidence, I'll move it. And no I dont, between auto-AFD list and AllayUnion bot, I think we can manage. I'll move this though.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 06:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Johnleemk has an auto-AFD closer. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Automating_AfD_closing. howcheng {chat} 07:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Great, added to monobook.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 15:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I modified that afd closer to do cfd closings, but didn't take the time yet to make it autoselect between afd / cfd...since I do cfds all the time but haven't done an afd in forever. Its near the top of my monobook if someone wants to combine the two. --Syrthiss 16:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me know when you have developed a tool for suppressing large and garishly-colored signatures on discussion pages! ;) j/k. --Tony Sidaway 15:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Who are you refering to in specific?...I can think of a few names. I don't mind pics in sigs, just tiny ones :).Voice of All^T|@|ESP 16:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony is of course just unsatisfied at his boring sig and this is a cry for help to spruce his up. I think blinking pink text with a handfull of images would be much better.  ALKIVAR™ 02:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Try Lynx in monochrome mode :P >Radiant< 02:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure when it started, but all my script tools stopped working after a while and my monobook.js file doesn't even display properly when I try to view it. In a strange twist, I can view other people's monobook.js files, and I can only view my own when I log off and view it anonymously. Can someone point me to an appropriate help page, or should I be posting this on the technical village pump? (I'm using Mozilla 1.5, BTW) --Deathphoenix 18:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Have you tried refreshing your cache? (hold shift and click "reload"). >Radiant< 02:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Turkmen

I have blocked Turkmen (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) for 24 hours for disruption and as a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). Turkmen is edit warring to insert special pleading into LBU and Pacific International University, two unaccredited universities. Turkmen denies being Gastrich (he may indeed be a meatpuppet not a sock) but the pattern of edits, comments and general behaviour is highly suspicious. He asserts that I am part of his war, but I'm not, I'm just cleaning up after Gastrich's sock-fest a couple of days ago. Both articles are semi-protected, which means the usual technique of creating a sock and piling right in no longer works.

Latest on LBU is to add some "notable alumni" previously added by a Gastrich sock, claiming "consensus". I've re-read the Talk page several times and can't see that consensus. I am taking that up with the other editors in the article.

Anyway, it may be seen as contentious, so I'm bringing it to other admins' notice. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Update: "Turkmen" just added the webpage http://michaelnewdow.com to Michael Newdow (an atheist)[10]. Who owns http://michaelnewdow.com? Well a quick search at http://www.checkdomain.com/ shows it's registered through www.godaddy.com, which "Domain servers in listed order: NS1.JCSM.ORG, NS2.JCSM.ORG" Yes, Jesus Christ Saves Minsitries (i.e. Jason Gastrich). It's cybersquatting. Same at Anthony Flew[11]. Jason Gastrich owns anthonyflew.com ; also documented re the skeptics annotated bible. It seems reaosnable to conclude that Turkmen is a sock (in fact probably excessively naive to conclude anything else). - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bling-chav

This user ought to be blocked. He goes round randomly nominating people, including himself, for adminship and votes willy-nilly on RfA. Whilst he has nominated me, I was going to wait a bit longer before nominating myself for adminship. Also, he puts the welcome template on userpages and usertalkpages of users who are not new. To me (although I have no proof) he could well be a sockpuppet of User:Piedras grandes, best known as inventor of the horriffic Template:bad, Template:Sm and Template:Good. --{{subst:user|4836.03}} 16:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

We not going to block someone for that! His votes on RFA will be ignored. I suggest that you refuse the nomination and ask for it to be deleted. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question on the new "Belvedereposter" sockpuppet

A certain user "Mrbelvedereposter" has for some time contributed nothing but errant nonsense with his multitudinous sockpuppets (See Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Long term alerts#Mr Belvedere poster), but now one of his accounts User:Mrbelvedereposter25 is trying to claim he's not that bad...? Etc...? I don't know what to do in this case so I'm asking here. If this is the wrong location, I request someone let me know so I can ask wherever's best. Thanx 68.39.174.238 20:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. I suggested that if he wants to contribute usefully, to use another nickname. Ral315 (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There are also some weird edits made by User:Helpfulposter on that page. He moves and comments about the MrBelvedere and technically speaking there's nothing wrong with those edits, but it is strange since his only edits involve comment and moving the posts. Dr Debug (Talk) 22:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not block me. I was just trying to be helpful. I want to fight vandalism, not make it. Helpfulposter 02:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as Helpfulposter will not vandalize, I see nothing wrong with his participation, even if he was Mr. Belvedere. As far as I know, he's not BANNED, so he's welcome to come back under a different name. Ral315 (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:PPEist

I'be blocked this user for 24 hours for legal threats here--Shanel 23:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

He/she is still making legal threats on their Talk page. If they continue when the block expires, it should be extended. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I have indef. blocked since he is still making legal threats and standard practice is to block people who threaten legal action until such time as they have withdrawn their threats and/or the legal action has ceased. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

An indefinite block hardly seems appropriate here. WP:NLT specifically says that blocks are considered on a case-by-case basis, and the comments on the user's talk page are a discussion of the reason behind the original 24 hour block (which would have been appropriate in any case for disruption). Physchim62 (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Standard practice is to block until the threats are withdrawn or the legal action is over and this user has seriously threatened to report Wikipedia and its users in Britian to the police so I think a perm block is more than appropriate unless of course this user states that they are not planning to report Wikipedia editors to the police and start legal action. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jtkiefer. When he withdraws his threats, the block can be removed. Comments such as "Block me all you want, there's another 1,000+ people who use this IP address, and I can get a new IP address in 5 seconds" suggest that he is not yet amenable to this position, and the block should remain in place, in my opinion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well apparently it doesn't matter what we think since Physchim62 has undone the block and hasn't even bothered to give the courtesy of noting it here. I would just like to note here that I am reblocking, some things are needed and taking care of disruptive users who threaten to have other wikipedia users arrested (or at least attempt to do so) is one of them so I am going to reblock even though if at all possible I do not want to get into a wheel war over this. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Seconded. Legal threats are not to be tolerated. Also, the account has hardly any useful edits and seems to be created mainly to inflame the debate on those Jyllands cartoons. Don't feed the troll. >Radiant< 02:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to get into a block war, don't worry. All the same, if this editor were serious, an indef. block would seem like a very good way of provoking her further, and might end up in her going to the the Police. That is to say, the exact opposite of what we are trying to acheive. Physchim62 (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a good block to me. Legal threats -- even ones that are less than serious -- are blockable until such time as they're rescinded or resolved, because of the potential chilling effect they can have. Beyond which, this account has pretty much only been used to make disruptive edits. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 02:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. You should note that a block does not mean that we are impinging on their right to take legal action, however it does mean that if they are actually taking legal action then they should not be allowed to cause us more grief while it is ongoing. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It should also be noted that nobody has a "right" to edit Wikipedia and if your threatening to get other users arrested I think it's fairly safe to say that the person has forfeited the privilege of editing. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone is under any illusions as to the intentions of this editor, please read the following comment they made on their talk page:

Block me all you want, there's another 1,000+ people who use this IP address, and I can get a new IP address in 5 seconds. This "Wiki principal" is absolutely comical, you're basically saying that if I come on here and slander someone, they say they will sue me, THEY are committing an offence in giving a, completely legitimate, valid and understandable "legal threat"? PPEist 00:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like good faith editing to me. I suspect that this editor is the same one who was blanking the Ruzwana Bashir VfDs and their talk page, but have no way of verifying this without someone with CheckUser status confirming. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/PPEist certainly suggests this yes. Note that she "won" on that one, as Jimbo ordered a blanking. Physchim62 (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This user contacted me via email (using a fake address), asking for the IP address to be unblocked, The user claims that he/she has contacted the relevant people and he/she is no longer making legal threats. I have not unblocked the IP however. --Shanel 20:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking of User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow

I have blocked User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow for making personal attacks at Dyslexic Agnostic's talk page. Namely, [12], [13]. I have placed a notice advising him of the block,[14] but I place a notice here so that other admins can review my actions regarding the situation. Steve block talk 10:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems fair. How long was he blocked? NSLE _(T+C) 10:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

24 hours, sorry. Steve block talk 10:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[conflict]Checked the IPblocklist. One day seems fair to me, and if he doesn't stop when he comes back I'd be in favour of a longer block. NSLE _(T+C) 10:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I based the length of time on the fact that he has received a 24 hr block for personal attacks before. [15], but agree a longer block could well be necessary. Note, there is an arbitration case between the two at present. Steve block talk 10:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No objections here.--Shanel 19:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:GoatSe

Hi, I was blocked by user:inter yesterday. He reverted an edit by a vandal to the page on Nick Griffin the last version by me and then proceeded to ban me with the rather cryptic message goatse ahahaha lolololol.

He didn't leave any message, so i'm not sure what his reasoning was, but I would appreciate it if someone would unblock me (user:GoatSe), so that I can continue to contribute.

It's very frustrating as people were telling me to sign up rather than editing under my IP and now I'm banned due to the pettiness of one user.

I must have mistaken the anon I reverted as you. My bad since this seems to be the case. The image used for the vandalism was a penis, so I assumed you were trying to be funny with the stupid Goatse.cx gimmick and banned you. Inter\^Echo 01:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what has happend here. But your contributions show no evidence of vandalism - so I'm unblocking you. I've dropped a note to the blocking admin, mitakes happen and this seems to be one. The lesson to us admins is always use helpful block summaries, and drop notes on userpages. --Doc ^ask? 11:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I also assumed Goatse was a vandal the first time I came across him. But if you choose a name associated with vandalism, you really are asking for it. Mark^{your words} 12:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

'you are asking for it' is not grounds to ban me, any more than it is grounds for anything else. Anyway, there are two autoblocks still in place. Could someone kindly remove them. Thanks

And don't forget to sign your comments with ~~~~ :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a thorny ethical issue when you get down to it. "You're asking for it" or "your username is suspicious" shouldn't be grounds to ban someone. That's the kind of reasoning that leads to "she shouldn't have worn a miniskirt in that part of town". Yet, on the other hand, choosing a username like yours is rather like walking into a bank wearing a black ski mask and wondering why people are giving you funny looks. It's not fair, it's not justified, but it is understandable. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This username is not "suspicous", it's innapropriate. Goatse.cx.--Sean Black (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason for my block was that I thought he was the offending user vandalising with an image of a penis. That logical leap is about a nanosecond away. I didn't stop and see that it was indeed an anon I actually reverted. The username is inappropriate and this user will probably take some heat for it sooner or later. Inter\^Echo 01:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More about East Sea, East Sea (disambiguation), &c.

Please, please, please someone step in and review the situation. User:Appleby just returned from his 48-hour 3RR block and is continuing his campaign for his POV. Perhaps I could have handled this differently, and that's why I'm hoping that someone else will step in. --Nlu (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Did Appleby just break 3RR again in East Sea (disambiguation), or am I counting correctly?--Endroit 18:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello there, is there any admin out there, paying attention and reading this? Appleby has been blocked for an additional 72 hours. Katefan0 suggests that the page be protected while we resolve this issue.

In my opinion, there are 3 pages involved: East Sea (disambiguation), East Sea (capital letters), and East sea (small letter). Discussion already took place, mostly in Talk:Sea of Japan.

I would say that Appleby is in the minority opinion, but I am willing to participate in any poll or arbitration. Please advise what to do.--Endroit 19:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I left a note in User talk:Appleby, as his 72-hour block should be up soon. Please stay tuned whether he resorts to an edit war again.--Endroit 19:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible imposter of me?

I think SWD1nceayear (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) is an imposter of me. His only edits are to his user page, user talk page and my talk page. SWD316 ^{talk to me} 20:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I saw that. I didn't block him because he didn't attack you, but I will if you want. NoSeptember ^talk 20:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it might be better to block him. SWD316 ^{talk to me} 21:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. NoSeptember ^talk 21:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need blacklist help

Given the increase in vandalism using tinyurl and tinylink to link to malware sites, I've tried adding them to m:spam blacklist, but it's not working. Help would be appreciated. Raul654 21:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

They're using url123.com now, too. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've seen url123.com, tinyr.us, xrl.us, tny.se and I think tinylink.com -- Curps 06:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of athletes found guilty of using banned drugs

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and came accross the list above. Whilst it seems that a lot of work has gone into compiling it, at present it seems to contain a lot of unverified information that could be considered libel. I thought about going through the list and deleting the unreferenced items but that would still leave the potentially libelous material in the article history. I'm not sure if this is the best place to raise it but I would appreciate if one of you guys could take a look. RicDod 21:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Instead of removing the non-referenced subjects, lets find references for them. They had to be found someplace to get added to the list. Mike _{(T C)} 22:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that assuming good faith to the extreme? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No, if there is not a verifiable source cited (WP:CITE), then the article should be removed from the list/category immediately. Move it to the talk page for discussion if you are concerned that the information might be lost, but there is absolutely no reason to expose Wikipedia to a lawsuit in this manner. Best regards, Hall Monitor 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)

The list itself admits that it is incomplete: I have removed all entries for which there was no reference as per WP:V. I might note that a large number of these athletes had no article about them, and, on the side of the coin, several well-known doping cases (e.g.) were unreferenced. If editors wish to use their free speech in this way, they should (IMHO) take more care over such things. Physchim62 (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This is what categories are for, surely? The editors on individual articles will quickly spot and remove bogus categories, whereas the mailicious or clueless addition of names to a list might go unnoticed. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

I know this ain't the place to list 3RR but it's an unusual case. At the Travis Tomko (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) article there is a vandal that keeps readding false quotes to the article. I was going to list the vandal at WP:AN/3RR but it's more than one IP address and account. I fact it's 10 vandals.

• 64.53.167.36 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
• 65.1.202.231 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
• 70.176.118.43 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
• 72.137.14.157 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
• 80.255.207.66 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
• 81.179.103.228 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
• 82.10.11.8 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
• 86.135.185.136 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
• LOL_nobelium (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
• The_Boogeyfan (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)

Can we get blocks on the users or semi-protection on this article? SWD316 ^{talk to me} 01:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll semi protect it for a day or so. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old/orphaned VfD

I stumbled upon an old VfD that was never properly listed and dating back to 2004. What's the policy regarding those? MfD? Speedy? Move to AfD and re-list? Leave alone? Thanks. — TheKMan^talk 04:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Be careful: the listing method probably was different back then. Didn't VfD have a time when old discussions were unlisted? The best course of action would probably be to leave it alone (and take a look at the article, just in case). --cesarb 04:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking an IP but allowing trusted users from that IP

Hello, I am an editor with over 3000 edits under my belt, but a public IP I sometimes use is currently blocked (160.83.73.6)... is there any way for Wikipedia to keep blocking the IP for anonymous edits but allow me to log in when I am here and still edit away? Uris 04:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Not yet, but see WP:BPP for a proposed policy about it. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

160.83.73.6 (talk • contribs) was blocked for 48 hours for "long-term vandalism", but only has one warning on its talk page dating back to 2004. The majority of the edits were made in good faith. Seems like an unjust block. — TheKMan^talk 04:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for lifting the block! I think WP:BPP is an excellent idea though, as anytime you have enough people using a proxy IP there is going to be anonymous vandalism. They should at least have to make a new account each time they try to vandalize... Uris 04:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correcting image username

Regarding Image:Jetstream41.eastern.airways.arp.750pix.jpg. Can someone rename it to Jetstream31.eastern.airways.arp.750pix.jpg? The image is actually of a Jetstream 31, not a 41. The image name is inaccurate and might lead to confusion. Only one article links to it and I will correct the link once it's done. Mexcellent 04:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. The only way (AFAIK) is to delete the image and re-upload, which I've done. However, since the image is PD, I uploaded it to commons. Image:Jetstream31.eastern.airways.arp.750pix.jpg. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. Mexcellent 05:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sock Bug

Sock Bug is Back. Could'nt even keep the sig active. Martial Law 05:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I am engaged in a debate here, and this mess could prove detrimental. Thought it was quashed. Heading to WP:BUG as well. Martial Law 05:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have no clue what you mean by "sock bug", but note that WP:BUG is deprecated. >Radiant< 15:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VIRUS link

A bunch of sockpuppets continue to post a virus link at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. — TheKMan^talk 08:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up, User talk:Monkey toll has been indefinitely blocked. Posting links meant to infect people's computers with viruses is unnaceptable and cannot be tolerated. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 08:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

More socks are posting the link again. It might also be a good idea to remove the edits, with the url in the edit summary. — TheKMan^talk 08:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have also blocked User talk:AnthonyBergs who took over as soon as I blocked the original guy. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 08:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Kitchensink blocked, yet another sock. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 08:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few more socks:

• Limeyy (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Binary_sum (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• JesseJamesy (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Thanks — TheKMan^talk 08:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

All indef. blocked Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 08:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Is the link the same as the one last time? If not, it should be added to the blacklist. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure if it is the same. The posted link auto redirected to tomrfkaxgsys DOT on DOT nimp DOT org website (GNAA?). My virus scanner warned me of "VBS:Malware [Script]" and blocked the connection. — TheKMan^talk 20:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, *.on.nimp.org is the same as last time: Last Measure. --cesarb 22:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought that was already added to the spam filter? User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It was but the spam filter only prevents someone from saving a link to a banned site (or domain in this case) someone can still save a link to a domain that redirects automatically to the banned domain. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for rollback privileges poll closing soon

The requests for rollback privileges poll, a poll to gauge consensus on whether good contributors who are not admins should be given the rollback privilege, is closing at 00:00 UTC on Tuesday, 6 January 2006. If you haven't weighed in, please do so! Talrias (t | e | c) 11:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

...*FEBRUARY* Month lag i guess, heh. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 15:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accidental block (urgent)

User:Pomegranite is unable to edit, apparently because his IP address has been blocked (due to actions of another person using his computer?), and has become rather angry about that. I request an explanation, and perhaps an unblock. - Mike Rosoft 14:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Neither Ipblocklist nor the block log has any mention of this user. If he were sharing an IP with another blocked user, he could have been hit by the autoblocker, but that should show up in the ipblocklist and it does not. So either the list is broken, or Pomegranite is mistaken. >Radiant< 14:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • FWIW, when you unblocked me earlier tonight I was still getting autoblocked over an hour later. Eventually another admin had to reblock me for 5 seconds, undo the autoblocks, and all was well. Someone might want to ask a dev if the autoblocker (or blocking in general) is broken. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Your name was not even in the block list when I unblocked you; I had to do it manually. Weird. >Radiant< 15:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• How would it show up in the blocklist? If the IP was autoblocked, then any user using that IP will be unable to edit, but accounts are not autoblocked, nor do they appear in the blocklist. Or do they? --Latinus (talk (el:)) 14:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If you edit from an IP recently used by a blocked user, the system automatically blocks you (to prevent the blockee from simply getting a new account). This should show up in the block log as "autoblocked because you share an IP". >Radiant< 15:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • What if the blocked user was just using an IP, not a username? Mark^{your words} 15:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Pomegranite seems to be a student, so it wouldn't be surprising if she shares an IP with a vandal. I don't understand Radiant's comment either, but I'm not very well-versed in these things. Mark^{your words} 14:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've done a manual unblock, but I don't know if that'd actually help. >Radiant< 15:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Usernames aren't "autoblocked" really; they are just disabled because the underlying IP is blocked. There is no actual block placed against the account; when the block of the IP is removed, the username will immediately unblock. IPs, however, actually have a physical autoblock set against them, which must be separately removed (because it is actually a separate block). Thus, "autoblocks" of accounts don't show up anywhere, and are very difficult to find since they don't generate an actual block and the resulting block message. The easiest way to solve this is for the blocked user to identify the IP address they are using (it is listed in the blocked user text they see when they try to edit) and have an admin physically unblock that IP (i.e., enter it directly into the unblock screen.) That will clear any actual blocks of the IP, as well as any autoblocks on the IP. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 15:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That explains a little mystery I came across recently. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 16:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civil?

There has been condierable debate over the behaviour of one Jason_Gastrich (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). An RfC has been raised and there is broad agreement (51:1) that he has violated multiple policies, including WP:CIVIL. He has now posted this diatribe: [16]. I take it as just the rantings of a frustrated POV-pusher, but others state that it violates WP:CIVIL at least and probably WP:NPA, and there is very strong feeling that any future policy violaitons on Gastrich's part should be met with swift and decisive action. I am obviously not neutral in this matter, so if someone could have a look and see if some kind of action is needed I'd be grateful.

At the same time, there is some debate over whether peppering a user page with external links is acceptable. I removed a number, certainly not all, Gastrich disputes this: [17]. Guidance from older and more experienced folks would be appreciated. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 16:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your initial reaction that the post was an expression of frustration, a pretty tame "personal attack" on a page where a user ought to get a bit more slack. Let people who haven't been fighting with him deal with any more like this. alteripse 23:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFAR on Xed

The Wikipedia:Request for Arbitration against User:Xed is closed [18]. Xed, who remains on personal attack parole, is reminded to avoid personal attacks even in the face of extreme provocation. Xed is warned regarding use of a source such as this one which does not support the information it is cited in support of. Viriditas is commended for continuing to work with the article substantially improving it while maintaining a courteous attitude toward the difficult user Xed.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFAR on User:TDC and anonymous Earthlink editor 165.247.xxx

The Wikipedia:Request for Arbitration against User:TDC and anonymous Earthlink editor 165.247.xxx on the matter of Winter Soldier Investigation is closed [19]. TDC (using whatever account or IP address) and the anonymous Earthlink editor 165.247.xxx (using whatever account or IP address) are banned from editing Winter Soldier Investigation for one year. If, in three months, either parties can demonstrate good behavior, they may request that the Arbitration Committee lift their ban or parole. If TDC or the anonymous Earthlink editor 165.247.xxx (using whatever account or IP address) edits Winter Soldier Investigation, any changes made may be reverted by any editor and any administrator may, at his or her discretion, block the violator for up to one week. If TDC or the anonymous Earthlink editor 165.247.xxx (using whatever account or IP address) performs more than one content revert in any 24 hour period, or fails to discuss a content revert, any administrator may, at his or her discretion, block the violator for up to one week.

For the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 18:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Gastrich

Another suspected sock of Jason Gastrich has appeared at Soarin777 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). The user's sole action was to create a new article on deleted subject Robert Morey. I have blocked this user, which is I know unusually aggressive, due to strong consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich, his known and prolific use of socpuppets in the past, and because in his last comment at his talk page Gastrich made a statement which has been construed as an open admission that the sock/meatpuppets will be unleashed on Wikipedia. I am posting this here for peer review of this action, and for notice that similar problems may crop up. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as you have evidence of sockpuppetry and use the phrase "suspected sockpuppet" so they can prove otherwise if they can, I have no problems with it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Bookofsecrets

Bookofsecrets keeps making personal threats[20][21]. This user is especially vitriolic. Can an admin check this out? Also note that two of his IPs have been banned previously due to vandalism. --BWD 01:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambi and deletion

See deletion log. Ambi (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) seems to be speedily deleting any and all pages tagged with {{prod}}. I'm not sure why; needless to say this is not the point of Wikipedia:Proposed deletion; it should give the articles five days' respite, and if during those five days any user objects to deletion, the article is not deleted. Indeed, earlier today, several articles were already cleaned up, merged, vetoed or moved to AFD. Please give an alternative to AFD a chance; AFD is frequently said to be less than ideal. >Radiant< 02:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:216.15.56.42

User:216.15.56.42 has repeatedly harassed User:ArmadniGeneral on User talk:ArmadniGeneral. He/She violates WP:NPA, WP:CIV, and WP:3RR. I request any form of action to handle this dispute. Thank you. SYCTHOS^talk 02:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Chadbryant

Anyone have any details what the situation with that is? I am hesitant to take any actions without details. --Nlu (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

See my talk page for some of the conversations I've been having with his opponent, "Alex Cain", who has been behaving rather badly for the past few months (personal attacks, petty vandalism, etc) using dozens if not hundreds of sockpuppets as well as anonymous IPs. I have told Cain many times to cut out the personal attacks and take whatever issue he has with Chad Bryant through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but so far he just continues doing what he's been doing. In turn, he claims that a certain external link on Chad Bryant's page constitutes a personal attack against him, but I see nothing about external links in Wikipedia:No personal attacks, whereas Cain's personal attacks (mostly schoolyard taunts like "douchebag") are much more clearcut. -- Curps 06:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Alex Cain is his real name. For what Chadbryant claims, they are all sockpuppets of User:Dick Witham. I highly agree with him because Dick Witham keeps on making Sockpuppets and vandalizing my user page too. SWD316 ^{talk to me} 22:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Get-back-world-respect

Copied this from WP:AIV at request of admin User:Nlu, thinks it's better off here.

* Get-back-world-respect (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) Originally spammed over a dozen users talkspaces with a paragraph including misrepresnting and insulting remarks against me. I posted on her user talk that said comments were patently untrue, and I'd appreciate if she notified all those users of such. She deleted my comment. I commented again, reinserting my comment and protesting the deletion as bad faith. She deleted my comment. I added it in a third time, along with a warning template against deleting talk space comments." She deleted that. In order not to violate 3RR I stopped there, and instead made a long post citing wikipedia policy about deleting talk space comments, and copied it to my own talk space for posterity, where in both cases I made it VERY clear that if she deleted it again, I would submit this request. She deleted, and I'm submitting the request. Swatjester 04:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC) (note timestamp different than original post)

Users are entitled to remove comments from their talk pages. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 04:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

but not with the intent to misrepresent, which is against policy. 04:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Then file an RFC, or go to mediation. No-one is going to block GBWR for removing your comment from her talk page. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 04:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No-one? I was told to post this here BY an admin. Obviously one of them decided it was good enough for here. And it's not just my comment, said admin's comment and readdition of my warnings was deleted too, as well as several other user's messages. Swatjester 01:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Everyone except you agrees that I have the full right to delete your messages at my talk page after I answered them. The admin at the vandalism site did not decide "it was good enough for here" he wrote your accusation of vandalism was wrong and if you had an issue you had to move it elsewhere. [22] He later wrote he agreed with me, as well as did another one: [23] [24]. Now please stop trolling. Get-back-world-respect 14:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Everyone except me? I see one person who disagrees with me, and one person who does thusfar. I'm not even asking for a block. This is a noticeboard, and I"m noticing. Swatjester 15:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Says

You've had your fun with me, now I'm going to have my fun with you. I have placed 30 nihlartikles throughout wikipedia, and your job is to find them. Be careful, over half of them have graphics and look very unassuming.

Simon says find the nihlartikles and revert them. - MilkMan

[edit] Brainhell

Brainhell (talk • contribs) This guy is displaying all the classic traits of a classic troll]]. He's totally bent out of shape over the deletion of a nanostub/weblink placeholder. He simply won't drop the personal attacks, so he's taking a one-week time out. Any reason this shouldn't be permanent or should this be an RfC? I've been as nice as I can be to this user but I'm still being threatened with administrative action and I'm accused of being a "vandal with administrative rights." If he put half the effort into his nanostub as in his protests, he'd have a featured article. Jeez, why do I put myself through this?!? - Lucky 6.9 04:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Good news: I think this exquisite litle inconvenience is mercifully behind us. I've unblocked the account. - Lucky 6.9 09:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History cleansing?

Am I correct that efforts have been made to cleanse the revision history of George W. Bush of personal info/defamation (that is, about Jimbo)? Because there's still some really nasty stuff in there. I'm aware that the page in question is the worst we have to perform this kind of calculation. Shall I provide diffs? Please advise. Thanks. Chick Bowen 05:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a more extreme way to do it (deleting the entire page and then deleting revisions one by one) but that A) would probably crash the servers and B) cause tons of issues in the process. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, so just not worth worrying about then? Or. . . ? Chick Bowen 06:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing can be done about it unless it contains something really bad, in which case let a dev and they can remove the edit using their special powers. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 07:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saudi Arabia

There is a great deal of blanking and other vandalism on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy coming from the IP ranges 212.138.47.xx and 212.138.113.xx Many individual IPs are on their third revert. The problem is that these ranges appear to be assigned dynamically to cover the whole of Saudi Arabia. What to do? For the moment I am sprotecting, as this will acheive the result on the Muhammed cartoons article without blocking editing by legitimate Saudi users. Physchim62 (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Please follow the steps at Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. I've added {{sprotected}} to the article and listed it on Wikipedia:Protected pages. Johnleemk | Talk 06:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Willy on Wheels

A Willy on Wheels account has just been created by someone on sco.wikipedia.org for the usual nonsense. I've cleaned up its initial changes and blocked the account for the next six months but I'd appreciate it if any en:admins would be willing to help the two sco:admins to keep an eye on the situation. -- Derek Ross | Talk 09:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Muhammad cartoons problems

Image talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg has been picking up a lot of edits, including some of the kind of really ugly stuff that Jimbo blanked on the Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy page. I've taken the somewhat unusual step of blanking the image's talk page, pointing users to the main article's talk page if they want to discuss the controversy, and protecting both the image's talk page and the image itself. Unfortunately I suspect that we will need to maintain this protection for a long time to come. -- ChrisO 09:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing is just a mess. I'm not usually for protecting talk pages, but I think in this case, it might be wise. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Another idea would be to simply redirect the image talk page to the article talk page. --cesarb 14:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 195.93.21.41

Can someone please put a temporary block on this AOL IP? He's wreaking havoc, albeit easily revertable havoc. KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 11:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What the hell?

Stop changing things, damnit:

• First you change it so anons can't create articles
• Then you come up with "sprotection" so anons can't edit articles either
• More often AOL "range blocks" are being thrown around with no consideration for the affected users
• The last straw, you pull deletedpagehistories, taking a function previously available to anyone, and restricting it to admins
• And now, I go to create a user name, and what do I see "Your password is too short. It must have at least 1 characters" WTF?? Since when was there a minimum password length?? Since never, what possible reason could you have for changing it?--205.188.116.200 02:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not a password if it doesn't have at least one character, though. Also, see WP:CIV: Please don't use such agressive language, thanks.--Sean Black (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

But it never used to force you to make a password, just like it didn't used to force you register in order to make edits, now it seems both have become the norm--205.188.116.200 02:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes changes can be good. Forcing you to have a password makes it more difficult for people to hijack your account, and it does not impact your ability to edit pages. ~MDD4696 02:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

On a couple of your points: deletedpagehistories was formerly only available to admins, but was amended in August to be visible to all. It had to be pulled again as it removed the ability to get rid of some highly abusive edit summaries. So that change was just a revert. The password thing was switched on a few hours ago, see [25]. -Splash^talk 02:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I personally can't understand why you'd want a blank password anyway.--Sean Black (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well for one thing, if I already have an account with a blank password, I can't use it anymore, since I get "Login error:Password entered was blank. Please try again.", when I try to login--205.188.116.200 03:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You can request a new password by email. You did set an email, didn't you? -Splash^talk 03:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, I didn't bother to set a password, but naturally you assume I'd specify an email address, just in case I ever forgot my non-existant password, and needed to have it emailed to me--205.188.116.200 03:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Besides, I can't be the only person affected by it, just probably the first to notice, eventually people are going to log out of their accounts, only to find themselves 'locked out' so to speak--205.188.116.200 03:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The anon has an interesting point, how about using a watchlist message or similar to warn existing users that blank passwords will no longer work, while they are still logged in and have a chance to change it. Dragons flight 03:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Brion has said that he will try to get code in tomorrow to force users with blank passwords to establish one on next login. In the meantime, sysops with blank passwords were found, which, I'm sure everyone will agree, is a massive potential security breach, and there is no way in MediaWiki to only disable blank passwords for sysops. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 13:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"sysops with blank passwords were found," Excuse me?? Hall Monitor 23:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's the relevant e-mail from Brion: [26] --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 22:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"...a handful of sysop accounts had blank passwords." Brion, thank you for fixing that. I'm amazed such a major security hole stayed open for so long. Jonathunder 00:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, "stop changing things" isn't a strong enough argument in my opinion to prevent the natural evolution and development of Wikipedia. Blank passwords are simply unacceptable (again, in my opinion). --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 13:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is, people who already have blank passwords can no longer login, since the login screen no longer accepts blank passwords, therefore they have no means of changing their passwords or logging in, and are essentially banned--64.12.116.200 15:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Is there some way the scripting could be changed, so that while creating an account with a blank password stays disallowed, an exception could be made for people trying to login with pre-existing blank passwords, to give them an opportunity to change them?--64.12.116.200 15:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As Bbatsell just said above, Brion is working on code to allow these people to login, but to force them to change their passwords when they do so. --cesarb 16:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

True, but in the mean time, myself, and others like me still can't access our accounts--152.163.100.200 23:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, still can't use my account, wouldn't it make more sense to just reset the change until such time as the scripting change is complete? That way people could use thier accounts in the meantime?--64.12.116.200 22:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That would be a bad idea. Once the existence of blank passwords was revealed, it became too risky to enable them again. --cesarb 22:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

So, that means that anyone with a blank password is as good as banned, since they can no longer log in to change it?--64.12.116.200 22:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

They will be able to login as soon as Brion's code is ready — and will be immediately forced to change their passwords. Of course, the sooner you do it (after the code is enabled), the better. --cesarb 22:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, is it done yet?--205.188.116.200 14:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Bluntly, if you were foolish enough to create a user with a blank password, I have very little sympathy for you at all. At any moment anyone else could have logged in as you and changed your password to something else anyway. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 16:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so let me try this again, does this mean all users with blank passwords are now de facto banned? no, there's a patch So we'll be able to log in and change our passwords? no, of course not, that would be a security problem So then all users with blank passwords are as good as blocked? no, of course not, we're working on a fix..... Reasoning in circles here...--64.12.116.200 17:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, the developers have their own priorities. The last post regarding the issue was on January 31st, with George Maxwell concluding By simply knowing that you had a blank password you 'prove' that you had access prior to the lockout (since Brion didn't post a list).. Of course if we get a bunch of requests for sysop accounts without blank passwords... I don't know if it's still on Brion's radar, but talking about it here isn't helping with notifying the developers. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 19:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that we need something better than range blocks for dealing with AOL vandals. They hurt innocent users, and do nothing to stop AOL vandals. Not that I have any good idea what would be better, short of forcing all AOL users to get accounts, which might not be entirely popular. Perhaps we should redirect all known AOL IP user pages to a single ANON_AOL psuedo user page? Regards, Ben Aveling 03:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Brion Vibber has been playing with Captchas lately. See wikitech-l for details. -Splash^talk 03:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

And anon, 60 of about 900,000 articles are semi protected. And it's usually for no longer than 3-4 days. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

True range blocks on AOL ranges are sometimes needed when an AOL anon goes on a vandalism spree and there's no other way to stop this or even leave a message on that user's talk page (because he doesn't have one, because of AOL's round robin IP allocation). But I suspect that what you are referring to as "range blocks" really means autoblocks. That's an increasing problem because vandals have figured out how to leverage a block on a registered username into a denial of service attack on their fellow AOL users. -- Curps 17:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I'm not a big fan of autoblocks. The idea is good (to stop banned users from posting from their static IP) but it's faulty. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well that 205.guy started the best section I've read today. talk to +MATIA 23:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Userboxes

Userboxes (talk • contribs)

This "user" was created by User:Crotalus horridus as a place to basically store as sub-pages those userbox templates which have been put forward for deletion, either as speedy deletions under the new rule or Wikipedia:Templates for deletion (example). This is an end run around deletion process. Please block the user indefinitely and delete its sub-pages. Crotalus horridus has been trolling around userboxen lately and probably deserves at least a warning for this new disruption. -- Netoholic @ 10:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• This is simply more harassment from Netoholic. Wikipedia:Use of userboxes is a policy proposal that attempts to resolve some of the userbox issues by moving them from template space into user space. I recently discussed the possibility of opening a RFAr on Netoholic with another user, and this is clearly an attempt at retaliation. Netoholic spends most of his time hassling other users and revert-warring over templates, and very little actually contributing to the encyclopedia. He also routinely assumes bad faith of other users, with the above "trolling" comment being just the latest example. In fact, I am attempting to find a compromise to avoid this absurd, interminable war over userspace content. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 10:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I deleted the subpages, which were all clones of T1-speedied templates or templates that still exist. I don't doubt Crotalus horridus' good faith belief that he's doing nothing wrong here, but this kind of recreation is not right. Putting a template into user-space for the purpose of transclusion doesn't exempt it from the requirement of not being inflammatory and divisive. --Tony Sidaway 10:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • T1 applies to templates and since these are in userspace they are not templates, any more than if they had been subst:'ed into a page. Although I don't use controversial userboxes myself (I have only twelve, none of which express political/religious opinions) I'm tired of seeing good editors getting pushed around in this fashion. No compromise is good enough for the anti-userbox faction, only outright capitulation. I see no reason why contributors on a volunteer project should have to put up with this level of PHBism. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 10:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Of course they're bloody templates. They're certainly being used as such. There is also AC precedent (the last Anthony diPierro case) that recreating deleted content in userspace to keep it there may be sanctionable behaviour. You're creating them to keep around and use just like the previous templates; claiming that they are technically not templates because they're in a different space doesn't really fly - David Gerard 00:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You have the right to fork and create a more social encyclopedia project; you also have the RightToLeave. Jimbo has said what sorts of things he'd like to avoid on user pages, and WP:CSD#T1 has been clarified to address all pages intended for transclusion. -- Netoholic @ 11:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh, as Anthony's advocate in that case, I would like to correct you with the statement of principle on which the AC agreed unanimously: "A user may say whatever he/she wants on his/her user page within reason (e.g. Wikipedia:No personal attacks). However, Wikipedia is not a hosting service, and you should generally avoid any substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:Userpage.) See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anthony_DiPierro_2#Userpages. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 01:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Erm, templates is templates. They're templates because of their well, templatyness, not because they happen to be in space xyz: . Else I could just make a new pseudo...... wait... let's not give people ideas. Kim Bruning 11:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm about >< this fucking close to quitting the project entirely. I deal with enough control freaks and PHBs in real life - I don't need to deal with them on my free time as well. For months, I have tried to remain civil even under extreme pressure. For months, I have attempted to contribute as much worthwhile content to the encyclopedia as I can. And my reward is an utter, contemptuous dismissal of my views and my attempts at reasonable compromise by the self-appointed "defenders" of Wikipedia. They argue that userboxes are divisive - well, I don't recall any such divisiveness before they started deleting them. THIS IS A VOLUNTEER PROJECT. You need to treat people with respect if you want them to keep contributing. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 11:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

While 'userifying' templates has generally been allowed in the past I agree that there are other factors involved in this case. Normally people object that an article or template is not notable or general/use enough... and therefor that it should be userified. In this case however, the objection is not that the template is not for general use, but rather that it is 'disruptive'. Like the 'war on drugs' that argument will probably go on forever, but the point is that moving such templates to user space in this case does not eliminate the objection. Mind you, I think the anti-userbox crusade has done more damage to the project than little rectangles with words and pictures ever could have. Just commenting on the difference from other userified templates. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 11:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's high time everyone get off the userbox schtick. -- Jbamb 16:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at Boxes (talk • contribs)? I think it's a similar case, if not the same person. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Boxes (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) temporarily as a suspected sockpuppet of Userboxes (talk • contribs). We don't need this kind of duplication and fragmentation. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not me. The only account other than my main one that I have used was User:Userboxes and this was openly stated on the user page. Feel free to run CheckUser to verify this. I didn't even know about that account's existence until I received the following email: "Can you please tell Mark Sweep that You and I are not the same person." Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked User:Boxes after verification. Physchim62 (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of drum & bass on-line purchasing sites

I nominated this site for deletion a while ago, and it was accordingly deleted just recently. It was immediately re-listed... so quick in fact, that when I listed for AfD again, it directs to the original AfD page that has been closed for comment. [27] I wanted to list it for speedy-deletion, but I do not know how to proceed since the article's entry on AfD is preserved as an archive of the debate. Help?! Themindset 18:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As a speedy candidate, it doesn't need to be relisted on AfD — so I've just gone ahead and deleted it. For future reference, just add a speedy deletion tag with a reason and a link to the old AfD discussion, and it will be re-deleted promptly. —Cleared as filed. 18:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copy vios/image tagging - when is enough enough?

I'm having a hard time getting User:Rick lay95 to take copyright issues seriously. He's been blocked twice now for repeatedly adding copy vios (the second time he was blocked, I'm convinced he set up a sock puppet account, User:Zeo6 to get round the block, although Zeo6 claims to be a friend of Rick's who uses the same IP address, replicates his deleted edits, re-uploads his deleted images, makes the same spelling mistakes and uses the same phrases as him. Oh, and who stopped editing once the block on Rick lay95's IP had been lifted). He continues to upload images without sourcing them and/or providing licensing details - I've now left my fourth message on his user talk offering to help him if he doesn't understand the process, but have yet to receive a single response either on my talk page or his. By looking at his talk page, you can see that he's now received 48 image tagging/licensing problem notifications. Is there a point at which users like this should be blocked indefinitely? CLW 19:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If he's in clear violation of policy, and has clearly been informed so, give him three warnings and then block. Warn them at the same time and block at the same time. For somethng so blatantly interrupting peoples' work, I'd start with the next step above 24hrs. Raise it each time. I don't know about indefinitely; the policy should have something on this. But certainly people who are wasting time should be dealt with. --DanielCD 19:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You might also see if someone can research the second account and verify it's a sock. If it is, it can be blocked perm. If it awakens when you block the first one, inform the first one in advance of what you suspect and that you will block that one when it awakens. If it's a "friend", they must be in contact, so I'd say it's safe to assume the warnings can count for both. --DanielCD 20:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's the old "my friend who shares the same IP address I do and who has exactly the same pattern of beliefs and behaviours I do, yet is an entirely different person who isn't me" fairytale. [28] -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Give 'em both another round of warnings and go up to a week. That's what I'd probably do. --DanielCD 20:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Block the sockpuppet account indefinitely, since it's being used to circumvent a block on another account. Leave a message for the main account regarding WP:SOCK and reiterate the contribution/copyright policy. If you read other messages on this board, you'll see that the WMF has asked us to take copyright issues very seriously. Uploading copyvios is unacceptable, and there is no wiggle room. Block the main account for a week if they continue despite the last warning, but watch for further sock activity. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia is too lenient on repeat copyright violators. The vast majority of the hundreds that I've found are from anonymous users that post a few times and then never come back, at least as far as I know. It's usually months to a year before I find them here, but they may come back later, have a dynamic IP or sign up for an account, though. However, when you find someone who is doing it repeatedly, I think they should be warned a few times and then blocked indefinitely. In addition to taking up valuable time and creating legal issues, some copyvios that I've found (while wikifying or clicking random article) have been edited extensively by multiple veteran users and admins, so some may never be identified. -- Kjkolb 10:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POINT Situation

I was wondering if some admins besides those involved would look into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Olympic_games_medal_count. A user, CyclePat (talk • contribs), has decided to nominate all the Olympic metal counts for deletion because they are "original research" and have no citations. I'm not sure how this can be original research, but myself as well as some other editors believe he is trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make some sort of point. Mike _{(T C)} 20:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As a vet of the CyclePat saga, I will say that the number one problem is that he sees a new policy and uses it without any concept of how or why it is used. It's disruptive as hell and it just goes on and on and on. This is the guy who has made a couple of very bad faith afd nominations and who keeps trying to make motorized bicycle into an Ontario only article and who has been doing that since October. He put electric bicycle up for articles for deletion when it's a redirect...and he put the redirect up for deletion in hope that it'd be kept, which again, is bad faith. And this isn't even covering most of what he's done. Oi. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Personally, I think a short block is in order. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

At this point you could make it a 3RR block over Template:Olympic games medal count. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Cyclepay just posted this to JzG's talk page, "I really didn't want them to be deleted either. But when you read wiki policy there are some issues that need solving with the list of articles". Basically admits he did it to make a point. Mike _{(T C)} 22:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block evasion

I not too clear on the policy on block evasions, can someone help here? Zordrac is blocked for 355 days, and still edits under the IP addresses of 203.122.219.64 and 203.28.159.170. Isn't this some kind of a violation? SWD316 ^{talk to me} 22:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course! How do you know it's him? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Look at this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Bauder&diff=prev&oldid=39396632, he admits it is him. Mike _{(T C)} 22:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Simple. He signed my user talk page as Zordrac. Little did I know after I looked at the contributions of Zordrac that he hasn't edited since January. He apparently hasn't found out that Wikipedia has a History on every page. ;-) What's going to happen to the anons? Block is my best guess. SWD316 ^{talk to me} 22:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I've done the honours. Also reverted the comments from article talk pages. Banned users don't get to discuss articles. They can often get around blocks. But they can't very easily get around being ignored. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Theresa. :-) SWD316 ^{talk to me} 22:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Administrator not acting professionally

Please see my comments regarding ChrisO who claims to be an administrator: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_mediation%2FDianetics&diff=39395458&oldid=39381978 --JimmyT 22:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

He is an admin, #102 on the list. Mike _{(T C)} 22:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the confirmation. What do you think about the way he is conducting himself? --JimmyT 22:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Not professionally? I guess we should halve his salary then ;-) What do you want us to do? The matter is already in mediation, and he is not using admin powers. This is not the place Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I did not know where else to complain about an admin. Thanks for the response and sorry to bother you (Can I have the half of his salary that you dock? ;) --JimmyT 22:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a mention that JimmyT isn't acting very civil either. Neener, neener. --Modemac 02:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes because I can find and print a link to Modemac's very civil and productive communication[29] --JimmyT 05:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection for Gettysburg Address

