Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you in the right place?	Using this page
To report persistent vandalism, see administrator intervention against vandalism. To report persistent spamming, see WikiProject Spam. For evasion of blocks, abuse of admin tools, or other incidents, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI) To request a review of a deletion or to request undeletion of a page, see deletion review. To request page protection or unprotection, see requests for page protection. To report improper usernames, see usernames for administrator attention. To report edit warring, see the administrators' 3RR noticeboard. To request permanent deletion of personal information, see requests for oversight. To report suspected sockpuppetry, see suspected sock puppets. To report administrative backlogs, add {{adminbacklog}} to the backlogged page. To report cut and paste moves, see the cut and paste move repair holding pen. For advice on issues that do not require the use of administrative tools, such as content concerns or naming conventions, see the Village Pump. To request assistance from a specific administrator, enter User talk:Whoever in the search box to the left and press "Go". If you are blocked, please place the code: {{unblock| your reason for unblock }} - on your talk page. You may also contact the blocking admin via email (navigate to their userpage and click "E-mail this user"). To discuss any of the above issues regarding Wikimedia projects other than the English Wikipedia, please find the appropriate venue at that project or at Meta-Wiki.	Shortcuts: WP:AN WP:ANB Please start new threads under a level-2 heading, using double equals-signs and an informative title: ==Informative title==. If a thread is related to an ongoing discussion, consider instead placing it under a level-3 heading within that discussion. As a courtesy, please inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed. If no comment, or no further comment, has been made after a 48-hour period, your post and any responses will be automatically archived. Please do not try to stop other people from continuing a discussion by inserting {{discussion top}} – {{discussion bottom}} templates to "archive" ongoing discussions. When posting, please sign and date all contributions, using four tilde characters "~~~~", which is translated into a signature and a time stamp automatically. The archival bot, which moves the oldest sections to the archives in order to reduce page length below 256KB every day, does not always recognize nonstandard, manually-inserted timestamps. If discussion is already ongoing at another page, or there is another page which is a more natural location for a discussion, please continue the discussion there, and only put a short note of the issue, and a link to the relevant location, on this page. In case you cannot edit this page due to it being protected, place your comments on this page and they will be addressed accordingly.
What these pages are not
These pages are not the place to raise disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour. Administrators are not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. Wikipedia has a dispute resolution procedure editors should follow where possible. Please take such disputes to requests for comment, requests for mediation, or requests for arbitration rather than here. If you are here to report a violation of Wikipedia's policies on Civility or Personal Attacks, please instead raise them at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page, and note that any messages that egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be removed.

---

Contents 1 Commons photos of buildings and statues 2 Review of blocks 3 Requesting further administrative opinion 4 Possibly threatening statement? 5 Request for more eyes on and a speedy close to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (3rd) 6 Using fullprot to protect long-distance (but non-crystal ball) future work redirects 7 Another Backlog 8 Global Admins 9 Proxy checkers needed. Jumbo backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies 10 Restricting the "move subpages" feature to admins 11 Query about the Tango (drink) article 12 1 year schoolblock - 24.244.192.130 13 Conflicting blocks 14 User:202.142.220.65 15 Grawpery 16 Block needed per user name policy? 17 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Spiritus Nirin 18 Disruptive edits 19 Request #2 for more eyes on and a speedy close to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (3rd) 20 Category merge ? 21 User account with no accessible contribution history 22 Open Proxies vs. Public Computers 23 Eceresa (talk · contribs) 24 New noticeboard 25 User merge/delete 26 User contributions 27 Username Blacklist 28 Possible Grawp sock? 29 RCA Corporation 30 Featured picture cited as original research?

If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message here instead.

