Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive121

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

Noticeboard archives


Odd block problem[edit]


seems to be cleared. Spartaz Humbug! 11:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please could someone help User:Nick mallory? He is having block problems based on the use of a web accelerator - which he has disabled, but he is still having problems. He is a good contributor, but is (I think understandably) getting rather upset by it. Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Duncan and to all those who helped out. Nick mallory (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection[edit]

Can someone please check this page?? There are pages going unprotected and it's taking up a lot of my time. Thanks. Somno (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's back under control now; recommend tagging it with {{adminbacklog}} in the future. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A question about bibliographical data[edit]


I am sorry to disturb you with my question, but, after a mini edit-war, as a last solution I decided to ask your experienced opinion. In the New World Translation article it is stated:

Frederick Franz’s credentials of record show very little if any formal training in biblical languages.[ref]University of Cincinnati transcript of Frederick W. Franz. Franz failed to earn either a postgraduate or graduate degree. He took 15 hours of Latin, 21 hours of classical Greek, and a single 2-hour credit class in a course titled “The New Testament—A course in grammar and translation.” The Greek studied by Franz is a different system of grammar than biblical Greek.[ref]

I repeatedly asked bibliographical data for this file, and I was answered that the reference itself (as you see it above) is adequate bibliographical data. Is it really? Can this reference stand alone as bibliographical data?

Thank you in advance for your time.

Best regards,

--Vassilis78 (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please take this to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I just did. Thank you.--Vassilis78 (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

David Howe (claimant to King of Mann)[edit]


How do I send this protected article to afd please? Grounds: nn, v, rs, blp. Also listed at Requests for arbitration - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added the AfD template to David Howe (claimant to King of Mann). You can go ahead and complete the AfD nomination now as it's only the main article that's protected. For future reference, Wikipedia:Protected edit requests explains the normal process to use. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Have I completed it correctly? CarbonLifeForm (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)



I have previously made a request for administrator attention at ANI about this article, which is almost entirely original research and has failed an AfD in this form. I had originally placed a wiktionary redirect template per the results of that AfD, but those edits were reverted to the original article without explanation. I then tried to remove the original research from this article, but those edits were reverted for "near blanking" of the page. I would request that an administrator reinstate the wiktionary redirect and permenantly protect this page to prevent the reinsertion of this material. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have redirected to the original location agreed at the AFD and recorded the fact that a redirect was agreed ar DRV. I have invited combatants who wish to restore the article to create a draft with sources in user space and submit this to DRV for approval. I also protected the redirect. Spartaz Humbug! 16:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I get you to restore it to the appropriate Wiktionary soft redirect instead? The redirect currently points to a Wiktionary soft redirect, and all the multitude of internet slang pages that were redirected to that list have since been converted to soft redirects. As it currently stands, it is effectively a double redirect. An example of the soft redirect page can be found at this edit from back in November of the same article. (I could do it myself, but don't want to step on your toes) - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Spartaz Humbug! 18:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage[edit]


There are requests to be added to the list of users that are more than 24 hours old on Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage, and the page stated that in these circumstances, a polite message here would be a good thing, resulting in a cheery admin's arrival to sort it all out. So, dear friends, here is such a message!  DDStretch  (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Spartaz Humbug! 20:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Page needs fixed[edit]

Resolved: Template moved. Acalamari 00:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Template-Publishing-Bios was moved and is in the mainspace. βcommand 00:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback on Protected Pages[edit]

Resolved: Potential problem tested and was found to not exist. Those devs are thorough --CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 03:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not a sysop. I have been granted rollback. On protected pages, if I go into the history, the last edit has the rollback button next to it. I am not going to press it to find out what it does, however I see no reason to believe that it would not roll back the edit. As the page is fully protected, and I am not a sysop, that would be bad. If anyone wants to see for sure, I created a page User:CastAStone/rollbacktest that you could edit and then protect, I will attempt to roll it back. If it rolls back, we need to conteact the devs.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 02:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Try it now. I added an "edit" so you would have something to roll back. Antandrus (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
"Unauthorized:This page is currently protected, and can be edited only by administrators." Perfect. Thanks! Wanna delete the page now?--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 02:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but do have rollback, and I get a "only admins can edit" message. We're safe on this one. MBisanz talk 02:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Deleted at CastAStone's request. (By the way, I think that's the first time in four years I've ever vandalized a page. LOL.) Antandrus (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again. I think that's the first time I've abused a function in three years ;). WP:IAR: For the greater good. --CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 02:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Kenny2k agreed to userpage's deletion - PeaceNT (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if this userpage here might be considered somewhat distracting to Wikipedia. Apparently, this user has made very little contribution and has focused his work on making a resource for information on the upcoming Super smash bros. brawl video game. I would like to bring this to your attention to see if it violates our policies on social networking. Thanks. Marlith T/C 05:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. Definitely a person freeloading off of Myspace. Was the user warned? I'm nominating the page for deletion. BoL 05:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
BTW, here it is. BoL 05:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
He was warned. But he ignored the warning. Marlith T/C 05:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Apparently he's not online right now. He may be online at midnight judging by his contribs. (0700 UTC) BoL 05:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's his view on the page [1] --CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 06:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Please feel free to delete my user page. I apologize if I have caused any problems. It was originally created to stop certain debates about the Super Smash Bros. Brawl page, but it got a little carried away. Once again, I apologize.--Kenny2k (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, it's OK. You don't have to worry. There's a debate if you're interested. No worries. BoL 06:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Userpage deleted per request. - PeaceNT (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi. I woke up this morning to discover that I had somehow acquired a new user right overnight. Now I'm not complaining, but if this is to be of any use to me I'll need to integrate it with my existing RC patrol software. This would take several hours, and I'm quite busy at the moment. And apparently people are having a bit of drama because there was no consensus to implement the proposal.

Is anyone here confident that this feature will still be around in a few days' time, or is it more likely that I'll wake up some time next week and discover I've lost a user right overnight? I ask only because I don't want to waste time implementing something that will be of no use. Thanks – Gurch 02:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a bit of furor, I would suggest waiting. ViridaeTalk 02:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
There are hundreds of rollbackers already in existance, it will be hard to take it back from all of them. NoSeptember 02:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Well not really; a single site configuration change to make the "rollbacker" group do nothing would accomplish it. I've had myself removed from this group since (a) whoever gave it me didn't go through the proper process and (b) it's of no use to me unless I integrate it with my software – Gurch 02:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Am I getting this right. Already improper granting of this right is happening? --Bduke (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Not really. Just like when Ryulong was made admin and blocked a Tor proxy and everyone was jumping at him for using his new abilities while "consensus was dubious", people will do the same here. I suggest waiting a bit, in a week or so, after a few people leaving and returning, everything will be back to normal. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The term "improper" is not valid here - there is no widely approved policy in existence that would govern this process, and against which you could measure appropriateness of granting. Миша13 11:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no. Just like the shortlived "Table" namespace, I suspect that the rollback user right could just as easily be 'globally' switched off. Possibly the senior developers are right now engaged in a bloodbath (cf. this rumoured bloodbath in the admins channel) over whether to throw that switch or not. Or possibly there is no such switch. I do recall some discussion somewhere about how it has recently been made much easier to change user rights - did this include adding and removing new classes of user rights? If so, then there probably is a switch that could kill this new user right. Now it's been implemented, I think it will be interesting to see what happens, but I would like to see a wider debate on the Wikipedia technocracy and how to improve communication between developers and the community. One problem is that the community has grown in size and a small group of (sometimes uncommunicative - usually due to pressures of time) developers may need help in communicating with such a large community that demands a lot of the developers (and unfortunately sometimes appears to get little in return - again, due to limited volunteer resources). Carcharoth (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
All user rights are specified in the site configuration. Anything is possible; the developers could render the administrator group non-functional, or make everyone administrators, if they felt like it – Gurch 03:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't refering to the technical issue, but the drama and upset removing this from so many will cause. Add that to the drama we already have over the consensus issue.... NoSeptember 03:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a fair point. I sympathise with those who steered clear of scripts and whatnot, may soon get used to this tool, and may then have it ripped from them. But that is exactly why something like this should be discussed first. It took ages to get the Main Page redesigned. A few more drafts of this proposal until a clearer consensus emerged would not have hurt. Carcharoth (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There are reasons why devs are not supposed to act without a clear and settled consensus in the community. Because when they do, it is incredibly disruptive, and that is what is happening right now. This needs switched off now, before further damage is done. Then calmly and quietly we can pick our way through this issue and decide what to do. If that leads to a consensus to proceed - then at least we can do so whilst still remaining a community.--Docg 02:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe a general RfC or RfArb centred on developers might be useful. There was the shortlived Table namespace. There was the unlogged wiping of block logs. And now this stuff about rollback rights. Developers need to act transparently and communicate with and participate in the community, not act as gods sitting above it. Carcharoth (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a very vocal minority that says there is not a consensus. I disagree that there is a lack of consensus. Considering both the numbers and the arguments made there is clear support for the implementation of this harmless tool that anyone can undo. I want to know where it is written that the default action for this proposal is to not let the community have this tool, and that to pass it needs 80%+ support, if it was two thirds opposed there sure wouldn't be anyone saying there was a lack of consensus against it. 1 != 2 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
A few more drafts of this proposal until a clearer consensus emerged would not have hurt. Carcharoth (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Shrugs - Those who can make a change, do. Those who oppose may be steamrolled by those who can quickly implement the change, regardless of "consensus". I watched several editors do a fait accompli with bots/tools awhile back to speedily mass-userfy userboxes, since there was no way to oppose the action once it was done. People complained, and were ignored or bitten. And now we're faced with something similar. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Disappointed? Yes, very much so, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. I'll hope that this is undone so that discussion can continue, but neither will I be holding my breath. - jc37 03:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Consensus can change, anyone can go and propose this policy be changed. Though I would wait until experience gives us the knowledge we need to make wise rules. 1 != 2 03:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted Wikipedia:Requests for rollback review as unnecessary at this stage. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I slowed down the approval time from 15 minutes to an hour (though I think a day is more suitable). It was just turning into an assembly line (and apperently, the 15 minutes was added when nominations where approved too fast). El_C 09:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • At the moment, my thoughts on rollback are this: leave it to admins only for now, but then give it out to users once people have tested it at the test Wikipedia, where this really should be tested first, not here. Also, as regards wiping of block logs, where's the discussion on that and when did that happen?? --Solumeiras talk 10:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, I shouldn't have really mentioned the block log thing, as bringing that up might stir things up again. It seems to have been a one-off thing, but the principle is still there. Regardless of what happened and why, it seems sensible to have a record somewhere (private if need be) of such actions taken by developers. Then the community can be reassured that the records are being kept and can be consulted if need be. Carcharoth (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Solumeiras, any user can have rollback on demand by adding a few lines to their monobook. All this does is make it slightly easier on the server and slightly faster for you when you rollback mass vandalism. What purpose would testing it out on the test wiki serve? --B (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bah, chaps, this fuss is silly. I'm fairly neutral on the whole idea but isn't the best thing that we've moved away from process? Fantastic! Ok, we have WP:ROLL but, for the first time, we're trusting people to do well without strict rules (see also AGF). Handing this tool randomly, without process, to people I trust really does feel rather liberating. In fact, I think we should apply this easy-give, easy-remove model of adminship (and put Special:Makesysop and Special:Desysop in the hands of admins, not crats or stewards. It would certainly finally take this stigma of overbearing importance away from adminship. But that's another debate - the key thing here is that process has been left behind. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 14:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Shall we do the same for blocking and unblocking, and protecting and unprotecting? Remove process and let people do what they like? (Not a serious question by the way, but just pointing out why some process is sometimes needed) Carcharoth (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Except there'd be no need to give out those rights piecemeal - as I say, the ability to give admin rights should be in the hands of admins, to be given out whenever they like. We would be able to leave RFA behind. This whole silly fuss we make over admin rights, which are essentially trivial, would be forgotten. Most of Wikipedia's problems arise from process, not from an absence of it. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 15:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Although I'd love to see RFA left behind (at least in its current form), with the trouble it's taken to have rollback implemented, and the fuss people are making over it, I cannot possibly see it happening at any time. Majorly (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification - Twinkle[edit]

Requesting community clarification on the following Twinkle issue:

1) Archived Twinkle discussion:

2) Twinkle talk:

Thank you in advance, JaakobouChalk Talk 14:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly admin shopping Jaakobou. But fair enough, I'd welcome a review from a neutral admin if you really want it. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, please try WP:AGF - I'm not asking the question to embarrass you, Only asking it to avoid similar issues in the future. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

p.s. summary: I've been de-twinkled on, "persistant misuse of the tool" (2), and i'd appreciate clarifications regarding the Twinkle policies. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Right on the top of WP:TW it says "Be advised that you take full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle." It is generally accepted that if you misuse the tool (i.e. use it to revert edits while in a content dispute), that an administrator may remove it from your monobook.js file for a period of time. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 15:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Consensus was established in December on AN - here - that misuse of automated editing tools was grounds for having those tools taken away. Looking at the diffs Ryan provided on your talk page, you have been edit warring. We don't do that. And you have been edit warring with the aid of TWINKLE. Therefore, you get your TWINKLE taken away for a period so you can't edit war with it. As for this particular case, endorse Ryan's actions here. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 15:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Ive been following this. I support ryans actions here as well. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 15:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Please note: this was not opened due to ryan's actions at all. I've opened this only to recieve clarifications regarding the use of the tool.
I think there needs to be a clear clarification regarding "do not use while in content dispute" issue - since it is not clearly noted by "you take full responsibility" text given on the WP:TW page... It was my understanding that I should not 'abuse it for malicious' conduct and therefore I used it to 'speed up my editing', I did use it while in editorial conflicts (full edit summaries) because it was unclear that it is not allowed. The issue of 'edit warring' is unrelated but since you've brought it up... a little while ago I noted on this page (archive link) that User:CJCurrie has been using the admin rollback tool on me in clear content disputes and the issue was ignored... To be frank, I have since changed my editing style a little since it created a misunderstanding of policies. I'm not asking to shorten my Twinkle time-out - only to see that there is clear explanation on future use of twinkle (and admin tools) for everyone, me included. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The policies are not unclear, and you're missing the point of what's been said. There's no specific policies regarding certain actions that are or are not allowed with Twinkle and other wikitools. The requirement is that you take complete responsibility for whatever you do with them. It's not about the tools, it's about you. If you do something that's a violation of policy, such as edit warring, vandalism, etc., you can be punished. If you're doing the policy violations with automated tools, such as Twinkle, one of the punishments available is the loss of your ability to use those tools. It has nothing to do with the type of tools or specific actions taken. You just have to follow the wikipolicies, and if you don't, you can be punished in a variety of ways including losing the ability to use any wikitools you were using to speed up or assist in your improper editing.
Clear now? Gromlakh (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't went over all the twinkle edits, but i'm somewhat/fairly sure i've not used it for the purpouse of edit warring... i've been explained on a problematic revert on Operation Rainbow where a reversion of a misuse of the article page [2] partially included a content dispute and therefore I should not have used the tool.
I still believe that there should be some explanation on the WP:TW article, otherwise - the only implication is that of malicious use.
btw, what is the point of having the "good faith" [3] if the tool is only meant for vandalism?
p.s. do these rules apply also for the admin rollback?
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 16:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I've never understood the point of Twinkle's "revert good-faith edits" function. The edit summary it leaves sounds like saying "I'm slapping you in the face with a trout, but I'm being polite while doing so". --Carnildo (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hahaha, I love that comparison. I think it's kind of for user's who make test edits or something, but look like they tried to contribute positively, not knowing anything about Wikipedia... vandalism was done, but not trying to bite the newbies, so trying to be nice about their try? нмŵוτнτ 23:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the source of my confusion as there's no clear indication on the twinkle page. JaakobouChalk Talk 03:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Girard, Kansas[edit]

I could use some more opinions on this page, which i came across during a recent changes patrol. The page has got some pretty massive copyright violations going on. The entire history section, which is huge, seems to have been copy and pasted, and not just from one source, going through and googleing random paragraphs came up with several exact matches to different places, i think much of the page is copied from [4] [5], [6], and[7] [8] to name a few. I'm not quite sure what to do about it, my first thought was to speedy tag it, but that didn't seem appropriate, then i considered blanking the sections, except there is such much copyvio, its difficult to tell which bits to removed. Any thoughts?--Jac16888 (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The editor who added all this content was User:Smulthaup, who, at a glance, could do with some of his other edits reviewing too--Jac16888 (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The first reference (1905 History of Crawford County Kansas) and the second reference (Cutler's History of the State of Kansas) were published in 1905 and 1883, respectively, so they're out of copyright. The others are presumably subject to copyright. From reading the article in general, though, the history section looks too large and overwhelming for a town of 2773 people. To address copyright concerns and to address the weightiness of the history section, I'd suggest working with the editor to summarize the content and to cite copyrighted (or non-copyrighted) sources. I don't think this is really an admin matter -- it's just a matter of good editing practices. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like Smulthaup (talk · contribs) hasn't been active since October, and he was already told about the need to cite sources. If you're looking for a new project, I have a suggestion for an article you could edit. :-) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


See this [9]. Where's my money? Guy (Help!) 16:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a price list available? ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 17:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I think they need that numbered swiss bank account information... Dureo (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this lucrative? I'm not opposed to selling out... — Scientizzle 18:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Admins willing to grant rollback[edit]

To cope with the inevitable demand for this over the next days, admins may wish to consider adding themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests. Thanks.--Docg 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really necessary, as we have WP:RFR AzaToth 20:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course! Why do something simple when we can create a bunch of hoops to jump through and endless bureaucracy to maintain the hoops? Silly Doc. --Ali'i 20:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
While we're at it, I'll go and create Category:Wikipedia admins willing to block users, Category:Wikipedia admins willing to delete stuff, Category:Wikipedia admins willing to protect stuff and Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats willing to promote users. Majorly (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, the first one might be redundant to Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks and Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult blocks, but maybe you should. The last one you note sounds like it might work just as well as requests for adminship. ;-) --Ali'i 20:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
My point is such pages are unnecessary. We don't need a category for goodness sake. If admins want to grant rollback, they can. If they don't, they don't have to. Simple as that. Majorly (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Uh... yeah. Doc, you were the one who complained this process would result in endless bureaucracy, and so far it is you that has been responsible not only for this but for two other needless process pages which have both been deleted – Gurch 20:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Those pages were me making a point, and I am sorry for that. This is me trying to find constructive ways to minimise the bureaucracy which is already evolving on the RFR page. I was chased away for using the wrong ticks.--Docg 20:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Constructive ways, by complaining the whole thing is bureaucratic, and creating even more bureaucratic pages with a request for bureaucratic limits on who can have rollback? Majorly (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Good idea Majorly. And I just got rollback! Thanks wimt :-)--Phoenix-wiki 20:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, good grief! Doc said above "I opposed this on grounds of more process", and then adds more process. Is there a glimmer of chance that in granting use of rollback we might just exercise some judgement here?--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
More process? Where? I just see a category for people who will respond to requests. I can't imagine much of a simpler thing than that. Friday (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
And what, exactly, is wrong with a page that fulfils the same purpose? Majorly (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Nothing. I am not opposing that page. But I'm flagging up that admins can grant it besides the page too. I've granted a few requests already.--Docg 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Yeah, that. It's quite common with a new process that people may try a few different ways. Sometimes, over time, one way emerges as the most common. Sometimes, we retain multiple approaches for quite some time. Friday (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories scale far more efficiently than pages. They don't need to be archived, nor do they generate much discussion. A request page will eventually grow so as to require sub-pages, archives (bot-archived), and endless fighting over process. It's starting already. I don't see much need for a request page, unless we're going to turn it into a clone of RfA, which sounds evil and bad. Let's avoid the bureaucracy, just this once. Mackensen (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Too late :( --Docg 22:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:RFALITE. --Ali'i 22:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been terribly impressed with a lot of what's been going on lately, regarding WP:RFR, and, how the situation's been handled by some involved parties, but, I gotta say, I like the category idea. So much so, that I've added myself to it as well. As Mackensen said above, it scales a lot better, than a page, there's less process, and, less to do overall, to grant / etc. IMO, it somewhat encourages shopping for the right admin, but, it just might work. Great idea, Doc! :) SQLQuery me! 05:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • On the other hand, we supposedly trust our admins; if one admin is prepared to be bail for a non-admin with rollback, then that's good enough for me. Mackensen (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Ok, I'm requesting this again, since the last time I requested this, I didn't not sufficiently explain the situation, which might've caused everyone to skip it.

This case caused this RFCU to take place, which turned up "likely" that Artisol has used the account AL2TB for abusive purposes. Both accounts may need to be blocked. --EoL talk 22:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked a related IP. If another administrator does not assist with this case, I will have to take this case. However, as this is really my first SSP case, I'll probably mess it up. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD open 20 minutes, closed by nonadmin[edit]

Someone want to have a look at this? Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 01:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. People who have commented on debates should not close them. —Kurykh 01:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Whoo! This is clearly an experienced user with a grasp of policy, despite this account being less than 48 hours old. Question is whether it's a user who should be here or not. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. I don't care one way or the other on the AfD outcome but that raised red flags quickly. -- ALLSTARecho 01:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Jeez! This was a good faith edit. Please review the discussion and decide yourselves whether it has a chance of being deleted. I was just trying to save some time by being bold in a very obvious situation, hardly a crime. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Did we call it a crime? --EoL talk 02:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
There's no harm in keeping a discussion open for at least a few hours, preferably a day, and waiting for an uninvolved participant to close it. Even where the article really is a speedy keep, the drama caused by non-admins closing discussions isn't worth the fuss. If it really is such an obvious case the article is going to be kept either way. Patience, patience. Wikidemo (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see this article AfD as an obvious keep, rather it's an obvious delete, IMO. There are serious notability issues with the sources provided, as I explained in the AfD. However, I totally agree that any AfD should not be closed by an involved editor, even if it is an obvious WP:SNOWBALL and/or WP:SPEEDY close. I do WP:AGF that the closing editor meant well, so, no, it's not a crime. Editors disagree all the time here, it's part of the process. Just don't take it personally. — Becksguy (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
No I don't take it personally, but all of this "should this user be here or not" and "raising red flags" just didn't sound like AGF to me, when all I had done was close a discussion that could very easily be reverted. That's all. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Slander Question[edit]

Recently, I saw this message at my talk page, in reference to this AFC. Is it something that Wikipedia needs to be involved with (ie:ComCom)? I tend to stay away from Wiki legal issues, so excuse me for my unfamiliarity. Just thought it would be better to error on the safer side of asking for a second opinion. Thanks! Icestorm815, on a self-enforced wikibreak —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a matter for editors, but the Foundation's legal team, and I have advised user on his talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the section in question. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit war between several users and Rothchild[edit]

Last month, Rothchild (talk · contribs) added 9/11_Truth_Movement and Alex Jones (radio) to the "See also" section of Tin-foil hat. On January 9, after someone reverted this arguably humorous but nevertheless blatantly POV edit, Rothchild reverted it back and, for good measure, added "Tin-foil hat" under the "See also" section of the Alex Jones article. Then in the Talk page of the Tin-foil hat article, the user said, "I was about to add the Ron Paul campaign but I keep KISS in mind." Several reverts were made back and forth by myself and others. We explained to Rothchild that the edits were POV and inappropriate.

Today after I noticed Rothchild had reverted back again, I said in the Talk section, "I think Alex Jones is loony too, but Wikipedia articles are no place for my opinion," and then I deleted the whole "See also" section, as it was irrelevant. I also fixed the Alex Jones article. Rothchild quickly reverted both back and replied, "Just because Alex Jones seems to be your hero does not mean you have to keep reverting my edits."

Rothchild is showing clear troll behavior and is making repeated bad-faith, POV edits and reverts. The passage of several weeks time between Rothchild's initial edit and the revert did not deter the user, as he or she seems to be watching the articles closely so as to quickly revert any edit.

I don't know what do do at this point, so I'm turning here for help. --Skylights76 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rothchild deleted this section, but I reverted...I have not formed an opinion on the dispute as of yet. — Scientizzle 07:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I've left a warning on his/her talk page--the edits are clearly disruptive. Additionally, edits like this & this are inappropriate. Further disruption may merit a block. — Scientizzle 07:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Skylights has been clearly wikistalking me. I am new to wikipedia and I don't feel welcome here.--Rothchild (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You're new, and yet you know terms like wikistalking and sock puppet. If I had to guess, I'd say it's you who is a sock puppet, and it's you who was wikistalking me when you came here and deleted this section. You'd feel more welcome here if you made quality contributions instead of trolled.--Skylights76 (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
My brother has been trying to get me into Wikipedia and he edits here all the time. He told me that your what defines a Wikistalker. But seriously though. Just drop it. It was a simple link and you started to cry ZOMG VANDALISM!!!! You completely missed the theme and the tone of the article and my additions were a perfect fit. There's more important things in life then making a big deal over a link. I hope you feel so much better about your self for making Wikipedia such a safe place.--Rothchild (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'm sorry if this isn't the appropriate forum for this dispute, but someone had removed all the explanatory info at the top of the page when I posted this section. Anyway, what do you advise regarding the edit war in question? I believe that he/she will just revert back.--Skylights76 (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there might be sockpuppetry, but without further evidence we can't link this user to any blocked or banned user, so that may be a dead end. However edit warring over unrelated items in a section is trolling, I recomend that a block be issued if the situation persists. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rothchild blocked[edit]

Continued disruptive behavior, in my opinion. Blocked for 48hrs. I'm signing off, so any admin may overturn if he or she wishes... — Scientizzle 08:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to the admins who helped in this situation.--Skylights76 (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of auto-generated deletion summaries[edit]

Recently, in the middle of the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Sysop.js/Admin opinion (but not as a result of it), all auto-generated deletion summaries were removed. These are the pre-filled log summaries which say, "Content was ... and the only contributor was..." which admins can still change before deletion. A few admins have complained about the removal, including myself, though there hasn't been any overwhelming continued objection there seems to be only one person in favour of removal. I think few people are aware of what has happened. At first the summaries were replaced with "-", then they were replaced with "no reason for deletion was given", now the auto-generated summaries have been restored again, perhaps accidentally, by removal of content from MediaWiki:Excontent. It's all a bit disorganised at the moment. There is currently a bug report to get the auto-generated summaries put somewhere else on the deletion page instead of the log summary. I've raised it here so admins are aware of the change and any discussion about it, and to get more input. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am in favor of the auto-generated summary ("content was $1"). The argument against it seems to be that some sysops might include un-deletable libel in their deletion summaries, but I don't think that is a real issue (are there seriously still admins doing this? Why haven't they been desysopped already?) We should also delete MediaWiki:Excontentauthor to get the old behaviour back for pages with just one editor. Kusma (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Mentor needed for resocialising problem user[edit]

Can someone please head over to User talk:Burra and have a look if they could act as a kind of mentor for a somewhat problematic case? This is the former anon user "Dodona", lately known as serial sockpuppeter PIRRO BURRI (talk · contribs) (socks), trying to negotiate a comeback. The problem has been that over almost a year (or longer? I forget) he has been plaguing talk pages with rather confused, persistent rants, trying to push some weird ethnic fringe ideas about Albanians being descended from Pelasgians and therefore really Greeks, and actually better Greeks than the Greeks themselves, or something to that effect. He used to be unstoppable, and both his English and his grasp of scholarly literature is abominable. I'm a sceptical, but maybe I'm a bit too involved to make these decisions alone. Anybody willing to watch him? Fut.Perf. 16:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for rollback[edit]


This person appears to be violating WP:USERPAGE. Again. Which is also primarily what his contributions consist of. Could this be looked into once more, please? Thanks. --Ebyabe (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And he's at it again... *sigh* -Ebyabe (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback/Vote[edit]

Can we please have some more sensible eyes? I've blanked+protected the main voting page due to edit-warring, but the talk page is descending into one massive flamewar, with arrant nonsense being frequently added - so please feel free to go for some aggressive refactoring. It all got so bad we're off to a draft poll. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 15:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am profoundly confused as to what happened to the votes. I just went to check to see the number of votes for each proposal and I see the page has full protection and a picture of a cat? This is descending into utter silliness. Bstone (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It's utter madness, I can't understand why people is still arguing about it, it's not like it matters! I would suggest everyone just stop complaining about anything that has to do with rollback, and just let it be as it is now. If someone acquires rollback and is using it to do vandalism, then that person will be blocked, or if less severe, will loose the rollback bit. Also as a point is that I will in a near future change Twinkle to only use the built in rollback, so at that point, loosing rollback privilege will effectively disable twinkle rollback as well. AzaToth 17:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a really cool idea (with TW I mean} :b: