Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive129

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

Noticeboard archives


IP abuse[edit]

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

WikiScanner can do that. ( Jon513 (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Ta. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I tried that and it was grossly out of date or something. I tried searching but none of the (talk · contribs · WHOIS) edits showed up. Those are from December! Did I do something wrong? —Wknight94 (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
No, you didn't do anything wrong - look at the bottom of the page, it says it's only searching edits "from February 7th, 2002 to August 4th, 2007". They obviously need a new database dump. Black Kite 12:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Guy, checkuser can do that if you have a good reason. Thatcher 14:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I think he just wants anonymous edits - that's not privileged information at all, just tedious to go through from anywhere from 254 to millions of contribution pages. —Random832 16:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Mr.Z-man/rangecheck can do it using User:VasilievVV's toolserver tool. It works well for /24 ranges, but /16 range checks can be s...l...o...w. Mr.Z-man 17:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Occasionally I've wanted to know what the collateral damage would be if I made a particular anon-only rangeblock (to deal with a pernicious vandal or sockpuppeteer on a floating IP). I've blocked ranges as large as /14 (using multiple /16 blocks) for short periods. A tool to find out just how much trouble such blocks would cause – in advance – would be quite handy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Yup. Handy tool, though it takes a while to grab even a /24. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
If all you wanted was a check for collateral damage, I'd do it if you catch me active when you need the info. I wouldn't have to disclose the names to say whether or not it was a safe block. Thatcher 11:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Appreciate it, thanks. This was for a much more mundane matter - some IP vandalism, and wondering if a short rangeblock was justified. Turns out it was spread over only five or six IPs, and all on one or two articles, so if need be I will semiprotect them. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 19:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


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

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

Year long backlog at WP:AFC cleared![edit]

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

Admin, plz delete this thread and ban this user - I don't understand any of the language he's using - "accomplish", "organized", "efforts" - this sort of stuff clearly isn't suitable for AN. ( 8-) great job team!) --Fredrick day (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 ;) Tiptoety talk 00:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Im ready to tackle any challenge, as long as i have some help :) Tiptoety talk 02:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Great job! Woops, that reminds me I'm supposed to read a certain page for you... -- lucasbfr talk 09:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • One small problem: consider the case of company X, which is a PR firm acting for company Y. Now, put yourself in their position, go through the article wizard and see which choices you make, and whether we would consider them the right choices. I'd like to guide such people to a place where they submit a request with sources and someone else reviews it, but I don't see this will happen here. Not that the article creation wizard is bad, quite the opposite. It should be the default for all new articles. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Long-term abuse at Graham Spanier[edit]

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

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

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

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

Another archtransit/Dereks1x sock?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: not likely a sock... Doesn't match according to 17:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

IDK, there is only 1 unrelated talk-page overlap between those accounts, but then again there are only 2 pages of overlap between Dereks1x and Archtransit. I will grant though a significant 15/102 edits of Hareburg/VK35 overlap. MBisanz talk 06:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Harebag, coincidentally. ~ Riana 06:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
VK35 adopted Harebag??? Looks even more suspicious... 06:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not blocking anyone, probably wouldn't be right for me, but I won't lose sleep if someone else does. ~ Riana 06:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The checkuser magic eight-ball says the IPs are  Unrelated. Thatcher 11:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for checking that out. The duck test still says they may be related. We'ren't other Artransit/Dereks1x socks still blocked as passing the duck test even AFTER failing checkuser, or is the failed checkuser test definitive proof that this person is NOT another Archtransit/Dereks1x sock. 15:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
All the Archtransit/Dereks1x accounts that I know of (from the recent episode) share at least two (and often more) critical technical features. Harebag's recent edits lacks both features, and appear to originate from a different time zone. Some form of meat puppetry can't be ruled out, or maybe Dereks1x went to visit his cousin or something, but it is not the same situation as the other recent accounts. Thatcher 15:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Kewl. Looks like an innocent user caught in the middle then. Thanks for looking into this. 17:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Range blocks on hosting ranges - be contactable![edit]