[edit] Commons photos of buildings and statues

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this but I can't think of anywhere else. If anyone has uploaded photos of buildings or statues in the USA to Commons, you should head over and download it to your computer as it will be deleted eventually. According to them, buildings and statues in the USA are copyrighted works of art and therefore photographs of them are considered derivative works [1]. I found this out when a picture of the Italian American Sports Hall of Fame (and a statue outside of it) that I uploaded there was nommed for deletion. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, a photograph of the statue outside the Italian American Sports Hall of Fame would be subject to the copyright of the artist, but a photograph of the building would not: "U.S. federal copyright law explicitly exempts photographs of copyrighted buildings from the copyright of the building in 17 USC 120(a)". - auburnpilot talk 16:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please point us to a relevant discussion. Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That's quite right; freedom of panorama in the United States extends to buildings but not to other permanent installations, toward which one may see, e.g., Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama. The section of Commons:FOP to which NoC links properly observes that the "[t]aking pictures of buildings is...reproduction, which must theoretically be authorized by the architect", but only if "the right to reproduction is not in the national copyright law"; §120 roughly provides such a right of reproduction. When an image includes both a building (copyrighted but not subject to restrictions on the right of photographic reproduction) and a statue (to which, in the United States, FOP does not extend), the situation is more complicated (as would be the use of non-free photographs of buildings; there are certain circumstances under which photographs of three-dimensional objects, such as buildings, might be understood as not requiring Bridgeman v. Corel's originality, but we need not now undertake an inquiry as to what those may be), but we might safely say, I think, that Commons does not delete photographs of buildings that conform to Commons:FOP. Joe 17:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I read up on this a fair bit because of a photo I have on commons, Image:Seattle Art Museum 01.jpg. That's the Hammering Man, a copyrighted statue, and it was pointed out it may be a copyvio photograph. But the opinions seemed to be that as it includes other artistic elements, it's fine--it's a photo of the area, of which the statue just happens to be in. If I'd taken and framed the photo to be principally of the statue, then it would be a copyvio, is my understanding. Environmental factors seem to factor in too. That statue is 60 to 80 feet tall, and it's physically impossible to photograph that building or practically that entire street corner without catching it, and in fact you can see the statue for a tremendous distance, depending on how you approach. rootology (T) 04:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as an aside, if the Commons copyright policies are Foundation level, wouldn't the same ones apply to Wikipedia, or would the fair use angle let you get around it for photos of statues? rootology (T) 04:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Re the aside, the latter. Commons accepts only freely licensed media files, whilst other projects may, consistent with their respective EDPs, choose to allow the uploading and use of various restricted-use/non-free media. Joe 05:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense, then, for commons to be more restrictive than individual projects, since commons has to serve images to all projects. rootology (T) 15:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This crack-down of sorts would only affect me if there is some way in hell for a photo ("free"-ly licensed by the photographer) of a very old statue (one erected before, say, 1923) not to be 100% kosher. Yes, I did seek advice (not "legal advice" mind you) from one of our resident copyright experts before uploading... — CharlotteWebb 15:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review of blocks

I just blocked Blackbeltstinky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Blackbeltsmelly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) indefinitely for edits like this and for being sockpuppets of each other. However because they both did this I would like a review. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely you don't think this is a COI? John Reaves 00:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. If they'd had chances, they blew WP:AGF forever with that last diff. --Rodhullandemu 00:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, no worries. --Gutza ^{T T+} 00:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

John Reaves, I thought it common sense but I got an email from an admin before when I had blocked another editor who was doing the same thing across several talk/user pages. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that admin might need a good trout slap then. If you see an attack vandal, block them. Mr.Z-man 00:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. You have to go with your instincts for the benefit of the encyclopedia first (remember the readers? How many people do?), apply policy (remembering WP:IAR is there for a reason) and pick up the pieces later, if necessary. I may be a Category:Rouge admin in spirit, but it works for me. --Rodhullandemu 00:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That an admin felt the need to email instead of posting their comments on a public board speaks volumes. Might you be interested in adopting my caveat? It could reduce the amount of off-wiki comment to you, if that is a problem.LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe your caveat is acceptable within our privacy policy, and recall somebody being forced to remove such a caveat once before. - auburnpilot talk 14:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been previously discussed, and while some disliked it it was permitted (a couple of people have even adopted it) and it has been in place for six months now. Some people who have mailed me have requested clarification, but none have not ultimately emailed me. No email has yet been divulged. If you wish to discuss this further I am happy to do so, but I think it should be a separate thread. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about me. I just won't email you or anybody else who doesn't respect the privacy of private communication. There are plenty of other admins and editors. - auburnpilot talk 17:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To avoid conflicting with Wikipedia policy, I wonder if LessHeard could change his caveat. Instead of saying 'I won't hold your message confidential', he could say, 'I won't take action on any complaint that is submitted to me only by email.' You could coax the emailer to rephrase his problem and post it in some form on the wiki. (If they are unwilling to do that, ask them to write to Arbcom). When I see admins doing unexpected things, I sometimes wonder if they've received an email about something that I don't know about. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious what privacy policy you think LHvU's notice conflicts with. Risker (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure if it is written in policy somewhere (too many policy pages these days), but it was a principle of the Durova Arbcom case that private correspondence should not be posted without permission from the author. - auburnpilot talk 18:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It was precisely that matter which lead me to create the caveat, permission to disseminate is implicit when contacting me via email; that is what the wording means. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, what's next: "By commenting on this talk page, you agree that I may attack you in any way I see fit"? It may not violate the letter of any policy, but anyone can see how such a caveat isn't right. Implicit agreement to waive privacy is unjustifiable; it must be explicit from the author of the email. - auburnpilot talk 21:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have posted on EdJohnston's talkpage suggesting opening a dialogue on this matter, with a view to consolidating practice into a guideline. Your participation is likely to be useful. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's well established that an admin should have email enabled in order that users may communicate him if blocked, etc. The purpose of this is totally defeated if they must sign away their rights when they do this. LHVU further says "this may exclude me from certain aspects of the administrative remit" -- but blocking is one thing he does not abstain from. (that's a compliment, BTW). DGG (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I recently saw an arbcom case that made it clear that if someone insults you then you should not block them, then again I think that is a load of shit. Good block! _{1 != 2} 18:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Disclaimer: The preceding comment was pure smartassery and should not be taken seriously.

Risker is correct that the policy is not settled. Instead of "To avoid conflicting with Wikipedia policy..." I would say "To avoid criticism by editors who are concerned about the privacy of email correspondence..." EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting further administrative opinion

Yesterday, I protected the Barack Obama article due to edit warring. Looking at the talk page, it is quite clear that efforts have gone on by various parties to judge consensus on this issue, but such consensus is certainly not clear in regards as to what material should be included/excluded, from what I can see. Today, one of the parties approached me and informed me that there was consensus here, but this is not apparent in my eyes. I do not really feel comfortable with bringing conclusion to this issue without the input of others, due to size and scale of the issue. I therefore would be very grateful for further opinions on this matter and what steps of action should be taken. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I will also note that it is this diff that is the source of most of the dispute: [2]. As one notes, it concerns a living person, but is not referenced to reliable exterior sources, so, by policy, it should likely not be included until reliable sources can be found. That is the line of action policy dictates, from what I can see. Therefore, I personally am tending towards the unprotection of the article, with the addition of a warning concerning BLP and relating consequences on the talk page. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like, based on further developments, that you've determined after all this is not a good time to unprotect. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I had originally thought that the problem regarded BLP solely, and that policy could keep the edit warriors inline and stop an edit war that didn't need to happen. But it seems I was not entirely correct in that assumption, and that the war is actually much bigger than the simple BLP violation here. I have pointed them in the way of WP:DISPUTE. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Right now the article is semi-protected. It should remain semi-protected for sometime. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly threatening statement?

This article is nominated for speedy deletion, but apparently somebody took it kind of personally. TN‑X-Man 20:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, please let me know if this is the correct forum for addressing these concerns. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 20:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a fine place - possible /Incidents if we're being picky, but no problem. In this case, I'd suggest there's nothing that can be done. It's a threat, but they aren't going to do anything about it, and neither can we really... Alex Muller 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought. The article has been deleted and the user blocked, so the issue is probably done and done. Thanks for the info. TN‑X-Man 20:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't laugh, but I did. Orderinchaos 07:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for more eyes on and a speedy close to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (3rd)

Declaration of involvement to start with, but this SSP has become an unseemly squabble that Luigi 28 has edited 79 times so far [3]. The reason I'm asking for others to look in is due to the accusations of lying [4], later retracted [5], posting of personal info about one of the belligerents [6] [7] and the general urgent need to nail this issue with a CU report. Read through it in all its glory at your leisure. It now runs to seven different threads on my talk page, plus various others at User talk:DIREKTOR and User talk:Luigi 28 This SSP is full of hostile belligerent aggressive posts. Can this be sorted ASAP, with a CU or whatever? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I edited 79 times the SSP, because I speak a terrible English, I'm brand new here in Wikipedia and I don't know the tags, the markups and so on....
   
2. The User:DIREKTOR wrote that I can use his name: use it all you want[8]: no violation of Wiki rules.
3. User:DIREKTOR and User:AlasdairGreen27 run six different threads on my talk page[9]--Luigi 28 (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem with using my "name" (as I said, its not really my full name in Croatian and should be useless), but the meaningless squabble should be concluded at the soonest possible opportunity. As has been previously reported [10], the User does not discuss the actual evidence of his sockpuppeteering, but instead continues on with variations on the theme: "I'm not PIO, you two are fools, you're crazy, you're a couple of kids" etc... The entire report is indeed now completely cluttered with text relatively irrelevant to the actual sockpuppeteering issue. I admit I may have contributed myself in a minor way but, as I'm sure everyone knows, provocations in bad grammar are lethal for one's self control. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

1. More than 20 times, User:DIREKTOR and User:AlasdairGreen27 said that I'm that banned User:PIO, without any kind of evidence, or reverted my edits. I put here only some examples[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]
2. They harrassed me from my very first edit, only because they think I'm that User:PIO. User:DIREKTOR reverted many, many times my edits (see above), without any kind of explanation. He violated this restriction: [33] and I ask that justice be done against him.--Luigi 28 (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• This SSP report has become long and rambling. If User:AlasdairGreen27 still believes that User:Luigi 28 is the banned editor User:PIO perhaps he could add his own brief summary of the facts (as they appear to him) in the Comments section of the report. Otherwise, since proving the equivalence appears to be such a challenge, we could start from scratch and ask whether Luigi 28 is editing disruptively. For this an WP:RFC/U might be considered. As an alternative, if you think Luigi is slanting articles, consider an article RFC.
• The evidence offered when submitting the RFCU on Luigi 28 didn't seem to prove much, and Alison didn't find any connection between Luigi and PIO on technical grounds. The IP data was not persuasive. PIO and Luigi both use Italian ISPs. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have never edited disruptively[34].

• From my first message here in Wikipedia, I was accused to be a sockpuppet:
  

1. When I wrote my first message: User:AlasdairGreen27 wrote immediately a request for checkuser[35]. Only few minutes ago (in Italy are the 03.28 in the morning - Saturday 06.07.2008) I've seen that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luigi 28 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Here:[36] User:AlasdairGreen27 wrote that I'm the banned User:PIO
   
3. Here:[37] Alasdair insinuated that I'm the banned user Agazio/alias PIO: seem pretty conclusive to me that Agazio and Luigi 28 are one and the same
   
4. Here:[38] Alasdair confirm that I'm PIO: I'm getting together an RFCU now
   
5. Here: [39] Alasdair wrote that I'm the banned user PIO: they're indeed the same person
   
6. Here: [40] User:DIREKTOR wrote that I'm the banned user PIO: they're the same person allright, the grammar mistakes are identical. When one listens to him long enough, one gets used to PIO's distinct "style" of expression. I have the PIO's style of expression!
   
7. Here: [41] DIREKTOR wrote that I'm the banned user PIO, and call me Venetian irredentist radical. Venetian irredentist radical !!!
   
8. Here:[42] ">[[User:DIREKTOR|<font color="DimGray"[[DIREKTOR]] reverted my contribute without any explanation, except: reverting unreferenced info added by banned User:PIO
   
9. Here:[43] DIREKTOR reverted for the second time my contribute, without any explanation.
   
10. Here:[44] DIREKTOR reverted my contribute for the third time without any explanation, except: you're banned from editing remember?
    
11. Here: [45] DIREKTOR wrote that I was another guy, named PIO: What are we going to do about PIO? He's a real fanatic, this one. Please, note the word fanatic, wich is for me, 'cause he thinks I'm PIO.
    
12. Here: [46] User:AlasdairGreen27 is trying to insinuate that I'm that banned PIO
    
13. Here: [47] DIREKTOR wrote that I'm the banned Pio: Yep, you're PIO alright
    
14. Here: [48] DIREKTOR wrote that I'm the bannedo PIO
    
15. Here: [49] Alasdair wrote another time that I'm PIO and others banned contributors.
    
16. Here: [50] Alasdair insinuate that I'm PIO: If you click on the IP addresses, then at the user contributions screen click on WHOIS at the bottom left of the page, it tells us they are all the same and the others banned contributors.
    
17. Here: [51] DIREKTOR wrote that I'm PIO: I know, you're Luigi. Your Wikipedia name was PIO, though...
    
18. Here: [52] Alasdair insinuate that I'm another one: Yes, Luigi, you know who you are. Your problem is that everyone else also knows
    
19. Here: [53] DIREKTOR insinuate that I'm that banned PIO
    
20. Here: [54] DIREKTOR wrote that I'm PIO (hi PIO) and reverted my contribute without any explanation
    
21. Here: [55] DIREKTOR reverted my contribute without any explanation
    
22. Here: [56] DIREKTOR reverted my contribute without any explanation
    

• User:DIREKTOR reverted my edits [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66], without read one word, only because he thinks that I'm that PIO. This is a personal attack. User:DIREKTOR violated this restriction: [67].

• User:AlasdairGreen27 and User:DIREKTOR simply harrassed me. Thank you for your work.--Luigi 28 (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• As requested above by EdJohnston, I have entered a brief and hopefully user-friendly summary of the evidence at the bottom of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (3rd). Many thanks -- AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Using fullprot to protect long-distance (but non-crystal ball) future work redirects

Commonly for video games, when any news of a sequel comes out, someone rushes to create a page for it, regardless of how reliable the source is. In some cases, it's from the developers directly, so a page for it makes sense, but ofttimes its a reliable source speaking of rumors or a word or two from a developer interview. In the latter case, it makes sense that the sequel should be discussed, but a full page for it is overkill, particularly for more popular games which then attract rumors. Redirections make sense (eg, see GTA V) to point back to a series or game article where a better discussion of the little news about the sequel can be made easily, though these redirects are often the target of newer editors that want to add their "super secret" information which is usually not reliable.

So the question is: is it reasonable to create such redirects for long-distance future works and get full prot on them, then when more news is there, requesting dropping the protection in order to expand the article? --MASEM 00:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Preemptive protection does not assume good faith and degrades the principle that anyone should be able to edit. If and only if there is evidence of disruption through any particular redirect can protection be justified for that redirect. If there is good reasoning to suggest that a page could only be made in bad faith, however, an exception would be acceptable. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. --MASEM 04:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another Backlog

Since we're tasking tonight, and CSD appears quiet, would some admins be available to assist in closing out some old Category for Discussion discussions? We have some approaching 1 month old. The list can be found at WP:CFD. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Global Admins

I would like to bring attention to this meta proposal to create a new user right that would be admins on every project, though their use would be restricted on large wikis, such as this, by policy (but not on a technical level). Prodego ^talk 06:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• From memory, I think there is a difference to the Anti-Vandal fighter and what would constituite a global admin, if I'm not mistaken. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 06:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• There is no access level difference, they have all admin rights. In fact, they are changing the name to "global sysop" as opposed to AVF. Prodego ^talk 06:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Global rights usage. Daniel (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proxy checkers needed. Jumbo backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies

Someone reported a huge number of possible open proxies to check at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. Could some people with proxy-checking skills help? I can only check web proxies. Jesse Viviano (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Restricting the "move subpages" feature to admins

The discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Restrict the "move subpages" feature to admins may be of interest. Happy‑melon 11:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Query about the Tango (drink) article

Not sure this is the right place - but when I click on the Tango (drink) link, I get a message asking me if I would like to save something, instead of going to the article. Any ideas why? --204.4.131.140 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Tango (drink). Works fine for me :/ J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you typed it correctly? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:VPT. ffm

[edit] 1 year schoolblock - 24.244.192.130

This school IP has already been blocked three times for 6 months, I've now blocked for 1 year. xenocidic (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I wasn't far behind you. None of the June edits were of any use at all. Endorse. Bencherlite^Talk 16:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Also endorse. Looks perfectly reasonable (and unfortunate). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me...marking thread as resolved. Tiptoety ^talk 18:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicting blocks

What happens when two admins block an IP address at the same time? - [68]. Corvus cornix_talk 21:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Its an interesting glitch, its a good thing that both of them were thinking the same thing, now what would happen if the block lengths were different? would the blocks cancel each other? - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The block would be lifted with the expiry of the earlier of the two blocks, i.e. if one blocked for 1 hour and one blocked for 3 hours, the block is lifted after 1 hour. Leithp 21:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:202.142.220.65

This IP had been blocked for a year for being an open proxy. The block expired in January. Recently a user has been editing from this IP, and their edits have not been obviously disruptive. So I removed the block notice (as it was out of date) and unprotected the IP's talk page.

But I am unfamiliar with WP's policy on open proxies. Should in fact the IP be blocked again? I hesitate to do this as it is not currently involved in any disruption. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, there are several less than enlightened countries from which editors can only edit WP using open proxies, although it's considered advisable for them to create accounts here to do so. Personally, I'd say let it be unless there is disruption. But, then, I may be wrong and I'm sure someone will let me know if this is the case. They usually do. --Rodhullandemu 03:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a Thailand IP, and it does not show up as a tor agent. Suggest contacting Centrx, who blocked the IP before as an open proxy due to unusual findings; he's an expert in that area. Risker (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A bit of examination shows it is still an open proxy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. As you've blocked it again, I've added a tag on the talk page. But I have not locked the talk page. I have also pinged Centrx, per Risker's suggestion. Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not appear to have any proxy ports open, nor is it on the list of tor proxies? Is it a Web-based proxy? If so, it should be stated in the block message. —Centrx→talk • 20:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grawpery

Can someone tell me: are these all TOR exit nodes? And should they be blocked accordingly? The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of those (in a check) were US residential IP addresses. In other words, a Zerg rush.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block needed per user name policy?

I believe IiiiiiiiiiiiiSEXIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (talk · contribs) should be blocked per the user name policy? -- RyRy5 (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, done. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Next time, try WP:UAA. Bencherlite^Talk 09:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gwen. Bencherlite, I'll report something like this next time at WP:UAA. I didn't know we had one. Regards, RyRy5 (talk) 09:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You're not missing much. — CharlotteWebb 18:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Spiritus Nirin

If you take a look at the WP:MFD at the above link, there seems to be a long discussion of about the the user page of User:Spiritus Nirin. In my opinion, I think that this user thinks wikipedia is a myspace. Well, it's not a myspace. Should any administrative action take place? Opinions? --RyRy5 (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

RyRy5, is there any particular need to bring this up here? Administrators regularly close discussions on XfD pages - it's not as though MfD is an obscure discussion page. Administrative action will take place in due course. Bencherlite^Talk 10:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone should explain to him what Wikipedia is? There's a whole lot of WP:BITE going on there. Did anyone talk to him before suggesting his userpage is deleted? I know its redundant to say, but he seems awfully confused. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) :Well, I was wondering if this user has done any constructive editing to help the encyclopedia. This user seems to focus more on his/her user page than the encyclopedia. --RyRy5 (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the user seems to be a rather troubled person overall, but... assuming good faith here, he's only been around for a day, has made some mistakes and seems to be rather... um... insane. Yes, he's probably indef bait, but maybe if we didn't just template him, he'd stand a chance at being something other than a sad story? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As the creator of the MfD i have to say i agree with Kyaa; it will be dealt with in due time. He actually exhibits most of the main signs of schizophrenia and is slap-bang in the middle of the correct age range, but wikipedia is not a GP, so i'll chalk it down to the language barrier and having found god (although some might consider that a sign of insanity :P). Ironholds 10:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Even though I agree with you about The Sky Moves Sideways, I think you might be straying dangerously close to a personal attack with your previous comment, Ironholds. You may want to consider rewording it or striking some of it. Best, ChaoticReality 11:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

<- I think there are a few issues here, and part of why I waded into the discussion was to bring it to point - the userpage is hinky, this is why, how can we resolve it? It's clear that there is a language barrier, and that's not helping anything. I stand mute on the user's possible mental issues, and WP:AGF requires me to dismiss those concerns in the absence of evidence (i.e. a declaration by the user). I don't actually think there's deliberate trolling going on, mainly because there are so many more effective ways to troll on Wikipedia. The other reason I joined the discussion was to attempt to engage the user in dialog as to what we expect here, including what articles are and how they differ from the userspace. I grant that MFD is not the best forum for that at all, but I also note that the user did not respond to talk page comments, but is responding at the MFD, so that's where the discussion has taken place. I was hopeful that a compromise - one involving removal of the essay in favor of a short statement, and productive editing thereafter - was possible, but that might not be the case. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, should I have not blocked him and deleted his userpage, and help the Commons in dealing with the mess he made over there as well?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a good block, sad to say - I thought there might be something salvageable from the situation, and was keen to undo any WP:BITEing that had gone on. However well-intentioned the individual may be, your analysis is correct in that he is unlikely to work on building the encyclopedia. As for commons - what did he do there? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

He uploaded the images he used on his various pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Good times. Not much I can do about that on this end, unfortunately - I'll mark this as resolved and put it to bed. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive edits

My talkpage was vandalized by anon IP (User:24.205.234.250) sending me multiple 3RR warnings for supposed violations on Superpower and Potential superpowers articles even though I haven't edited these articles for the past 1 week or so. A look at the anon's history shows it is involved in an edit war on multiple articles (see [69]). The anon has already received 3 test warnings (including 2 from myself). The anon's edits are similar to that of User:24.180.3.127 which was blocked earlier for personal attacks and harassment. In fact, a look at this and this makes it obvious that both IPs are run by same person. I request an administrator to keep a watch on the IP's contributions and take any possible actions if necessary. Thanks --Emperor Genius (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Better to escalate to higher-level warnings and report at WP:AIV if they don't stop. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request #2 for more eyes on and a speedy close to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (3rd)

Once again, could someone have a look at this matter (see above request [70])? Its really relatively simple, however, be advised that the accused User:Luigi 28 has a frequently used strategy of cluttering up a report in order to avoid Admin intervention. The User insists on adding tons of useless irrelevant information, such as a list of times I called him "PIO" to all reports to make them seem a complicated matter, and may do the same to this report. However, I hope this incredibly simple tactic will cease to be effective. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to say another time that User:Direktor reverted many, many times my edits, only because he think I'm User:PIO. So, I haven't a strategy of cluttering up a record to avoid Admin intervention: I only want that the Admin can see what's happened: the harassment of User:DIREKTOR and User:AlasdairGreen27 against me: a personal war. Best regards.--Luigi 28 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you prove that your not User:PIO?

• As requested by EdJohnston in the first thread on this topic, I have entered a brief and hopefully user-friendly summary of the evidence at the bottom of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (3rd). Many thanks -- AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category merge ?

Hi. Can anyone tell me if Category:California legislation and Category:California law should be merged ? I should point out I've no idea how to do it (even if I have the permissions) :-) CultureDrone (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahh hang on, I've just found CfD - I'll submit it through there - apologies :-) CultureDrone (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User account with no accessible contribution history

Advertisement.reader (talk · contribs) was submitted to WP:UAA by the bot, because of the "advertisment" string. But I cannot pull up any contributions or deleted contributions for the account, not only as you can see here but from the side of the page. What's up with this? Daniel Case (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Could it be that they simply haven't actually made any contributions? --RFBailey (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's my thought. Am I missing something? ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 14:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Any deleted contribs? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Nope. Just looks like a newly created but never used account. Like 60-70% of our accounts. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 15:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It happens purely because the name had "advertisement" in it. The bot picks up on this just after account creation, and reports it. It doesn't take contributions into account. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No. This is the weird thing. Even when the account's never edited you can usually click the contribs and deleted contribs link to check on that, and get a page saying there's nothing there. But neither of these links show up with this account. Not in that template above. Not on the side of the page when you go to their user page. Is this some software bug? It's never happened before with a new account with no edits. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems to work fine for me, both the sidebar link to User Contributions and the links in the {{user-uaa}} template. Looks completely normal to me. Perhaps it is a browser or caching issue? --MCB (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a wild guess, but do you perhaps have an ad blocker installed on your computer? I can see how the string "Contributions/Advertisement" in the URL might be triggering some overzealous ad filtering. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do (AdSubtract) and maybe that's why the word "advertisement" always disappears (I also don't see the linked "ad blocker" above). That could explain things. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean they're not there? Do you mean it's a redlink? If that's it, then you can just click on the redlink and get that same screen you got before- it seems a feature has recently been implemented that makes the contribs page link red for users with no contribs. --Rory096 01:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No, non-existent accoutns will show large red text if you try to edit the talkpage - this doesn't. For an example, see here. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could just check the user creation log. --Rory096 01:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Open Proxies vs. Public Computers

I recently saw a claim from an admin that a Wifi Hotspot is "effectively an open proxy" and therefore not allowable for editing WP. I wanted to seek input on this issue: Open proxy defines an open proxy as a computer accessible by anyone on the Internet; I think we have a compelling reason to disallow access from those, but a Wifi hotspot, while accessible anonymously, is only accessible to people in the immediate area. It's not much different from an internet cafe or a computer in a public library. I feel that public computers should not be lumped in with open proxies... but I suppose it's a matter of opinion so I wanted to see what others thought. Mangojuice^talk 15:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If we can let IP's edit then why not users of an open proxy.It's pretty much the same thing. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}About Me 15:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mangojuice here; the wide-open abuse potential of proxies does not exist for wifi hotspots, because of the need to be physically present. If a specific hotspot becomes an issue it can be dealt with. GRBerry 15:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I know of an IP of a public computer that is hardblocked (an Apple Store in NY used by a banned user), but that has to be dealt with on a case by case basis (and only if CU shows some very concerning abuse coming from the IP/range). WiFi Hotspots, or school computers, or AOL proxies, don't have to be blocked without evidence of overwhelming abuse. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Of which there is plenty. Certainly some hotspots, libraries, etc. are proven sites where vandals who are range blocked Anon-only go to create new accounts. Thatcher 17:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the IP we are discussing is User:204.13.82.149. Can you check whether it has been abused in the past? Otherwise a softblock should be sufficient, isn't it? -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing recent. Thatcher 23:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wifi hotspots are hardly like open proxies. The whole problem with OPs is that anybody can use them from anywhere in the world, which is not at all the case most hotspots. They are potentially vectors for abuse and problems should be dealt with, yes, but that's nowhere near anything suggesting we should throw the full weight and fury of WP:NOP at them in all cases. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eceresa (talk · contribs)

This user has unfortunately been caught up in a hardblock of 64.88.86.3 (talk · contribs), which I blocked as an open proxy. I've examined this person's contributions and so far, I don't see any concerns of abuse. I'd be willing to grant IP block exemption at Special:UserRights/Eceresa, but WP:IPEXEMPT says exemption from open proxies is only allowed in "highly exceptional circumstances". So I think it's worth bringing this here for a possible consensus to grant Eceresa exemption. Thoughts? Spellcast (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Doing my own check, I see no evidence that this is an open proxy. Port 8080 is filtered, 80 and 443 are open, but not usable as a proxy. Mr.Z-man 16:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Two days ago, I was able to edit the talk page using port 8080. If the IP is going to be unblocked, I hope a useable port doesn't end up re-opening soon. Spellcast (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If this user is running a server on his/her machine, you might ask them to turn it off for a few hours, and then check back. If the user can do this, s/he owns the machine, and adding an exemption would be appropriate. If not, then the block ought to stay up. A surprisingly easy solution, IMO... The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Its registered to Macomb Intermediate School District - grades 6-7 or 6-8, its highly unlikely that its an IP address used by only 1 person. According to the user's page they are a teacher. The IP address is probably used by the whole classroom or the whole school. Trying to use the open telnet port shows that its using a content filter, so its probably used by students. Mr.Z-man 19:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New noticeboard

For nationalism: Wikipedia:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, not more noticeboards. That reminds me after I bitched at you on the mailing list last year for the last one you created I completely forgot to watchlist it. How are things going there, anyway? — CharlotteWebb 18:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Good, very good. Since you ask :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So now who's going to watch this and be willing to hand out warnings and then blocks? For the sake of everything good, we really really need people to hand out more blocks (after warnings) on here, even if it means the blockee will wikilawyer to Heaven. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Principally me, for starters. Hopefully some of the stuff that at the moment is winding up in truckloads on the talk pages of myself, Future Perfect, Elonka, and a few other admins, will wind up here for more general attention. It's not good to have such a small subset of people monitoring such a large problematic area. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be glad to help out, had I not been too stupid to apply for adminship a long time ago when I still could have passed ;). The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have it on my watchlist - and I am prepared to swing the banhammer on any person who isn't Cornish (they get the Lightning Bolt instead...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User merge/delete

I would like to:

a) usurp User:Missingno000, since I no longer use this account, and b) delete Missingno000 on the testwiki, same reason as above.

CJ Miller. (^{That's my name.}_{Don't wear it out.}) 18:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, only bureaucrats can perform user-functions, and then only renaming users. Deleting and merging accounts is not possible; usurpation can likewise only be done by bureaucrats. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 18:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User contributions

I think it might be worth considering blocking this user or at least giving them a very strong and specific warning considering the content of their only contribution . I have e-mailed oversight. Guest9999 (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No warning, I'd say a block. Also that phone number info would need to be deleted. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked indef and deleted the page but it should likely be oversighted. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got a reply from oversight, they say it's been done. Guest9999 (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Y Done - Alison ^❤ 18:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Username Blacklist

For ease of email, I wanted to create the user account Radio Wikipedia. However it says it is blacklisted. I haven't requested an account because, it is blacklisted. Could you remove it and tell me, or make it for me? StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 21:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Usernames containing the word "Wikipedia" or other trademarks of the Wikimedia Foundation are not appropriate. GRBerry 21:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, why do you want to create an account for this purpose? Surely just the one account's enough? PeterSymonds (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Stewie, it comes across like this whole "Radio Wikipedia" thing is being used as a method of webhosting. Please note that Wikipedia is not your webspace. Thanks. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the username, but I don't see how there's a WP:NOT problem here. How is it different than Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost, Wikipedia:WikipediaWeekly, or Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly? - auburnpilot talk 23:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Grawp sock?

I just checked the new user log and saw this: User:ZZYYGGYY. It seems to be in character with him. He's created other accounts with all caps and near-nonsense. Might be worth keeping an eye on. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps worth keeping an eye on, but the user's not made any edits yet. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Grawp must be pleased with all the attention we've been giving him. Not really directed at you PM, just an observation. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I was just thinking the same thing. And from what I've heard of his MO, he doesn't even seem to be that effective at vandalizing. What happened to DENY? --Rory096 23:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Doggone it, I gotta lay off the RC and NPP, or at least not go jumping at shadows. If the guy starts in again, he'll get clobbered. As for me, I really will lay off the RC and NPP. Too much pressure right now. Thanks.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RCA Corporation

User talk:Guy1423‎ is tampering with the article about the defunct company RCA Corporation by tacking on information about RCA branded products being made by Thomson which owns the RCA trademark and other companies licensed to use the RCA name. I suggested that he start a new article about the current use of the RCA brand name such as "RCA (trademark)". Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• If you can show that there is stuff about the trademark that does not belong in the corp's article, then go ahead. But the stub I redirected didn't provide enough material to warrant a separate article. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So far this looks like a content dispute to me. User:Steelbeard1, please be careful about 3rr. The edits you're reverting aren't vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Gwen. As you may have seen, I created the RCA (trademark) article, moving the material on the use of the RCA trademark today from the RCA Corporation article to the RCA (trademark) article. That should settle things, I hope. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured picture cited as original research?

User:CyclePat is being disruptive and pointy towards featured pictures. First, he added {{refimprove}} and {{original research}} to Image:Respiratory system complete en.svg,[71] which is a featured picture. The editor proceeded to list this image for deletion review, which is speedily kept and cited by the closer as abusive DR. A few days later, the editor went to the Features and Admins page on Signpost and hid the announcement that the image is promoted to featured status, citing the image as original research.[72] I would like to ask someone to step in and intervene this problematic user. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is probably also relevant; it's another (unrelated) image he's claiming is original research. --Rory096 00:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Images are traditionally given some leeway with regard to original research guidelines (see WP:NOR#Original images), but that doesn't mean users concerned over such issues are necessarily being "disruptive" -- it could just as easily be argued that such concerns are important to ensuring the integrity and accuracy of our content. While I do think the Signpost edit in particular was uncalled for, it's worth noting that it's over a week old -- is this an ongoing issue, anywhere? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)