Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive126

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

134.139.148.100[edit]

  • The problem of a single purpose account carring out vandalism is the same, but the pattern of editing is different. I can raise the issue there if you wish, but I think this is a seperate, unrelated and possibly a one-off case. Could this vandalism be reviewed here?--Gavin Collins (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Protected edit request[edit]

I've had a {{editprotected}} placed on Template talk:Film for over two days now without any response whatsoever. Would someone be so kind as to have a look? Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, protection has expired, unless I'm missing the obvious. I have to be away, could someone check this please? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
What? It's indefinitely full protect. Anyhow, the edit looks good to me. Done. Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 04:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

conduct of Nlu[edit]

The article criticisms of the BBC is at present little better than a poor and muddled attack article, Nlu feels my effort to discuss my concerns about it on the talk page should be silenced and has removed my comments and locked the talkpage. I feel this action is an abuse of power by someone who appears to want to maintain the highly POV status quo of the article my silencing me. 04:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC[edit]

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Heads-up on possible trolling[edit]

The Register has published a high-profile article on Jossi (talk · contribs) which is being discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Jossi and Prem Rawat. Given The Register's readership, there's a distinct likelihood of trolling/personal attacks on Jossi's user and talk pages as well as the COIN and the article on Prem Rawat. It would be helpful if people could watchlist them for a few days while this plays out. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There's also a likelihood of honest questions. And diversionary answers. And animosity. Y'know what, none of this helps WP: "someone's taking an admin to task, let's all of us admins, every man Jack of us, protect him". It's precisely what the anti-WP crowd looks for. We don't need to serve it with Dom Perignon •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a fine line to be drawn between that and "let's not allow any hint of suppression of the agenda of a banned user". Guy (Help!) 16:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Review unblock-auto request[edit]

User talk:ACMEMan is claiming an autoblock has caught him unfairly, however some of his edits seem questionable of themselves, including Reporting someone HE is supposed to be a sockpuppet of, for vandalism, and reporting VOAbot as a vandal, and perhaps impersonating an admin. What think you all? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser confirmed massive sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gsnguy. Thatcher 07:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
As the checkuser who ran the above case that Thatcher mentions, I strongly recommend not unblocking at this time, given the evidence that Checkuser produced. Indeed, if any admin who wants to review the findings on RFCU and act accordingly, they should feel free to do so - Alison 07:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Jayron, this guy is...amazingly ungood. In addition to his sock activity, attempted to lock out both me and Mrschimpf by using the "forgot password" utility. Each of us discovered, the morning after reporting him, a "forgotten password" e-mail. I don't normally descend into histrionics, but I BEG of you, please, PLEASE do not unblock this user or any of his socks. Thanks. Gladys J Cortez 16:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Threat of legal action, etc., over editing of Breyer State University[edit]

There is continuing contention over the article about Breyer State University (an unaccredited online institution). The article apparently is the subject of OTRS Ticket Number 2007080910015888. I've received e-mail (source untraceable), apparently from Dr. Dominick Flarey at Breyer State, complaining that I had reverted edits by User:JzG that had been made as a result of an earlier exchange between Dr. Flarey and JzG, which was included in the e-mail. (In fact, I believe the only thing I had done contrary to JzG's edits was to remove some statements that JzG had added with a "citation needed" template. I removed them because they were unsourced statements about Dr. Flarey made with no indication as to where they came from. Based on the e-mail I received, it appears that they were based on e-mail he had received.) Today User:Romulus33 made extensive changes to the article, mostly removal of sourced information. Some of his edits removed information based on an article in The New Republic. The edit summary says "The New Republic is not a reliable source - see Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy. The article quoted has been withdrawn by the magazine." (Note that the New Republic article cited has nothing to do with Beauchamp.) The summary for a later edit says "The statements removed lack factuality, drew legal conclusions, and were libelous. Please refrain from re-inserting these statements again as legal action may be undertaken." I have restored sourced information to the article, but I am disturbed about the attempts to intimidate me into not editing the article. --Orlady (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The management of this place have been agitating for years to exclude any mention of the fact that just about everybody calls it a diploma mill. We can't fix the fact that the world thinks their business is a scam. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I took a look at Romulus33's contribs for a possible WP:NLT block, but JzG has already taken care of business. Obviously, this kind of behavior is completely unacceptable and the indef block was appropriate. — Satori Son 12:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Orlady (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • FYI, I did a major clean-up of the article without trying to change its content (other than removing a legal argument I thought was WP:SYNTH). I doubt that will mollify anyone making legal threats. The claims against the school are sourced to a New Republic article and we are simply reporting what that New Republic and the institution claim so I see no obvious case they could possibly have. Nevertheless we should be on heightened alert to make sure anything in this article is well-sourced, and that we make clear we are not making claims but rather reporting credible-seeming claims made in published sources.Wikidemo (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Update - in the process of sourcing the article I've uncovered some potentially scandalous stuff about Breyer State's apparent connection with James Monroe University and Saint Regis University. Fraud rings, terrorists using fake degrees, webmaster arrested for child porn as part of the investigation, that sort of thing. I think the sources are solid, and the information I added is toned way down from the news sources, but all the same, it would be nice if I could get another pair of eyes for WP:V and WP:BLP. Thx, Wikidemo (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad image[edit]

 Done Image:Female genitalia inner.JPG should be added to MediaWiki:Bad image list to prevent its use for the purpose of vandalism, with exceptions for the current use of this image in Vulva and Vagina. Thanks. John254 05:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Will be done momentarily. -MBK004 08:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The image is now on the Bad image list. -MBK004 08:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:167.1.163.100[edit]

Possible shared IP with long block history made another dubious edit here. Posted here for appropriate review. Ward20 (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User Mr final x's improperly placed rfa[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/mr final x doesn't actually show up on the rfa list and isn't even filled out right. This is this user's only edits to the Wiki. Was going to just CSD it but I couldn't think of what to call it. So I'll just bring it up here. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 09:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedied as a test page (CSD G2). EdokterTalk 12:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this user may be a sockpuppet of mr kc, see this RFA and his contribs. D.M.N. (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Editing pattern doen't really match. We get these RfA's from time to time. EdokterTalk 19:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Old AFD got missed[edit]

Resolved

I notice that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maximum reported B-17 & B-24 bomb loads has been open for a while past its due date, but it is no longer listed with the old AFDs (although properly logged, otherwise). Is there a generalized way for highlighting these sorts of AFDs? I've seen several such posts here in the past, and I couldn't figure anything else...Someguy1221 (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted-edit counter?[edit]

Hi there...I was steered here from the Help Desk. Is there a way to find out how many of a given user's edits have been reverted? There's an IP-only user who's been inserting false info into lots of articles for months; I've analyzed the pattern of this specific vandalism, and it looks like he has two locations, and that one of his addresses is a static IP. Though that IP has been progressively blocked over the last 2 days, I'd like to create a case that the IP should be permablocked; obviously, the more bad edits, the more likely it is that it's a mostly-vandal or vandal-only account. (His dynamic IP, at his "other" location, is a little more troublesome; I'm compiling data to see if I can pin down a range, but so far, no luck.) Thanks for any help you can give me...Gladys J Cortez 15:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a tool to do that, but I've always found popups very useful for very quickly scanning lots of diffs. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Betacommand has a tool for just about everything. You may want to ask him. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Can I get the username in question. I might have what your looking for. βcommand 05:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"fake move attack" comes back again[edit]

I hope you see archive118 again, I reported this attack at WP:AIV 8 times (from 2 December 2007 to 21 December 2007) , At the 8th time , some administrator told me to report here.
This guy comes back again today , he uses ip 209.247.5.81 to add information of a fake movie Tom & Jerry: The Great Beginning into Barney Bear.123.193.12.44 (talk)
It was a good call on the admin's part. WP:AIV is something we should be able to plow through pretty quickly - obvious "Fred is gay" type vandalism. Anyway, back to the issue at hand - what is the false information and how do you know it's false? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I explanned at [1] a month ago 123.193.12.44 (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked for 72hours, please feel free to reduce tariff after a short while. I am familiar with this vandal, and if I am online it might be best to come to my talkpage first to request action. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
ps. It's "fake movie attack"... every time I've seen it I thought "I must mention it." And now I have... :~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
A known banned user? MascotGuy perhaps? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Not known by me, I've just seen this report crop up here a few times and I've issued some of the blocks. I may have even been the sysop who suggested bringing it to ANI instead of AIV. It isn't frequent enough (or disruptive) for me to have considered SSP, but please feel free... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD close[edit]

Resolved

Two article nominated to AfD. here. But AfD tag is not removed in the here. Does it mean that the latter survived afd?. Thanks. --Avinesh Jose  T  05:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No. The closing admin merely missed it. Both articles are now deleted. —Kurykh 06:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Durzatwink and Styrofoam1994[edit]

These two seem to be taking light-hearted friendship a little too far, with fake warnings left on talk pages and this sockpuppetry report. I know it's only good faith humour, so obviously I'm not asking for the hammer of Thor on this one, but perhaps someone could step in, delete the report and tell each user to use their time more productively? (Lovebirds...) haz (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching the situation for some time since coming across User:Styrofoam1994 via my contribution of new editors sweep. I think he just wants to play. Deleted the SSP as test page. A couple of more eyes with some slight steering in the right direction might help. Agathoclea (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm the one that closed the first SSP case and did the blocks therein. Note I made User:Rws_killer the master as it's the oldest account. The newer (deleted) SSP case is really interesting. Durzatwink's edits are similar to the other socks and he appear just a couple of days after the blocks I did. Based on that alone, it looks like a new sock. But the odd parts are Durzatwink calling Styrofoam1994 his "adoptee" (when Durzatwink's claiming he's a new user) and Styrofoam1994 making attacks (like "perv") on his page and also impersonating an admin--I'm warning Styrofoam on both these points. In summation, I think we should RFCU the whole bunch and sort this out. Agathaclea is right to be suspicious, but I think we need to dig deeper. RlevseTalk 02:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Their friendship seems to have cooled extremely suddenly. I'm really having a hard time assuming good faith. (see User:Sanjay517) Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what's going on here at all, but you should see User talk:MasterofMinds also. --omtay38 01:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Should Styrofoam1994's Rollback privileges be revoked? Malinaccier (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think that unless my sockpuppet suspicions are confirmed in some way, Styrofoam should probably keep his privileges. After all, rollback is no more of a big deal than using Twinkle, as the page itself states. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I have evidence to believe that MasterofMinds is the sockpuppet master of User:Sanjay517 Here Here Here}}. The sockpuppet also admit that he has controll of the account which is stated [talk:Sanjay517&diff=188689866&oldid=188689336 here]. There seems to be two ip adresses involved which are 76.98.1.12 and [76.98.7.176]. As you can see, they both participated in User:Styrofoam1994/Offbeat‎. Altough most of the time these accounts did not cause any harm to Wikipedia, there was 1 incident in activated me to post this and that is Here. Although it does not seem too bad, I consider it as vandalism. If any of you want to, you cant make a case here WP:SSP. Happy editing ^_^--DurzaTwinkTALK 00:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the teachers of that particular school could be alerted to put a lesson on on-line privacy protection onto the curriculum. This might solve most of the problems. Anyway the real crux of the matter is whether $NAMEOFPUPPETMASTER is banned in the wiki sense of the word.
trouble was further brewing at WP:ANI.
What troubles me is the fact that DurzaTwink gets frequently referred to by his real or imagined real-life name by the other parties of this conflict - which appears to be a reallife schoolyard conflict which has spilled over into wikipedia. One way of stopping that would be to delete the "Game".
AS far as rollback privileges are concerned this is clearly a case of rollback used in a conflict. Agathoclea (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Mfd now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Styrofoam1994/Offbeat. -- Agathoclea (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a limit as to how many cases of sockpuppetry a user can make against another? Styrofoam1994 is planning to make a 3rd case stated here and to be quite honest, it is getting very tiresome to constantly defened against these accusations every time since I have other work that must be done. Thanks--DurzaTwinkTALK 18:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
All of these accusations in which he is attacking me with, has consumed my time for making good and constructive edit. Is there some way that the admins can set up something that would seperate us for the time being untill we cool down and come to terms? Thank you --DurzaTwinkTALK 18:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: User:Alison confirmed that Durzatwink was Nyu pendragon with a CU, as seen at the link that Durzat herself (himself?) gave. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This is regards to your recent confusion over sex. *cough* himself *cough* lol--DurzaTwinkTALK 02:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: I reopened the sockpuppet case for Durzatwink with that evidence added, here. contribsSTYROFOAM☭1994TALK 03:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This has been resolved, with DurzaTwink indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Rws killer. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have blocked Durza indefinitely for sockpuppetry and trolling/personal attacks, and Styrofoam for 48 hours for a 3RR violation and personal attacks. I have also revoked Styrofoam's right to use rollback. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been another sock and here the user requests the game page to be deleted, which I am uncomfortable to do as it was me starting the MfD. Uninvolved admin please. Agathoclea (talk) 08:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
And another: 96.235.179.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- Agathoclea (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that because i have an ip adress, i am a sockpuppet?--96.235.179.193 (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have warned 96.235.179.193 that another edit in Styrofoam1994 Userspace will lead to a longer block. I can see no particular will to build an encyclopedia here, but will not stand in teh way if the user in question wants to do that instead of fooling around with someone he seems to know from reallife. Agathoclea (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Where are the diffs? You are accusing me without any evidence. Show me the evidece because i clearly did not vandalize Styrofoam1994's userpage--96.235.179.193 (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The above user has been blocked for 1 month for being a suspected account of User:Rws killer et al. contribsSTYROFOAM☭1994TALK 01:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me...[edit]

or is the Scottish Wikipedia a joke? see sco:template:Delete and read the text phonetically in your best Feegle accent. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, this is the English Wikipedia...Maybe you're looking for Meta?John Reaves 21:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

See this - apparently they are serious, and thats how they write ;-) Avruchtalk 21:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been there, and they sound like that too. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Uh... what does this have to do with AN? 86.149.135.37 (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe they are serious but I couldn't help myself when reading that page, "Here at Wikipaedia it's recommendit that fowk uises "tradeetional" pan-dialect spellins." traedeetional reads like a very bad typo, just priceless. - Caribbean~H.Q. 15:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
What next, bork bork Wikipedia? I mean, if Google can do it: [2], why not? Silly rabbit (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, this is bordering on offensive. I'm not Scottish (not far from it though) but the Scots dialect is a real dialect- fictional languages (like Klingon) are not given Wikipedias. Admittedly, it isn't often written, and I think there is a degree of humour in the Scots Wikipedia, but using 'Feegle' in the place of 'Scottish' is just plain depressing... J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, Klingon does have a Wikipedia...[3] Someguy1221 (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, if you read the disclaimer at the top, it doesn't. It was (perhaps rightly) moved to Wikia. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It sort of exists. It's listed on meta as a read-only Wikipedia, but it has not actually been closed. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I know Scots Gaelic is a real dialect, I'm British. But to see it written down in what looks like a Viz Comic parody of a Scottish brogue, well, that puzzled me. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Scots Gaelic is an entirely different language. And perhaps you should push your erudition somewhat. 86.44.6.14 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT[edit]

Are chronic violations of this ever actionable by an admin? If so, is there some sort of guideline or rule of thumb that's followed? Or is this an RFC type issue? I seem to be having trouble with some editors apparently wanting to block changes to an article by chronically ignoring my points and questions, forcing me to restate them over and over (and over...) again on the Talk page. I've been blocked many o' time on 3RR with some of these same editors, so I'm strictly staying to the Talk page to work out suggested changes beforehand, but it's been tricky getting any sort of truely collaborative, on-point discussion going. Merciful guidance in this matter would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of this being the sole grounds for admin action. I'd suggest getting more input from other users WP:3O, WP:RFC, WP:MEDCAB are good places to start, as are appropriate wiki-projects. Of course if this is blatant vandalism (changing articles without discussing changes, etc), well thats either a user conduct RFC or a report to WP:AN/I. MBisanz talk 06:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, the shortcut you reference is a Behavioral Guideline which has a mandate of "While it is not policy, editors are strongly advised to follow it." MBisanz talk 06:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Because I kept getting gamed into 3RR, I swore off touching the main pages (except for vandalism and major undiscussed edits) without getting some of agreement on the Talk page. That has resulted in a lot of "discussion" along the lines of, say, my proposing to change some blatant, unsupported bit of POV, listing a pile of reasons and refs, and then getting as a response something like, "Excellent idea and worthy of discussion -- let's start with your use of the word "The". -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 06:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Chronic refusal to get the point is a form of disruption. Depending on how important the point is, it definitely can be grounds for blocking. In your case, for example, if I find you are still defaming a certain individual then yes you will be blocked - I notice you are still obsessively editing only one subject. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Nothing wrong at all with "obsessively editing only one subject" as long as the editing is within policy.. ie: sourced, formatted, BLP neutral, etc. Geesh. - ALLSTAR echo 16:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, actually, the assessment that I'm "obsessively editing only one subject" is not entirely accurate -- I have two main interests, the Killian Documents and Global Warming. The difference is that when I go to edit or discuss things on Global Warming, it's usually pretty straightforward. But when I try to do likewise on the Killian Documents, that seems to produce an awful lot of stonewalling over even obvious problems with the article, hence even minor issues of wording consume vast amounts of time. So I'm left with the choice of either taking the hint and giving up or having to allocate an awful lot of time and effort get even wholly unreferenced, highly POV'd material removed or modified. If this wasn't so time consuming, I would likely have far more time for other articles. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so you're an OTRS volunteer and know about OTRS ticket # 2007111410017735 and OTRS ticket # 2007103010015799, yes? Or maybe you're actually just trolling, with no actual idea of the past problems Callmebc's edits have caused. Callmebc was released from an indefinite block only on the strict understanding that there would be no further disruption. This is apparent from the user's talk page. Maybe you didn't research quite that deeply before commenting. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Trolling for what?? Nope, I'm not an OTRS volunteer nor do I know about those tickets.. they are pointless considering. You laid out such a broad statement that "obsessively editing only one subject" is a bad thing, a no-no - which it isn't as I pointed out. AGF. It goes a long way. - ALLSTAR echo 16:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Guy is again not being entirely accurate here. I do believe I'm not the one who really caused the problems he's referring to. Another editor at one point inserted an anecdote into an article that originated from an OP-ED opinion column printed in a conservative newspaper. Let's just diplomatically say that I felt there were a few "issues" with the contents of the anecdote, so I provided what would normally be considered pretty good reasons and refs for removing it. As has been typical, reason and refs didn't really seem to matter a whole lot and multiple edit wars ensued over this one anecdote, leading to my getting 3RR'd a couple of times, and finally to my being banned altogether. Sometime later during one of my blocks, I was then retroactively accused of making personal attacks on the writer of the column, and that was followed by a lot of what was called "removing offensive text". I would give you an diff of an example of the "offensive" text that was removed, but I don't want to be accused of trolling again. The bottom line is that if most of the editors on the Killian articles simply followed Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as well as WP:HONESTY, there would be no problems, period. And this is the main reason I'm leery of touching the main article pages anymore until I'm sure I'm not just going to get automatically reverted regardless of the Talk page discussion (or lack thereof). -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I think getting reverted is the least of your worries. It appears to me that people are now watching your every move and so your issue here is getting blocked or banned again, even for the slightest, borderline offense. I'd suggest you keep in line with policy and this includes 3RR. If you can't get anywhere on the related talk pages of the articles, do an RFC and then ultimately go to the Mediation Committee, Mediation Cabal (less formal) or ask for a third opinion. Don't game the game - let the game, game the game. Happy editing! - ALLSTAR echo 21:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I was sort of getting the impression that I was being closely watched as well, even well before the banning. The Killian articles tend to be very stagnant, with "Citation Needed" tags left for ages, but as soon as I make a proposal to change anything, all of a sudden they become some of the busiest articles around, Not that fixing lonely "Citation Needed" tags and such are ever the intention. And it is looking like RFC's are going to be needed as starters to get anything fixed there. As has been the case in the past, there have already been massive off-point/off-topic semi-discussions. But I am game to try to let the game game the gamers. Thanks for the tips. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are being watched. This is due to your past actions and the complaints they have caused. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Reading WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I see that Callmebc's statement that "forcing me to restate them over and over (and over...) again" might indeed be relevant. Repetition is not proof of anything other than repetition. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

IP personal attacks and BLP issues[edit]

I'm not sure if I'm in the right place or not. I would report to Wikiquette alerts, but I feel there may be some WP:BLP issues. Anyway, 124.168.6.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who has been warned, has been making rude and inappropriate comments toward me and Ron Paul (an American presidential candidate) at Talk:Ron Paul (edit | [[Talk:talk:Ron Paul|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He's also posted various blog postings that are negative toward Ron Paul. Me and several other editors have removed those under WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, but he keeps reinserting them along with his personal comments towards me.[4][5][6][7] ~ UBeR (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Put a {{uw-blp2}} warning on his/her talk page. I think WP:BLP/N could be better for these sort of reports, though. (Non-admin) x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


Ron Paul bots [8]keep censoring and deleting material from a mere "discussion" page that editors could use to balance out an essentalliy unbalanced, one-sided, political "love-piece" --which is improper use of Wikipedia resources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.54.141 (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't cast ridiculous aspersions on your fellow editors. UBeR has been editing here for a long time - they are not a "Ron Paul bot". Natalie (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've given both IPs their last warning. Considering the two IP addresses I saw trace to different cities in Australia, is it possible that there is some meatpuppetry or off-wiki discussion happening here? I'm going to watchlist Ron Paul, but if some other admins could do the same that would probably be helpful. Natalie (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

At least one of the IPs referred to himself as "we," so that's a distinct possibility. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop this ridiculous, emotive, PC nonsense. Stick to the issues and the facts. When censorship is consistent and habitual behaviour evinced, certain propositions must be made and bought to attention.

Why is "UBeR" not telling the whole truth about his or her censorship and removal of critical material on a mere "discussion" page along with others who seem to monitor the page obsessively.

If they claim to be acting within Wiki parameters (which they are not) why have they not taken the data provided and made it either "palatable" to their "sensitivities" and provided guidance rather acted like a razor gang, slashing and vandalising material ruthlessly?!

For instance, giving a "here's example" of how such and such material may be re-written.

"Wikipedia is not censored" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FORUM#Wikipedia_is_not_censored —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.6.88 (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through each and every one of your sources and they are all unreliable (most are blogs). Learn what a reliable source is before you hurl any more accusations at Ron Paul, and you must completely stop making accusations against other editors, or you will be blocked from editing. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
That IP has been blocked for 12 hours. Either this is all the same person or there is some communication occurring about this, so I am going to consider that all of these people have been warned and just start blocking on site. We don't need this sort of crap during campaign season. Natalie (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone may want to review the history at Talk:Ron Paul. There have many reversions and insertion of previously removed material from various and differing IPs within the past few hours. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I warned the three IP addresses I saw, and then blocked the above IP address, which was new, and someone else semi-protected the talk page for a while. At this point monitoring it for future issues seems like the best idea. Natalie (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that it was semi-protected, just that the lock image was placed on the page. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Huh, sure enough. I'll leave a note for the person who added it. Natalie (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Inflammatory comments[edit]

It may be helpful if an uninvolved admin had a word with Pax Arcane (talk · contribs) about inflammatory/uncivil edits such as these: [9][10][11][12][13][14]. Vassyana (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done. AGK (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

AFD of Pakalomattom and Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil[edit]

This is regarding the speedy closure of AFD discussion of the above articles.

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil

There were strong suggestions to both Keep and delete from many noteable wikipedians.

We are trying to get also expert opinion from People from this part of the world also with knowledge of Indian Christian history , when suddenly one of the Admins User:Nihonjoe closed the debate and deleted the articles , without even a consensus was achieved. :(

We , lot of wikipedians have put our heart to this , feels this as extremely unfair and unjust, losing our faith in Wikipedia.

- Tinucherian (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The debate went on for 8 days, so this is not a speedy close. 5 days to a week is a standard time for a deletion discussion. I would suggest to head to Deletion review and plead your case there. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Backlog[edit]

Resolved: Fair use dispute handled.

I posted previously on the backlog in Category:Replaceable fair use images disputed. The category was cleared out of all but one image: Image:MarineMichaelBrown.jpg. I believe the clearing admin couldn't decide what to do. If someone could render a judgment on the image, we could remove the backlog banner from the category. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for posting the notification. AGK (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Autoconfirmation for Special:Upload?[edit]

I'm not entirely sure if this has been brought up once before, or multiple times before, but why is it that Special:Upload is usable for new users? I would think that this barrier would help the English Wikipedia cut back on the various image deletion backlogs, as it seems that a bulk of the images are being uploaded by our newest members, and then summarily deleted a week later after being tagged for whatever reason. This may, in turn, get users to learn more about our local image policies, rather than the MediaWiki UI that we have on Special:Upload.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 11:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed for other wikis at m:Metapub#Set upload to autoconfirmed Wikimedia-wide, with consensus in favour (though I don't know if it was ever done). – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Bugzilla:12556. enwikipedia is included, but you can opt-out if you want. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think further discussion on this is necessary—at least from the point of view of supporting Special:Upload being restricted to autoconfirmed editors only. After all, consensus has already been established in favour of that particular software change. However, I am unsure when that is going to be implemented—are we awaiting the Developers to do so, or has enwiki, in fact, not being included in this change? AGK (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, enwiki is currently included in the request, so no further discussion is needed unless enwikipedia wants to opt out. We're just waiting on the devs to change the configuration. There will likely be a delay in the request being fulfilled, as Commons is now making a fuss.  Mike.lifeguard|@en.wb 19:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I can see why commons would complain. If only there was a built-in way for a "new user" account on commons to confirm that it belongs to the same person to an "experienced user" on some other project, this could be used to gain "auto-confirmed" status and be able to contribute immediately rather than having to wait. — CharlotteWebb 19:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that called single-user-login? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

MonaVie[edit]

The above page appears to be salted, although there is an article about the company at MonaVie (multi-level marketing)‎. I can't see the deleted content, so cannot see how different the two are, but I imagine that the article as it currently stands would have a good chance of staying if it was prodded again. It's pretty pointless, in any event, not having the article at it's proper location, so can an admin unprotect it and move the page across from MonaVie (multi-level marketing)‎? Thanks GBT/C 12:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I moved it. I think it may be CSD G4, but it's different enough that I can't be sure, waiting for a more experienced admin to decide if this version is too similar to it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Different. The original article was blatant spam, the new one is not. But it does rely on sources which are about the supposed active principle in the product, rather about the product or company itself, so may well fail notability guidelines. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It is clear here, as JzG states, that the article has now surpassed the boundaries for speedy deletion. However, the matter of whether the subject is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia remains to be addressed—I believe that is a matter for participants in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MonaVie (2nd nomination), and not the Administrator's Noticeboard. You may wish to post your opinion there, Gb? AGK (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete backlog[edit]

There's a pretty large backlog on CAT:CSD right now. It needs admin attention ASAP. Thanks --L. Pistachio (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Slogging away at it ........ :) Pedro :  Chat  23:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Backlog taken care of for now. --L. Pistachio (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

La Mirada, California[edit]

There is an ongoing vandalism in this article. Someone (or many people) keep changing the county it's located in. There have been many reverts - I recently completed one. Can someone put this on a watchlist? Einbierbitte (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not request protection at WP:RFPP? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 02:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotected Talk:Muhammad/images[edit]

Resolved: The protection was required to prevent further disruption.

I've semiprotected Talk:Muhammad/images. There was just too much disruption from outside people and newbies coming from those various online petitions, either repeating the demand to take off the images or venting against oh so evil Islam for wanting to take off those images. I hope this will not now spill over elsewhere, but I think if people won't understand a simple note "please don't tell us this for the thousandth time, we've heard it all before", there's really not much we can do for them, can we? Fut.Perf. 16:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Never seen a semi-protected talk subpage. But your right that it is needed in this case. MBisanz talk 16:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I endorse the protection—all actions should be made with a mind towards preventing further disruption, and I certainly believe that Future's protection fulfilled that. Hopefully, upon the expiry on 24 February, certain individuals participating in the discussion will rediscover the ability to discuss civilly. AGK (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Considering that Muhammad was/is semi-protected and all that's done is make the IPs register so they can now remove the images, I don't think this is going to slow anything down on Talk:Muhammad/images. Just my 2.5 cents. - ALLSTAR echo 19:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but it's worth a try, isn't it? нмŵוτнτ 19:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
No arguments here. - ALLSTAR echo 19:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a bold warning on the Talk page or even on the article page (hidden for readers) that a removal of the images will lead to an immediate block is in order? Corvus cornixtalk 20:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

We could do that but we already know that nobody reads such things. --Fredrick day (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I really think blocking the entire Middle East for a while may not be a bad idea if this keeps up. Jtrainor (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you're kidding and move on. -- tariqabjotu 07:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
If you have a better way to stem hundreds of thousands of vandals all going after the same thing, I'd like to hear it. Jtrainor (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Uh, full protection? There are plenty of Muslims outside the Middle East, btw. Natalie (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Permanent block request[edit]

Resolved

Please place a permanent editing block on the IP address I am connecting from (217.33.236.2).

It is a corporate address and people should not be using it to edit wikipedia articles. We've found Wikipedia to be a useful resource so would rather do this than block access outright.

Thank you.217.33.236.2 (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Responded on the IP's talk page. Mr.Z-man 20:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
OTRS ticket 2008021110007203 received and IP blocked Gnangarra 15:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Week and a half backlog at SockPuppetry[edit]

I know it's hard, but the one that has my attention (not the oldest on the board) is from February 2, and in the interim we've had protection, at least 10 warnings, 2 blocks, at least one bit of oversight and need for more... and as I counted up warnings I found more need for oversight. Clearing these reports can be a lot of work, I understand, but not clearing them turns into a lot of work, too. Jd2718 (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume by this you mean "Administrators, get your backsides over to the backlog and clear it"? :-) I'll wander by in a bit and help out. AGK (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Request immediate unblocking of User:CSDWarnBot[edit]

I'm requesting that an admin immediately unblock User:CSDWarnBot. It was blocked by User:Samsara with little explanation for a single erroneous edit, in which the bot didn't receive the page text and removed content. This is an issue common to every bot which has the ability to create pages, has a very low incidence rate, and occurs due to network or server errors, not bot errors. Preventing it would require a doubling of load created by this bot as every request is double checked, or would mean the bot cannot post to users who do not have talk pages yet. As this bot performs an essential function, it should be unblocked immediately. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 01:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked both bot and autoblock. One little glitch is not serious issue IMO, ST47's explanation is fully plausible. --Maxim(talk) 02:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I'd also note that, when admins click that "Emergency Shutoff Button" for bots, that they should actually note to the bot operator that they did so, and state why (particularly which edit triggered their concern), so that the bot op can correct the problem. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll explain to Samsara why the error occurred and how he can avoid it in the future. Is there a way of CSD taggers opting out of having warnings sent on his/her behalf? MER-C 06:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Is there a regulation or policy stating that we cannot use images of a private home? Someone said there is such a prohibition, but I would like confirmation.

Sardaka (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no prohibition that I can think of. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Some countries might have prohibitions on creating such images, but there are no laws keeping Wikipedia from using images of private homes. --Carnildo (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Context is important. In this case, you seem to be referring to an image on User:J Bar, which was removed by 122.106.139.111 (talk · contribs), who proceeded to warn J Bar for a non-specified violation of Wikipedia's "terms and conditions." Given the IP's next edit, in which they added "Gay airline for a Gay country" to Olympic Airlines, and some prior vandalism to J Bar's userpage from a similar-looking IP, this doesn't seem to be a legitimate complaint. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

An AfD/MfD Issue[edit]

Resolved: Articles for Deletion discussion filed—see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calpernia Addams. AGK (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

<Copied from WP:BLP/N:> Calpernia Addams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - has been nominated for deletion by the subject of the article Calperniaaddams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Also, it is a MfD, not an AfD like it should be, can this be fixed? MfD page: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Calpernia Addams. -MBK004 17:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Nomination fixed (though I do not believe that deletion is the way to solve Ms. Addams issue with the inclusion of her birth name). — Satori Son 17:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Fairchoice, User:Archtransit, User:JzG, blah blah blah ...[edit]

Resolved: Fairchoice has been unblocked. MastCell Talk 18:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with the Archtransit situation will know that Fairchoice was indefblocked and then unblocked, discussed on Archtransit's RfC, all that good jazz. JzG has now reblocked claiming sockpuppetry. (log) Before this turns into a wheel war, this should be discussed.

I figure maybe we should discuss this user here, because discussing his fate at someone else's RfC is clearly out-of-process. - Revolving Bugbear 23:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

We need more details than that. RlevseTalk 23:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to turn this thread into another referendum on Archtransit. The user was originally blocked as a vandalism-only account by JzG. Archtransit extracted a promise from the user to contribute constructively, and shortened the block to forty-eight hours. This has already been discussed and is not what concerns me.
The account was reblocked by JzG today, pointing to sockpuppetry and Archtransit's RfC. The section in question is this one, which several people have already pointed out is an out-of-process referendum.
The reason I can't give more is because there isn't more -- the user has no contributions for the last couple days, and I can't find any sockpuppetry case involving him. - Revolving Bugbear 23:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A block summary linking to an RfC on a different user isn't a great idea. Review of Fairchoice's contributions shows no problem editing since his block was shortened by Archtransit and his talkpage has DYK credits. It seems Fairchoice hadn't edited for several days before JzG reblocked him. I can't see the relevance of the RfC to the further block (Fairtrade has not commented on it). That leaves the sockpuppetry accusation, which I think JzG needs to substantiate. WjBscribe 23:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Going on the basis that getting Guy's personal thoughts on this would be the most straightforward course towards demisting this block, I have notified him of this thread. AGK (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Fairchoice is very obviously not a new user, and has behaved as a trolling single purpose account whose benefit to the project is negligible by comparison with the disruption he's caused; his unblock was problematic, and Archtransit has a history of problematic unblocks. But if others think they can rein him in and persuade him to make productive edits instead of constantly agitating for Expelled to be less honest, they are more than welcome to try. For myself, I have had enough of the obsession with extending near-indefinite good faith to people who are here only to pursue an agenda. Maybe if Fairchoice were to leave Expelled alone for six months and only edit other articles, in a neutral way rather than promoting an agenda, then I would change my mind about him. For now, I wash my hands of the affair. I'll be interested to see how Carcharoth's proposal for dealing with this kind of user shapes up. Guy (Help!) 08:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
We don't assume people are abusing socks just because they appear to have experience from their first edits. We have WP:RTV, we have users who edit for months or even longer as IPs, and we have tacit rules allowing people to create separate accounts for privacy concerns, and for a very good reason, we don't ask them to disclose them unless it appears they are doing something inappropriate with them. - Revolving Bugbear 17:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, all of those things are true. We also have quite a few sockpuppets, meatpuppets, and agenda accounts created in response to off-wiki canvassing, particularly on intelligent-design-related topics. The question of how to balance the need to welcome new users and the need to protect controversial areas of the encyclopedia from endless cycles of disruption by single-purpose agenda accounts is a thorny one. MastCell Talk 18:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this particular user, he's been unblocked by User:Mike Rosoft. There are certainly some... oddities... here ([15], [16], etc), but I suppose there are plenty of eyes on the situation now. MastCell Talk 18:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you on all points, MastCell. For now, the user does not seem to be editing disruptively, but of course if he starts being disruptive again, I have no problem with a reblock. - Revolving Bugbear 18:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


deletion reason script[edit]

I have updated Mediawiki:Sysop.js with my script to automatically select a reason from the list at Mediawiki:deletereason-dropdown. To update your cached copy, go to this exact url: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3ASysop.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript and click shift-F5 (internet explorer) or ctrl-shift-R (firefox). —Random832 18:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's great news. Good work, Random! ;-) AGK (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Note that the list of regexes that it uses for finding deletion reasons is not 100% complete, if anyone finds a tag that it doesn't seem to pick up on correctly, contact me and i'll work on adding it in the next version. —Random832 19:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


ScienceApologist: Trolling or COI On Quackwatch[edit]

Resolved: I guess the moral of the story is "If you're trying to tell a joke, make sure it's actually funny". --BETA 01:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It is my belief that this diff [17](in the edit summary), is an exercise in very poor judgment on ScienceApologist's part. It probably constitutes either an obvious conflict of interest, or blatant trolling, intended to bait users to list it on COI/N, and disrupt things yet again. But that's just my take on things.

This appears to be yet another battle of an edit war on Quackwatch, so perhaps we should also discuss intervention options for this article as well. It is difficult to decide what category this falls under, so I must defer to your collective opinions on this matter. --BETA 05:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't just point to one diff and shout COI, trolling, or whatnot; you claims appear completely unjustified. If you don't like the edit, talk to SA or post on the talk page. I truly don't understand why you came running here, there's no actual edit war going on at the moment. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The slow edit war has never stopped. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quackwatch&curid=879168&diff=190848338&oldid=190829788 Read the edit summary: qw is for true believers, frauds, cranks and dishonest intellectuals. . . The edit summary is flame bait. --QuackGuru (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, the edit summary in the diff that BETA provides is perfectly kosher. The diff that you provide isn't even from SA. It's not easy to judge the merits of a content dispute when you're not providing a very clear picture of it. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The edit by ScienceApologist looks a good one to me. If you don't like it, say why on the article's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The group of edits in question seem OK to me also, though there does seem to be a edit war is process about a specialized box that looks like but is not an a template--presumably not a template so it can avoid challenge at TfD. DGG (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to provide some context for SA's edit summary: there was a period when the now-banned User:Ilena was active when there was an intense effort to "out" specific editors of the Quackwatch article. In one case, this took the form of claiming that an editor was a relative of Stephen Barrett (Quackwatch's principal). This claim was never proven, and I believe perhaps definitely disproven. I believe SA's comment about "my uncle Barrett" is a sarcastic reference to this prior period of attempted outing. MastCell Talk 19:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but it was still poor judgment. We're building an encyclopedia here. If Nicholas Carr was so openly flip about an article he was editing for Britannica, he'd be out on his ass so fast his bookmarks would spin. --BETA 20:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
If Nicholas Carr had to deal with the rich pageantry that is Wikipedia at present, he'd probably be a bit more openly flippant from time to time. MastCell Talk 20:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Argumentum ad populum?... Nice... I'll see your argument, and raise you a "two wrongs don't...". --BETA 23:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not an argument. More an observation that humor is a universally employed defense mechanism. Are you really suggesting that ScienceApologist should be blocked for that edit summary, or are we having a philosophical discussion at this point? MastCell Talk 00:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

For those interested, according to the aforementioned banned user (and several others), User:Ronz was Stephen Barrett and I was Daniel Barrett (his son). So heck, SA must be my cousin. We call him Jim-Bob-Billy-Day-Mercedes in real-life, or at least for the amusement of editors-who-should-know-but-don't-better. Shot info (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I give in. I never actually considered he was trying to be humorous. I thought it was either trolling or conflict of interest. --BETA 01:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Don't know how to revert this[edit]

Resolved

Yo mamma seems to have gotten some unusual content. I don't know how to revert it.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

All fixed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Protection seems to be gone on Irish phonology and its on the main page 13 feb 2008[edit]

Resolved: move protected per policy. See WP:MPFAP - Alison 17:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection seems to be gone on Irish phonology and its on the main page today --Sf (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Its standard practice to have the TFA move-protected only. (and it does not appear to have any previous protections) Mr.Z-man 01:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


AIV backlog[edit]

Resolved: Backlog cleared. MastCell Talk 17:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to give someone a heads up that AIV has quite a large backlog. Thanks. :) Somno (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As of now, looks like it's down to 2 active reports... MastCell Talk 04:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
And now it's cleared, yay! :) Somno (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Is this proper? (page recreation rather than move)[edit]

Resolved: Pages have been rejuggled correctly.

The content of Harry Kelly was cut and pasted into the brand new page Harry Kelly (politician), and the former page turned into a disambiguation page. That means the page history of the content at Harry Kelly (politician) is still in the history at Harry Kelly, without connection between the two. I *think* this needs fixing, but a) I'm not really sure of the policy, and b) I'm not sure how to actually go about "fixing" this.

To be clear, I'm *not* in any way objecting to the existance of the disambiguation, just wondering about the divorce between content and history. Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It was dealt with by PeaceNT. Yes, this is completely against policy. For GFDL reasons we need the edit history and cut and paste moves are not allowed. If you notice one please list it at the Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thanks for letting us know. Woody (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to the both of you; I think this is resolved. Andrew Jameson (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Major CAT:CSD backlog[edit]

Resolved: backlog now cleared

CAT:CSD is severely backlogged - and being populated faster than cleared. I'd like more admons to help me clear it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Working on it. Tks. Alexf42 12:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. Neıl 13:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
"Admon?" Is today "Talk Like a Reggae Musician Day?" (Man, I have to get a new wall calendar... I keep missing these holidays.) I'll pop in there for a bit today. Caknuck (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Due to a lot of hard work, it's looking a lot better, with the exception of the perenial beast of Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons. Pedro :  Chat  15:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sporadic editors, sleeper socks, and single-purpose accounts[edit]

Probably not quite the right place for this, but as a spin-off from an ANI thread, I thought here might be as good as anywhere. I wanted to put forward a couple of quotes about sleeper socks, sporadically editing accounts (no link for this) and single-purpose accounts. See the rather long Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Is it just me... thread for the full background, but first try looking at the following and see what you think.

Consider the following accounts and their contributions:

Now consider the following quotes:

  • Trusilver on Amelia9mm (after declining an unblock request) - "Amelia has very little of an edit history and dropped in to participate in a hot button issue after a long time between edits. That smells extremely strongly of a sleeper sock to me. At the very least it is incredibly suggestive." - Trusilver 03:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Amelia9mm on herself and her block - "I don't know why this is blocked, nor do I know what I could possibly have done that is disruptive. Why would I want to bother to come to improve info on wikipedia if some total stranger can block my account? How is it that someone I have never heard of can block my account INDEFINITELY? His linked page says "I am here for some very limited purposes.." Hello? Some explanation could be useful here!" - Amelia9mm 16:29, 9 February 2008
  • Relata refaro on Drstones - "I certainly think that an account that has had three or four edits over months and suddenly explodes into life on one issue contentious on RW is, if not necessarily a sleeper sock, hardly anything other than an SPA. DrStones made five edits to three articles before spending a lot of time on this one." - Relata refaro 07:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Carcharoth comparing himself to Drstones - "My editing history shows that up until the end of July 2005 I had made most of my edits to 7 July 2005 London bombings and related articles and debates (about 100 out of 110 edits). For all intents and purposes, I was a single-purpose account focused on that article. In today's climate, if I had made a mis-step, said something unsourced about one of the bombers or bomb victims, or encountered a bad block for a multitude of other reasons, I might have been so affronted at my treatment that I might never have returned." - Carcharoth 07:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Carcharoth on Jrichardstevens - "Eight innocuous edits to unrelated articles over a period of around two years. Not the greatest of contributions, but the potential is there for someone who was interested enough to register an account to (one day) start contributing more. Indeed, the foray into Wikipedia namespace showed someone who might well have started contributing more." - Carcharoth 23:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Orderinchaos on Jrichardstevens - "Eight edits two years ago is hardly 'history'." Orderinchaos 01:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Jrichardstevens on himself - "As someone who reads much, edits little and talks even less, I would suggest that none of you can judge the intentions of an editor based on sporadic participation. Silence or only occasional editing might mean that someone is inclined to read more than write, something I think you would favor in at least some of your membership." - Jrichardstevens 14:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)"

I obviously disagree in the strongest possible terms with Trusilver's judgment of what can be reliably said to be a 'sleeper sock'. I'm struggling to find a definition for this on Wikipedia. I think part of the problem arises because people who administrate Wikipedia are, naturally, those who edit it a lot. It is difficult sometimes for those who edit a lot to realise how little those who just read Wikipedia may edit under their account (remember that registering an account helps with various settings for reading preferences). Equally, such readers may do lots of editing "anonymously" from an IP address. Thus it is not uncommon to find accounts with few or no edits, even over several years. And it is not uncommon for new editors to take several years to do more than a few edits here and there. We should not be looking suspiciously at accounts that only edit sporadically. Any suspicion of sockpuppeting needs more evidence than this. Does anyone agree? Is it worth doing an essay on sleeper socks (what they are and how to identify them and what to be careful about) and sporadically editing accounts? Carcharoth (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think an essay describing the differences between a POV-pushing new account and a new account; Accounts here to edit a single topical area (SPA) and accounts here to edit a single article (SPA); and link to edit-countitis (addressing infrequent editting, would be a good addition to our project literature. But please do make a good shortcut for it, between WP:SNOW, WP:CLUE, and WP:SPA there are pages I've discovered that are wildly quoted out of context based on their shortcut. MBisanz talk 16:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) If you look at my early contribution history you will see sporadic editing, some of it not very good.[18] People who start on the wrong foot can often be coached to participate in a better way. There is no urgency to block suspected sock puppets. There is an urgency to welcome new users and explain to them how they can be successful Wikipedians. Those who are intent on malfeasance will provide actionable evidence soon enough. There are occasionally very obvious examples of socks, which nobody would question such as User:Earthboat, User:Earthenboat and User:Earthenwareboat, but even then it is useful to employ WP:RFCU in order to empty the sock drawer completely and block the underlying IP address. Shoot-from-the-hip sock hunting needs to stop before we lose any more of our experienced editors and admins (See Example 1 and Example 2). The algorithm is quite simple: 1/ Use WP:RFCU or WP:SSP to present your evidence, 2/ await independent confirmation, 3/ if a case is so sensitive it needs to be handled confidentially, then email your evidence to a checkuser or ArbCom and let them handle it. Jehochman Talk 16:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if Wikipedia:Sporadic editing, with the shortcuts WP:SPORADIC and WP:SPORADICALS will catch on? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, is the answer. We do see a lot of sleeper socks (for good examples of what they look like, see the many sockpuppets of User:Jon Awbrey), but yes, there are editors who only log in very rarely. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I have argued at length on related issues at the WP:SOCK page; I indicated that the climate of suspicion that surrounds new accounts that know what they are doing is counterproductive; and that people frequently change accounts the first few times they start contributing. (ArbCom subsequently cut the ground out from under me by effectively making policy in the Privatemusings RfArb, and I quit discussing that in dismay, but that's another matter.) What is certainly the case is that a lot of new accounts are returning or otherwise experienced users. When we see an account that is new, there are several alternatives: a former IP editor with "mature", wide-ranging interests; a relatively new editor who had a few initial blocks on his account and wants to start afresh having learnt the ropes; a permissible sockpuppet of an experienced current editor; a disruptive "bad hand" sockpuppet of a current editor; a block-evading editor; a banned user; a new editor with a focus on one area; a new editor with a focus on one article or set of articles. (The last two could be, in addition, of three types: currently non-disruptive; currently disruptive but with potential; currently disruptive but not worth the effort.)
Half our disagreements come about because of confusion of categories. I would strongly recommend setting up a page or a project that shares people's experiences with how these different accounts operate, and - most importantly - figuring out approximately what their relative numbers are. Relata refero (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but I have some experience dealing with at least SPA sock-like behavior: the Killian Documents related articles, once hot topics, are somewhat stagnant these days, with "Citation Missing" tags left unaddressed for a long while, but as soon as I even propose making any changes, suddenly things get very, VERY busy, including the appearance of IP's and editors whose edit histories seem a bit curious in relation to the Killian articles. Apparently germane to what's being discussed here, check the edit history of IP 67.168.86.129 and then look at this curious comment made to UBeR. Someone who's been around since 2001 showing up as an IP with a very short edit history to work on just one article? What can you say about something like that? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I take it at face value and advise you to leave that article alone, given the trouble your involvement there has caused in the past. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I probably fit the pattern of a "sleeper sock" - I first signed up in 2004, made one contribution, then promptly vanished until February 2007, when I returned as an SPA because it was brought to my attention that a number of articles on a cappella music, an interest of mine, were up for deletion. Heck, you could likely consider me a meatpuppet, since I'm pretty sure I heard about those AFDs on a mailing list. Since then, I hope I've become a reasonably productive contributor, but I think it's worth remembering that many of us probably did start out as SPAs and/or lurkers/sleepers. JavaTenor (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The sporadic editor viewpoint[edit]

This is the reply made on her talk page by User:Amelia9mm when I asked for her insights into why some accounts only edit sporadically. It seems obvious, but I think many involved Wikipedians forget this:

Carcharoth, I suspect you'll find that most folks are "sporatic" because they haven't quite got the hang of the detail of editing (syntax-wise, etc.) and they have very busy lives outside of the internet.

The incident in which I was blocked along with a large group of others, is almost entirely comprised of academics (virtually all PhDs in a variety of fields teaching at major U.S. universities), most of whom are busy publishing their own research. These aren't youngsters with nothing else to do with their time, nor are they hard-core wiki-supporters who spend time here for the cause, they are just highly educated folks who have an interest in a particular topic or several and they come here just for that topic or those topics.

I don't think that is all that unusual for wiki users, is it? If they are made welcome, they might stay around and begin to contribute more substantially.

When I realized I was blocked, I was trying to update some information on the page about my hometown. No one had told me I was blocked nor had any (understandable) explanation been given. So, since I had to fumble around to figure out how to request an unblock and it was at first categorically denied, you can imagine why I might not have bothered to return. This sort of thing is probably true for many others. If you want busy intelligent folks to partake of the wiki and to contribute, they need to be made welcome, not blocked or banned in droves.
I'm still not even sure if I should be replying to this here or on your talk page or on the page you linked above [see, more confusion about how the wiki world works], or if you'll see this at all. I guess I'll wait a bit and see. :o)

For most new users, wikipedia and its "administration" and lingo [What is a sleepersock?] are like being in a maze with no idea what the maze looks like and no idea if it's worthwhile to bother finding out. Thus, many are just sporadic users who come looking for information on a topic and see they can contribute a bit, and do that and not much else.

None of this is actually new, or non-obvious, but it seems pretty easy to forget in the hurly burly of Wikipedia administration. Do we need to try and remember this more often, or not? If so, how? Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I do think this is important to remember, and it's great that you've brought it up, Carcharoth. A huge portion of the material in the 'pedia was contributed by sporadic editors, and we should value them. Unfortunately, we don't hear much from them outside of the mainspace, so it's easy to forget that there are viewpoints other than those common to us wikifanatics :-P Though we interact with the hardcore contributors most often, we should remember that people who are willing to devote hours a week to writing an encyclopedia are a tiny minority. If people learn that you have to be willing to devote a ton of time to the project to have your contributions valued, most of them likely won't bother to edit at all. Even though sleeper socks are undoubtedly a problem, treating large numbers of people that fit that "MO" as though they are sleepers is casting too wide of a net and will likely be more damaging to the project than the socks themselves could be. And that's to say nothing of the more general harm caused by blocking based on shoddy evidence. I think it would be great if we could come to a formal agreement that we should not be making blocks based on such weak evidence as a sporadic edit history. (not commenting on any specific blocks here, the particular examples may have been valid) delldot on a public computer talk 10:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

A case in point[edit]

Right, let's take a real-world example.

Discuss. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Am having a quick look. How long do I get? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Long as you like. I'm quite keen to come up with a scalable and supportable mechanism for dealing with this kind of user. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's a peripherally related one: Sugardaddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Looks like a Utah resident, most contribs are to GoYin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a Utah firm. The article was speedily nuked as spam per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GoYin. Maybe I should simply not care about this kind of thing; I think it's massively more common than when I first started sysopping, maybe by now it's so normal that one simply needn't worry about it. Perhaps that's where I'm going wrong. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've noticed the majority of this sort of editor simply go away after their favorite toy article is taken away from them. So the marginal benefit of dealing with them is likely not worth it, most of the time. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
AFD nomination was appropriate, as the sourcing in the article makes it a borderline call. SPAs in an AFD is no big deal, just tag the AFD contributions appropriately and keep moving. A multi-level marketing business is the sort of thing likely to get a few SPAs - for mostly the same reasons that any website with a forum will get a few SPAs if it receives an AFD nomination; they will almost definitely have a discussion forum sales reps can participate in, and somebody will mention the AFD. The AFD and article history don't reveal anything worth spending more admin time on, the one clear advertiser/spammer was blocked more than a week ago. GRBerry 21:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about Twinkle use[edit]

I have never posted a question here so please excuse me if I do it incorrectly I went to an andministrator about an editor's use of Twinkle. I would appreciate some input on this from others.

Here is what I wrote to the administrator and his response:

Is Twinkle allowed to be used for reverting and/or edit wars? I don't have Twinkle but it's being used for this. The latest place was at [19] and this was at least the second time TW was used for this revert. I don't have Twinkle so I don't know if this is right or wrong do I am bringing it to the attention of an administrator, you! :) I thought it was supposed to be used for policy things not things like this. I appreciate your time, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The tool isn't the problem so much as the behavior. Reverting isn't the way to make progress. Jehochman Talk 18:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle has been used multiple times in this manner so my question; is twinkle to be used for reverts? It doesn't seem fair to those of us who do not use it for it to be used in the manner above but I will leave it to all of you to explain or do what ever you feel is appropriate. I will inform both of these editors about this comment. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk