Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive131

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of The UPN Vandal. 2 Anonymous IP addresses 99.235.43.93 and 24.36.9.241 continuing to make personal attacks 3 IP range contributions 4 MfD Backlog 5 Bad image list candidate 6 user Jakezing 7 Problematic name move 8 Username RFC in need of closing 9 Style problem 10 Malicious reporting 11 Blanking or deleting userpages for indef blocked users 12 Anon from US - warning 13 User:Patmar15 14 sock puppetry or coincidence or something else 15 David Shankbone 15.1 Support for rangeblock 16 BLP problem 17 Ban for persistent sock puppetry 18 Second opinion for spammer (User:Wcfirm, Channing Tatum) 19 Jimmy Wales 20 Inappropriate username? 21 reporting 22 Template:Userrights 23 Second Opinion 24 Archiving 25 In regards to User:AFI-PUNK... again 26 AutoWikiBrowser approval list 27 Image issues? 28 Wanted categories 29 It's baaaaack...... 30 Need an AfD enforced 31 Vanishing Diff Content and Incivility 32 Moving page oddness 33 A bit of fun 34 Would somebody please go and re-semi-protect WP:AN? 35 Account that only inserts external links 36 User posting non-english new pages 37 Re User:Beatlesnicole userpage 38 RfB passing % discussion 39 User:224jeff6 40 Linkspam needs warning and reverting 41 Comments requested: RFCU for IPs 42 User:Lir 43 IAR and role account 44 Lir - final chance 45 WikiMedia Foundation activities in February 2008 46 User:68.236.154.131 47 Fight Club 48 Desperately Seeking Administrator [resolved] 49 Burnham Park 50 Broken Sword 51 Need Ukrainian reading admin to check for Holocaust denial sources 52 Move requests 52.1 Pat Ryan move in favor of dab page 52.2 Gordon Bell 52.3 Clarence Williams 52.4 Willie Johnson 52.5 Jumbo Elliott 52.6 Breaking 52.7 Car wash 52.8 Washington Park (disambiguation) 52.9 Simple solution 53 Request for use of a "bad image" 54 Jimbo Username 55 User:Nmate 56 How can I complain against an admins actions? 57 Repeated re-creation of hoax/vandalism page 58 Chiropractic probation? 58.1 New proposal for discretionary sanctions 58.1.1 Support 58.1.2 Oppose 58.1.3 Other 58.2 Violation of own sign 58.3 Note on !vote above 58.4 Instruction creep 59 Votestacking at WP:FPC 59.1 Image found notes 59.2 More notes 59.3 Commons uploaded images 59.4 One final deletion 60 WoW is back 61 Another pair of socks... 62 Favour required 63 Sanity check requests of possible "permission-only" image

[edit] Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of The UPN Vandal.

The UPN Vandal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) seems to be back (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 that I've blocked so far). Most are in the 172.x.x.x range, and add large amounts of questionable, uncited text to articles (usually film/television articles). I've been blocking on sight for a year, is that an appropriate amount of time? · AndonicO ^Hail! 12:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it would seem to me that if he's going through that big a range (mostly 172.128.0.0-172.191.255.255), then the IP addresses are highly dynamic - and shouldn't be blocked for any significant length of time. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Does one month sound okay? · AndonicO ^Hail! 14:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If there is clearly several edits from any given IP at one time, I would block for a few hours, more than that would be unlikely to do any good. If there is no such pattern, it's unclear that any block will stop him - a range block is out of the question. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The major range is 172.128.0.0/10 and the range belongs to American Online. Blocking that range will block most of AOL. These are likely dial-up dynamic IPs and any single IP block more than a few hours is pointless. He just logs out, reconnects and continues as if nothing has happened. If people could report and block immediately we could limit the damage but he is still getting the full 4 warnings before the blocks. I block on sight without bothering with any pointless warnings - I wish others would too. I have been going over some of the targets and there is a lot of uncaught and un-reversed corruption. I have also semi-protected some of the most common targets. I propose we block the range for anon only, account creation allowed for about a month. I don't want to do that myself for this large a range without consensus. --NrDg 18:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Another thought, reporting this abuse to AOL might result in his AOL account being blocked but I doubt AOL would do anything. Also kind of pointless as he will just create another AOL account and continue. He also uses AT&T and UUNET. I think all we can realistically do is block immediately and rollback everything before the damage gets hidden by subsequent edits.--NrDg 18:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous IP addresses 99.235.43.93 and 24.36.9.241 continuing to make personal attacks

After vandalizing Wikipedia pages and my userpage, User talk:99.235.43.93 is on his third block, this time for a week. Despite being warned about removing notices from talk pages, he continues to do so, and he also adds strange notices to his talk page like "Starbucks has bad coffee". Now he is resorting to personal attacks on his talk page, and after denying that he did any vandalism, now is saying that I deserved it when he vandalized my userpage. Because of the complex edits he makes to templates, it is obvious that he is actually an experienced user. Maybe we can file for Checkuser? Another IP address, User talk:24.36.9.241, which is also been associated with vandalism on the same pages at the same time, is now also making personal attacks on User talk:99.235.43.93. The IP address User talk:24.36.9.241 is most likely a friend that User talk:99.235.43.93 recruited to help him out with the vandalism, and make the personal attakcs. Please extend block for both users and protect talk pages. Thank you. (If you have to respond to me for anything, please do so on my talk page. Thanks!) DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 19:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The quickest way of getting vandals blocked is WP:AIV, so you should use that option in the future. I checked the logs, and 99.235.43.93 is blocked for a week and 24.36.9.241 is not blocked. The only reason I can see why there is no block on the latter is that the ip provider is highly dynamic (so it says on the ip talkpage), and the one edit made today was 15+ hours before your comments above, the ip is likely re-assigned so a block would possibly effect someone who isn't a vandal (or, at least, not the one who did that edit.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

They're marked as dynamic, but both seem to have been used exclusively by single users since 29 Feb or so, at least. Converted the block on 99.235.43.93 (talk · contribs) to a hard block on that basis (and the mention of experience). 24.36.9.241 (talk · contribs) is apparently a factor in the situation, but hasn't done much, so I'm more inclined to wait and see on that count. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

24.36.9.241 (talk · contribs) was reported [1] to AIV today, however I declined to block [2] because while this edit was perhaps incivil, at 16 hours old, it was way to stale for an AIV report. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP range contributions

I'm not sure how much this has been sent around, but posting here to make sure admins are aware...a recent change to the API (last one in the list) now allows the contributions of an entire IP range to be checked, which should be useful in estimating the collateral damage of a range block. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Can this be done via special:contributions? —Random832 19:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe so. It's meant to use the API method of looking up user contribs, but using ucuserprefix in place of the old ucuser. You can set the number of contribs to list (always lists from most recent) by adding &uclimit=<number>. I assume that might not make any sense (I had to play with it to figure it out), but here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=usercontribs&uclimit=500&ucuserprefix=71.87 that lists the last 500 contributions from the entire 71.87.0.0/16 range. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Splarka has written a pretty interesting user script related to this: User:Splarka/contribsrange.js. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MfD Backlog

The listing here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive130#MfD_Backlog was never resolved, there remain discussions from the 16th and 17th of last month that need closing.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on it. нмŵוτнτ 20:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The MfD backlog has been cleared. нмŵוτнτ 21:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks!--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to steal Doug's thunder, but we've also got a backlog going back to the 17th over at WP:RM if anyone can help out. Thanks. :) JPG-GR (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bad image list candidate

This one really ought to be on the list [3]. Polly (Parrot) 21:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done, but I don't know whether to allow it on the userpage that links to it. I've added the article, but not the userpage —αlεx•mullεr 21:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] user Jakezing

User:Jakezing called me "fucking idiot" just because my edit gave him edit conflict notice. Here is his edit - [4]. I demand reaction. --Avala (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning re civility left for User:Jakezing. However, "demand" isn't a great word to use either. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. 'S what I get for taking too long typing. :p – Luna Santin (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. p.s. it might be my English but demand for me is just a bit stronger word for ask when I try to emphasize the importance of reaction. Thanks again. --Avala (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem there, I realised you didn't mean it like that, after all in French, "demander" is pretty much the same as "request", if I remember correctly. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in English a demand is more of an order to do something then a request. Prodego ^talk 00:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problematic name move

I intended to move U.S. Army and CIA interrogation manuals but moved the talk page instead. I can fix this using redirects. Or should the move be reversed first? Sorry for my mistake.Ultramarine (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it (after a lot of faffing around and moving it to the wrong title twice. Viridae^Talk 22:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! But I see no move button on the main article page? Ultramarine (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been move protected since July. Corvus cornix_talk 23:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Username RFC in need of closing

The RFCN for User:Justjihad has been running for a long time now, far longer than the usual 5 days, and no comments are being added anymore. Could an admin versed in the username policy pop over and close the discussion? Is he back? (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Closed the discussion as defaulting to allow the username; discovered Doc had blocked the account in the meantime (see User talk:Doc glasgow#Well, this is awkward). Since my close was focusing on the username alone, and his reply makes it clear that he took behavior into account as well, that may not be a conflict. Noting it here in case there's any further feedback on that. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As you noted on the RFC, Luna, I think context is important here. I have no problem giving the benefit of the doubt to a quality editor in a borderline username case. In this case, the offense was relatively minor (and certainly explicable by a more level-headed user), but he insisted on being tendentious, immature, and insulting (this [5] lovely diff speaks volumes). At the risk of sounding cynical, I concur with Doc as to this editor's lack of potential. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 04:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Style problem

Authority (talk · contribs) keeps making this edit to Rich Fields, which breaks links and is against the Manual of Style. I've reverted it a few times, and left a message on his talk page, but he hasn't replied to me, and indeed made the edit again after I left the message. What should I do about this? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've given a {{uw-mos2}} warning. There's not much else to do then to revert and ignore. — Edokter • Talk • 02:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Malicious reporting

Hi if you believe you were reported maliciously (as in you didnt break the rules, they know you didnt either but still report you) can you bring a claim against an editor? Realist2 (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a court of law and there's no such thing as a "claim" in the sense you used it (one can "claim" that an event occured, but not "bring a claim" in the sense of starting proceedings with the intent to be awarded damages [wikidollars? ha!]). Have you tried discussing it with the person on their user talk page first? That is generally the first stept to resolving a dispute. See also WP:DR. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking or deleting userpages for indef blocked users

Why is it that we blank or delete the userpages for all indef blocked users? Some are trolls or whatever, and shouldn't be worth even a mention, but some are different. Some users have been around for years, and for one unfortunate reason or another, are unable to productively work with the rest of the community (for a lack of better words). These users often have a great deal of valuable contributions, and at one time where considered users in good standing. Blocking is not punishment, and blanking or deleting a userpage is not some way to embarrass or ridicule those who are blocked.

People seem to have confused the reasons behind blanking/deleting userpages, in that those reasons don't apply to every situation of an indef block. It's very unfortunate that whatever situation came to an indef block, but allowing that to taint that user's entire history on Wikipedia isn't right. We don't delete userpages for users that are no longer active, and that's how we should treat these users. Unless they're a troll or a vandal, or the content of the userpage is related to why they were blocked, leave it alone. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Simple vandals and trolls who only make half-dozen edits? Delete. Established contributors with decent, notable edits who unfortunately are indefinitely blocked should stay, especially when they relate to sockpuppetry, as that further documentation could be useful down the track. This is of course excepting rare circumstances where either right to vanish or real-life names are involved. Daniel (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too, Daniel summed it up well and....I agreed with Ned...(gosh I've gone all dizzy....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: Is there a specific incident we're referring to here? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, User:EliasAlucard. It was blanked and the indef template applied, Carcharoth removed the temp category, Tourskin posted a note to the userpage, Boodlesthecat removed it, Tourskin posted it again, IronDuke removed it... Ned restored the page, I blanked it again saying why I thought it was done, and Ned restored it, and Valtoras removed it again. Avruch ^T 14:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree mostly with Ned. As part of SSP it's mandatory to post the sock notice on the userpage (and these shouldn't be deleted). Only when userpages contain promotional material; contain only indef-block notices or otherwise vandal notices should they be deleted. Rudget. 14:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Any user or usertalk page with a non-trivial history should not be deleted. It's only really the throwaway vandal-only accounts and usernameblocks where it's appropriate. The pages can be blanked or replaced on occasions, but should not be deleted. I think we are talking here about replacing the page with a banned template? That is quite consistent with policy. The other way to deal with it is to subst the indefblock template to remove the temp category. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah we're talking about blanking. Carcharoth removed the temporary page category already, using some new magic word I think. Avruch ^T 14:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a magic word. I used "category=" which avoids all categories called by templates with the right coding unless you specify them manually. This template also has a "historical" parameter that can be used. Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) For the record: I'm the one who blanked User talk:EliasAlucard's talk page - it contained very offensive racial attacks, including in the unblock requests he had posted. I'd be all in favor of not deleting them (I'd rather that record was left alone), but I don't think the contents should be restored to plain view. — Coren ^(talk) 15:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno. Keeping the talk page up makes it quite clear why he's banned. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The history serves that purpose adequately (especially when combined with the block message), IMO. I don't see any reasons to leave the bile in plain view. *shrug*, I don't feel strongly about it either way, though. — Coren ^(talk) 20:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you could argue either way. Hiding it by blanking will pique the curiosity of some. I only scanned through the bottom half and it seemed more silly than anything else. Leaving it there highlights the problem and leaves no doubt to any who pass by why he was indefblocked. OTOH it may serve as some form of graffitti, so maybe that is a reason for blanking the invective...interesting. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The talk page blanking was fine, because of the racial remarks. My concern was more to do with the userpage itself, which didn't seem to have a similar issue. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• I re-blanked it until--and unless--there is consensus here to let the content stay up. Bellwether ^B_C 06:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see the point to leaving his user page up, and from what I've seen, it's standard to blank it, then leave a box indicating an indef ban. I see no reason to make an exception for this person, and I would ask that Ned Scott get a clear consensus before altering the page again. IronDuke 23:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no consensus to blank it in the first place, and this is nothing more than a content dispute at this point. Do we need to do a little history lesson here? This practice was for trolls and vandals, not users who at one time were editors in good standing, but unfortunately are no longer able to work with the community. To help clarify this I started this thread, which has other users agreeing with the logic. On the other hand we have users saying "we blank because that's what someone else did". That's not a very convincing argument to reblank. -- Ned Scott 18:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you know there was no consensus to blank it was not discussed when people decided a ban was appropriate? For the record I don't see the problem with the blanking why is this such a big issue? If you think this should not be blanked then get a consensus but edit warring is not the way to go. David D. (Talk) 18:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If it was not discussed then that is even more proof that there is no consensus. Asking that I find consensus to unblank is ass-backwards and totally not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. So far, in this discussion, the arguments to unblank are far stronger than the ones to blank, which consist entirely of "we did it for other users" rather than having any explanation. After 24 hours I will restore the userpage, per consensus, unless anyone beats me to it. -- Ned Scott 19:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. An edit was made to add the template and blank the user page. It is not unprecedented, so no big deal. You are now edit warring to revert that edit, which is a big deal. If you're so worried about it get a communitiy consensus that backs up your idea, but do not edit war with several other editors. This is exactly the wrong way to try and achieve your goal. David D. (Talk) 21:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverting users who don't have a valid rationale for blanking is rather logical. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

According to you they don't have a valid rationale. Personally, i see no reason for a banned indef-blocked user to have a trophy user page, what is the argument against blanking it? And how does a user get a tainted history by having a blanked user page as opposed to a prominent "Indef BannedBlocked" template? The blanked page seem to be the least of such a users problems. I have no problem with the talk page being left if you wish to do that. David D. (Talk) 06:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Indefblocked, not indefbanned. What is your opinion on such pages being deleted? Deletion seems to me to be an extra signal on top of everything else, saying "go away and never come back". Where is the option for reform and return given in this "delete" and "temporary pages" languge? The point about indefinite blocking as opposed to an actual formal banning process (and yes, I know about the "if no-one is prepared to unblock they are de facto banned" clause, but opinions change with time), is that it can be appealed at any time and lifted or reduced. In that case, those who had a history of good contributions, who do something wrong that earns an indefinite block, and who then apologise and/or reform, shouldn't have to go through an extra, unnecessary step of asking for their pages to be undeleted. Deletion of throwaway account pages should be routine. Deletion of the user pages of those who are part of the history of the project, shouldn't be routine. Carcharoth (talk) 07:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake, i mean indefblocked. I don't think the user page should be deleted, i don't think I ever mentioned it should be deleted. And the current edit war is not over whether it should be deleted. I think blanking the user page is acceptable, that is what Ned disagrees with and is reverting. David D. (Talk) 08:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The only rationale given so far is that "we did it for someone else". Userpages aren't trophies. The idea that they could be used as such comes from vandals and trolls, not from users who were formally editors in good standing. Your own assertions on this thread are a prime example of people losing sight of why we did something in the first place: it was for trolls and vandals, it wasn't for every situation. -- Ned Scott 07:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by editor in good standing. This user has been editing in a similar way for a long time. The only reason he was in good standing was because AGF was extended for a long time. This is an example of the last straw that finally breaks the camel's back. So technically he was in good standing, but he was rapidly building his history that led to the indefblock. This is not some sudden explosion of undesirable activity that led to community action. If that were the case I could understand your argument. David D. (Talk) 08:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The instructions on Template:Indefblockeduser do point people to a "historical" parameter that can be used, but I fear many admins don't bother to use this when putting the template on the pages of established contributors that get blocked. One way to address this is to make the "historical" option the default, and to make "delete" the option that has to be typed or pasted in. Carcharoth (talk) 12:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is so that long term trolls don't have trophy pages... I can think of one user who's username started with T that has a circus for a talk page after being blanked and was advertising it on his blog. That was eventually deleted, good. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so it would make sense to force people to think about whether user pages of indef blocked users should be deleted or not, and then add a "delete" parameter accordingly. It would be a simple change in the template coding, but the problem is actually drawing this to the attention of the people that use the indefblocked template. Carcharoth (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

While I'm also making an argument over blanking, in the very least I completely agree with Carcharoth's comments here regarding full deletion. -- Ned Scott 07:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anon from US - warning

Hi, I'm Darkbirds fom hungary. Check this IP, please: 208.20.123.28. He is wrote to huwiki:

Will kill everyone in my school then myself. Because you guys don't speak English I can tell you. So haha to you fucktarts..watch the news and see what happens. 208.20.123.28 (vita) 2008. március 5., 16:19 (CET) ([6],[7])

I see on enwiki this page: [8], the anon from Charles H. McCann Technical High School. Mybe just a joke, but many "school-massacres" in the news. Sorry for my very bad english. Darkbirds (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed the principal and assistant principal with a link to the post and an explanation of what's apparently going on. I'll let everyone know if they reply. Alternatively, if somebody wants to do something more direct like phoning, they're more than welcome [9] —αlεx•mullεr 16:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

They've replied to my email, so they're aware of the situation. We're in touch —αlεx•mullεr 18:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Great! What did he answer? Darkbirds (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He wanted to know whether there was any way to track who posted the message from in their school, and I told him to probably get in touch with their IT or computing department or technicians. And since there's been nothing in the news, I assume it was all fine —αlεx•mullεr 23:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Patmar15

User:Patmar15 keeps constantly screwing around with the Template:Destroy All Humans! and I keep telling him not to or I'll report him but he ignores me and keeps meesing with the template. He also used rude language on my talk page and followed me to the Destroy All Humans! Big Willy Unleashed page and undid one of my edits. He either needs to be blocked or something. --Naruto134 00:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You told him in what I possibly consider the rudest way possible, telling him he has no right to "screw" with the template. So he wants to reorganize it by when the DAH games take place (1950s, 1970s)? Link him to WP:WAF and tell him that we organize by real-world content, that is by order of games, instead of telling him to screw off. [10] And blanking his message [11] and ending the conversation is actually a very good way to facilitate communication in ensuring that his feelings are hurt even more and that he feels like he's being even more ignored. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sock puppetry or coincidence or something else

I don't know what to make of it, but

Dunnijc (talk & contribs) made this edit (diff to The Chaser's War on Everything.

I noted his talk page with a nonsense message (history).

Then a few minutes later from Paul Brennan (talk & contribs) made a message (diff) on my talk page saying I put a message in the wrong place.

User Paul brennan has not made an edit in 9 months and other than that time has not made an edit in 1 year and a half.

I'm not sure where to put this notice either, so any future reference would be nice too. It may also be a minor problem and if so, I'm sorry.  SpecialWindler talk  10:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My gut instinct is this is a coincidence, the users have very different styles. Much more likely is that Paul Brennan didn't log in, and got a message you left for another user at a dynamic IP, possibly a message you left a long time ago, then logged in before leaving a message for you. That's happened to me before a couple of times. A short message on his page explaining this, and saying you didn't intend any warnings for him should be all that's needed. --barneca (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou.  SpecialWindler talk  11:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Shankbone

This is a request that the IP ranges found here User:David Shankbone/76.72 be blocked. The first IP range has been engaged in libel on Wikipedia against me, and I supply the diffs that show that. Additionally, they continue to edit-war, disrupt and troll the project as it deals with me and my work. Since this has been going on for a few weeks, and since the activity is illegal, I'm asking for a project-wide ban on the first IP range. The second IP range is an accomplice (they at times edit simultaneously) who engages in edit-warring, but not the crime of libel as the first IP range has. The things they are writing are illegal, I will be filing an abuse report with Bell Atlantic, and I have already contacted an attorney to look into criminal prosecution for smearing my reputation, the evidence of which is more than provided on User:David Shankbone/76.72. We will first see what Bell Atlantic can do in terms of providing help in finding out who is behind the libel. --David Shankbone 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And the evidence, IP ranges, etc. I supplied are by no means exhaustive. --David Shankbone 22:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you possibly in violation of WP:NLT here? *Dan T.* (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. I will let other editors decide after looking at the evidence, but regardless it's time to say enough. --David Shankbone 22:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

David - relax, lay off the legalisms, and the admins handle it.

Checkuser shows that range is pretty active, so blocking the whole /16 block is probably not a good idea. When I have more time later tonight, I'll do the back of the envelope calculations to find the minimum CIDR to block. Raul654 (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I will heed your advice. --David Shankbone 22:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime the campaign continues, see diff. . .R. Baley (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How is a content disagreement over image inclusion an illegal smear? *Dan T.* (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh the content disagreement is just one tiny related matter. . .there's the smears + the content removal. Two prongs on the same fork. R. Baley (talk) 00:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The image removals aren't illegal smears; they are edit-wars against multiple editors, completely rejecting consensus. R. Baley is right - there are several prongs to this person's hate: First, illegal smears; Second, edit wars against consensus; Third, multi-forum disruption. I thought the evidence page fleshed that out clearly. --David Shankbone 01:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remove or strike the legal threats/rhetoric. Viridae^Talk 01:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Stating someone has done something illegal, calling a spade a spade, is not the same as threatening to take action against them, which is a legal threat. I have struck out the legal threat, but if you would like to play with the wording to hide what is clear then you are welcome to do so, but I feel I have already complied with policy. --David Shankbone 01:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Our policies on legal threats are designed to apply to interaction between good-faith users. In the past, the community has held discussion on potential legal action against banned vandals and trolls. See this discussion about Willy on Wheels (scroll down to where it says " Willy on Wheels legal action?"), and this discussion about The Communism Vandal which also discussed the potential of taking legal action. *** Crotalus *** 16:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The minimum CIDR to block all the currently listed IPs in the 76.72 is /17. Raul654 (talk) 16:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, a large block. But it may be that a brief exemplary block will suffice to show that we mean business and we can, should we choose, stop this festival of stupid. It is a large range to block to stop one abuser, but they are pretty determined. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think a brief block is a good first step, although I think Guy has been on the money in his observations. This person clearly shows some sort of obsession disorder that I think will prove any brief block futile, but I don't like the idea of blocking such a huge range for a long time. Does anyone know how they are tag-teaming with the other IP range? I have alerted Verizon/Bell Atlantic; I've always been curious how that system works. This would not be a big deal if we didn't have good-faith editors on the talk page questioning the legitimacy of this IP's harassment, which is what makes it defamatory. If nobody was listening and taking up the IP's arguments (say, by researching over-exposed, over-photoshopped PR shots of people to say 'Wow, they look nothing like these other photos'). --David Shankbone 18:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As I point out on my Talk page, the IP's obsession has been self-defeating, since when this IP started trolling in February he doubled the traffic to 800 hits a day on Lucas' article. So if the goal was to get people to not learn and think about Michael Lucas, they clearly have failed; if the goal is to say he has views that some people may find distasteful or even offensive, I don't think that comes as a surprise for anyone when they find out his career. --David Shankbone 18:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(trolling removed) Tony Fox (arf!) 23:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that the comment above was posted by the harasser in question. It's a shame if David's "retirement" was hastened by admins' technical inability to block this person.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit harsh. The anon is only one of many who have been in dispute with David, and David has in the past been somewhat abrasive in his dealings with people who don't like his pictures. Range blocking is never done lightly, and WP:RBI can be applied uncontroversially to this particular anon, so the contribution of one obsessive idiot is not IMO that much of a big deal in the overall scheme of things. David's certainly shown himself more than capable of holding his own before now. Guy (Help!) 08:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

More people should take breaks from wikipedia. It is emotionally healthy. When it is right for David to unretire, he will. Meanwhile, I'm sure we all wish him well. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The harassment continues, even after David's latest retirement. I'm going to request protection.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected his userpage. Woody (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We really do need some sort of rangeblock here, or this IP is quite obviously going to keep it up. Playing whack-a-mole is going to get tiring after a while. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the ANI thread that was discussing a ban on the IP vandal? I can't find it on the board or in the archives. The IP has been posting absurd claims such as this. Enough is enough. Let's choose a nickname for this person and file it under long term vandalism. Suggest Gay pornography vandal. Durova^Charge! 00:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to the thread here. I'm going to let someone else bring it back up (not sure if it should be a sub section here or brought back to ANI). R. Baley (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The ban discussion is unanimous, but nobody closed it before it got bot-archived. Would an uninvolved administrator please review R. Baley's link and make this formal? Durova^Charge! 01:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

User was already blocked, but I added a notice, and put 'em on the list. Considering that David Shankbone seems to believe I'm his sworn enemy, I think this troll got the most favorable review he could ask for. This behavior is simply intolerable. Cool Hand Luke 01:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Luke. R. Baley (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support for rangeblock

The IP came back and vandalized the section again a bit ago. While that specific address is now blocked for a bit... Is there any interest in blocking the ranges? Seen as too severe? Possibly acceptable? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Keep in mind, these are big ranges we're talking about, we don't do /16-ish blocks for giggles. If it's felt to be appropriate I'll do one, but I want input first. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Support a rangeblock if possible. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 12:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to measure how great non-vandal traffic has historically been within that range?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If s/he edits again, I would support a soft range block on anons only for about 2 hours. Maybe repeat as needed? No guarantee a /16 will work though. . .seems like when I ran the range calculator on the IPs used a few days ago, it came back with a /12. . . R. Baley (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I did a couple /20 range blocks that seemed to slow things down a bit. If it makes the banned user have to reboot the modem three or four times to find an unblocked range, it's probably worth it.71.127.224.0/2072.68.112.0/20 —Wknight94 (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It does appear to have worked, and with minimal collateral damage, thanks Wknight. R. Baley (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BLP problem

See John McCain lobbyist controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and Vicky Iseman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (latter at WP:DRV). The lobbyist controversy article is absolutely crammed with weasel phrases, half the headings are alleged this and alleged that, but I don't know enough about US politics at the moment to begin to pick it apart. As far as I can tell, the story itself is essentially a fabrication used to attack McCain, but that might be as unreliable as everything else printed about politics during an election campaign. Whatever, I'd encourage any admins with a solid understanding of policy (and firm resolve) to pass by these articles and work on them, because to me an an outsider in anytign to do with US politics the former looks like a hatchet job and the latter like a coatrack (and I'm a card-carrying liberal at that). Guy (Help!) 12:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLPUNDEL it. Will ^(talk) 12:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This story was reported in the New York Times, who have insisted that their (unnamed) sources are true. Whether this incident is notable or not is disputable, but it is definitely not just an attack piece. - Revolving Bugbear 12:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that redirect got changed - I mean, get rid of the article. It's violated BLP since day one. I've redirected for the same reason. We can't have allegations in an article. Will ^(talk) 12:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, WP:BLPUNDEL (which, it should probably be noted, at least in passing, is not infrequently misused as editors misunderstand the Bdj RfAr and, more significantly, BLP and the community's construction thereof [the ArbCom, after all, does not make policy, and its interpretations can be overruled when the community undertakes to construe policy in a contrary fashion]) provides that an article summarily deleted per BLP should not be restored in the absence of a consensus for restoration. Here, we had a discussion, and the community, having considered all relevant issues, determined the article to be consistent with BLP. The consensus of insular discussions—which are presumed, open as they are, to reflect the judgments of the community about policy—is not to be overturned except where that consensus is plainly contrary to policy (which reflects generally a consensus of the community writ large), and here there is no plain error, and we need go no further down the road of the substitution of the application of policy of some group of editors, acting as individuals and without reference to a centralized, consensus-basedd discussion, for the deliberative application of policy by the community. Joe 18:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Many Wikipedians may not be aware that the New York Times' own Public Editor or ombudsman, Clark Hoyt, has severely criticised the Executive Editor, Bill Keller, for running the story: "The newspaper found itself in the uncomfortable position of being the story as much as publishing the story in large part because, although it raised one of the most toxic subjects in politics - sex - it offered readers no proof that McCain and (Vicki) Iseman had a romance...The article was notable for what it did not say. It did not say what convinced the (McCain) advisers that there was a romance. It did not make clear what Mr McCain was admitting when he acknowledged behaving inappropriately - an affair or just an association with a lobbyist that could look bad."[12]. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nail in the coffin, much? Will ^(talk) 13:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

First, it's Clark Hoyt's job to criticise NYT editors. But second, I didn't say that the NYT article meant it was true, just that it meant it was more than a wiki-fabrication. - Revolving Bugbear 13:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Guy's point is that the Times may not be a reliable source in this instance. Mackensen (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, um, no, of course The Times is a reliable source. That its reporting in this issue has been criticized is not in question. But the fact is, The Times reported it, has not retracted it and continues to stand behind its reporting. The Times is not a trash tabloid - it is the very farthest thing from that, in fact. It's essentially the newspaper of record for the United States. FCYTravis (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually all that misses the point - whether or not the Times is right does not change the fact that this is a clear case of WP:BLP1E. But there is still a huge problem with weasellery and other such naughtiness. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP1E? I missed the part where that applies to a major political question surrounding an American presidential candidate and undisputed public figure. When BLP1E is being used to erase mention and discussion of a still-smoldering political controversy that has gained wide attention and will surely continue to be an issue into the general election campaign, it's being misused. We BLP1E articles on <insert random Interwebs meme here>, not on national political scandals. I forked this article out of the Vicki Iseman biography specifically to prevent her biography from becoming a coatrack article about the scandal/controversy/whatever. FCYTravis (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E is a good justification for redirecting Vicki Iseman, but it doesn't apply to John McCain lobbyist controversy. In fact, the latter kind of article is precisely what we're supposed to do. We are supposed to have an article on the event, so we don't have to pretend that our description of the event is actually a "biography" of one of the participants. Whether or not the scandal has any substance in the opinions of various commentators here or elsewhere, the fact remains that it was published in major newspapers that are considered reliable sources in almost every other context, and the reporting itself was further discussed in secondary sources. That's more than enough basis for a valid Wikipedia article on the controversy. *** Crotalus *** 00:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that. WP:BLP1E is a problem with the Iseman article, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:V (no sources other than one newspaper reporter) and WP:WEASEL are, I think, issues in the controversy article. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not one newspaper reporter, four (Jim Rutenberg, Marilyn W. Thompson, David D. Kirkpatrick, and Stephen Labaton), plus two other people credited for help, all of whom work for America's "newspaper of record", and whose story, according to reports, was heavily vetted and sat on for months. No disrespect, Guy, but weasel-wording cuts both ways, and your making it sound as if this is the work of one hack journalist with some implied axe to grind is not on. --Calton | Talk 14:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just how it looks to an outsider with no real interest in US politics. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the article yet, but the story itself is not limited to the New York Times. The Washington Post, Newsweek and many other major mainstream news outlets have confirmed part or all of the story. One of McCain's top lieutenants for many years, John Weaver, is publicly on the record confirming part of the story. I'll go take a look, but there is not a problem with reliable sources being available here. The key point is, the NYT never said they had an affair, just that staff was worried about it enough to tell her to stay away. The real core of the allegation is closeness to lobbyists. Msalt (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ban for persistent sock puppetry

Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Neutralhomer, the user has repeatedly been creating sock puppets for block evasion. I think we should upgrade to a community ban. Jehochman ^Talk 15:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support.LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support for now. May change if evidence is presented the other way, which seems unlikely at this time. Rudget. 16:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 16:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Exit stage Left (or Right). --Hu12 (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - nothing controversial here. Hu12 put it quite fittingly.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• I am adding them to Wikipedia:List of banned users. Any administrator is welcome to remove them from the list and post a rationale here if they disagree. Jehochman ^Talk 17:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• User is banned, user evades ban, community washes hands of user. SOP. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• (First I should note that I have engaged Neutralhomer by e-mail in the past - I, however, intentionally do not disclose such information because, as I recall, I did not get permission from him to do so.) I would prefer that Neutralhomer not be banned. It is clear to me that he desires to help improve Wikipedia - unfortunately, it seems, inadvertent disruption follows. Has anyone considered first trying to contact Neutralhomer, then (if he wants to come back under one account and agrees to the following) (1) limiting him to one account and (2) doing a twinkle/popups/etc. ban? His and JPG-GR's interactions tend to be problematic, but I'm not certain if restrictions would be possible or productive, seeing as how they often work in the same areas of the encyclopedia. Perhaps we could think of something more creative than a ban? Thanks for your consideration, Iamunknown 20:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm all for assuming good faith and could've agreed with this after the first time he created a new account to evade a block. But, then he created another account to evade the block - and has a third one "waiting in the wings." JPG-GR (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Creating socks, and using them while blocked on the main account, is not "inadvertent disruption". Being blunt, having NH community banned also solves the JPG-GR interaction problem. Harsh position? Perhaps, but it is only NH's actions that have lead to it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I disagree with you on your last point - I don't think that only NH's actions have lead to it - and I don't think that a community ban is the only option. As long as Wikipedia is a relatively open project (with exception given to banned and blocked editors), I would prefer (in general) that we not ban editors who can constructively edit articles. That said, we seem to agree that there is a problem here (I just tend to mince my words). Hence my call for options more creative than a community ban. --Iamunknown 23:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
      • How about leaving the editor banned and then, if they have not engaged in further socking for a reasonable period of time, they can request to be unbanned. Jehochman ^Talk 23:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Um... the proposed community ban is in response to NH socking (persistently) while blocked - I don't see any cause other than the editors own actions in that matter. Okay, Jehochman's suggestion is the only alternative; banned - in being indef blocked while no sysop will unblock. Through the use of appeals and the provision of abiding by the communities sanction in not creating/operating of socks NH may be allowed to resume editing at some future date. I would support that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
        • We may be talking about different events. I am considering the ban of Neutralhomer in the context of NH's past history and interactions with other users (including some not named here). In my opinion, some of the previous blocks on his accounts were neither fair nor justified in terms of preventing disruption. A ban usually follows a series of blocks - if others held my same opinion (I don't necessarily expect them to), then the conclusion that a ban is (currently) unjustified might be reasonable. Hence my opinion that events and actions external to NH have lead to this ban - not just NH's actions. --Iamunknown 23:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I think I see what you're saying - you believe that the original reason for NH's month-long block is invalid. That can certainly be up for discussion, but his persistent use of socks instead of arguing for his unblock or taking a month off isn't. Whatever past infractions he's had, he's engaged in sockpuppetry actively twice (Flatsky, Tehunknown) with an additional account seemingly ready-to-go. JPG-GR (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Used up his chances. Sorry. ~ Riana ⁂ 23:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse community ban--reluctantly, but firmly. We had shared interests in TV history, and most of my interactions with him were positive. But the fact that he used a sleeper account TWICE after being blocked decided it for me. Blueboy96 22:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I also slapped a block on one of his former accounts, Orangemonster2k1 (talk · contribs), to prevent it from being used as a sleeper. Blueboy96 22:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second opinion for spammer (User:Wcfirm, Channing Tatum)

I was directed to Wcfirm (talk · contribs) who has been relentlessly promoting his (her?) site for actor Channing Tatum. Wcfirm has made over 200 mainspace edits over the last year and almost all of them are to Channing Tatum. My first impulse was to get the blocks started but he is now claiming that his site is "official" despite being a blogspot.com site. Even if it is the actor's official site, the situation still seems very fishy. Warnings have been given over the last year - usually triggering long responses - but no blocks have been levied.

Opinions? I have not yet notified Wcfirm about this as I wanted to get some feedback first. There is a pending entry at WP:AN3 but nothing at WP:COIN. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I filed the WP:3RR report on this user after trying to get them to discuss their edits on one of the talk pages first. As you can tell from their talk page (and the Channing Tatum talk page), they feel that their site is "official" and as such, doesn't have to follow any wikipedia rules. They said their site is the only official source for information on the actor, and thus trumps wikipedia.

Maybe not a malicious vandal, but someone who is definitely edit warring and owning this article. Redrocket (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it looks like a one purpose account Special:Contributions/Wcfirm just set up to edit this article. This is not what Wikipedia is about. If the user has been explained and warned about this enough times, maybe it is time to block them from editing this article. They will still be able to edit other articles, and may learn to understand about Wikipedia. Igor Berger (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The violations of WIkipedia:Conflict of interest are blatant. But an admin who was so inclined could probably just block based on the the 3RR report. The 3RR is relevant to this discussion because Wcfirm is edit-warring to restore a clearly inappropriate promotional paragraph about this very web site. Note that the date of the 3RR warning in the report is not before the last revert, but there is a previous warning about 3RR dated 2 February still visible in the editor's User talk. EdJohnston (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him for one week. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 06:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with this. It is probably an SPA and is inserting material that is, at the very least, not NPOV. I am trying to explain to him on his talk page why this is wrong, but it may not be easy. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, nightwatch folks!  :) I've initiated WP:COIN#User:Wcfirm and Channing Tatum as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Wcfirm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Laquishe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

MaxSem, half an hour after you blocked Wcfirm, another single-purpose account (Laquishe) began editing. Is its purpose the same? — Athaenara ✉ 21:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wcfirm created Laquishe (talk · contribs) - sleeper sock. It's been indefblocked and Wcfirm's block has been doubled. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy Wales

FYI I have reduced the protection on this page to semi-protection. It had been protected for three days. Can folks please make a special effort to keep an eye on this and don't hesitate to re-protect if needed. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. I exchanged emails with him last night, he's not having a good week, and it would be best if we could at least try not to let people make it any worse. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Woah. Let's watch the article for BLP vios and edit warring, BECAUSE THESE THINGS ARE BAD ON ANY BIO. And let those who know Jimmy sympathise with him. But let's try to avoid doing, or appearing to do, one because of the other. That simply feeds the trolls.--Doc^g 10:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, Doc, you'll know from past experience I hope that this is precisely what I aim to do with any WP:BLP. Shit happens, but Wikipedia is not here to make the most of it. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• • What Doc said. I could have made it clearer. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmmm. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) seems to have a disproportionate number of edits to the Wales article, and those on Sanger, Overstock and so on - according to Abercrombie, the only properly neutral way of describing Sanger is as co-founder, for example, and he reverts any attempt to restate it in more nuanced ways, and has been edit-warring over the same at the Wales article. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I note that one of his blocks was for edits to Rogers Cadenhead who - guess what? - spotted the heinous crime of Wales making a small edit to his biography. The more I look at Abercrombie's contribs the more I think he's here on an axe-grinding mission. Guy (Help!) 18:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree about Bramlet Abercrombie. I had a run in with him when I tried to change the wording somewhere — I forget which article it was on, but possibly Larry Sanger — to discussing their "role in founding" Wikipedia, rather than getting into the founder/co-founder issue. He was implacably opposed to any wording that was neutral between the positions, and reverted any change, so I had to give up. Judging from the intensity of his involvement in that particular issue over numerous articles, it does look as though there might be a personal aspect to it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made the most edits to the Larry Sanger article and have been blocked after editing the Larry Sanger article. I got blocked after NPOVing the article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy, if you have an issue with a long-standing user, it's good form to first talk to him directly before talking about him in a forum like this. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin vandalized the Larry Sanger article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=next&oldid=185966264

I discussed the vandalism edit on the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Larry_Sanger/Archive_2#Vandalism

I hope SlimVirgin will be more careful in the future and read the reliable references first. QuackGuru (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism is a very very strong word. The edit in question was not, by any stretch of the imagination, vandalism. At all. So I suggest you withdraw this unprovoked personal attack. Additionally, the good faith, good edit in question was on 22 January, so I'm at a loss as to why you would bring it up now. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 22:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate username?

After speedily deleting the page Aidanbigballs, I looked at the history to welcome and/or warn the creator of the page, and saw that the creator was User:Aidanbigballs. I was prepared to block as an inappropriate username, but then saw that the user has been around and making edits (albeit mostly inappropriate ones) for over a year. Am I alone in finding the name inappropriate, or has this just never been spotted before? faithless (^speak) 10:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The only criteria at WP:UN this would fall under is "Offensive usernames make harmonious editing difficult or impossible.". I guess it depends on how much we consider "Big Balls" to be offensive. with <50 edits perhaps asking the account to consider abandoning this name and chosing another may be an initial approach? Pedro :  Chat  10:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering we're dealing with a 12-year old kid (see this diff), it could be a hell of a lot worse. I'm not offended in the least, but I'm not as sensitive as some. I say just leave it be unless the user is especially disruptive. Caknuck (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:UAA is the proper place for bringing user names to our attention, not this page. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reporting

If you are reported (in this case for allegedly breaching 3rr) if it hasnt been delt with, is their a time frame where by it becomes stale or invalid etc? Realist2 (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Userrights

Created the above template. It's a bit like {{userlinks}}, but lists the links relevant to user rights.

Userrights are messy since there are two logs.

• Locally appointed rights like rollback and the giving over sysop, are in one log,
• Steward/meta appointed rights such as the giving of checkuser and removal of sysop, are in a completely different log.

Hence the normal (ie, local or crats) rights log may suggest someone has a right, that in fact they dont. Example:

• Jimbo Wales (current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)
• Archtransit (current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Can someone familiar with template-space figure where it needs to go, what categories or pages it needs adding to or linking, and where it would be useful in the wiki, if any?

Best,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't answer your question, but wow, I'm surprised this template wasn't created sooner. Good job. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 22:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Already on my user page. Ronnotel (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Created Template:Userrights/doc, added the appropriate cat and included it on Template:Signatures .--Hu12 (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second Opinion

Would another administrator be willing to take a look at User talk:Fiesta bowl? I've been trying to explain his block to him and he's just resorting to personal attacks. As I was to original blocking admin, I don't think it would be best if I took any further action. Thanks. Icestorm815 • Talk 22:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You have been exceedingly polite in accepting and responding to a user who has resorted to blatantly abusive personal attacks. I've protected the talk page. FCYTravis (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FCYTravis. Your commentary on the talkpage was civil and way more patient than I would've been. I recommend blocking indef, including the obvious socks. They (and I mean that in its plurality) are not here to build an encyclopedia, but in fact, to push their own point of view. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Not an admin, but totally agree with Travis/Keeper. Holy cow, we don't need users like that involved in the project. Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I say block indef too. Tiptoety ^talk 22:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. I also feel that an indef block is the sad, but necessary action. I'll place the notice on his talk page. Icestorm815 • Talk 22:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

Hi Admins! Can someone please merge the histories of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Homeschooling and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Homeschooling/Archive 1? I archived it by moving the page instead of copy & pasting it as I should have. They need to be merged so that the history of the talk page can be found all on the page it was posted on. (If you need to respond to me for anything, please leave me a message on my talk page.) Thanks, admins! DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 00:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't needed. Moving a page is a legitimate but uncommon method of archiving. It's been done at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, for example. If you really want the histories merged it can be done but there is no pressing need. Graham87 01:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, can you go ahead and merge them anyway? DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 01:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, done. Graham87 02:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In regards to User:AFI-PUNK... again

I see that I have a message again regarding this user, but eventually a contact to the network provider will be needed. I'm not an expert of networks, but is Deutsche Telekom AG, which has address in the 87.160.0.0 - 87.186.159.255 and 79.192.0.0 - 79.244.191.255, like AOL, as that every user from this provider runs on a different IP address each time he logs in? However, it seems that the user is using uniquely the 79.211.xxx.xxx range which gives me the impression that he is using multiple computers Eventually we will have to contact the provider at abuse@t-ipnet.de for a complaint. since the issue has been on-going since November 20. Note, I won't be responding any replies for most of the next three days as I will be away for the weekend. --JForget 03:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AutoWikiBrowser approval list

The AutoWikiBrowser "check" page says to leave a message here if "the list contains entries that are over 24 hours old," which it does... Could someone have a look at that, please?

Thanks! --Wikiscient (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Processing now. MBisanz ^talk 06:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Two users processed. Defering on Wikiscient (talk • contribs • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email) for more experienced admin review. MBisanz ^talk 06:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi.
I don't mean to be too overly enthusiastic here (and I apologize if it seems like I am), but I have been on the AutoWikiBrowser Approval/Check Page for > 24 hours now:
any word yet on my status?
(And if the verdict is for some reason "negative" – any advice on what I need to do in order to make it "positive"...?)
Thanks!   —Wikiscient— 04:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I know, I tried to fix the backlog, but I just felt you were just on the edge of the mainspace number (502) and I noticed an edit warning (might've been old) on usertalk, so I'd prefer someone whose been an admin longer than a month take a look. Certainly should not be interpreted as a rejection to anyone looking into it. MBisanz ^talk 06:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but thank you for your prompt response anyway! And thanks, too, for taking the time to look into it and for having replied again just now.

(BTW, for the record: that "edit warning" was clearly a "false positive" -- I have left the relevant "diff" link up on my talk page in order to make sure that was clear. And anyway, I think the record should show that very few of my edits seem to get "reverted" quickly, justifiably, or for long).

But, okay, yes, sure, it's true: I'm a n00b!

(Nevertheless... well, I don't know. But: I am sincere, conscientious, neutral/balanced, etc., and very motivated to help out (in a general way/in various ways) right now. And: I do have >500 mainspace edits, which seemed to be the most important "prerequisite"...)

Thanks again, though, MBisanz – I'll look forward, then, to hearing from one or more of your "old-timer" colleagues! ;)

  —Wikiscient— 06:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image issues?

See Mack Dryden, an article I created tonight. I've coded the image correctly as thumb, to the right, at 150px but it's not showing. The only way it shows is if I code it as a frame (ie: Image:Name.png|frame|right|caption) or with no coding (ie: Image:Name.png). So apparently thumb isn't working right. Anyone know what's up? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I got your image to show up by setting it to 180px, which is the original size of the image. I've had this problem before, where I can't get an image to scale properly, but I have no idea what causes it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had seen the original 180px size works. I just didn't want to use it because it's too big. I've never had this problem before where an image didn't scale down by using a px size smaller than its original size, so it's right odd. Anyway, thanks for trying. :] - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 06:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If the image is yours, why not re-upload it at the size you want to present it at? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I just tried doing that at Commons, where I uploaded it and now it's not even showing at all. So I changed it to jpg and uploaded it and it's still not showing. I think there's some server issues going on somewhere.. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 06:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe try uploading it here, to see if that makes a difference? (Incidentally, I fooled around with it on a test page and had the same difficulty you did.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wanted categories

This isn't so much administrative stuff as it is general scut work (though some amount of page deletion and undeletion will probably become necessary), but - I thought I would mention User:Random832/WantedCats here. There are a total of 26,684 to deal with, so it's going to be a while - whenever you feel like doing some mind-numbingly boring work, drop by —Random832 16:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to ask what I am sure is a really stupid question, but taking :

• Category:Wikipedian_cellists-2 (37 members)

as an example, since the category's been deleted, you want someone to help out by going and removing the category tag from the 37 members' pages, then deleting it off your list? _{The public face of GB}^T/C 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• • if someone compiles a list of deleted cats that need emptied I can have BCBot empty them, or if they need moved into a new category I can do that also. β^_command 17:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hold off on the instruments user categories for now, I asked on WT:UCFD and there's some reorganization taking place (and they're mostly populated by templates anyway). In general, for deleted ones it depends on the reason for the deletion - the problem is that the _vast_ majority of categories in the list have only one page in them, and were created by mistake or are part of some kind of structured system and need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis - the plus side, though, is that there being only one page means there's only one page to edit usually. I'll go through and figure out what needs to be done for the high-population categories though. —Random832 18:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• • It would be useful to run a spell-checker or capitalisation normaliser over the list to catch the ones that are mis-spellings or mis-capitalisations of existing categories. Can someone do that and confirm that they have done that (to avoid others doing the same thing). There should also be an easy way of detecting which ones are due to deleted categories as opposed to never-created categories. Someone should do that and confirm they have done that. And user categories could be separated out as well. Lots of ways to make this easier, but let's not all duplicate our efforts. Carcharoth (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If I'd thought to do it, I would have asked in the query - I'll see if I can't get it run again with more information (presence of deletion, last delete reason - name of page for single-member categories maybe - can you think of anything else?) —Random832 18:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• You should check the deletion log for each of these before creation. In the case of the instrument categories, I have restored many of them, as they were originally deleted as empty, so recreation is fine. For others, however, the category has been deleted at WP:UCFD and users simply re-added themselves to the category. These categories should not be re-created. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note that there are a few categories that should not be removed from the user pages either due to drama that has historically (or, in the case of Category:Rouge admins, recently) surrounded them. A lot of the categories are probably ones that have been renamed or merged and one or two pages didn't get fixed, though. —Random832 15:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It's baaaaack......

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 6#Encyclopedia Dramatica. Just for once the requester is not a troll! Let's be thankful for small mercies. Expect the usual puppet theatre, though. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In other news, England have won the World Cup and Family Guy is actually funny. Will ^(talk) 21:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And, according to Gurch, who I miss since he left, water is wet. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

{{fact}} Guy (Help!) 16:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

♫ And the liiife ♫ is just fine... ♫ Can we also DRV Peppers and GNAA and Brandt just to keep the atmosphere cheerful and fascinating? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need an AfD enforced

Code Lyoko 2 was deleted per AfD but its creator has restored it and continually removes the repost template. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone should suggest to Karaku that the material be worked on in userspace. However, I would support a block for the continuous incivility and personal attacks in those series of edit summaries after being warned previously. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 01:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll go drop a message. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 01:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand why Karaku has not been indef blocked. Multiple people have tried to very politely coach him about which policies he has run afoul of, but his response is to ignore them at best, and often to call them "fucking ignorant." He has not shown the slightest iota of willingness to understand his mistakes, and in fact quite the contrary, has called core policies like 3RR "the most pointless rule on Wikipedia."

Another user has offered to wiki-adopt Karaku. If he declines, he should be indef-blocked. This is not a difficult decision. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vanishing Diff Content and Incivility

I am requesting an admin look at the edit history of the AFD Citizens of the Several States [13]

Apparently there is some confusion here because an edit I made to the AFD at 05:28, 7 March 2008 seems to have vanished at the edit from another user at 05:47, 7 March 2008. As you can see the diff says no content was deleted, but the actual content of the article was in fact deleted. User Zsero has commented on my talk Talk:Torchwoodwho page being very uncivil saying "If you're puzzled by something, you've got a brain, use it." and asserting that there is no technical foolery going on that might have accidentally removed my content. Since no editor involved seems to want to assist me in figuring out what the problem is I am asking for an admin to look into the situation.

This is related to a VERY heated AFD proceeding which is an offshoot of a RfC proceeding, to which I was no party. I am afraid that it has the potential to escalate into a much larger dispute that I don't want to be a part of. Can someone please help defuse this before name-calling and edit-warring become the norm of this situation. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. Torchwoodwho, I strongly suggest a break of a few hours. Go for a walk, clear your head, and then come back to it. There is nothing wrong with the system. If the diff says no content was deleted, then no content was deleted. You've made a silly mistake, and gone off on a tear accusing people of vandalism and all sorts of things, and now you're reduced to blaming mysterious bugs in the Wiki system that have eaten your homework.

The evidence you need to work out where you went wrong is all there, right in front of your eyes. You've got a brain, use it. It is not my job to explain to you exactly how you made this mistake; I have demonstrated that you have made one, and it's up to you to work out how. In the meantime, all I ask is that you stop flinging accusations of vandalism that you cannot support. -- Zsero (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• I fail to see how if you know something I don't how it serves to keep it hidden in some kind of strange cryptice puzzle. I find this, along with the consitant use of telling me to use my brain, to be the height of uncivil behavior and I don't understand how it benefits the community as a whole.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Having checked the diffs, I can see no irregularities. Gettingitdone duplicated the entire AfD here and later Zsero removed all duplicate content here. — Edokter • Talk • 11:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving page oddness

Kingpin Intelligence (talk · contribs) seems to be playing some sort of weird page-move shenanigans, altering Template:Template sandbox and moving it to Kingpin Intelligence. I'd move the template page back (as I did the talk page), but 84.150.154.34 (talk · contribs) has edited Template:Template sandbox since the move, so I can't. Can an admin step in here? --Calton | Talk 10:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that it matters. It's not as if the history of the sandbox is worth keeping. I've restored Template:Template sandbox to its starting position, and let people play with it. As for Kingpin Intelligence, it's been blanked now, so it can surely be prodded. -- Zsero (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Although I can't help in sorting it out (am on my public account), it strikes me that if you look at the history logs of Template:Template sandbox you'll see it's been moved twice before. The last time, back in August 2007, was by User:Rickrai - have a look at their other contributions and you'll see a theme developing... _{The public face of GB}^T/C 10:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I hadn't a clue -- all right, I had a suspicion -- what Template:Template sandbox is for, but I thought it better to safe than to be sorry, especially since there was an obviously active Talk page attached, and figured I should notify somebody. --Calton | Talk 11:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless it's deleted under policy, there's no reason that any page history should be inaccessible to non-admins. To this end, and after much toing and froing, I've put all the history of Template:Template sandbox in one place. (Hey: I did create Wikipedia:Historical archive/Sandbox ...). Graham87 13:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A bit of fun

I've been looking over Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-12 9/11 conspiracy theories for a bit of light relief - funny stuff. Apparently we should rename the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories because the name implies that the theories might not be true. Oh dearie me, we wouldn't want that would we? Guy (Help!) 10:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And shouldn't Evolution redirect to the theory of evolution? Discuss.--Doc^g 10:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I particularly liked the "formal warning" you got, Guy, for having the temerity to suggest that some conspiracy theorists may not always edit with a complete respect for NPOV. How dare you!? ;o) ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 10:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

lawl Jtrainor (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL Bearian (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to post here to poke fun at people? I actually agree that describing something as a conspiracy theory (a term with a great deal of stigma attached to it) implies it isn't true and therefore violates NPOV. Everyking (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a conspiracy of Wikipedia wanting to take over the world? Jimbo The World Leader..:) Igor Berger (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Would somebody please go and re-semi-protect WP:AN?

Anon vandal striking again from multiple IP addresses. The page was just unprotected a while ago. Corvus cornix_talk 00:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 12 hours. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I meant to put this on ANI.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 18:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Account that only inserts external links

User:Shiftedreality seems to be exclusively inserting external links to jaman.com. Is that OK? To me it's blatant spam, and on the Danish Wikipedia where I am sysop I would have reverted him, but I don't know what the policy is here. --Peter Andersen (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Spam apparently. Checked one, and their information is not that expansive to justify inclusion. Try informing that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam, they may have already noticed that. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Definitely spam, and it's been going on for a long time. Special:Linksearch/*.jaman.com returned about 150 links and some on other projects. Blocked, unlinked. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hah! And up on my watchlist pops an article edited by Nadavs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - if only all spammers were this inept! Guy (Help!) 21:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User posting non-english new pages

I have a concern over this user. He or she has been posting new articles in Dutch, of which I have listed all for speedy deletion. I did put a template on his or her talk page about communicating in English, but I was curious if there are any administrators who speak Dutch and might be willing to put something on this user's talk page saying that we're assuming good faith but English Wikipedia contributions must be in English. Mr Senseless (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I did a simple translation with Google, and it turns out all of these user's contributions are nonsense pages or vandalism, just translated into Dutch. I put a test4 template on his talk page and will report him to AIV if he posts another page like it. Mr Senseless (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re User:Beatlesnicole userpage

This was previously the subject of a discussion, per here. The copyvio question was resolved but I still went ahead and deleted (not just blanked) the userpage as it gave - in my view - enough detail to possibly identify the editor, who is a minor. I commented on the editors talkpage for my reasons. I have found that the editor has recreated the userpage (with the same self identifying details) and deleted my comments. I should be grateful if a fresh pair of eyes would have a look and see if I am needlessly censoring self expression, or if the info would best be removed. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Gone, and left her a note. east.718 at 20:51, March 7, 2008

Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfB passing % discussion

If you haven't, please consider participating here and adding your view on whether the passing percentage for RfBs should be changed. I'll post this at WP:AN/I, as well, and it has been raised at WP:VP and is posted on TEMP:CENT. Avruch ^T 22:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:224jeff6

I came across this user a few days ago regarding several photos he had uploaded to Wikipedia, claiming that he owned these cars and was taking pictures of them. They were, however, clear copyright violations, and all were speedy deleted. However, while browsing this user's contributions and user page, I cannot help but feel that this user seems to be using Wikipedia as a social networking tool, and does not actually contribute to the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. His 500 most recent edits consist almost entirely of edits to his user page, discussions with other users, finding user "secret pages", and creating user boxes (most of which contain the copyrighted images he had previously uploaded).

Since mid-February, his 500 most recent contributions consist of only a page move, a redirect, a template edit, correcting an image link (incorrectly), correcting a typo, and an apparent translation of a deleted Spanish Wikipedia article. There are several good edits when the editor first registered at Wikipedia, but it appears his edits to improve Wikipedia have simply made way for chatting with friends since that time.

Another user, claiming to be his brother, also left a message on my talk page regarding my nomination of deletion of his pictures. However, this account seems to have only made two contributions regarding adding an award to User:224jeff6's page, which could imply a sockpuppet. The359 (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspam needs warning and reverting

Special:Contributions/71.190.153.162 - he added links to a site with ads when there are already links to the official site that provide the same information. --NE2 03:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.stationstops.com

• stationstops.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-XWiki - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost.com • WhosOnMyServer.com

Also 71.190.154.147 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • search an, ani, cn, an3 • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs). MER-C 03:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments requested: RFCU for IPs

There is a question on WT:SSP regarding RFCU for IPs. Please contribute your thoughts. - Neparis (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lir

User:Lir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), having come off a 33-month block (originally 1 year, but reset frequently) in December, has decided that his -- and his IP's -- contributions to Wikipedia will solely be his user page complaining about the Evil That is Wikipedia and the Great Wrong That Was Done Him. I blanked it on grounds that it was pure soapboxing, especially for someone explicitly stating that he's not here to edit. He objects, calling it "vandalizing" [14] and "censorship" [15]. Any opinions? --Calton | Talk 14:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See also: WP:ANI#Purging of user page. --Onorem♠Dil 14:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If Wikipedia does not allow criticism, then Wikipedia has serious problems. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir, thank you so much for your repetitive vandalisms of my user space in the last couple years. How good to see you back. I have a suggestion if you want to edit here: behave like an adult. Don't attack other users. Observe the civility and no-personal-attacks policies. I won't wikilink them because I think you know them without me having to point them out. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make unfounded accusations; if you have evidence of me vandalizing your user page, then please wikilink them because I have no idea what you are talking about. It's amazing how many inflated, trumped-up, exaggerated, and obviously false accusations you people come up with. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just took a look at his previous page. Is it childish? Yep. Does it meet the criteria of WP:NPA. Nope. Meets none of the guidlines (homophobic, racial, ethnic....) I don't belive the

blanking was right. However I'll defer to group wisdom on this and leave it be. We don't need no stinkin FUR!! 18:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oy. Can we just reblock this user? They don't appear to be of any use to the project. In fact, they are wasting the time of useful editors thus detracting from the project. John Reaves 07:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I'd agree that filing a MedComm request to change your userpage the first day back from a block probably won't endear one. But rules are rules so I'd say to give a couple more days, with the implicit understanding that so soon after a 33 month block, further nonsense will probably result in an indef community ban. MBisanz ^talk 07:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, we're talking about someone who's come back from a ban set three years ago and done nothing but troll and complain over his userpage. We should not be wasting our time over this. I've reblocked him, please discuss it here. Grandmasterka 04:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, so I'm unsure to what extent my input is welcome on this page (I know regular users may bring complaints and notifications here, which I have in the past). I may be part of the cause we are all spending (some would say wasting, I wouldn't) all this time over this user and his grievances as well as the grievances of others about him. I reverted Calton's blanking of Lir's user page, which, sure enough, consisted of Lir's complaint about how he has been treated here in the past, and I notified Lir by email of this. Then Lir exploded onto en.Wikipedia.

I don't think Calton had any business deleting that page. Indeed, I question what motivates someone to go about searching for pages to get upset about. Calton has stated that he had no previous relations to Lir. Had he not done so, in time, Lir might have returned to the project and continued editing constructively, as he has obviously done in the past with about 10,000 edits to his user as well as several times that number from other accounts, according to himself. Some people need to blow a fuse or two before they calm down. The greater the contributions a user has made to the project, the greater should our tolerance and capacity for disregarding a momentary outburst be. Having his user page reflect his hurt over the way he felt he had been treated should have been left, or at most, the most incendiary portions thereof being moderated.

I question the wisdom of this block. But more than that, I question its mandate. I'm rarely in contact with blocking issues here, however, I would be surprised, and disappointed, if blocking a user can be done without clearly citing WP:BLOCK. __meco (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Calton's involvement in this was somewhat unnecessary and only served to inflame things, I agree with you on that. But Lir's actions prior to that, including his extensive block history, make it clear to me that he wasn't here to help. I even advocated his block be made indefinite a long time ago, I can find and link to that discussion if you want me to. Grandmasterka 10:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I shall be reading this section until it becomes archived. As for Lir's actions prior to Calton's involvement, are you referring to his pre-3 year-ban history? I don't think it is right to invoke that here since the only thing he had done after the ban was lifted was to edit his user page. For that same reason, very few people would have any reason to go to Lir's user page unless someone was actively scanning for areas to become upset about, Therefore, my argument is that, had Calton not intervened, this page would have made an eyesore for nobody, and in time, perhaps Lir would decide to make a fresh start as a main namespace contributor. After all, it's not been that long since he was unbanned, and it was a very long ban indeed. I have not acquainted myself with the old ban process, so I am not going to give an opinion on whether a permanent ban then would have been justified. That ban and the current ban have been set on different grounds, and a motion to ban permanently then, which was not acceded, ought not weigh in as to the length of a ban this time around, at least not without refreshing the matters from the previous round. __meco (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I refuse to take one shred of misdirected blame for Lir's actions. Meco's tortuous logic notwithstanding, Lir's only "contributions" made since his one-year-extended-to-three ban -- and explicitly stated as would BE the only ones -- were using Wikipedia to maintain an explicit attack page. My crime was pointing out how wrong it was on multiple levels, and Lir, self-winding watch that he is, goes on a vindictive tear. His obsessions and lack of impulse control are NOT my problems, but his smear campaign against me is: funny, not a word about THAT from Meco. --Calton | Talk 23:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not so funny considering you are not being banned. Had he not been banned, I would have resigned his case after not gaining support here for my complaint against you for clearing his user page. I have no problem seeing as clearly as you that Lir has a big impulse control problem. However, I realize that such issues cannot be addressed, with the aim to improve on that lack of impulse control, by authoritarian disciplining. I scorn ill-motivated or thoughtless actions from indivduals that should know better, that are bound to vex and provoke an outburst. I'm inclined to believe that a person like Lir can be a highly valuable contributor if not needlessly provoked. In short, my prescription has been to give Lir some elbow room; leave him alone to consolidate his position and relationship to the project. Instead several people have "showed no mercy" or been at him with a vengeance. That, I believe, is the principal cause which has brought on the present sad situation. __meco (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Now Lir, it seems, added an unblock request to his user talk page, and this was summarily declined by User:Doc glasgow, the reason given: "We're here to write an encyclopedia. You're evidently not. Unless some admin thinks differently, consider this a community ban. Wikilawyering will not work". Now, I am distressed when users are warned not to attempt to pursue a matter, as is usually the case when the unfortunate term wikilawyering is applied. But I'm more concerned with the fact that the present open discussion wasn't involved in the request to have the ban repealed and its subsequent undebated refusal. I also make a note of the fact that Lir in his request explicitly stated that "All I want to do is edit the Wikipedia like any other user". __meco (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"I'm more concerned with the fact that the present open discussion wasn't involved in the request to have the ban repealed and its subsequent undebated refusal"???? Well, I'm not omniscient. I reviewed the block as per normal with an unblock request, and found it to be good. The user's actions speak clearly of his intent. He knows better. This is a troll, and this debate is the trollfood.--Doc^g 19:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Lir is back and controversy follows. Why are we surprised? Corvus cornix_talk 19:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IAR and role account

I was bold and created a "role" account, User:Cambridge CERT which is indef blocked and has both talk and user pages protected. Why would I do such a thing? The Cambridge network response team has been in communication with me for a few days and we set up a mechanism whereby their users who abuse their proxy will be larted locally by their own team; in return, they request that we admins try to keep our blocks of the proxy IPS (131.111.8.96 - 131.111.8.111) short, and soft so as to reduce the number of innocent bystanders (basically, the almost totality of the faculty and student body goes through this proxy farm).

I've set up the role account so that we can use the Special:Emailuser function to communicate with the response team without exposing their email address to harvesters. Since the account has no real editor behind it, there was no reason to not simply indef block and protect.

I think this is a great step of collaboration between educational institutions and Wikipedia, and they should be hailed as exemplar! — Coren ^(talk) 21:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Um... I'm not clear on what you've done. I am reminded of the AlisonW section above. Since there is only one authorised "role" account - if what you have created is the same thing - it might be wise to let OFFICE or Foundation know and give approval. Otherwise it might be wise to re-assign the designation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the block should stay in place until they've been approved. This seems like an unwise claim of IAR, as this is kind of a serious matter, and should not have been undertaken without community approval. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 22:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand, the block is meant to always remain in place— there will never be an editor behind this account, only an email address. — Coren ^(talk) 22:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there's never going to be an editor behind it, what harm will the block do? So long as the email function is unblocked, there's no harm done. It's actually safer this way, and approval won't even be needed. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 22:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think there are any plans to unblock the account in the first place, since it's not supposed to edit anything, as far as I can see. It's just there so we can email it. I think this is a good idea, but someone might want to poke Bastique about this (or whoever else is in charge about these kind of things) anyhow, just to be sure. --Conti|✉ 22:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see what Coren's saying. He put the block in place, he seems to know what he's doing. I thought he was against the block, wanted it unblocked, even though it wouldn't edit. I'm not against the plan, I just misunderstood. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 22:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In this case the role seems to be just as an email contact point. I think the problem with role editors is that copyright for edits is held by individuals and not by a role (unless an interesting pile of legal paperwork were prepared). This is not an editor. -- SEWilco (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no problem since it's a non-editor. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a role account because nobody is editing. It's a hack to create a secure, public mailing list. Coren, can you consider what form this object would take in the perfect world and see if there is a developer who would code it? Jehochman ^Talk 22:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the point? It's not a perfect world. Do you not think this isn't a good idea? Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 22:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would suggest something along the lines of Special:Contact/Name_of_contact, but given that there's a simple account-based way of achieving the objective I doubt it's worth the trouble of working up an interface and infrastructure for that— the reason I brought it up here is that I felt this skirted enough to WP:ROLE to be worth a second look, and perhaps a clear policy on whether that's a workable solution or not. — Coren ^(talk) 23:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Full marks for creative thinking. Maybe there are other ways of achieving the same end, but this works and uses only existing functionality. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Neat idea. So is a note/template for all their IPs going to link back to that user page? Lawrence § t/e 00:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There is: {{SharedIPCERT}}. It's a slightly modified version of {{SharedIPEdu}}; in fact it might be too slighly modified... I worry that passing administrators might not notice it's not the typical school template. Suggestion/improvements welcome. — Coren ^(talk) 03:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I had a play around with the template to try and make it more noticeably different, but also make it such that it can be merged back into {{SharedIPEDU}}. I don't think it is a good idea to have these permanently separate. If anyone can suggest a better colour for the version with the contact details specified, or a better image to replace the clock, do change it. Some of the wording is still a bit awkward as well. In general though, a very good idea, which I am sure can and will be extended. With the account indef blocked I don't think any of the normal concerns over role accounts apply (although the blessing of a foundation member would be nice). I've boldly created Template:ContactRoleAccount and Category:Contact role accounts to administer what I hope will be a burgeoning class of accounts. Happy‑melon 10:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already poked Cary on the matter, and I'm not overly attached to the separate template— but I hope the difference will be visible enough so that passing admins will notice. — Coren ^(talk) 15:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lir - final chance

In the spirit of AGF, I offered this user a final final chance. I offered to unblock if Lir was serious about giving us constructive content contributions, to be proved (or otherwise) over the next 50 edits. Lir has accepted my conditions, and I have unblocked.

I view this as a final chance, and if obvious disruption continues he can be community banned. But I hope that is not necessary. Lir is concerned by people with vendettas provoking him, so I invite neutral admins to watch Lir (talk · contribs) and ensure Lir is given every fair opportunity to prove him/herself a worthwile editor. I'm being bold here, but I hope I can be supported in doing this.--Doc^g 21:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A controverisal move, Doc, but nonetheless, its done, and for the right reasons. Not sure how this will play out, but seeing how I'm completely uninvolved, I've watchlisted Lir. Any history I should be aware of whilst I'm watching the contribs? Also, I'll be offline for the majority of the 2 days, back on 3/10 in earnest. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a positive step. Everyking (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish you all the best with this. Lir has been a prolific editor in the past, and when he isn't trolling, he can be a good contributor, it's just that there is so much trolling in his past, with so many different accounts. Corvus cornix_talk 22:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir's previous ban was before my time, so I'm also keeping an eye on the situation. Props to Doc glasgow for assuming good faith here, while everyone else was ready to just kick Lir back off of the project. Sean William @ 22:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't have much faith in him though. His ban was well before my time too. Grandmasterka 22:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Go Doc. Indefinite <> infinite, as we all know, and the risk is low: either he behaves or he gets booted pronto. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure this was good idea. --Haemo (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Doc. He couldn't hold it in even that long. It's really sad that he burned the opportunity you have so graciously given him. — Coren ^(talk) 04:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC) (In case it wasn't clear in context, I have reblocked him indefinitely— I expect that even Doc won't oppose after his trust was thus betrayed). — Coren ^(talk) 04:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is absolutely dismal that Lir could not restrain himself from being provocative for even a minimal amount of time, and I agree that based on this experiment it appears it may not be possible to allow him to contribute. However, we should look carefully at his contributions before making a final decision here. He made lots and lots of edits to Battle of Stalingrad, apparently surpassing Doc's requirement that his first 50 edits be constructive content contributions (perhaps deliberately stretching them out to meet the quota?)—superficially at least, his edits seem to have improved the article somewhat, and nobody has reverted any of it. Everyking (talk) 06:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the Battle of Stalingrad, but it looks to me that about a third to a half of the edits he made there were substantive, the rest were tweaking: adding missing words, fixing spelling, adding phrases which could be considered padding, but are arguably justifiable. I understand this style of editing - I'm guilty of using it myself, but it does drive up the edit count quite fast. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Given comments like this and this, he seems to still have ownership issues. And his attempts to continue a vendetta against me , even after being blocked, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy. --Calton | Talk 09:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignore him, i find it very unlikely that he will be unblocked in the state he is. Viridae^Talk 10:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I did what I could, I hoped for the best. It didn't last very long at all. It for others to decide what to do now. I've moved on.--Doc^g 10:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Aaaaand thats me gone too. How to win friends and influence people I don't think. He wikilwayered away all thoughts of potential reform. Viridae^Talk 12:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I was skeptical of letting him back in after looking at his Arbcom case and past history, and complaining about my removal of a spam link sealed it. I figured it was a matter of time before he ran out of chances. We just banned Neutralhomer (talk · contribs) along the same lines--a user who made many good contributions, but had a history of borderline stalking with other editors. We don't need him. Blueboy96 12:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiMedia Foundation activities in February 2008

WikiMedia Foundation activities in February 2008 WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:68.236.154.131

I'm not sure if something needs to be done about 68.236.154.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). A large number of their edits (excluding the ones in article space) could be perceived as disruptive, including this possible legal threat, and followup that talks about Citizendium and constitutions. It also appears this IP address may be linked with User:64.128.172.131, as 68's latest edits have mostly been to 64's talk page, they carried out similar edits to Wikipedia-space, and both seem to take a dislike to templates in general. As stated before, most of 68's latest edits have been to 64's talk page. I seek guidance here, as there has been a little dispute regarding {{sharedipedu}}.

The first time a reason was given for its removal (rather than just undoing another user, or removing it without reason) was here, with 68 saying "I hold the threat against Adirondack Community College is unwarranted, and borderline harassment". User:Scientizzle readded it, explaining that it isn't a threat, just a warning about the consequences of vandalism. 68's next edit was the legal threat posted above. 68 then removed the final warning from Scientizzle, and posted the followup linked above. The user's next four edits were removing the sharedipedu template, and modifying a block template posted by User:Acroterion. I then reverted. I understand that policy permits removing comments and warnings, but that editing comments is generally not encouraged. I also felt that there was no reason not to have the sharedipedu template (it is helpful to editors, admins, and any unfortunate soul who edits from that IP and finds warnings not intended for them). It was removed again, and I reverted again. Since then, I have reverted twice more (as well as giving explanations), bringing me up to three reverts in the last 24 hours (hence why I bring this here for discussion, as I do not plan on picking up my first block over something as silly as this). The discussion since then kind of speaks for itself. The latest message in particular, which was added during the course of me typing out this post, is pertinent. I'm going to sleep now, but I would greatly appreciate guidance and extra input on this, particularly with the mentions of judicial systems and Student Senates. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 05:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And I thought I had posted this to WP:ANI. Guess that's my tiredness seeping in. Feel free to move it there if that's the more appropriate location (I'm not sure). Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 05:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that we continue to apply WP policy to the ip page, reverting and blocking as required. I don't think the individual understands the limitations applicable to a private site. As for the legal threat... well, we can't indef block ip addresses so I think we should just let this fade away. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. My main worry (as far as I am concerned) is whether or not {{sharedipedu}} would fall under WP:BLANKING, or whether I was protected when reverting him. Also, it appears that there was prior discussion on this that I missed originally. We'll see what happens from here, but thanks for the guidance. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 15:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A threat to report someone to a student senate has to qualify as the ultimate in toothless threats. The state court threat is indeed a threat, albeit not something to take very seriously, as the user clearly doesn't understand that he's using a private website under its terms and conditions. Shared IP header templates, in my opinion, should be reverted if blanked, as they're extremely useful in judging appropriate blocking measures and in dealing with long-term abuse: they serve a different purpose from blankable user warnings. I'll keep an eye out. Acroterion _(talk) 15:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I had a quick look at WP:BLANKING; it refers specifically to "warnings and comments" - which the template isn't - and verses itself as pertaining to the user (singular) which would appear to mean an account. Since an ip addy may represent many individual editors then no one individual should be able to determine what other editors can see on the shared talkpage. Just my opinion, and not endorsed by any student senate or anything... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what they're upset about, exactly, so I went ahead and asked them. Also removed/archived last year's warnings from the IP talk page. Agree that shared IP notices should generally be kept (assuming they're valid, of course). – Luna Santin (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this thread...here is the ANI thread I started 7 March 2008 regarding the legal threat on my talk page. I also contacted the editor, though not as pleasantly as Luna. Bluntly, IP 68... hasn't demonstrated anything that would merit the constant editing of the usertalk for a separate IP address. — Scientizzle 01:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fight Club

At Fight Club (film), an anonymous IP, User talk:68.38.100.86, keeps adding wiki-links to common words in the lead section, as seen here. The IP has not provided any kind of edit summary and has not responded to my message on the talk page regarding WP:OVERLINK. A 3RR report doesn't seem possible with the IP only making the change once a day without any form of communication. Not sure how this can be handled. Any suggestions on how to address the manner? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggest semi-protect for several days due to low speed edit war until he/she goes away. Wikidemo (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Warned him instead. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Desperately Seeking Administrator [resolved]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this question but I've gotten hopelessly lost in the talk pages, which is funnily enough, why I'm here. I came across a discussion between admins some weeks ago, about wether or not to ban a specific user named "truth" or something like that. One of the Admins posted a hilarious infobox with a graphic of Winguts in it, and suggested that it be posted at the head of some articles with the warning, "this article may contain wingnut ramblings." If you are the user/administrator who made this infobox, please contact me on my talk page if you have time. I would like to use the template on my userpage. --AaronCarson (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As to the thread title: are you seeking an administrator, or is this a classified ad [16]? The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe you're looking for User:JzG/Uninformed wingnut drivel. Leithp 18:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Not three seconds after I read this, I stumble across this. Cool template, actually. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Leithp, sorry for the inanity. --AaronCarson (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Burnham Park

Based on the article traffic tool, Burnham Park (Chicago) should be at Burnham Park and the dab should be moved to Burnham Park (disambiguation).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop adding these here ! They don't belong on the Administrators' Noticeboard, as mentioned above now several times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Sword

A persistent user (User:Firstwind) continues to add fora links to Broken Sword in clear violation of WP:EL, WP:NOT etc. I have explained why these links are not appropriate, but the user continues to ask for "proof" of this, then claiming I have assumed ownership of the page (for the record, I have no interest in the topic). I have provided ample reasoning on the article's talk page, but the user's edit summaries to the article indicate the assumption that there is consensus to keep the links. There is no such consensus.

Warning on the user's page are blanked, with helpful edit summaries such as "Removing garbage from my talk page". This user has also referred to another user as "little rats", which s/he considers a "good designation for such users". (see Talk:Broken Sword#External links). There is also a brief note on my talk page too.

I'm recusing myself from further action with this individual, since s/he considers me biased. Can someone please inspect the article, my actions, and those of Firstwind, and take whatever action you deem necessary. Thanks you. Mindmatrix 20:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, I think a WP:3RR block was appropriate in this case, given his past history. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 20:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made a start by protecting the page for 5 days. On the Wrong Version^TM (sorry, didn't look to see which one it was). Anyone with more, er, diplomatic skills than me now care to bash heads/head? ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 20:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

FT2 has left a mediating message on the talk page. We should see how Firstwind responds to that. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 20:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The message is from over 3 months ago, so any reply is now overdue. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 21:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that a reply of sorts has been made as Firstwind has blanked their talk page twice today and has left a rant on the Broken Sword talk page wanting the links put back in. In other words nothing has changedMarnetteD | Talk 21:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I was the "little rat" :) For the record Firstwind behavior always going unpunished was one of the reasons I stopped contributing to WP (not being a native english speaker I could only do some RCP so it's not a big deal). However, since he's back I would suggest someone neutral takes a look at what he is doing at Tramway de Nantes before it degenrates any further. Mthibault (talk) 10:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd also request someone to have a look at Tramway de Nantes - I've had one more attempt at negotiation with him on the talk page, but if that doesn't work, and he reverts to his garbled English (while calling my own English "uncorrect (sic)") then I'd request a straight block on him. Also for anyone who is interested, a checkuser case proved that Firstwind was using up to 5 IP addresses which, including his own account, had received 15 vandalism warnings in total without any block being placed on any account. Two of those IPs are now active again (194.51.96.182 and 195.101.63.39), so you may wish to block them before this situation escalates once more. Thanks. --Schcambo (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, he ain't playing ball - note his reply, once more accusing me of not being a native speaker of English, and once more restoring his garbled English to both Tramway de Nantes and Semitan. Requesting admin intervention please? Thanks. --Schcambo (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need Ukrainian reading admin to check for Holocaust denial sources

I just removed a Holocaust denial reference from Ivan Rohach [17]. I am reviewing the other links, but some are in Ukrainian, which I do not read. Is this the place to look for help? Jd2718 (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There are currently 3 inline citations. First is 404, second is a book, third references exactly what it says. Two simple numbered links are memories that mention Rohach and should go to external links, kmv.gov.ua is in Russian and tells about executions in 1941-43, Rohach is briefly mentioned. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the first reference. However, I have no idea what it says. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move requests

[edit] Request for use of a "bad image"

I would like to ask if the bad image Image:UC-smile.jpg could be allowed for use in the article unassisted childbirth. Rob T Firefly (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done —αlεx•mullεr 09:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo Username

A user has taken the username Jimbo1966 (talk · contribs).Jimbo Wales was born in 1966.[18] Jimmy Wales was born in 1966.This would create a wrong impression to new users or outsiders that it was one of the accounts of Jimbo Wales.How long do I need to wait till I get a response from the user to take it to WP:RFCN.My report was declined in WP:UAA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the standard is "a reasonable amount of time". I know that's unclear, but... for instance, if the user ignores you and makes other edits, a motion to RFCN is probably appropriate within an hour. If they take no other editing actions, I'd give them 24 hours. - Philippe | Talk 02:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, someone needs to keep an eye on their contributions just in case. Malinaccier (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I took a look. Frankly, I'm inclined to say this one's okay. - Philippe | Talk 02:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many accounts with the name Jimbo in them, one bad apple impersonater doesn't mean they all all. — Κaiba 03:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the impression that this username is fine. It may be coincidence, and, even if it's not, I doubt whether anyone would be fooled by this; anyone who known Wales well enough to know his birthyear wouldn't make that kind of error. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have put up in the WP:RFCN.Please feel free to put your comments.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC was closed with no vio. Surely there might be more than one person out there called Jim who is born in (or has a particular affinity with) 1966. This user seems legit. - 52 Pickup (deal) 20:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The contributions show that this user has spent his few edits correcting typos and making one bad (although not necessarily malicious) edit to Sato (rice wine). My guess is that this is someone who wanted to make a splash with a controversial username, but as long as he isn't doing anything harmful I suggest we leave him alone. Everyking (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nmate

Hi there. I don't know where to report this, but I'm convinced that something isn't right with User:Nmate's editing patterns. Please see his/her recent contributions. MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 22:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you elaborate a little bit? It's a bit hard to fish through contribs looking for something if one has no idea what they are looking for. Natalie (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How can I complain against an admins actions?

Piotrus (talk · contribs) is in apparent collaboration with Molobo (talk · contribs). I don't think that it is right for administrators to behave as he has done in the article Bloody_Sunday_(1939), or in particular Morgenthau Plan for example. Molobos edits are heavily contested in the Morgenthau plan, see the article talk page, and he simply selects to revert back to include all of Molobos edits. And don't even bother to explain himself at talk.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 00:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

To give a standard answer while I review it. You are at the right place to complain if you are looking that it end in constructive change. I'm reviewing the edits right now, and assuming there is a valid issue, a discussion will occur here. If this does not produce a satisfactory conclusion, there is the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct process and I'll note that User:Piotrus has defined a recall procedure for users who wish him to seek re-confirmation of his adminship. But in 99% of cases, it can be resolved here without longterm issue. MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've given it a once over. Doesn't look like any admin tools were used improperly. Bloody_Sunday_(1939) appears to be an issue of the reliability of sources. That is addressed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. At Morgenthau Plan Piotrus did restore an older version, but does not appear to have used rollbacker powers. Its a POV issue that should be addressed at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cold War. MBisanz ^talk 00:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I simply expected higher standards from an admin such as Piotrus than from the rest. I will proceed as suggested.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 00:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Collaboration" isn't inherently bad -- Wikipedia is, after all, a collaborative project. There are ways in which it can be bad, but you'll need to be more specific in your complaint if you believe that's the case. Are they conspiring to violate policy or game the system? Has Piotrus used or threatened to use admin tools? Admins are perfectly entitled to get involved in content disputes, so long as they let uninvolved/neutral admins take care of any related admin-specific actions. If you have any more specific complaint, I'd highly encourage you to provide some supporting evidence (diffs are great, there). There are some affairs which will take a high precedence, but generally the dispute resolution process is the best way to go. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Should we be sending everybody to WP:NPOV/N whenever an admin performs an action that resembels POV. Not that I am saying it is in this case or it is not. But when an admin performce an edit should they not fall under the same guidelines as any other user? Should they not comment on their edits like any other user and get consensus to that edit? Do they just make that edit without any explanation and everyone else just have to take their action for LAW? I have had quiet a few edits like that done to me, and when I go to the admin talk page and ask for a reson they just ignore my request for an explanation. Wikipedia:NOT#bureaucracy and not a hierarchy. We have no bosses and we all suppose to be equals. Admins are granted sysop tools for maintenance, not as a show of power of superiority. And if anyone questions that status quote are labeled disrupt and violation of WP:CIVIL or now with the new board sent to WP:NPOV/N Igor Berger (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Luna Santin: Well, I'll have to see if I can collect relevant evidence then, I don't usually accumulate it as I go along. Might take a few days if at all possible, but the first thing that comes to mind if I remember correctly is that he apparently has an old history of unblocking Molobo, from before Molobos 1 year block.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 01:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. From Molobo's block log, it looks like that was back in 2005. Anything more recent? (as you said, feel free to take some time compiling -- if there's a history, here, it's important to document it) – Luna Santin (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As MBisanz noted, I have not misused (or even used) any admin power w/ regard to Stor Stark7 so this noticeboard is hardly a place for a discussion of my edits; the edits of Stor Stark7 may, however, be of more interests to the community. The user Stor Stark7 has been placed under general ArbCom restriction since January that year for his uncivil and disruptive behavior in January - (see here for details); in my experience 99% of edits from this periodically editing account involve whitewashing (or plainly removing) references to Nazi crimes during WWII and unduly highlighting suffering of the German people. Such edits rarely survive in mainspace, which as far as I am concerned proves that Wiki works well (NPOV, UNDUE, etc.) and as far as I am concerned this is the end of this story. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the administrator Piotrus does not attempt to explain his actions, instead he unleashes what I interpret as an attempt at character assassination against me, in an attempt to shift focus away from his activities.

Not the response you'd expect from a reputable admin. I naturally can not let this attack stand, and therefore reply here:

• Arbcom restriction. Yes I was placed under a restriction in January this year, not "that year". I explained myself here[19]. Please note that Piotrus was also placed under the very same restriction [20], but managed to talk his way out of it admin to admin. I feel it to be a bit hypocritical of him to bring it up here if he feels it to be such a grave issue to have been listed there.
• Piotrus accusation in reference to my edits. "in my experience 99% of edits from this periodically editing account involve whitewashing (or plainly removing) references to Nazi crimes during WWII and unduly highlighting suffering of the German people." This is a very serious accusation. In return I have no choice but to accuse administrator Piotrus of being a liar. He has provided no evidence whatsoever to back up this accusation of whitewashing Nazi crimes, which should be a minimum requirement when making such a shocking accusation. In view of his 99% statement I would expect him to be able to easily introduce a large amount of such edits as evidence into this discussion. He provided none, despite the extreme seriousness of his accusation.
• As to the accusation of "unduly highlighting suffering of the German people". I have specialized my edits on the topic of post war Germany, as anyone is free to specialize. Only those with Admin aspirations are supposed to "spread the edits around". I have specialized on this type of topic [21] since I feel it to be woefully lacking in wikipedia. It is not helped by admins such as Piotrus. For example, he seems interested enough in the topic of forced labor that he creates the article Forced_labor_in_Germany_during_World_War_II. Surely a Pole such as him would then be in an excellent position to write the article Forced_Labor_in _Poland_after_World_War_II, using sources such as this, the way the Russian admin Mikkalai created the article Forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union but I presume that creating such an article by him, me or anyone else would be "unduly highlighting suffering of the German people" for Piotrus?
• "Such edits rarely survive in mainspace, which as far as I am concerned proves that Wiki works well" Yet again another unreferenced statement by Piotrus, meant to be believed and not investigated. As far as I can tell my edits survive just fine, where they dont bump up against the editing-team Piotrus and Molobo. The articles I've created, such as my latest article American mutilation of Japanese war dead is doing just fine. I admit that I prefer to edit publicly lesser known topics, since I see that as adding more value to the encyclopedia, topics that unfortunately seem to rile a certain category of editors extra much. I see this statement by Piotrus as simply just another unsubstantiated attempt to get away from the original topic by making false accusations.

My original accusation still stands, and I will take the time in what remains of my spare time to substantiate it, and I believe Piotrus reply here helped my case.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 20:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

As something of an answer to the original question posed by this thread—how one complains against the actions of an administrator—I will say that, as a rule of thumb, such accusations are made through a forum by which the community has the opportunity to offer input en masse. Such a medium may very well be requests for comment, or a recall request. Whichever method one uses to express a complaint against an administrator, it must be approached with the utmost care and sensitivity: complaints against an administrator's action are amongst the most drama-attracting topics on the project, and it is very easy to turn a simple "admin X performed action Y (link), I think it's wrong because Z" into a bitch-fest.

To move away from the general ideas of complaints against an administrator, and approach the specifics: Stor stark, if you are sure that Piotrus has abused his administrator tools (whether he has or has not, I will make to comment to), then it is important that you take some action, rather than simply discuss the matter (although, on an online project, the two are somewhat overlapping). Whether that be filing an RfC, opening discussion on the matter on his talk page, or another option, is for you to decide: however, throughout the process, bear in mind that you must be acting for the good of the project, rather than to fulfil any personal grudges. AGK (contact) 21:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I realize that I will have difficulty proving abuse of admin tools, and that this probably is rather an issue of a POV pushing admin. I believe other admins should be encouraged to keep an eye on his activities, especially when he is collaborating with Molobo (talk · contribs). His use of character assassination tactics here only underscore the importance of this.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 22:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you are on a hiding to nothing. Your best bet is to use article RfCs if you think there is significant dispute, because if there is no abuse of tools (and I don't see any cited) then we're not going to do anything and ArbCom isn't either. Sorry, that's just how it is in these highly charged subjects. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a point that is implied in some responses here, which bears making explicitly: this (or WP:ANI) is a good venue to complain about an admin's abuse of admin tools, but it is the wrong place to bring a content dispute, even if one of the disputants happens to be an admin. It's important to distinguish the two. To respond to Igor's point above, while admins have clearly received some measure of trust from the community, we are still peers with all editors in the context of normal editing. Our changes are not "law", and can usefully be discussed in all the normal venues, just not this one. I hope this helps. Bovlb (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated re-creation of hoax/vandalism page

The page Sam chalsen has been created three times and speedied twice (so far), all by different usernames (all of which are SPAs). Any chance of getting some form of page block for that page? Justin Eiler (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFPP. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

done. re-deleted and salted. - Nunh-huh 01:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chiropractic probation?

There's been some discussion here about putting Chiropractic-related articles on a probation similar to that for Homeopathy. (Well, to be fair, I'm the one recommending a new/expanded probation. Others just want to slap the Homeopathy probation onto these as well.) After a quick perusal of the behavior that goes on at these articles, I'd say it's warranted. I just don't think we should blindly apply the Homeopathy probation to these; it sets a bad precedent. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Then propose a separate probation. Jehochman ^Talk 19:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought that's what I was doing... --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I second that motion. The chiropractic related articles aren't generally covered by the homeopathy probation, nor should they. They need a probation of their own. Barring that, a general probation for all alternative medicine/fringe ideas probation might be a possibility. -- Fyslee / talk 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree probation areas in their nature need to well separated for an honest "rule of law", I think genrally expanded probation is wrongheaded, too indefinite and subject to abuses, as this is showing us. Things in most alternative areas I see seem to be cooling down. Editing in areas I am familiar with seem to be 1-2 disruptive editors short of a decent collaboration. One of the problems I see repeatedly is bad science being used to deprecate commercial & philosophical competitors and to push POVs that are not scientifically founded despite popular & highly advertised unreliable claims of "mainstream" something (its not science whatever mainstream it is).--I'clast (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I too would rather limit it to the chiropractic related articles. -- Fyslee / talk 20:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My thinking is that dealing with 1-2 blatant disruptives in WP's evolving policy enforcement atmosphere will solve the worst of this problem soon enough. Also I think temporarily protecting the articles to force discussion during problem periods, or other limited actions for limited times, is much preferable to indefinite "martial law".--I'clast (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea that could help calm down the problem areas while kicking the worst editors out of the boat, see below. east.718 at 21:10, March 6, 2008

[edit] New proposal for discretionary sanctions

The article probation now in place is obviously not working, and I've identified a few reasons why. First is that it's obviously restricted to homeopathy, and with that area under tight scrutiny, the most problematic POV-pushers, incivil editors, and edit warriors have either just moved on to other articles or edit by proxy on the homeopathy ones. It's particularly frustrating for new editors because they get steamrolled by the disruption carried over by the regulars; it's frustrating for the pro-fringe editors because they have to put up with relentless incivility and taunting; and it's frustrating for the pro-science editors because they have to deal with constant pushing and rules-lawyering. Mediation has been largely unsuccessful, and we can't keep on locking down various corners of the encyclopedia forever - it hurts good-faith new editors (a dying breed, I know :-P) and results in a cat-and-mouse game with the problematic ones: put homeopathy onto probation, they move onto chiropractic; do the same to chiropractic, and what's next? Administrators need a way to easily sanction disruptive editors on both sides of the fence, and this may be a solution:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of pseudoscience or fringe science, to be broadly interpreted, if despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of any length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid hostility toward genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

And I even cooked up a fancy template!

This article and its editors are subject to general sanctions by decree of the Wikipedia Community (see relevant discussion). Any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions on any editor working on this article if that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

The previous article probation imposed by the community would be superseded by this measure. Thoughts? east.718 at 21:10, March 6, 2008

Is that a BEAR TRAP? Because...daaaamn. If it's not, it looks like one...what is it? Gladys J Cortez 21:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bear trap. east.718 at 22:30, March 6, 2008

Thanks for the effort, but I have to say it is too arbitrary in general nature and presumes that normal admins really can distinguish "good science" from popular myths & delusions misrepresented about science and its practice in the sometimes blurred areas of current or frequently misunderstood science (not even fringe or proto-). Sadly my experience here is a very mixed bag. I have pretty good editing experience with actually active science and medical researchers through WP:V, but a fair amount of misery from students, POV warriors, and less technically informed, experimentally trained or experienced editors, including *some* POVish admins.

Otherwise, I think that the admins do need to deal with serial harrassers. For instance, here's one now. I haven't ever edited "Homeopathy" and I am one of the *least* homeopathetic personalities - the average doctor looks two dilutions (XX) closer to Homeopathy than me and I am being warned (harrassed again by this editor) on Homeopathy?!? I properly objected to a POV/edit warring editor's clear misuse of a warning tag.--I'clast (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the nature of the sanctions proposed - this would not empower admins to enforce particular views on content (which is a Bad Thing and is never done), but rather to deal with disruptive editors easier. Involved admins are already excluded from enforcing sanctions under my proposal; we don't want another Matthew Hoffman on our hands. I think my proposal is more in line with what you want: shifting the focus from articles that are disrupted to the people disrupting it themselves. east.718 at 22:30, March 6, 2008

I think that it needs clear criteria and a more subtle power change where I think the powers are largely adequate but either unused, unsymmetrical in application or misdirected. I certainly support decisive action with clearly disruptive editors. But "ganging up & setting up" being the partisan sport that it is, my whole I'clast talk has ample such examples including involved admins, needing to have criteria. Many who think they have an idea of who is pro-science or what is science have been demonstrated not to have a very solid understanding.--I'clast (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But, lets be serious about this new proposal idea. We have seen, time and time again, that it really doesn't matter who is right or wrong on these calls, which basically amount to poor understanding of policy. What matters is who can create the biggest drama out of the tiniest bit of evidence. I think we have seen this over and over again on the Enforcement board (SA, ring a bell?) and on the probation/incidents board. The new proposal basically opens up even more leeway for more people to start screaming about how they were harmed by the tiniest of rebuffs in their editing. But this is a step in the right direction. Baegis (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm open, but structure and criteria are extremely important.--I'clast (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, for starters, if someone would listen to what Filll and many others have been talking about for several months, we could move forward. The only surefire block that most admins will make is for a violation of CIVIL, because frankly, it's an easy call and appears to be reversed rarely. Civility is a problem, but not the only problem, in these articles. Blatant violations of the other policies are much more important to correct. After all, isn't the great goal of this whole collaboration to build an encyclopedia that encompasses the whole of human knowledge? I think I've read that somewhere, I don't know. The point is, if we are serious about building an encyclopedia, the content is what is most important. It appears that some people here are under the presumption that the world is all ice cream and puppy dogs. It's not. People will always argue over what they want to include; it's a fact that has been reinforced in every controversial article here. I have seen very few examples of civility based blocks on these articles that did not have another, much more important, policy violation at it's core. Until we address that and find admin's willing to put in the leg work to make the difficult calls, things will continue as they always have. However, the admin's most qualified to make these calls and who have already done the leg work are forbidden to take action, because they already edit these articles. Excluding your most qualified people from controversial areas is never going to result in a net positive result. The status quo will forever remain. Baegis (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

So perhaps for part of structure, the involved admins would be responsible for generating the complaint, requesting informal input, summarizing the logic and evidence for several other generally knowledgeable & experienced but uninvolved admins to review, query and maybe sign off - a special, more admin controlled and centric RfC?--I'clast (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support

1. Support Lawrence § t/e 21:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Support, although why admins need this to help them do what they are already empowered to do is beyond me, except to help them avoid those other admins who seem to enjoy taking down admins (Vanished User, et.al). --Shot info (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. -- Fyslee / talk 03:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Support in principle, though it's probably unworkable in practice. Admins get worn out with this stuff. For example the Homeopathy probation remains in place but is no longer being enforced. Raymond Arritt (talk) 09:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Support -- broadening the coverage will help. I also think we need to be more vigilant to uncover the sock farms that are active here. If we can remove these highly disruptive editors, the situation may improve. Jehochman ^Talk 19:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Support per Jehochman. Rudget (?) 19:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Support is this a small step in the right direction? *fingers crossed* Baegis (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Sure, but there need to be a larger number of uninvolved admins who are willing to police these areas, otherwise sanctions are useless. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Support: Sanctions are useless without uninvolved administrators who are willing to essentially babysit the page and review every incoming edit. And as we have seen before, administrators grow tired quickly of having to do just that at Homeopathy. But it's a strong start. seicer | talk | contribs 19:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Support - Like said above we need admins to enforce it though, and uncover the sock farms that are active there. Tiptoety ^talk 19:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
11. Support This is a problem that has found a solution (hopefully). MBisanz ^talk 20:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

1. No support Bad idea because it singles out alt med articles. . . this would be a sanction that is POV driven in nature.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Completely untrue, this would also cover non-altmed articles such as Time Cube and cold fusion. But then again, looking at your talk page makes me believe that you'd be one of the editors on the wrong end of any sanction, so I suppose your comment must be viewed in that context. east.718 at 03:48, March 7, 2008

   Rude. . . This reveals the poor motives behind east's proposal. . . obviously it is POV in nature. I want to see exacting guidlines of who can apply this tag and to which articles it can be applied. . . Is this only for pseudoscience articles? What is a pseudoscience article?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Typically, the ones where people fight over inclusion of material like "pseuodoscience" and over WEIGHT and UNDUE and FRINGE matters. Pseudoscience being "science" not accepted by the mainstream accepted scientific community. Lawrence § t/e 19:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Bad science, pseudoskepticism, personal & commercial COI, and fundamental WP:RS problems with supposedly reliable technical sources (e.g. "highly respected journals" with 98+% funds from advertising of narrow corporate interests, "technical" articles support certain products, disparage cheap competitors with longest scientific base) parading as mainstream Science are frequent problems in some areas of WP.--I'clast (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   This is the type of nonsense that makes me believe even more now that all of you involved in (insert long term conflict name) should have no say in whether we probation the lot. "Science"? Your bias fly is open. Lawrence § t/e 00:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   Civility and AGF issues aside, since I have not seen you before this AN, you may be frustrated from working in other areas of WP. Let me assure you there are controversy areas where WP:V science conflicts severely with popularly held or cherished views of many less currently informed technicians and professionals, who *think* that "they are being scientific" by spouting a position, who often are (over)relying on unreliable sources (often inadvertently or indirectly from youth onwards). Nor are many "preferred" technical sources as pristine as many seem to zealously assert - reconciliation and fact-checking of these various sources is where WP:V and SPOV meet at WP. Science is how I refer to science practiced with integrity and respect to general principles rather just than dogma, formulaic positions of economic rent (and power) seekers of all stripes & guilds, and spurious officialdom that often are little more than empty suits for hire. I also suggest that you dispense with the "command & control or be extinguished (little bug)" format - it is getting tiresome and conflicts with a number of WP policy positions.--I'clast (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

2. Nonsupport The article probation structure does need an overhaul, it is ineffective & counterproductive as today's unreversed trolling shows my pgagainLCat East'sHP pg(e.g: 1. at my "notification" posting should have been *erased* since I have no involvement in Homeopathy, 2. the originator should have had that repeatedly abused privilege, removed, IMHO). I am very leery of more "superpowers", potentially to an inexperienced cocksure, hotshot admin that might blow someone's legs off before any real process occurred. I think that this is an element in the M Hoffman case and I have felt such danger potential myself because of the "gang up and set up" game on my Talk page and other contrived "offenses" for either partisan or uninformed admins (a big downside of an uninvolved admin is often an uninformed admin in complex or long running situations).--I'clast (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Could support if modified. The pseudoscience articles are a warzone (hell, a trivial article like What the Bleep Do We Know has been a minefield for nearly a year). Handing over this kind of power to single admins would be suicide for both sides of the disputes. Set up a shortcut process of some kind, but some kind of process ... some way that single admins can't hand out blocks arbitrarily or based on mistakes.Kww (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Admin actions can still be contested via the normal channels and are subject to the same norms applied to all other areas of the encyclopedia. The main aim of this proposal is to shift the focus from a moving target (whatever articles happen to be under attack today) to the editors that are responsible. east.718 at 20:03, March 7, 2008

4. Oppose Most Strongly Far too arbitrary, totally uncalled for and stultifying. If the article probation isn't working, why would anyone think that expanding the same type of probation would be effective? Nope: far too Draconian and ridiculous. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Non-support. The article probation on homeopathy may need to be improved, but certainly should not be expanded to other areas of the Wikipedia unless and until it is established to be working well in the relatively small area where it is being tried. Starting a brand new and larger experiment would be a bad idea in my opinion at this time. —Whig (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose for now I need to be convinced that probation is working on homeopathy before I suggest it should be used in other areas. I think that just extending admin powers to apply WP:CIVIL more aggressively (which is what probation is, nothing more) does not correct our underlying problems, which I have detailed repeatedly. We do have other principles like WP:NPOV that should be applied here, and just frantically applying WP:CIVIL more and more often and for the smallest slights is not really helping; do you think it is? So why apply this failed strategy even more broadly?--Filll (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Enforcing civility isn't the goal here - it's to sanction activity that is against the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to create a neutral encyclopedia. Abusing Wikipedia for advocacy, propaganda, ideological struggle, furtherance of outside conflicts - and yes, even rules-lawyering CIVIL - will be dealt with much swifter if this were to pass. east.718 at 20:03, March 7, 2008

   I know that it is not the intention to just enforce WP:CIVIL, but that is the practical effect, because that is all that admins really can enforce easily and all they really want to enforce for a variety of reasons. I think we need to rethink this entire problem from a deeper more radical perspective. See the discussion here.--Filll (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

7. Oppose. I think we should treat all our articles equally. If anyone repeatedly violates behavior or content rules, they should be warned and eventually blocked. This seems to single out certain articles at the expense of others. Crum375 (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Strong Oppose Admins with little or no knowledge of science (or in the case of one admin above, an anti-science POV) will stick their noses into this situation and cause these articles to become anti-science in nature. There really isn't a discussion when WP:VERIFY, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE are utilized. We don't need anti-science or non-science admins ruining these articles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} —Preceding comment was added at 22:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose I think this moves the infighting from many editors to administrators who can essentially impose their will on an article legally. I am not sure this is the kind of power that should be held by any one administrator, even one with the best of intentions. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose I've been editing Chiropractic on and off recently and found the interactions quite civilized. I see no reason why the usual remedies aren't sufficient even if there is disruption on some pages. Inevitably, whether an admin judges some behaviour to be "disruptive" will be coloured by the admin's perception of the value of the content being promoted by the user. Content should be determined by all editors, not primarily by admins; this shifts more power to the admins. The above proposal is not clearly worded at all: what is it? A proposal to apply probation to certain articles? A proposal to change the rules of the probation on homeopathy? A proposal to change the rules of all article probations? The rules in the template given above are very vague and simply allow administrators to arbitrarily define as disruptive whomever they wish to (e.g. people they disagree with). Let's stick with our more objective criteria such as 3RR (or 1RR if considered necessary on some articles) in order to have the best chance of getting a NPOV encyclopedia. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other

1. It is way too broad as presented. Some checks and balances would be needed in the event of long term blocks and bans. A minimum of number of administrators to support a long term block or ban, for example, may be needed. I would support if such minimum consensus standards would be added to the proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   I don't think anybody is suggesting that a single admin would be permitted to hold out against a consensus. :-) east.718 at 20:04, March 7, 2008

2. I don't see how this would change anything. Another template saying "follow the rules or else" is meaningless if there is no "or else" in practice. If anything this would seem to tend to make enforcement more arbitrary and capricious - which seems to be the essence of the problem now. Dlabtot (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
3. I still have never seen a reliable off-wiki definition of "pseudoscience" that an uninvolved admin could refer to to decide what is or is not "pseudoscience". The existing use of the term here on wikipedia is exactly and perfectly equivalent to calling something heresy, and heresy is in the "religious eye of the beholder". Now, as "scientific materialism" is indeed a religion unto itself, we have [Pseudoscience] = [Heresy]. Same thing for "fringe science". Who get's to "decide" what is or is not on the "fringes" of mainstream science? For every editor who throws the charge of "pseudoscience POV pusher", another editor can counter by citing Brian D. Josephson and claiming "Pathological disbelief". The nonsense going on over at "Cold Fusion" is a perfect case in point here, see Nobel laureat Josephson's presentation. Slide 21 is perfect. Furthermore, how is an uninvolved administrator supposed to decide if an editor "seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia..." -- what the heck is THAT? Until there is an objective, reliable and usable off-wiki definition of "pseudoscience" that an uninvolved and non-partisan admin can use to objectively assess claimants charges of "pseudoscience"...this is all nonsense. I have looked through RfCs, mediations, and just about every administrative case that has been brought...I've seen others ask and I've asked for an objective, usable and practical definition of "pseudoscience", I have never gotten one, and I conclude that there is no such thing. WNDL42 (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of own sign

One of the problems is that admins don't enforce existing powers adequately. QuackGuru is running around abusing that warning tag,[22][23][24][25][26][] (and me too). Why not ban QuackGuru from the Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation notifications page and placing the Warning tag? He certainly is not uninvolved. He can always ask other editors or use WP:AN for any as yet undetected homeopathy here. He's earned a vacation (for the rest of the editors) and now overdue in my view.--I'clast (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. He's continually poking, and then has the temerity to cry about incivility. How much poking from him are other editors expected to take without any response? -- Fyslee / talk 05:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. . . this is a poor editor who is always looking for trouble. Send him packing.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note on !vote above

The community should place less weight on the opinions of any involved editors/warriors when sorting out whether a topic should be under probation. Probation is to protect the articles and the rest of us from the fighting--it's not for the benefit, or detriment, of any parties. Please keep this in mind when weighing consensus, to deprecate the views of those involved warriors. Lawrence § t/e 19:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We should focus on analysis, facts and workability.--I'clast (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But when push comes to shove in a problem area, the known editors and players in that problem area should have less (or no!) voice in whether externally mandated group sanctions come into effect. Period, full stop. Lawrence § t/e 00:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Looking at it, it seems that there's at least a split in whether they think this will be a good idea. To me, that's a sign that they're thinking for themselves on this. Beyond that, perhaps the generals should listen to a few voices from the battlefield to see how the battle's going and if their battleplan is working out. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 02:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Instruction creep

This proposal seems to me to be ultimately futile. It, frankly, won't work because the people who are committed to their beliefs in (non)reality will simply bring their cabals to the (in)appropriate fora and find six to twelve sycophant administrators/arbitrators who will support their whining and chastise the administrator who is brave enough to act in the best interest of the encyclopedia. This will continue to be the case no matter what fancy boilerplate is placed on any article. The groups involved in these disputes are simply smarter at gaming Wikipedia than your average administrator is capable of handling.

What administrators really should do is get more courageous and start giving swift kicks in the rears to people that disrupt the encyclopedia regardless of whether they can live up to some arbitrary evidence standard. Such action is risky because admins doing this will end up removed from their coveted high-status administrative positions and chased off Wikipedia for making mistakes or, even worse, actually doing the right thing. That's the nature of the beast: people want to stay administrators because they like the title and the power and they won't risk their necks in actually using the mops and buckets to do any good because the only people who would be willing to act in such a way either never become administrators or are eventually desysopped. Making admins braver is the only way things will change. This proposal, on the other hand, is toothless as all but the most naive will simply not act with appropriate violence against the name-callers/abject lunatics.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi ScienceApologist, there is a lot of truth in what you're saying. I think some form of proposal similar to this could work, but it needs a mechanism to remove long term disruptive editors, who, as you correctly note, are skilled in gaming Wikipedia. Perhaps something along the lines of any individual admin could ban a disruptive editor for up to a week, and 3 admins can jointly decide to ban an editor for up to a year. Addhoc (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned about even 3 admins replacing the usual RFAR ban or block period of 1 yr, because that appears to be too long to me w/o more input & process. Also "sides" in a POV can be that big (3 admins). Again a hard criterion or two would be expected (need an essential defining feature or two). With good criteria and say appeal process that requires 2-3 admins' signatures for shortening/overturning, I could easily say 1, 2, maybe 3 months blocks, 3 - 6 month topic bans with subsequent blocks/bans presumably being easier if the system is working correctly and the recividist editor isn't.--I'clast (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed one structural element above. Building a brick at a time.--I'clast (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Decisions like that will and should be handled by uninvolved users, taking the feedback from known partisans into consideration. Ultimately, though, known players in problem warzones on Wikipedia should have no decision in whether external probations come into play. Lawrence § t/e 00:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyone begins as an uninvolved editor. Antelan ^talk 01:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved, experienced *admins* with a track record for knowledge, policy, fair play, maturity (former User:Gleng, now at CZ, would be a great model).--I'clast (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that some experimentation might be valuable. After all, we performed a miracle on the evolution, intelligent design and creationism articles, for the most part and quelled some tremendous fighting there by a sequence of measures, some of which I describe here, and we developed those techniques through experimentation.

Maybe some of these measures could help in the pseudoscience area, and maybe different measures would be needed. One thing that is different, at least in the alternative medicine arena, is that many alternative medicine practioners are here on Wikipedia, and they view presentation of critical mainstream material as financially and professionally detrimental. And we have a cadre of administrators who are unable or unwilling to sanction anyone who is lobbying to remove mainstream content from these articles.

Things have become much worse of course with the signals lately sent from Arbcomm that WP:CIVIL is not just the main thing, but the only thing that is of any import on Wikipedia. And these sorts of signals are absorbed by the community. However, I think that this sort of attitude is detrimental to the actual production of an encyclopedia.

The most important thing is not civility per se, but productivity. And an overemphasis on civility at all costs can have terrible negative consequences for productivity. See this discussion for example. So let's try to develop new techniques that go to the root of the problem, rather than just attacking WP:CIVIL more vigorously.

For example, some of the most productive people on both the pro-science and the pro-pseudoscience sides are not so civil, necessarily. But they produce. And many of the more civil, and more expert at gaming the system, produce nothing. And so we push away the productive people, and keep the unproductive. And where does that get us?

You know, if all constructive edits completely ceased, and we just had pleasant conversations on the talk page, things would be perfectly WP:CIVIL. But we would not be writing an encyclopedia.--Filll (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I missed the signals lately sent from Arbcomm that WP:CIVIL is not just the main thing, but the only thing ... could you provide diffs of these 'signals' so that we can know that they were really sent? After all, we wouldn't want to base our decisions on a rhetorical device that is basically a falsehood. Dlabtot (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well this might not have been the intention of Arbcomm (although information I have through unofficial channels is that this was their intention). However, clearly from the associated talk pages I am not the only one who has taken away that impression, intended or not. You are free to disagree that they gave this impression or intended to give this impression, but it is a little hard to argue that many people have been given this impression. --Filll (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the premise of your argument has no basis in reality that you are able to cite. Dlabtot (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to try to convince you that this perception is correct. Others have it, and I am one of them. If you do not perceive things this way, well good for you. Others might not agree with you. So what? That is what makes the world go around. Of course, as I stated, there is no explicit pronouncement of this; it is just an inference that some have drawn from their observations. --Filll (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much a matter of convincing me that you are correct as it is of making some small effort to connect what you describe as your 'impressions' with some sort of objective reality. You claim you are basing your impressions on observations: what observations? Dlabtot (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm pretty sure you are not going to answer the simple question I've posed to you above, let me try another tack: the Arbitration Committee does explicitly say that it does not rule on content issues - is that what your are complaining about? Are you advocating for ArbCom to rule on content? If not, what exactly are you advocating for? Dlabtot (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dlabtot, Filll is referring to cases such as the recent MH case where certina ArbCom members and the Committee's collective action makes their views on civility being more important than anything else abundantly clear. To be fair, it is not all committee members who hold such views, but Filll's perception is well grounded in reality. I can't speak for Filll, but I would say that ArbCom ruling on content would be a disaster - content rulings need to involve people who understand that content, making a single body for all of WP problematic because of the amount of technical / specialised content. Further, there is also a perception at present that ArbCom's understanding of science issues is, to be charitable, less than stellar. For ArbCom, what I would advocate is a focus on actions that improving the content, making it easier to deal with tendentious but civil editors. The present situation, where admins will jump in, guns blazing, to enforce WP:CIVIL, but take no action about the underlying violations of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, WP:DE, and WP:TE that led to the incivil outburst, is unhelpful - and ArbCom is contributing to the problem at the moment, rather than to its solution. Jay*Jay (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's simply not true that ArbCom has ever said, or implied, that civility being more important than anything else. Which is why it is impossible to quote any ArbCom decision that says or implies that. Dlabtot (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You just keep flogging that dead horse Dlabtot. You want a medal for doing it?--Filll (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dlabtot, you have every right to maintain your incorrect opinion, and even to attempt to persuade others to your view. You asked for some indication of the observations upon which such views are founded, and I provided an example. The MH case is a lot more than just the final decision - look at the evidence, the associated RfC, and the talk page pleadings for the proposed decision to be modified, and then try to declare (with a straight face) that ArbCom's actions didn't send signals loudly and clearly. Jay*Jay (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jay*Jay is completely correct. One need only look at the talk pages associated with the MH case and the associated 3 RfCs to observe many others who have reached the same impression I have. And as for what I suggest we do about it, I would humbly suggest you read my posts above where I repeatedly made suggestions and included links to pages with much more extensive discussions of what I suggest we do about the situation. Actually reading people's posts can help you absorb information about their positions and suggestions, in certain instances, don't you agree?--Filll (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So basically we are looking to even slightly expand criteria beyond the uncivil outburst & meltdown stage at length in a way that is fair to editors from several sides (proto-, fringe-, pseudo- science, science area1, science area2, "skeptic") based on other behavior or concrete actions or content improvement, to restore Good Faith and NPOV editing.--I'clast (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll be heretical and point out that the real problem is the very concept that being "fair" to fringe science and pseudoscience proponents includes allowing them to edit Wikipedia. If they were simply blocked from editing, the battle level would be reduced significantly. I know there's an argument that people that believe that their television is controlled by spirits or that they can cure cancer by wishing it would go away can still write a good article on Hannah Montana. That's probably true, but is self-sorting. As long as they limit themselves to pop culture articles, no one would have a clue that there was a problem. Once they venture into the science articles, ban them after the first couple of problematic edits.Kww (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The worst "science" or most "skeptic" editors are pushing their pet personality, technical illiteracy, COI or POV, not science - neither current research results nor methods. Some appear to be simply cousins of the 4000 BC flood geologists at heart (WP:V denialists), just they got stuck in the 1950s, perhaps interning over at the McCarthy trials.

This is why I have asked about criteria (and symmetry), so far I see no serious effort by others to help solve the cypher after East's proposal.--I'clast (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am stating that the current approach of WP:CIVIL enforcement only is not helpful, and might even be detrimental to productivity. Other approaches should be considered and tried. And one of those could include broader enforcement as you suggest, although to implement broader enforcement by just making some declaration, or fatwah is probably not realistic or practical.--Filll (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Filll (and others) on what the import of the MH arbitration case is, but I agree with his point that people should read his essay and the discussion at User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal. There are real issues here, ones that are difficult to solve, and complex, nuanced solutions are needed. Such solutions still need to be relatively easy to implement, but not too simplified. That is not instruction creep, but rather it is improving the current situation through discussion and guidance. Carcharoth (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty good essay Fill, glad it worked out, might be useful in other cases. Several parts might seem too heavyhanded for other situations though, so there is no substitute for NPOV, V, GF when others claim to try to apply it.--I'clast (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A good essay - I'd like to note that it seems evolution was able to achieve FA status without throwing WP:CIVIL out the window. Dlabtot (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Votestacking at WP:FPC

All socks blocked via WP:AIV Malinaccier (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In which the photographer/sockpuppeteer, Mario1987, created several sockpuppets in order to get his pictures featured. It should be noted that his upload log has a large amount of red links due to copyvios - can we have a few admins to have a look at the images please? The following accounts need to be blocked, as per the checkuser request:

• Mario1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Mariosamoa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Angelono2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Sathmar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Medrano man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Cameldog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Loganbailly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Negresti-oas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Based on the above abuse, I propose that Mario1987 at least be banned from FPC. For an editor of his experience, he really should have known better. MER-C 01:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

All accounts are already blocked indefinitely. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Actually there's a related problem with the legitimacy of some of this editor's uploads. Claims to be from Romania, and the only photo uploads he's done that have metadata tags are of Romanian locations. Has also uploaded dubious images of New World species and of Senegal. I've checked the most recent uploads; details below. Durova^Charge! 02:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Short summary: all of the images listed below have dubious legitimacy. Items 6-10 from the first group might be worth checking out in more depth. The rest can all go. Durova^Charge! 03:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Image:Mule Deer.jpg: Western North American species; editor claims to be from Romania. No visible metadata.
2. Image:Pugmug.jpg: Looks like a studio shot. No metadata.
3. Image:Scarlet Tanager.jpg: North American species. No metadata.
4. Image:Blue Morpho.jpg: Mesoamerican species. No metadata.
5. Image:Faidherbe5.jpg: Claims to own rights to the photo, but image is sourced to a Swedish photographer's website that claims full copyright. Image was shot in Senegal in 2005.
6. Image:Faidherbestamp.jpg: Posibly okay: postage stamp with source link provided (returns 404 error).
7. Image:PlanSaintLouis.jpg: Possibly legitimate fair use, but wrong fair use rationale. Claims to be a newspaper scan. Actually comes from a website. Posts what purports to be reprint permission in French, but no OTRS submission.
8. Image:Podul Faidherbe2.jpg: Unclear license. Source links returns a 404 error. Editor claims this is public domain as 100+ years old. The Commons license info page doesn't list a separate entry for Senegal. Most former colonial countries have similar copyright laws to the former colonial power, which for France would be the artist's lifespan plus 70 years. We have no way of knowing how old this postcard really is, much less whether the photographer died before or after 1938. With this much murkiness I'm not going to dig further (to find out whether this specifically holds true for Senegal or not, etc.)
9. Image:PodulFaidherbe.jpg:Possibly legitimate. Valid source link to the Senegal national archives. Spent a minute surfing the site (which was in French) looking for a licensing statement. Didn't find it right away; could be worth investigating in more detail.
10. Image:VedereAerianSaint Louis.jpg:Probably legitimate. Google Earth with fair use rationale.
11. Image:Palatul administrativ sm.JPG:Legitimate. A location in Romania, metadata displays. Probably a representative example of the editor's actual photographic skill. Not used in any article.
12. Image:Sapanta 091.jpg:Legitimate. A location in Romania, same metadata. Not used in any article.

---

Previous uploads (dubious examples only; more to come): Durova^Charge! 02:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Image:24nr4.jpg: Metadata only displays the imaging software, not the camera.
2. Image:Iffg 2159.jpg: No metadata, no description, not used in any article.
3. Image:Iyyu 2162.jpg: No metadata, no description, not used in any article.
4. Image:Oasc 4728.JPG: No metadata, no description.
5. Image:Labd 5626.JPG: No metadata, no description, not used in any article.
6. Image:Fsd 5671.JPG: No metadata, no description, not used in any article.
7. Image:IerG 5674.JPG: No metadata, no description, not used in any article.
8. Image:Imsunset 5793.JPG: No metadata, no description, not used in any article.
9. Image:Smwaterfall 5867.JPG: No metadata, no description, not used in any article.
10. Image:City 5911.JPG: No metadata, no description, not used in any article.
11. Image:Landscape cal.jpg: No metadata, no description.
12. Image:Playground223.JPG: No description, not used in any article. Metadata is for a Canon PowerShot A620, taken 19 December 2005. From August 2003 through July 2007 the editor's regular camera was an hp photosmart 735.
13. Image:Playground223.JPG: Not the editor's usual camera (a Canon PowerShot A620 19 December 2005). No description, not used in any article.
14. Image:Playground32.JPG: Not the editor's usual camera. hp photosmart 735 22 August 2003. Not used in any article.
15. Image:Tuia'.JPG: Not the editor's usual camera. Canon PowerShot S5 IS 17 November 2007. No description, not used in any article.
16. Image:Woodsroad.JPG: Not the editor's usual camera. Canon PowerShot S5 IS 3 November 2007
17. Image:Europe FDI.png: Claims to be an original map of Europe. Likely derivative work. No sources listed.
18. Image:EU nat gas production.PNG: Claims to be an original map of Europe. Likely derivative work. No sources listed.
19. Image:Sunseta.JPG: No description, not used in any article.
20. Image:Dscspyder.JPG: No description, not used in any article.
21. Image:Iron production by country.PNG: Claims to be an original map of the world. Probably a derivative work. No sources listed.
22. Image:Coal production by country.png: Claims to be an original map of the world. Probably a derivative work. No sources listed.
23. Image:Firework8.JPG: Not the editor’s usual camera. No description, not used in any article.
24. Image:Firework7.JPG: Not the editor’s usual camera. No description, not used in any article.
25. Image:Palatuladministrativ2.JPG: No metadata, no description, not used in any article.
26. Image:Coal production world.PNG: Claims to be an original map of the world. Probably derivative. No source data.
27. Image:Al production.PNG: Claims to be an original map of the world. Probably derivative. No source data.
28. Image:My nephew.JPG: Not used in any article; outside project scope.
29. Image:The bug on the something.JPG: No description, not used in any article.
30. Image:Bee in the something.JPG: No description, not used in any article.
31. Image:Jungle lake.JPG: No description, not used in any article.
32. Image:Haunted house.JPG: No description, not used in any article.
33. Image:Sunsetover.JPG: No description, not used in any article.
34. Image:Sunset12.JPG: No description, not used in any article.
35. Image:Autoproduction.PNG: Claims to be an original map of the world. Probably derivative. No sources given.
36. Image:Fixtelephony.PNG: Claims to be an original map of the world. Probably derivative. No sources given.
37. Image:Oilprovenreserves.PNG: Claims to be an original map of the world. Probably derivative. No sources given.
38. Image:Gasprovenreserves-World-v5.PNG: Claims to be an original map of the world. Probably derivative. No sources given.
39. Image:Nicolita.jpg: No metadata, not used in any article. Indoor photo of a recognizable person that lacks model permission.
40. Image:Sapanta 067.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
41. Image:Sapanta 068.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
42. Image:Sapanta069.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
43. Image:Sapanta 070.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
44. Image:Sapanta 075.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
45. Image:Sapanta 077.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
46. Image:Sapanta 078.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
47. Image:Sapanta 079.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
48. Image:Sapanta 080.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
49. Image:Sapanta 082.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
50. Image:Sapanta 084.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
51. Image:Sapanta 085.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
52. Image:Sapanta 089.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
53. Image:Sapanta 090.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
54. Image:Sapanta 113.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
55. Image:Sapanta 109.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
56. Image:Sapanta 108.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
57. Image:Ad020v3.jpg: Not the editor's usual camera (Canon PowerShot A310 2 December 2004), not used in any article.
58. Image:Computerparts.JPG: No description, not used at any article.
59. Image:Fallerleafs.JPG: No description, not used at any article.
60. Image:Hboxe0746.JPG:No description, not used at any article.
61. Image:Floer11.JPG:No description, not used at any article.

A portion of these could be justifiable as transwikies to Commons, if anyone knows the Romanian countryside and feels motivated to add descriptions to the images that have Hewlett Packard metadata. Durova^Charge! 03:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at this case yesterday and also noticed the inconsistencies regarding the images. I'd be inclined to just speedy everything that doesn't have the HP data. I take it this fellow has a past history with posting copyvio images and I strongly feel most of the images listed here are copyvios. Sarah 03:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The SapantaXXX pictures are of the Merry Cemetery in Săpânţa, Romania, not far from where our sockpuppeteer apparently lives. The pics aren't bad, actually. Of course, there's unfortunately no way of knowing that they're definitely his... -- ChrisO (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The metadata for most of the images that have camera data is for the same make and model camera over a four year period. So it's safe to say that anything with hp photosmart 735 actually is this editor's work. A problem there is that he's been using Wikipedia as a personal photo album and putting them into user space only. That violates en:Wiki hosting standards, but those examples would be all right for transwiki to Commons if someone who knows the area wants to add a description. I've written the report with enough information to tell the difference. Durova^Charge! 04:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Senegal images might be legal for us to use,check this French page out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There also seems to be a few for HP Photosmart M537. Sarah 04:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts)Thanks Chris. Those ones all have metadata for HP Photosmart which I take it is what Durova referred to as his usual camera, but I'm not sure. The images I'm particularly concerned with are the ones with no metadata or different cameras with vastly different photographic skill. There seems to be a very wide range in skill, compare for example Image:Blue-fronted_Amazon.JPG (hp photosmart 735 metadata), Image:HPIM0058.JPG (HP M537) and Image:HPIM0224.JPG(HP M537) with Image:Scarlet Tanager.jpg and Image:Pugmug.jpg, both of which have no metadata. I'm just finding it very hard to believe these were all taken by the same person, as is claimed. See also User:Mario1987/Pictures_added. Sarah 04:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly right, Sarah. I'm assuming all the ones that lack metadata or show some other camera are copyvios. So I noted the missing metadata/unusual camera status on every image that had those problems. The entries that don't list any metadata problem appear to be his own actual photographs (those ones are also about the same level of quality and look like they were all taken in Romania). The situation is a little confusing, so I hope the notations are clear enough. Feel free to ask questions if something looks vague. Durova^Charge! 04:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Dang, looks like a portion of these have been transwikied to Commons. I'll head over there to follow up on that end. Durova^Charge! 05:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Durova, can you indicate which ones you feel should be deleted? I've deleted some, mostly animals, that I feel are pretty obviously copyvios. Sarah 05:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent, reply to Sarah) I'll bullet point this:

• Items 6-10 from the first set might be okay. Worth checking out.
• Everything else on both lists is either a probable copyvio or outside en:Wikipedia hosting parameters. All the lines that mention no metadata or not the editor's usual camera really ought to be deleted. All the maps need to go.
• Some material would be viable for transwiki to Commons, if descriptions were added. In cases where I don't complain about the metadata or the camera model, then decide whether it's worth the time to add information about what the photo depicts. Commons does need to have some information about the subject (and I know very little about Romania).
• For the record, this editor also had some legitimate uploads and I haven't listed the stuff that was clearly legitimate. (Those are the instances where he was using his own camera and the image actually is being used in at least one article).

Durova^Charge! 05:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted everything except 6-10 on the first list. Anything else that is still blue has been deleted locally but still exists by the same name on Commons. Sarah 06:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much; that's a huge help. Now I'll have the joyous task of translating Senegalese copyright law... Durova^Charge! 07:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm adding a notation on this guy at WP:LOBU. Given these massive copyright violations (shades of Verdict?), it's obvious he'll never be allowed back. Blueboy96 13:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

He also had a "trophy case" of sorts at User:Mario1987/Pictures added. Nearly all of the pictures there have been determined to be copyvios, so I deleted the lot. Blueboy96 14:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image found notes

3. Image:Scarlet Tanager.jpg: North American species. No metadata. / copy found at [27], linked from [28] which claims at bottom the images are from PD sources. Original source not found. Google Image led to two other images but server not serving so can't get details nor context:[29][30] -- SEWilco (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

4. Image:Blue Morpho.jpg: Mesoamerican species. No metadata. / At [31] in lower resolution with a claimed author. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, SEW. :) Sarah 05:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, excellent find. For the first few of these I checked the first hundred or two Google Image returns, then worked from species origin and metadata. Durova^Charge! 07:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More notes

• Image:PlanSaintLouis.jpg: I translated the French notice on the page to mean that it was only allowed on Wikipedia "with permission," so I ixnayed it per {{db-permission}}. Surprised you didn't catch that as well, Durova ... you speak French too, right?
• Image:Faidherbe5.jpg: Spiked as a fairly obvious copyvio. Blueboy96 05:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Good catch. I skimmed the French sources and it's possible I could have skipped over an image or two as I went down the list. Durova^Charge! 07:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh wait a sec. Yes that was on the first list. I had doubts about that one. Durova^Charge! 07:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Image:VedereAerianSaint Louis.jpg replaceable fair use, can use something from NASA World Wind instead. MER-C 07:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • These are items 6-10 stuff; I listed them as questionable and plowed down the list rather than slow down and check fair use parameters each time. Durova^Charge! 07:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Poofed. Man this guy was a timewaster. :( Sarah 07:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Europe FDI.PNG - copy of Image:Europe FDI.png deleted above.
• Image:Uvvg.jpg - OK fair use.
• Image:Camus.jpg - deleted, reuploaded by someone else as a (likely) different image. OK.
• Image:Sinagoguesm.JPG - no metadata, no description. Not used in any articles. MER-C 07:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commons uploaded images

Suspected copyvios

Need someone to file a deletion request or a Commons admin to delete the following:

• Image:Ardei.JPG - no metadata, no description. Not used in any articles.
• Image:Fallenleefs.JPG - not the user's usual camera. Not used in any articles.
• Image:Winterlandscape.JPG - same as above.
• Image:Zinc production by country.PNG - map.
• Image:Icoanepestanca.JPG - not the user's usual camera. Possible derivative work. Not used in any articles.
• Image:Fireork14.JPG - not the user's usual camera. Not used in any articles.
• Image:Supercar.JPG - derivative work. Not used in any articles.
• Image:AD 051v2.jpg - not the user's usual camera. Not used in any articles.
• Image:AD 051.jpg - not the user's usual camera. Not used in any articles.

Other commons images

• Image:Bee there.JPG - no description, not used in any articles.
• Image:Dragonfly23.JPG - no description.
• Image:Pisauramirabilis.JPG - no original description, not used in any articles.
• Image:Frogy - close look.JPG - no description.
• Image:Spikey.JPG - no description, not used in any articles.
• Image:The something.JPG - no description, not used in any articles.
• Image:Wonderfull look.JPG - no description, not used in any articles. Unencyclopedic composition.
• Image:HPIM0436.JPG - no description, not used in any articles.
• Image:Blue-fronted Amazon.JPG - no original description
• Image:Palatul administrativ sm.JPG - no description, not used in any articles.
• Image:The island - it`s fake.JPG - ditto.
• Image:Sunsetandthelake.JPG - ditto
• Image:HPIM0223.JPG - no description.
• Image:HPIM0224.JPG - no description.
• Image:HPIM0217.JPG - no description.
• Image:HPIM0085.JPG - no description.
• Image:Cathedral325.JPG - no description.
• Image:Lakepowerplant.JPG - no description.
• Image:HaloweenPumpkin.JPG - no description, not used in any articles.
• Image:Marinaa.JPG - ditto
• Image:Canoes.JPG - ditto. I thought this guy lives in Romania... MER-C 09:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Mario1987 - thanks Durova. MER-C 09:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't nominate the Commons files that came from the editor's camera. If you think anything else needs to be there, feel free to expand the nomination. I'm calling it a night (Senegalese copyright law can wait 'til tomorrow...and I thought I'd be editing biographies tonight!) Thanks to all who helped fix this problem. Durova^Charge! 09:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The images listed at the Commons case (at least, the obvious ones) have all been deleted. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One final deletion

Image:PodulFaidherbe.jpg - improper public domain claim (100 years after publication) Senegal copyright law does not not automatically place material in the public domain 100 years after publication. Their laws are a bit more complicated than that and I was unable to determine enough information to confirm the status for this image. Please delete Durova^Charge! 06:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WoW is back

Be on the look out! Rudget. 10:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Doubt it's the same guy - why did he redirect the pages rather than moving them? Hut 8.5 12:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the account was only created today, so it wasn't able to move anything. I highly doubt this was the original; just a somewhat boring copycat. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, you're right. Rudget. 12:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, Willy on Wheels was actually unbanned via the community sanction noticeboard back in the summer months of last year. He was permitted to create a new account (although the ban template was never removed from his userpage) and was allowed to contribute quietly. I still highly doubt this will be him, though. Qst (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? A vandal-only account is a vandal-only account. Though I think the 'original' person has long, long since moved on, perhaps even joined us as a productive editor. Grandmasterka 13:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Hmm, maybe that's who (or inspired to do so) move-vandalised Virginia Tech Massacre? Well, we have seen our fair share of move-vandals in recent times, especially that ultra-annoying Grawp which kept causing Hagger and Grawp pages appear on my watchlist. PS. I'm not an admin. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 14:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What? Whose idea was that? Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a kind heads up, Ive got a real time monitor that watches page moves and notifies admins instantly when a page move vandal such as wow is active. its what helped lead to a swift end of gwap. if there is another move vandal that pops up leave me a note and Ill get the monitor back up. β^_command 18:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another pair of socks...

202.0.35.163 (talk · contribs · block log) seems to be a persistent source of vandalism ever since it started editing in November 2007. Prior to being blocked (again), the IP user created two sockpuppet accounts today - Ihtw (talk · contribs · block log) and Dzrstricken (talk · contribs · block log) (see Special:Contributions/Ihtw and Special:Contributions/Dzrstricken). Ihtw has received a 24-hour block for vandalism and Dzrstricken has received a warning; since the person behind the IP address has not made a single constructive edit, would someone indef-block the two accounts? I know that blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, but I think this is a case of prevention - the IP has not shown any interest in anything beyond vandalism. Since I'm technically "involved" on some level (though I couldn't care less about a vandalised user page), I thought I'd ask someone else to have a look rather than blocking myself. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Both accounts blocked as single-purpose disruption. Keegan^talk 06:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Favour required

Speedied by Blueboy96 per user request

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

Note that TheCaseofDaniel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), indef-blocked as na attack account, is a likely reincarnation of ColScott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu). Guy (Help!) 14:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sanity check requests of possible "permission-only" image

On the talk page for Image:MARILYN MONROE.jpg, the uploader, Gouryella Tenchi (talk · contribs), posted this message on the talk page:

"To publish this painting, you must mention this name: Kay Johnson. It's not a photo."

I don't know about you guys, but to me, this makes this image speediable per {{db-permission}}. I was about to pull the trigger myself, but figured I ought to have a sanity look at this before I delete it. Blueboy96 20:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You'd be better to ask this question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Bovlb (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes no sense - you can't release something under CC-SA, and then put a restriction like that on it. I'd be inclined to say that the message has no legal force, and the license stands. Whether or not the license is appropriate is another matter, possibly for WP:MCQ. Happy‑melon 21:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You can require attribution on the wikimedia projects (almost all users do), the creative commons licenses and the GFDL require attribution: "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor", so I don't think db-permission would be the reason for deletion. Technically the licensing is correct. However it should be deleted anyway because there is no source given to verify the license, and an OTRS ticket would be needed if the source didn't not have a license with it already. Jackaranga (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

But Happy-melon you seem to be confused: the creative commons licenses, require you to attribute the author in a way he chooses, you have no other choice, also you must reuse the same license they used if you redistribute the work. Jackaranga (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I am/was, or at least ill-informed. I was aware that the GFDL permitted attribution, but thought we had disallowed all the CC variants which required it. If we allow licenses such as this, then even less reason to delete on this basis. Happy‑melon 19:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the image in question, but db-permission applies when the copyright holder gives permission "only to wikipedia" or "only for non-commercial uses" for use of the image. For attribution restrictions, we have a Category:Conditional use images, which includes Category:Images requiring attribution. If the image is licensed for anyone to use and just requires some specific form of attribution needing attention by downstream reusers, it belongs there. Gimmetrow 23:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)