Is it still accepted policy to not protect today's featured article except as an absolute last resort? User:Maveric149 has semi-protected the article Gettysburg Address, which hasn't received an excessive amount of vandalism considering it is today's featured article. The vandalism that does appear is all being reverted quickly, and this doesn't seem like a necessary step (apparently taken because one user suggested it on the article's talk page). I've asked the protecting admin on his talk page to lift the protection, but as he doesn't seem interested, I bring the issue here, not only for this article, but for a clarification of people's thoughts on protecting the day's featured article in general. —Cleared as filed. 22:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Didn't notice this post over here until now, but I've just unprotected it, left a note on the talk page and on Mav's talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

(ec) Oh, as for my thoughts: articles featured on the main page should never be semi-protected or protected unless facing a clear bot attack. See User:Raul654/protection. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

A serious bot attack is the bar we have for protection now? Have we lost our minds? We need to instead look at the pros vs the cons of soft protecting the page. It is VERY obvious to me that anons and new users were having a HUGELY negative net effect on the edit history and very little of what they did to the article was helpful. Thus protecting is the best action. But I will not wheel war over this. --mav

(ec) And I won't either. :-) However, note that it is standard for a FA linked from the main page to receive larger amounts of vandalism than user; however, there are many benefits, many of them listed at User:Raul654/protection. Not only do many FAs get improved by anons (see User:Raul654/protection for some examples), but they help introduce Wikipedia to many potential users and contributors. Again, I direct you to User:Raul654/protection. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That page keeps on getting hit by anons and new users. At least 20 reverts of vandalism have occurred on that page in less than one day. VERY little by way of improvement has been done by anons and new users to that page since it was put on the Main Page. The overwhelming effect from them has been negative. Thus they should be locked out. We must ask ourselves if having the page unprotected against anon and new user edits is worth all the work reverting and all the readers who will be subjected to the vandalism. Having vandalism even a couple minutes on such a high profile and linked page is not acceptable. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not as a social experiment on community development. I also responded to a request for protection by another user. See the talk page. --mav

Thanks for the reply! I've seen the talk page and posted there as well; it's simply against our customs, if not policy, to semi-protect FAs on the main page. Again, please see User:Raul654/protection, where he lays out a convincing argument. The amount of vandalism on the article is normal for an article linked from the main page; there's no exceptional circumstance justifying semi-protecting. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with keeping them unprotected. Its not a social experiment on cummunity development, rather the future of the wiki is dependent on new users, these new users are first exposed to front page articles, and protecting them discourages them from editing. I believe the policy is to protect it in order to QUICKLY clean up vandalism, nothing else. Mike _{(T C)} 22:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

In the long run, more people get a better product if the article is not protected than if it is; we are better off having to revert bad edits (which for the FA happens rather quickly) than losing good edits that we will never recover. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, the article wasn't under extremely heavy vandalism, we've seen much worse. Mass Rapid Transit was receiving vandalism every ten seconds or so, and we just dealt by it by blocking thowaway vandal accounts until the culprit got tired. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You should have seen the barrage Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy was getting when it was linked from ITN. It was being edited several times a minute!Secretlondon 00:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

After seeing the reactions on the news, I say we were lucky that we weren't a) hacked b) firebombed (as the Dutch consolates were). Mike _{(T C)} 00:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Well a)mediawiki appears to be pretty resitant to that kind of thing and b) there isn't much to firebomb.

Sure there is, the actual servers, homes of the board perhaps? Mike _{(T C)} 03:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Well the servers are spread across three continets and none of our board memebers are in denmark. We are way down the list in terms of targets.Geni 03:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "invisible character" usernames

In recent days, someone has repeatedly tried to create "invisible character" usernames (eg, using Unicode LEFT-TO-RIGHT EMBEDDING character, etc). I've blocked these, but beware of this person asking to be unblocked. See User talk:‪‪ for instance. Please don't unblock any of these, the fact that he's lying about the characters in this username (claiming that they're Chinese) is a very clear sign of bad faith. -- Curps 07:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks Curps. As usual, you've managed to stay ahead of the vandals (or at least very close behind them). – ClockworkSoul 16:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Molise Croatian/Molise Slavic

There's a rather heavy revert and move war, on the verge of 3RR, on Molise Croatian dialect/Molise Slavic dialect article between User:Kubura and User:Zmaj versus User:Luka Jačov, with little or no discussion on the issues. Duja 08:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian copyright tags on TFD

I've just placed {{PD-USSR}} and {{Sovietpd}} on WP:TFD, for lack of any better way of dealing with them. Since it had been mentioned in the context of that mistaken GermanGov template that TFD wasn't really the right place for getting image copyright tag templates deleted out of legal reasons, I'd like to get some other copyright-savvy people go take a look at this extended discussion and then voice their take on the issue at the TFD here. Thanks. Lupo 09:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Server lag...error and JS script

I keep getting this error:

Fatal error: Call to undefined function: dba_open() in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/Title.php on line 436

My monobook no longer works and the main page did not exist for a few minutes. The lag is pretty bad to. Also...I added this comment via section editing and it blanket the rest, I had to fix it. Where are the devs? What is going on?Voice of All^T|@|ESP 18:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm having identical problems. –Joke 18:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I got that error constantly for the past 5-7 hours with the exception of a few minutes here and there. However, I'm now getting the Main Page (and all of Wikipedia for that matter) with no lag for the first time in hours! My monobook was working during the few times I got Wikipedia hours back and is still working now. --M@thwiz2020 18:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, change that. I have no read lag but an extremely long write lag. --M@thwiz2020 18:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New section

I am creating a new section to test the above theory. --M@thwiz2020 18:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Now editing section to see if it clears rest of article. --M@thwiz2020 18:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Darn! I got that fatal error while clicking save for the first time here. I hoped that had gone away! --M@thwiz2020 18:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone with access to IRC know what's going on? Is it over? Chick Bowen 21:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, zwinger (DNS, NFS, mail, various other services) died, bringing down lots of other servers due to NFS misconfigurations. —bbatsell ¿? 21:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's obviously not quite over, because I still keep getting logged out. At least it's not blanking things when you click the edit button anymore. There might be some accidentally blanked articles out there if they haven't already been caught by RC patrollers. Chick Bowen 22:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

At least the database is unlocked now, but I'm still getting error messages about loss of session data when i try to click the save page button.--Alhutch 22:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, see Wikinews:Wikipedia_suffers_outage. Steve Summit (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)