Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive111

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Wikipedia:Merge and delete[edit]

An essay newly written by me, about a topic of frequent confusion. Edit away, please; delete if necessary, but I'm pretty certain that my interpretation of the GFDL there is right (though it may need some tweaking). Chick Bowen 01:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

From the title, it looks like you might get to use a cool redirect: WP:MAD. :) shoy (words words) 03:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Done by Awyong Jeffrey etc. I hadn't thought of that, but it's funny. Chick Bowen 03:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I look forward to the disambig entries. (SEWilco 05:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC))

Image:HumanVulva-NewText-PhiloViv.jpg[edit]

Resolved

There is vulgar text below the image, and I'm not sure how to edit it. Thanks, — Yavoh 05:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It was on the page at Commons, but I deleted it. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  05:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Insulting Bots[edit]

  • I have a question about users who insult bots. For example this edit summary. Is this considered a personal attack ? If it were "Fuck [username]" it would definitely be a personal attack this much we know for sure. Is a bot a contributor, as designated in WP:NPA in the phrase Comment on content, not on the contributor.? I think that if the bot has a "contributions" page, then it must be a contributor. However a bot is also a form of contribution by the owner and contributions are inherent to content, so it's hard for me to tell. I believe it may be a case that the bot is at the same time a contribution and a contributor.
  • Is "fuck" considered rude, because in WP:CIVIL it says not to be rude, yet the other day I saw BetacommandBot had left a valid but perhaps misplaced (admin was not the original uploader) message on an admin's talk page about a missing rationale, which was removed with the comment "fuck off, silly trout".
  • I'm saying this because many bots accomplish ungrateful tasks and insults directed at them may be perceived as being directed at the owner. I don't agree with the mass deletion tagging of images by bots for deletion, but maybe the solution is not to attempt to antagonise the owner but rather change the deletion criteria, if one is so inclined. I think most bots are made in good faith, take time and effort to develop and keep running. Be it allowed or not, someone who knows should mention the status of bots on WP:ATTACK. Jackaranga 18:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the policies you cite can't apply to bots; their intent is to govern discussion between contributors. But the first example you gave is a clear example of disruption to the project. — madman bum and angel 21:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Most bots have pretty thick skin and won't mind. It's all a matter of context as to the verbiage. In this case it's pretty clear that this user is being disruptive. — xaosflux Talk 02:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Attacking bots is probably less problematic than attacking human users, but I'd prefer if it were still frowned upon. Take context into account. Bots (generally!) have a pretty thick skin, but the humans who operate them might not. Particularly in the case of a mass-messaging bot, it seems unlikely that the operator will notice somebody reverting one of several hundred automated messages, however snarky the edit summary may be. Marauding over to the bot or owner's talk page with lengthy streams of obscenity, now, that's probably going to be noticed, and should be avoided. In general, we're all people, so play nice and be considerate. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, the user was blocked, and not just for that. Users who insult bots typically are trolling for one reason or another and are blocked for likewise annoying actions. — madman bum and angel 02:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the specific user in this thread was pretty unambiguously up to nothing fantastic. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

/me is tempted to creat User:Insultbot :o) Guy (Help!) 23:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I enjoy making the bots cry by insulting their mothers, than realizing that they have none, and rubbing it their proverbial faces. I'm a cruel, heartless bastard like that. EVula // talk // // 23:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I have called bot "stupid/disruptive bot" a number of times in my edit summary. Does the bot feel painful about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by @pple (talkcontribs) 16:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Every bot is controlled or managed by a user. If I were a bot controller and someone insulted my bot, I would indeed feel offended myself. Furthermore, you could argue that a bot controller is the bot's parent, so "I enjoy making the bots cry by insulting their mothers, than realizing that they have none" isn't quite true! Waggers 10:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries such as 'fuck off' or 'leave me the fuck alone' are never acceptable. An occasional outburst is usually overlooked, since responding causes more trouble than it's worth. But an editor who makes it a habit to swear in edit summaries should be advised to change their behavior. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Rambutan/User:Porcupine/User:Circuit Judge[edit]

Resolved: Dreadstar beat me to the block. — madman bum and angel 01:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi folks, Rambutan, as discussed above, has asked for his alternative account to be unblocked. I've declined this as I believe it's being used for purposes other than those permitted by the SOCK policy. The user has now threatened to create another account in order to continue editing, despite his main account being unblocked. I'm wondering if he is genuinely here to constructively contribute to the project and I'd like to see some discussion on how we should proceed from here. His comments above seem to reveal perhaps a little interest in some form of community block or ban. Anybody have any further comments or suggestions on this issue ? Nick 10:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how I'm being against WP:SOCK - segregationa and security. I've taken all reasonable means to ensure links between Porc. and CJ; including a note in the blocklog.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 10:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
After reading #SELFBLOCK request, above, I confess I found myself confused as to your intentions with multiple accounts, but nevertheless fairly sure they weren't productive. What possible reason is there to request a block on your "main account" if you simply create another account to edit? – Luna Santin (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Circuit Judge was claim to be for "segregation and security" I cant see why another account would offer any further security. Gnangarra 12:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Basically, WP:SOCK makes a specific exception - and I quote - for "segregation and security". As to why I have multiple accounts, I only created the other one to participate in the ArbCom elections. I intended to use it for no other purpose, and have used it for no other purpose. I still wish to continue my very-enforced Wikibreak, which I was enjoying very much. I am more than happy to write a full summary of the situation if you want.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I see no reason to block your account. If you want a break, take one. We already blocked your account once and you came back and created a new one so you could continue editing. I see no reason to believe that things will be different this time. Please stop asking this board as peoples opinions will not change. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Porcupine Circuit Judge cant participate in the Arbcom elections due to this requirement You must have registered account with at least 150 mainspace edits before 1 November 2007 to vote. You may only vote once per candidate, and you may not vote for yourself. Votes from ineligible voters may be indented by anyone, but please don't bite, and do explain why their vote has been indented. Gnangarra 13:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that since CJ is the same user as Porcupine - who does meet the requirements - then it's OK. I don't see why it wouldn't be: it would be rather stupid if that was a bar, after all!--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, folks, here's my summary. Correct me where I've gone wrong, if you please.

Basically, for [very good] reasons I don't want to go into in public, but that Martinp23 knows in full, I requested that my main account be blocked until January 20th 2008 (WP:SELFBLOCK doesn't prohibit this, it just says that it is unusual). Subsequently, I realised that this block would prevent me from participating in the ArbCom elections . For this purpose, I began my participation using the alternate account Circuit Judge, created with the authority of this policy.

Phil Sandifer, to whom I had asked questions about his ArbCom statement, then unblocked the account. I put it to him that this was simply malicious and done to spite me, since we'd had arguments in the past. His reason for the unblock was that I was "clearly not taking a Wikibreak"; not only is this inaccurate, it's also not an actual reason to unblock.

I then posted on WP:AN requesting that Porcupine be re-blocked, and I was called a troll and the Circuit Judge account was blocked. I requested an unblock on the CJ account, and was told that it was a deliberate attempt on my part to lose all links between my former usernames (Rambutan and Porcupine), and to continue harassing certain users. This was in Nick's unblock denial. I asked him for diffs of this harassment, and pointed out that I had taken all reasonable measures to ensure Porcupine-CJ links, including a note in the block-log.

He ignored both of those issues, and came here. I never thought it would be so hard to be blocked on Wikipedia... Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec):::Then he should stop changing his name to hide his block logs and keep his word. User has a long history of issues, see [1], [2], [3], including recent ones and shows no sign of changing. I'd limit him to one account and not tolerate further disruption.RlevseTalk 13:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, here's my suggestion. Porcupine is limited to one account. Should he continue attempts to get his main accounts blocked, he shall be blocked for disruption. Likewise, if he creates any more socks - he will be blocked for an appropriate period. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
AgreeRlevseTalk 13:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • (ec)How is it disruptive to try to get blocked? If you just do it - which in no way harms the project, then I'll be out of your hair.
  • When did WP:SOCK get amended to exclude me? I've taken many measures to ensure links between my accounts, and I think that "not using the main account on public computers" is a perfectly good idea.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
BTW, an apology from Ryan for mistakenly and accusatorily closing the thread would be nice.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • You tend to get excluded from being allowed to do these things when you have a clear history of disruption. Seriously, you need to stop this now, the account is not going to get blocked, and if it does, it will be for disruption. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Appology? Certainly not to you. I closed it to stop your disruption, but I see Nick instigated it to discuss community sanctions which are growing increasingly more likely. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
        • You didn't close it to stop my disruption, you closed it because you thought I started it, a mistake, and then falsely accused me of trolling by it.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
          • You're still trolling over it now, as you have been for days so no appology - I stand by my word. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Your word was that I started the thread, mate.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We block CJ and Ram, leaving porcupine unblocked and you can discuss with Martinp23 how the other pages link. Gnangarra 13:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ram was just a username change, and no longer exists. I've discussed with Martin, who says he'll do community consensus. So it's up to you folks.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Well the consensus is that Procupine is the account you can use, and this is the account that you must stick to. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Per Ryan, we tend to stop allowing new and multiple accounts for an editor what that editor has a history of engaging in disruptive conflicts under his previous accounts. Creating a new account solely to make comments in the ArbCom elections – particularly comments directed at users with whom you have a history of conflict – doesn't seem to fit well with the 'segregation and security' doctrine. Try keeping your nose clean for (say) a year, and then maybe we can revisit this question. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ryan, limit to one account, no blocking of main account, and any further socks or trolling leads to blocks. Makes sense to me. Dreadstar 18:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

May I just ask once more - and I promise that this is the last you'll hear here of the issue - with the point of view of one genuinely wanting to learn, precisely how is trying to get blocked for a Wikibreak trolling?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is our definition of what a troll's behaviour is: "posting controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum or group with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response." you are asking for a block that its contrary to what the blocking policy states, and you are posting threads here to bait administrators into a argumentative response. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Surely there's an element of intentional disruption involved? My block isn't contrary, and my intention is was not to get into an argument, it's simply to get blocked.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
You mean to tell that you didn't knew that this is against policy? if you did then you knew that the request was going to be rejected, pursuing it further after it was is trolling behaviour. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
First check out Blocking policy self-requested blocks. Then add the above information to that. No block for your Wikibreak, sorry. Dreadstar 19:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As I read WP:SELFBLOCK, it says, and I quote, "Sometimes people request that their account be blocked, for example to enforce a wikibreak. Typically such requests are refused." Personally, I don't interpret this as meaning "No Wikibreaks." I interpret it as meaning "Generally requests for Wikibreak-enforcing blocks aren't accepted, but sometimes they are." This can be further simplified as "Sometimes people request that their account be blocked, for example to enforce a wikibreak. Typically such requests are refused." --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As yours is being refused. Now this is starting to look like trolling to me. I suggest you accept this and move on. Dreadstar 19:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
My point is that you knew beforehand that it was going to be refused as the request itself is contrary to what the blocking policy states (though its not prohibited) and yet even after it was refused you are still insisting on it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the combined block histories of this users three accounts, I find it really hard to believe that Rambutan/Porcupine/Circuit Judge doesn't understand our blocking, disruption and trolling policies. If what he's doing here is not trolling, I don't know what is. I also don't believe his promise to behave, he's promised that before and broken it, so I'm not inclined to believe him; he's had his assumption at AGF and lost it. We now have at least four admins and two other users supporting this community sanction. The onlyl dissenter is the subject of the matter. RlevseTalk 19:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't believe me? Fine. That's not something that concerns me greatly. However, what community sanctions are you talking about, and who exactly has agreed with their application? All I see is agreement to except me from WP:SOCK and to ban me from having my account blocked for a Wikibreak.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
He's talking about the community sanction being talked about in this section, and the agreement of all the editors responding to you here. You're about to get blocked on all your accounts for trolling - not just for a wikibreak. Dreadstar 20:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The agreement is, as I said, to except me from WP:SOCK and to ban me from having my account blocked for a Wikibreak. With all due respect, you guys [the community] are the reason I'm still here: if you'd just have blocked me then I'd be gone. So, how do I avoid the [absurd] block for trolling? What action do I take now?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Porcupine, when we initially talked on IRC, I was slightly more open because it seemed to be a harmless request. However, as you keep insisting over the very solid reasoning of the editors responding to you that your [very good] extenuating circumstances somehow make you an exception to an established rule, I become less and less convinced. As many others have said above, I recommend you stop trying to change peoples' minds, and move on. GlassCobra 20:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Porcupine are you just trolling us to get your block back? If so, it's probably going to work. Stop posting here and go back on your break before you end up getting blocked for trolling. -- John Reaves 20:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a pretty clear consensus. I'm blocking the Rambutan and Circuit Judge accounts indef. I will also post a notice on Porcupine's talk page that states those two accounts are blocked indef and he is limited to the Porcupine account, his one and only account. The Porcupine account is subject to standard wiki rules, including all the trolling here today.RlevseTalk 20:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What does that last bit mean, "including the trolling here today"? It's happened, and it's not a rule - ?? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 21:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, please note that User:Rambutan as a name was shed by means of a username change - it's not an alternate account.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 21:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked Porcupine for a week for continued trolling and sock abuse per warnings above. Dreadstar 21:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What a mess. Why do people just want to cause drama. There is no reason whatsoever to give an exception to Porcupine and block him just because he wants a wikibreak. He should just take it. However, I see he has got himself blocked for a week anyway. I support the block on his sock account. --Bduke 23:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I would suggest that someone give all of them (in a sequential order) a little 1 second block with things like (formerly User:Rambutan, formerly ...) so that other admins can quickly pick up the entire block history if necessary. Haha. I see User:Secretlondon is a far wiser admin than me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Page Ragtag Cinema isn't showing up[edit]

Resolved: Malformed tag

This is the best place I could find to post about this, so sorry if it's the wrong place. I just created the page Ragtag Cinema, but only the first and part of the second sentence is showing up. I'm not sure what I did wrong when I created the page, is this something an admin can fix? Me5000 17:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That is the only content you added when you created the page (do you expect more?). In future, the Help desk would probably be the more appropriate venue. GDonato (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Now that I can see this (1064 second db lag???) , the ref tag was malformed which caused the page to stop rendering at that point. Cheers! spryde | talk 17:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Article deletion or history merge needed[edit]

Recreated article The noob is a GFDL violation from the last version deleted (and subsequently endorsed twice at deletion review. If we're to go through a charade of an AfD for an article with no new information that's already been deleted by consensus and endorsed twice, would someone mind sorting out the history please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 18:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Everyking music parole suspended[edit]

Everyking has asked the arbitration committee to look into his two remaining paroles. The one pertaining to commenting on other admins' actions is still in effect. However, we have decided to suspend for three months the parole pertaining to music article. (Note: Unless we say otherwise, in 3 months it resumes) He may edit on music articles just as anyone else. Raul654 23:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that I already have been editing just as anyone else on music articles through this parole, and nobody has ever accused me of violating it or doing anything amiss at all as long as it has been in place. I have no idea why the ArbCom ever deemed it necessary, why it was in place for so long, or why it will be put in place again in three months. Since the parole has no practical effect on my editing, I only wanted it lifted for formal reasons, and I don't think that is accomplished by a mere suspension. Everyking 23:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I was not a party to the original ArbCom action in this case. I just wanted to say that my own experiences with Everyking have been overwhelmingly positive. There's no doubt that he has kept much vandalism away from the musical articles that I monitor. I hope and expect that when ArbCom reviews this case in another three months, they will find Everyking's edits have continued to be of high standing. --Yamla 23:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is a link to the case. Actually, it appears that remedies 3, 5, X, and Amended remedy 4 are still in effect. Thatcher131 00:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that nothing remains in effect except for amended remedy 4. Everyking 00:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You understand incorrectly. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is only based on what the ruling says. Amended remedy 2 provides for everything to expire in November 2007, excluding the two subsequent amended remedies. If that's not correct, it will take far more than three words to explain the reasoning. Even Raul's announcement above clearly implies the only remaining portions of the ruling were the two paroles, one of which is now suspended. Everyking 00:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you are correct. Roll the dice, take your chances. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
This seems like an unhelpful sentiment, especially coming from an arbitrator. I'm not going to "roll the dice" because I have no intention of doing any of the things these restrictions prohibit me from doing anyway. I have explained many times that I want the restrictions removed because they are a scarlet letter of sorts, not because I want to do any of the things they prohibit (far from it). I just want the ArbCom to allow me to be a normal member of the community again, and your comments have me feeling like new hurdles are being thrown up to impede this already agonizingly extended process. Everyking 01:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Remedy 5 (Everyking is obligated to familiarize himself before commenting) is most certainly still in effect. We just assume most people do it, but in EK's case, it merits explicitly requiring it. Remedies 3 (Everyking prohibited from commenting on administrators' actions) and X (Everyking will not interact with or comment about Snowspinner) are also still in effect Raul654 01:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This is incredible to me. The amended ruling says this: "Everyking's current prohibitions (his ban from editing the ANI, and from commenting on other admin's actions except for their talk pages, RFC, and RFA) - set to expire in November - are extended for one year, until November 2007." It does not mention any exceptions; it says the old prohibitions expire in Nov. 2007. These remedies are prohibitions (except arguably 5, I suppose). Remedy 3 is explicitly subject to expiration ("from commenting on other admin's actions except for their talk pages, RFC, and RFA"). How can the ArbCom dispute this? Can I not rely on what its rulings say? Everyking 01:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I just double checked - you're right about the prohibition on commenting on other admin's actions. It would appear that has expired. So, as I read it, the ones still in effect are Should EK harass other admins over their non-editorial actions, any admin may block him for up to two weeks per incident, escalating to one year per incident after the fifth one. and Everyking is obligated to familiarize himself before commenting. The one about Snowspinner was not explicitly mentioned as expiring, therefore I conclude it is still in effect. Raul654 01:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I read it as saying the current prohibitions expired on that date, and I did not think what was in parenthesis was intended as a listing of what was counted as a "current prohibition"; I assumed that was simply a reminder of the main points of the ruling. If it had been meant the way you're describing it, wouldn't it have made more sense to list the exceptions? I think the intuitive reading of the mention of "current prohibitions" means all current prohibitions, unless some are explicitly excluded. Everyking 02:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
So Everyking is free to edit Ashlee Simpson again with no restrictions? Corvus cornix 19:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, uh, yeah. But I've been editing that article without any disagreement from anyone for ages, so this has no practical effect on anything. Everyking 04:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Anything wrong?[edit]

Resolved: 6+ hours and all is well

My watchlist is giving me "Due to high database server lag, changes newer than 1418 seconds might not be shown in this list." for the last 1418 seconds :) Nothing else seems to be affected. spryde | talk 18:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea me too :-s {i'm 2537 secs behind now :-( } lol PhilB ~ T/C 18:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I got the same thing, but it seems to have cleared up (I think?), so I'm marking this resolved for now. Gavia immer (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It's still going on... we're almost up to an hour. There's a discussion at the VP, but nobody knows what's causing it. Pinball22 18:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
My watchlist is at 3456 seconds, so it isn't resolved yet. Me5000 18:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, as soon as I posted that, I went from no-problems-for-twenty-minutes to "changes newer than 4081 seconds may not be shown". That'll teach me to say things. Gavia immer (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Image:SovietUnionTajikistan.png[edit]

I'm an admin from Commons. This picture was first uploaded here, then transfered on Commons and deleted here. The Commons description does not mention the name of the author, only the file history. Can one of you please check whether a source or author was mentioned here? Thanks in advance. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing more substantial in the history than a {{GFDL}}. —Cryptic 19:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You've already got the upload history. Morwen was last active on this project in July. Aris Katsaris hasn't been active here since Nov. 2006. , or for a while before that due to loss of interest. GRBerry 20:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Bad luck. This picture was uploaded in 2004, when our copyright-related demands (and awareness) were much lighter. I'll try another map before deleting this one. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
They both have the "email this user" function enabled. They might well reply if you try that. I'd try Morwen first; I'd bet the answer is that Morwen was the original author. GRBerry 21:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Angli Cado Primoris (talk · contribs)[edit]

Angli Cado Primoris keeps copying the biography from Lunatica's website. See history. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 20:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Looper5920 & AGF[edit]

Resolved: No action required. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody please remind this user of WP:AGF i would but he will just remove my posts. see [4] DPCU 20:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to review the WP:DTTR essay, as it suggests using personalized messages for non-new editors. (Generally speaking, regular editors do not respond well to having generic template warnings slapped on their talk pages.) As to your specific request, the editor in question does not need to be reminded of WP:AGF as you already did that [5], and WP:USER states that the "removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user." --Kralizec! (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Unrevertable vandalism[edit]

Resolved: The vandalism has been reverted.- Jehochman Talk 21:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is related to the server database lag issue, but I have been trying without success for the past two hours to revert vandalism on the Wonders of the World article. Every time I try to save my revert, the page times out. I have tried using both the undo link and editing old versions from the article history, but either way it just time out. Oddly enough I am able to edit other pages just fine. Here is the last pre-vandalism version. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. Wikipedia is just not working too well atm. Jackaranga 20:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I must have tried over a dozen times in the past 2.5 hours. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A possible troll[edit]

Resolved: Indef block by Jehochman

Hambla, if his/her contributions are observed, very convincingly seems like a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, aimed exclusively at reverting all my edits, whatever they are.

The momentum that convinced me of this user's behavior is his talk page, where makes very short nonsensical replies in a discussion that's obviously going nowhere. To just quote some: "My pants are shaking", "No it's not."; after I invited him to calmly elaborate his edits, he writes things like "So you say.", "You sure?" and "The pot calling the kettle black.". After I wrote in the bottom: "In the end, all your edits have shown 0% interest in Wikipedia, showing absolutely nothing at all (culminating with "Yes they are") and qualify your edits as plain vandalism, hence you are leaving me with no choice but to revert your edits." and he has responded with "I can say the same about you. If you revert me I will revert you. Woop-dee-doo. Hambla 23:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)" After I warned him about 3RR he has carefully watched not to break it. --PaxEquilibrium 12:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Watch out for repeat vandals[edit]

Lag on "user contribution" page is about 20 minutes now, so this means you can't see users' recent edits, so don't be surprised if users have loads of warnings on their talk page but no edits in their log. Also in the case of a user who just registered (so his contributions only span the time when the server has been lagging) the server lag message doesn't show up on his apparently blank contribution page, even though such lag exists. Jackaranga 21:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It says "199 seconds" for me right now, which is just 3 and a half minutes... EVula // talk // // 21:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Yea it's almost gone now :) Jackaranga 21:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Something's still messing about. I just reverted two blankings (one with Twinkle, once with undo) on an article by an IP that I'm sure replaced it with two different phrases, one for each blanking... but one of them doesn't seem to exist now. Bizarre. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Try switching browsers. I had Firefox and Maxthon open. Firefox was showing a lag, up to 400 seconds, but oddly enough Maxthon had no lag at all. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
It isn't a browser issue. east.718 at 08:20, 11/16/2007

Need a little salt here[edit]

Resolved

I wholeheartedly believe that this will never be a valid article* and needs to be salted. spryde | talk 04:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

*Unless 2 Live Crew gets back together and really wants to get into the press.
 Done - Alison 05:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Appreciated as always. spryde | talk 12:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak[edit]

Do sysops have to inform anyone if they take a planned Wikibreak of a long time, say, a week? Bearian 01:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I love that a week is a "long" wikibreak. :) I've generally done so, just in case I've deleted a PROD or something right before leaving and someone wants it restored. The other option is to quietly notify another sysop to watchlist your page and handle anything major that comes up. MastCell Talk 01:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Is that an offer?! BencherliteTalk 07:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Or just sneak out for two months and see if anyone notices...Mackensen (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, otherwise our salary goes too far into arrears and the Foundation runs into budget trouble. Raymond Arritt 01:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope you've got a sick note of the doctor. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Do we accrue vacation time and sick leave? Dreadstar 01:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Yep. You do have to cash out your unused days by November 15 or you loose them. Vegaswikian 01:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I was told November 1st! That sucks, there must be different secret pay tiers. At least three since Dreadstar wasn't aware of the accrual at all. =( -- Gogo Dodo 02:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh! You lot are lucky! In my day we didn't get time off and we had to pay to edit. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You had it easy. In my day, me boss thrashed three thousand edits a day out of us — before breakfast, mind — and then indef'd us all before lunch. Me mum'd unblock the lot of us in time to lock us in our rooms so's we'd be able to do another three thousand before 'sun came up. Time off? Time off? Splash - tk 23:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The straight answer, Bearian, is that no you do not have to give any notice. Avoid participating in an admin action that you might perceive as controversial if you think you might need to follow up on deletion or blocking. The smartass answer: we do allow time off, but please do keep copies of you receipts and submit them to the foundation those contributions gotta pay for something! Keegantalk 08:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Range of IPs doing the same spamming[edit]

Resolved

I'm an admin but not sure how to handle this one. The page Edirne is getting spammed with the same ad by similar IPs link, all starting with 78.181. Is there anything I can do other than block each one when it violates a final warning? It's clearly the same person advertising themselves. --AW 16:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You could semi-protect the page for a bit. Saying that, there has not been that much of an onslaught but it is a wide range of ip. Woodym555 16:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and semi-protected the page for a week. If the IPs keep vandalizing, keep warning them. GlassCobra 16:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I meant in regards to the IPs? --AW 16:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
If the abuse is isolated to a few pages, semi-protection is usually less problematic in terms of collateral damage. Is there any reason to believe other pages are being hit, at the moment? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Nah. That works then. Thanks ---- AW (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Request[edit]

After about two hours of research, into the following subject, I found out that this needs to be brought to the attention of an admin. I have found a sourced document on a few pages relating to the US Space Shuttle Program. (See STS-3xx.) This document is located at [6] (See STS-3xx Source #6). After viewing the PDF, I found a source link to the data of it. The source link inside the PDF is: [7]. This data displayed on the page at [8] is internal NASA data, originally located on a secure NASA server. Though this information is available upon FOIA request, I believe it is private data leaked from a NASA employee/Contractor and should removed from wikipedia and/or investigated. I attempted to located the original user that posted this data, but I was unable to find the first person to post this source. I am reasonably sure that this is a direct violation the jsc.nasa.gov "terms of use" for there secure server. The PDF and similar documents are only located on the domain "http://www.hipstersunite.com". This has raised my suspicion and I believe this should be investigated as the information is not for public viewing. --zrulli 18:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick warning, I wouldn't trust a PDF file on site "hipstersunite.com" not to be a backdoored PDF. The site's front page is the word "hi." If anyone needs to look at this PDF file, just enter the URL into Google, examine the Google Cache and "View HTML." I don't see much incriminating on this document. -- Quatloo (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is in any way a reliable source. There is no admin intervention needed when removing such sources, just drop a note on the relevant article's talk page. If the user starts to war over it, then we might have an issue. Keegantalk 19:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage[edit]

There's one entry on there that's about (just looked at the day) two days old. I'm sure that's more than twenty-four hours. --Gawaxay (talk contribs count) 21:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I just approved a bunch - including yourself. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Yay! Thanks! Heh, I wish I was approved that quick with NPW! --Gawaxay (talk contribs count) 22:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk page diappeared in movewarring fiasco[edit]

Resolved

Talk:List of massacres during the Second Intifada has vanished, I don't know where the screwup came, but it's either deleted and then recreated as a redirect, or hidden under one of the previous names.

List of massacres during the Second Intifada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Talk:List of massacres during the Second Intifada (edit | [[Talk:Talk:List of massacres during the Second Intifada|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

<eleland/talkedits> 00:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That's taken care of; thanks for the heads-up. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Holy cow, you guys are quick :) <eleland/talkedits> 00:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
There are bonuses for fastest-finger-first. Be first often enough, and they send you a "fastest admin in the [East/West]" t-shirt. Coolio. Splash - tk 00:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of biased terms[edit]

A host of similar ips of the 86.153.132. series and sockpuppets User:Billy660 and User:Billybob690 have been adding biased material (for ex. changing Indian-administered Kashmir to Indian-occupied Kashmir) to articles on Jammu and Kashmir, Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas. Attention required. --Lokantha (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This person has done several anti-Indian edits: [9] [10] [11]

--Lokantha (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung122[edit]

Could someone uninvolved who knows the history of this incident have a look at User talk:Ryoung122? He seems to have calmed down quite a bit, and is providing useful information. Would reducing the block from indefinite to expire in a month's time be useful here or not? I'm not going to be around to respond tomorrow, but I'll leave a note at the blocking admin's talk page (User talk:Maxim), pointing at this discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I read most of the ban discussion, and mostly agreed with it. If Ryoung122 has settled down, that's great. Based on his level and length of time misunderstanding how to get an encyclopedia written, I'd let him settle down for a couple of months prior to un banning. If he thinks he was banned in error, he can email arbcom. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
My concern at the moment is that the "indef blocked" tag on his user page means that his user page may get deleted. People talk about indefinite blocks not being indefinite, but the "temporary wikipedians" category being applied through the "indef blocked" tag sends a different message. I think we should really use long blocks (eg. months and years), if we think there is a chance the editor may reform. Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
That's a good point, maybe a note on his userpage/talkpage somwhere should be placed so it doesn't get arbitrarily deleted? as far as rehabilitation in general, I'm not hopeful, but we should be open to it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
|category= fixes the deletion problem. Daniel 01:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Project Aircraft[edit]

Looks like things are getting out of hand again. Can someone look at this[12]? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.245.10.108 (talk)

I'm not an admin, but that that user was warned by another Ctjf83 03:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism related question[edit]

This user has three first vandalism warnings (at initial post) is there a certain amount of time between vandalism that you go back to the first warning, instead of continuing. Also, if two different users give a first warning with in a short amount of time, is there any policy preventing another user from updating the second warning to a more strict one, but just changing the number from {{subst:uw-vandalism2|Article}} to vandalism 3 or would it need a repost, with my sig. Ctjf83 03:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Please never refactor someone's talk page comment unless it is offensive. There is no obligation to follow a 1-2-3-4-block order as far as I know. I often only do 1-3-4 when it's obvious vandalism. One important thing to note is that, with unregistered users (their username is a IP address, like the one you mention), it may not be the same person from one day/week/month to another. So it's important you take this into consideration. Also some IP addresses are shared by many users such as in schools. In this case repeated vandalism can lead to a block, not as a punishment but to stop the vandalism. Also in some cases you can even start at lvl 4 for example if it's a user who is moving pages to stupid names or swearing at other users. I think it's important to distinguish people who want to disrupt because they think it's cool, and people who just don't understand the policy. Jackaranga (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User:BigFrank102[edit]

Need action on BigFrank102 (talk · contribs), he is a sock (see, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tony360X (second)) and now attacking me on his talk, 'Complaint by Wine-O's'. He needs to be banned. --Bryson 05:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, banning is not the appropriate action in this case. Secondly, the sock case has not yet been confirmed. Lastly, he has not been adequately (or at all) warned for his misconduct. I have taken the liberty of doing the latter, and his behaviour will be watched. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by 207.232.97.13[edit]

I request a block for 207.232.97.13 (talk) (contribs). This user continuously adds unsourced material and copyright material and removes relevant, concise information from reliable sources. This user has disrupted all efforts to create a balanced article on the contentious topic Alcoholics Anonymous and ignores discussions on the talk page. This user acts as though Wiki policy does not apply to them. Any help is much appreciated. For details see User talk:207.232.97.13#Disruptive editing and other material on this user's talk page. — DavidMack 00:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

On the face, it doesn't look disruptive to me. Try WP:RFC. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Logical Defense[edit]

This person Logical Defense (talk · contribs) has uploaded an unfree image, refuses to provide a fair use rationale, and keeps deleting the "no rationale" tag [13] from the image page with rude and inaccurate summaries [14] [15]. -- Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the image from the page about the man. I suggest trying WP:IFD - I would delete it but I'm a nonadmin. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Molag Bal unbanning[edit]

Resolved: Molag Bal remains banned. GDonato (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Patrolled new pages[edit]

As you may or may not have noticed, a change has been made to Special:Newpages to enable patrolled edits there. This allows users to mark a newpage as reviewed. See full details here. However, for unknown reasons, it has been set so that only admins can patrol pages. I would request input on the poll on the talk page as to who should be given the ability to patrol, so that the developers can be assured they are implementing community consensus. Mr.Z-man 01:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Note also that unlike other wiki's patrol is only enabled for Newpages, not recent changes. — xaosflux Talk 02:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have a idea how this got approved? last I knew, it was still being discussed as experimental.DGG (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, i been experimenting a little, and i like it.DGG (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I seem to be able to patrol just fine, and the documentation says any autoconfirmed editor can do so. Nice idea, from the looks of it. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I was just discussing the new function. The tab has been there for a year but 'twas just turned on today. I have the idea that marking a page revision as patrolled for quality versions would build a nice individual log of the forthcoming "stable versions". I can read and article, mark it, move on and do the same for the next article I like (and I read/have read many, many articles). I check my patrol log, and I have my own Veropedia. Me likey.
What I don't understand is why you would want to hide patrolled pages from newpages, since you can mark as CSD page as patrolled to draw attention to it. I'm sure I'll figure out that use eventually.
Oh, and don't waste your time trying to patrol the patrol log. Keegantalk 07:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, seems I am completely wrong as usual. Why is it only for a page that's never been viewed? Gah. Keegantalk 09:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Character limit on deletion reason[edit]

It seems a character limit has been inserted into the deletion reason box that prevents inserting of characters if the box is at a character maximum. I'm not sure if this is a new feature but it is making it difficult for me to insert my deletion reasons as I do not use an automated bot and like my deetion reasons to contain the articles contents so that others can see the contents and judge for themselves if the deletion was valid. Is this a bug or feature? –– Lid(Talk) 03:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

it was a requested fix. I dont use a bot either, so I'm learning to write my summaries more concisely. If it really doesnt fit, there's the editor's talk page. DGG (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what it was meant to be fixing, the previous way didn't seem broken. –– Lid(Talk) 04:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I think writing deletion summaries more concisely would be better, to both the deleting admin and people viewing the deletion rationale. The deletion summaries are meant to be short and succinct, not long and comprehensive. Detailed rationales can be provided when requested by an editor. —Kurykh 04:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't the solution to that be to shorten the maximum length of the reason rather than prevent text to be inserted? Right now the length is the same as it was before, only that text can not be inserted into it. –– Lid(Talk) 04:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
This feature forces admins to use their alloted words succinctly and eliminates the scenario of truncated summaries that may cause confusion or leave the reader/editors hanging with unprovided information. If I may state it a bit bluntly, and sorry for the lack of diplomacy, you are writing the summaries for the benefit of others, not yourself. —Kurykh 04:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
From what I can tell it doesn't force anything, the maximum length of the deletion reason is still the same. –– Lid(Talk) 04:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
right, the fix was to prevent anyone writing more than would actually be kept and displayed. DGG (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Well this fix forces you to delete some text from the box and then add your deletion reason. Seems like an extra step. Now if the preloaded comment was limited to 50% of the size, that would be a better solution. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I highly recommend checking out User:^demon/CSD AutoReason. EVula // talk // // 07:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Concur. AutoReason is the awesome. Natalie (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
If you like that, you should see a similar script I put together for blocking. It automatically sets times and options, so you don't have to hit 20 buttons to do a username block, for example. </shameless advertising> east.718 at 21:39, November 17, 2007

Green Party of Canada[edit]

I'm having a very difficult time updating the Green Party of Canada page as Greenjoe has decided that one chart that I spent over an hour putting together should be deleted "just cause" I couldn't give a source as the one reason to put the chart up was confidential. I tried to explain to him that green.ca has information proving my point in ther archives, the point was ignored and he coughed out the same sentence, threatening to ban me because he thinks I started an edit war. I'm heavily involved with the party and I just want to add some important anfo. but this guy is nuts and I need help right now. Political junky (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I took the time to read up on this situation, and this is simply an edit war, to which the typical response is dispute resolution thataway. Also, GreenJoe is not an admin, and he can't ban you; he was only giving a warning about violating 3RR. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Help needed with page history move[edit]

Resolved

Please can an admin move it back from User talk:Solumeiras/Archive3 to User talk:Solumeiras, I've accidentally moved too much page history when I archived it. Thanks, --Solumeiras talk 12:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 13:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:IceManDone subtle vandalism[edit]

Resolved

I'd mention this at AIV, but he's--- subtle. Adds false info a little at a time and then stops. Has done this for several days. Newly created account. I left a single warning. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Taking in account sneaky nature of his edits, I've blocked him indef. No AGF for such actions. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 14:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Good shooting. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User:NicholasMom[edit]

I was looking for a second opinion on this user's page. It seems to be written from the perspective of a third party and the user has had only limited contributions, some of them questionable. The page has some negative information and a full name of the subject. Thoughts? IronGargoyle (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the last edit to his userpage was just under an hour ago, I think we should give him some time to make come contributions to Wikipedia, or it would look like we were biting him. After a few days or so (or longer), then it will be a good idea to post back here if he/she has made no encyclopedic contributions. Qst 17:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

New, admittedly still small, group who might be of use[edit]

The new Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility has created a new group of Accessibility advocates at Wikipedia:Accessibility advocates. I promise not to overuse the "a" word any further here. Anyway, part of what some of us have indicated we would be willing to do, if requested, is maybe serve as some form of mentor/"adopter"/advocate for individuals who are either returning to wikipedia from being banned and/or those who might be told to get some sort of help of that type were they to wish to continue as editors. Right now, the only two of us who have agreed to doing so are me and User:L'Aquatique. Like I said, we're new. Anyway, if any of you think it would be a good idea to ever have one of us involved in such instances, I wanted to let you know that we could try to maybe work in at least a few such instances. -- John Carter (talk)

Am I correct to apprehend that the mentorship/adoption/advocacy is in its character essentially unconnected to the general purposes of the accessibility WP? (Although that question sounds, for some reason, derisive and accusatory, I don't mean it to; individuals willing to mentor, adopt, or even advocate for other users toward the amelioration of certain problems and ultimately toward the improvement of the project and the 'pedia are, IMHO, always to be welcomed, and they surely need not be constituted under the auspices of any particular group, and so I ask only to ensure that I'm not missing any particular connection between the specific purposes of the accessibility WP and the nature of the mentorship/adoption/advocacy to be performed). -- Joe (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
But the term usually has a different meaning , universal accessibility, and I assumed you meant those who were interested in reformatting articles so they could be read by screen readers, etc. DGG (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Inactive users?[edit]

Do we have a category or anything with "Inactive users" in. Some people have only edited once or twice, and others haven't edited in over a ear. Surely these inactive user accounts should be deleted. We have over 5 million users, yet only 5,000 users edit most of the time! What happens to these inactive users? Davnel03 09:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing, we can't delete accounts. ViridaeTalk 10:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
This sound more like a proposal than something an Admin should deal with. You might find a more useful response over at Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals). -- llywrch (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
We used to have Category:Wikipedians who are not currently active, but that category was deleted after a discussion found on Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2007#October 12. (The term "discussion" is used rather loosely in this case) - auburnpilot talk 03:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

User: SoxBot[edit]

Earlier today, there was a misunderstanding with {{Archivebox}}. User:Soxred93, the operator of SoxBot, saw it on WP:SUBST#Templates that should be substituted, because the previous version of the template did need it, but not anymore. This led to 300-400 talk pages having the template substituted, before the bot was blocked. I reverted most of the edits, and Soxred93 indicated he understood there was a misunderstanding. I am not sure if his bot has been unblocked though, so if an admin could check? Thanks. -- Reaper X 21:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think most, if not all of the edits have been reverted. It was unblocked three hours ago. log. Woodym555 (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli closed[edit]

The above-linked arbitration case has been closed. Stefanomencarelli is banned from Wikipedia for one year. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 02:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Spammy articles that slipped through RC[edit]

While doing some work for veropedia, I made some analysis of all the articles on wikipedia as of oct 17 or so. This report at User:Eagle 101/potential crap 2 contains all articles that have 0 wikilinks and at least 1 external link. Qutie a few of these are showing up as spam for companies and other poor quality articles. There are about 5,000 articles that fit those criteria. Enjoy! Discussion and questions can go below as usual :). —— Eagle101Need help? 19:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you tagged them as meeting the {{CA}} criteria? Guy (Help!) 20:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Cute... I'm wondering how many of these become red-links ;) —— Eagle101Need help? 20:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, first one I clicked was Rambo apple. Seems to be a type of apple. Are you asking for help cleaning up this list? -- Kendrick7talk 21:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I've copied the list of ones starting with M to a page in my userspace to look at. The first few that haven't already become redlinks (or AfD'd) are OK or just need cleanup, but I'm sure lots won't be. Pinball22 21:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Ironic, monitoring potential spam and at the same time including an external link to a site we have an article about, so an internal link would have more than sufficed :-) Fram 21:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
We have a veropedia article? I thought that got deleted... —— Eagle101Need help? 21:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Nope, was pretty strongly kept last week. Pinball22 21:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. Personally I don't think its quite ready for a wikipedia page, but thats just me :) —— Eagle101Need help? 21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Kendrick cleaning them up is always an option! If its a legit article, wikilink it and perhaps find a few references! —— Eagle101Need help? 21:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • For those looking to cherry pick the list for the crapola of crapola, I posted a sort here with those at the top of the list being the most likely in need of deletion. -- Jreferee t/c 22:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you : ) —— Eagle101Need help? 23:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Would it be a problem if non-administrators (like myself) tried to clean up, reference, and de-linkfarm some of the articles on that list which might be salvageable? -- ArglebargleIV 01:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Never mind, I just now noticed Eagle 101's invitation above to go forth and clean up. -- ArglebargleIV 02:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked through five of these and from the looks of it I guess more than half are delete-worthy. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 02:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've sectioned out the list 25 pages per section, hopefully that helps admins and others who are going through the page to make use of it. (User:Eagle 101/potential crap 2). Perhaps mark sections that you have gone through, or whatever :) —— Eagle101Need help? 20:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume you both consider it reasonable to delete from the lists the occasional ones that turn out not to be crap.01:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I guess I'm a little puzzled; in my usual inverted way I started at the bottom of the list, and the second one up (Mussel Rock) has a dozen or so wikilinks, four non-list type inbound links, and two external links, and hasn't been edited since October; yet the list says els: 1 sents: 0. Did I miss part of the discussion here? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC/U MfD[edit]

Since it is a major part of dispute resolution, I'm noting here the nomination of the RfC/U page for deletion by User:Sceptre. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct (2nd nomination). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I would've done this myself but I had to go after nominating. Funny how there's two Wills in this section. Now to wait for Wimt and WMC ;) Will (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention WJBscribe (talk · contribs) :) an interesting discussion... I might pop over and take a look. Anthøny 13:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot closed[edit]

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Sadi Carnot is banned for one year, and the remaining parties are encouraged to "move forward from this unfortunate incident with a spirit of mutual understanding and forgiveness". For the arbitration committee, David Mestel(Talk) 12:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Beverly's Passions[edit]

All of Beverly's Passions (talk · contribs)'s history is the creation of hoax articles about TV shows whidh do not really exist. Including their User page. Is it okay to let them keep a hoax about a nonexistent TV show on their User page, or should I MfD it? Corvus cornix (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's gone. Violation of WP:BLP. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
And for good measure I deleted all the other articles they created for the same reason, along with User:Witcha's page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Corvus cornix (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Extending a block[edit]

Callmebc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been atrociously rude on Talk:Killian documents authenticity issues, to the point that I've had to refactor it to remove the more offensive text in response to OTRS ticket 2007111410017735 - Callmebc is currently blocked for a month, I am wondering if this individual can edit Wikipedia at all without violating policy. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No, based on my past experience with him. [16][17][18][19] He's had plenty of clues provided, opportunities to change, and still been blocked multiple times over the last six months.[20] He's here to push a political agenda, and he'll pester and troll anybody who tries to stop that. Please indef block. - Jehochman Talk 23:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that you ask for the input of User:Caribbean H.Q., who issued the original block and who might have also reviewed the edits made by Callmebc that you have been refactoring - obviously they would need to be made party to the same info. Seeing that it is a 1 month block I don't think we need rush into a decision. For the record, I have no opinion on whether the block should be extended or not - I would await the comments of the blocking admin. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive110#User:Callmebc is likely relevant here, as the discussion was centered around a potential block/topic ban for Callmebc. I don't believe anything came of the discussion, however. - auburnpilot talk 03:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc has repeatedly demonstrated that his contributions will be to the detriment of the encyclopedia. He was indefinitely blocked (see block log by Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) in May of this year, but was unblocked by Fred Bauder (talk · contribs) 11 days later, under the promise that he will not re-offend. Since then, he has been blocked a grant total of 7 times, for a range of reasons, including WP:3RR violations, WP:POINT editing, incivility, Personal Attacks, harassment... the list goes on. Callmebc has shown again and again that he cannot contribute to Wikipedia in a positive and constructive fashion, and I propose an indefinite block on his/her account in order to prevent further disruption. Anthøny 13:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Endorse block. This user has nothing positive to contribute here. GlassCobra 17:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Anyone who believes this user has something positive to offer the encyclopedia is invited to peruse the whatlinkshere search for his username. I was going to recite particulars of his interaction with the Conflict of Interest/Noticeboard back in April about the Killian documents, where he wound up launching an Arbcom case about the outrageous fact that he was blocked for 72 hours. (Arbcom, for some reason, declined to take the case). But having looked at the last ANI posting about him I realize it wouldn't be adding any information people don't already know about his behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground, user blocked indef. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 19:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone want to protect User talk:Callmebc? He insists on attacking the author of an article. (SEWilco (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

Unblocking IPs[edit]

Resolved

Hey all. I accidentally broke IP unblocking in rev:27450; unblocking an IP address by address rather than by block id will always fail. This has been corrected in rev:27594; however, it may be some time before this is synched up (hopefully not too long). Until then, please be aware that you will have to unblock IP addresses by visiting Special:Ipblocklist, searching for the IP to unblock, and following the unblock link from there. The unblock links in block logs will not work. I hope that this will not cause too much inconvenience. If there are questions (or if you just want to give me a good bitching-out :D), don't hesitate to contact me by e-mail or my talk page. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We all make mistakes :) thanks for the notification, anyway! Anthøny 13:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Tim Starling just merged in the needed changes, so this should no longer be a problem. Sorry again! AmiDaniel (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

About the newpages "patrolled" feature[edit]

When I patrol a new page on Special:Newpages, after I click "Mark this page as patrolled", I see a screen that gives me a link to return to Special:Newpages. I would also like to have a link to the page I just marked as patrolled, in order to save me the trouble of hitting the "back" button if I wish to read or edit the article. I imagine this feature would not be too hard to add because it exists in a similar form whenever you login. Please forward this request to the techies who can discuss whether it's a good idea. Shalom (HelloPeace) 04:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I will post this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), which is the correct page for these requests. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Is a fast-track process for COPYVIO allegations possible?[edit]

I ask because there is a reasonably good quality article on a notable person, Stanislav Petrov, being copyright violation blanked despite the fact that it does not share words (with the exception of quotes (also quoted in other sources)), phrasing, or overall structure with the article being cited by the editor concerned. John Nevard (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the template again. There is no copyright violation. Keegantalk 06:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

User:66.215.28.84[edit]

This IP (contribs - talk) and a couple others (1 - talk | 2 - talk) on the same network have been used to add misinformation to or otherwise vandalise countless game articles over the last year; the earliest examples I have seen date back to August 2006. The pattern of vandalism suggests it is the same person in each case. The most constant behaviour I've seen is modifying articles to either state that a game was not/will not be released outside of Japan, or simply removing information about non-Japan releases. A relative handful of the edits have been legit (or at least seemingly so). This person has also strangely but non-maliciously reworded talk page messages on several occasions (with the rare straight removal of text). Every time the user was blocked, they came back to start the same trouble shortly after the block expired. The last time the IP was banned for six months. Again it started within a day of the block expiring. I have pleaded with this person to stop on two of the talk pages, to no avail. They have never replied or explained their action. I think it is time to contact the ISP as although this person has shown no true malicious intent, they have wasted the times of many editors for over a year now, and no amount of blocking short of a permanent one will stop them. The IP has changed a couple times, so it can't be completely static. It is possible that another user could inherit the block, although the current IP has been causing trouble as far back as December.--Drat (Talk) 10:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

User: 67.86.124.43[edit]

67.86.124.43 (talk · contribs) has been posting anime titles on several Cartoon Network articles. Even though anime have been shown on several of Cartoon Network's feeds, those he adds on the lists are anime shows that are not shown. He doesn't even provide reliable sources on why he lists them. In particular, he lists anime shows on Cartoon Network Philippines, even though in truth, only Pokémon, Mirmo!, and Zoids: Genesis are the only ones currently shown there. Several anime have been shown there since 2000, but those he added (such as One Piece and Full Metal Alchemist were never among them. With him posting possible misinformation (he has been warned before), what do you think is the best way to do with this anon? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Protecting some pages[edit]

Jon Awbrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has stated his intent to keep vandalising these until we realise he was right all along and go to him in craven supplication. Or something. I've semiprotected, which should slow the rate of vandalism, and will watchlist and monitor them. Anyone else who feels like reviewing them and seeing if they give undue weight to Awbrey's obsessive interest in the work of Charles Peirce please feel free to have a look in.