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

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

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

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

I would like to propose a new feature "IP Range header pages" - i.e. if a page User talk: exists, it appears at the top of every IP talk page within that range. Because, the information posted on User talk: is not going to be visible at all to someone responding to vandalism from, say, —Random832 15:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't a bot do this? That is, couldn't a bot parse the block log, interpet the range blocks, and append notice tags (like the sharedIPEDU tag) to each of the effected individual IPs? This seems like a reasonable task, but likely to be so repetitive that a bot would do it well... 15:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
On a /16 block that would be 130,000 edits, which for a short block is a lot of work. Currently anyone editing from a blocked range gets to see which range is blocked in their block notice. A single talk page could be linked from there for additional info. But the block reason is visible to anyone blocked within the range, and that is the best place for information. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Technical question If a large range is blocked, it is possible to unblock individual IPs within that range? Or does the whole range block have to be lifted? Thatcher 15:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like not, which is why this is a pain in the backside - blocking a hosting range then unblocking IPs or subranges one at a time is the obvious solution, but I had to do this unblock-reblock using an online CIDR calculator, and I got at least one wrong in the process - David Gerard (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not possible to unblock single IP addresses within a CIDR range. It is possible to unblock the range, and, reblock, leaving a "hole" for a smaller range, however, in most cases. SQLQuery me! 16:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Yuck. Thatcher 16:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the blocking hierachy can help, so you can block an individual IP anon only within the range and that will allow signed in users to use that address. -- (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Technical suggestion[edit]

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

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

Tudor Chirilă‎[edit]

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3[edit]

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

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

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

In other words, it's the same thing as before. Remedies 2 & 3 were terminated three months ago; the parole was also suspended three months ago. The only changes in this entire list are in point 3—the status of the parole is changed from "suspended" to "terminated" (no practical difference, of course)—and in point 7, in which the ArbCom is restricting my ability to appeal, which was previously unlimited like everyone else's, to once per year. So, ultimately, I gained one minor concession that has no practical meaning, and lost a pretty significant right in the process. Hurray. Everyking (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps because they felt that requiring people to know what they are talking about before commenting on it is good policy and not something that should be overturned. Raul654 (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Remedy 5 is the least objectionable of the remaining restrictions. It would be better to explain why the ArbCom felt it should continue labelling me as a harasser and keeping a restraining order on me. Everyking (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I should note that, barring clarification here, and despite the fact that I have no previous involvement with this case or Everyking, I intend to file a request for clarification based on what Will and I have written above. Avruch T 22:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Without making any comment as to the Committee's decision here, which I have not researched to such a degree that I would feel comfortable making an evaluative comment on, I will say that it would be worthwhile either: (a) notifying the Committee as to this thread, and requesting input from them, either on the WT:AC or WT:RFAR page, or by direct contact to their mailing list; or, (b) asking the Committee directly to reconsider the matter.
Personally, I would be included to support the former option—an out-and-out direct request for immediate reconsideration would, I feel, appear to be rather hurried: although speaking from my somewhat limited knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the case, I do not think it is an enormous miscarriage of justice, and hence an action on par with that which would be classified as "emergency" would most likely be unwarranted. AGK (contact) 23:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I also find this decision hard to comprehend. In general, I think the Arbcom restricts itself to remedies lasting no longer than a year. The remedies in the Everyking 3 case, as amended in July 2006, were anomalously set to run until November 2007, but when Everyking asked on which day of November they expired, he was told to wait until the Arbcom reconsidered the case, which is three months later. Although a majority of Arbcom members supported lifting all but one restriction, this did not pass, and instead Everyking is under an additional restriction of not being allowed to appeal for a year.
This sounds like the Arbcom is saying "You're a hopeless case; stop wasting our time", but Everyking is one of our most productive editors, and he certainly seems to have kept his nose clean for a long time. Blatant vandals, sock-puppeteers and POV-pushers get much better treatment than this.
I think Arbcom has clearly come to the wrong result here, and since it has done so despite a majority voting for a more just result, it appears the process is broken. I do have respect for some individuals on the committee, but no longer for the Arbcom as a whole. We need a better judicial system on Wikipedia.-gadfium 00:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic amended[edit]

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

"Additionally, any uninvolved administrator may impose a reasonable editing restriction (for example, 1RR) or page ban upon any editor who repeatedly engages in disruptive or uncivil editing of Free Republic or any closely related page. Prior to imposing such a ban or restriction, a warning should be given on the affected user's talkpage. All bans and restrictions shall be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic#Log of blocks and bans."
All editors, particularly including single purpose accounts and editors who have or may reasonably be perceived as having a conflict of interest, are strongly urged to edit Free Republic and related articles only in conformity with all Wikipedia policies and with this committee's prior decision. If the enhanced administrator authority provided in this ruling does not improve the situation on this article after 30 days, a request for a more formal Arbitration Committee review may be submitted.

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

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

Deletion discussion needing attention[edit]

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

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

Strange userpage[edit]

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

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

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

User:Florentino floro[edit]

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

I think this could be put a little more diplomatically. I've seen Floro's editing here and there and he's definitely good about adding current events content. Sometimes things need to be structured a bit better or moved around, but the content is good. Maybe the bit about the rhino doesn't need to go in Annan's article, but perhaps a place could be found for it elsewhere, particularly since it ties into conservation efforts (depending on the degree of coverage, it might warrant its own article). Everyking (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
TheCoffee, what are your specific complaints regarding this user, and can you provide evidence which backs up your accusations? Burden of proof lies on a person making an accusation against an editor, and it is essential that that proof is provided. You may wish to provide diffs, links or quotations; however, any evidence needs to back up your statements. Regards, AGK (contact) 23:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Floro adds content but at a price of a huge amount of time spent re-organizing, sourcing, removing hyperbole and wikifying. Compare these versions, comments here, these diffs (this particular page was created twice, under different names but identical content). Floro does not improve with advice, criticism, warnings or other comments I've banged my head against this wall many times and never found it rewarding. WLU (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I remember advising him to reduce overwikification and redundancy, and he seemed to improve about that. Also, I'm not sure your trimming of the Suarez article was a good thing; we certainly can't blame Floro for writing a lot of content, can we? As for other criticisms, Wikipedia is full of stuff that needs to be cleaned up. Floro is actually pretty good, and in my experience he does use references. Everyking (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)'d have to look in detail at what I trimmed and why, and the discussion of the talk page. If you read through the original page drafted by Floro, there's lots of hyperbole, it's very POV, there's a massive chunk of text duplicating needless information in other pages (see the original version, 'healing in catholicism'), the tone is off, far too many links external and see also, and not in the least, the credulous belief that Suarez raised the dead. His contributions seem to go in waves. See this compared with the deleted versions of Philippine Virgin Coconut and Heat-Pressed Healing Oils, as well as the history of coconut charcoal. I'm not advocating a block, but I have run into floro several times and it's far more aggravating than rewarding. If a mentor agrees to help, they have my best wishes and my sympathy. WLU (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
If I'm reading some of his comments right, his argument is that many of his POV comments etc should be included because he can see the future. Clearly lots of issues there, I suggest plenty of eyes on this one... --Fredrick day (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I dispute Everyking's assertion that the current events content is good. Floro's content is added without the slightest attempt at establishing context, as on cholesterol, and often with a complete misunderstanding of what the source is actually saying. When asked to discuss a new development on the talkpage first (as I have asked him to do on health articles), the response is either persistence or an incoherent rant. I have yet to see one useful "current event" edit from him in articles that I am monitoring. JFW | T@lk 20:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

More admins needed at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion[edit]

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

Your {{adminbacklog}} tag led me there once but I'm not ashamed to admit that I have no clue what it is. (Okay, maybe I'm a little ashamed). Quick summary perhaps? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Essentially WP:CFD, except for user categories (as opposed to article categories). VegaDark (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll take a look. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion was also backlogged but I've brought it up to date. I'll add it to my list of tasks in future. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
What is the justification for this being separate from WP:RFD? The only explanation I have came up with, is the segregation of (arguably) mainspace-related issues from project-related issues. If that is the explanation, might it be combined in WP:MFD? AGK (contact) 22:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I would say there's enough categories out there to swell MFD. And RFD can't cover these, they aren't redirects. bibliomaniac15 23:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I wasn't involved in setting up RFD, but it makes good sense to keep particular types of deletion discussion all in one place. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I've tried my hand at one, and I'll be happy to help out more once I'm sure I've done it right (or figured out how to correct what I've done wrong). :) I'm not one of those people who immediately and comfortably embraces new procedures. Not so very bold, me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Your closure looks good. VegaDark (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


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

I had a similar problem with an IP that was editing Missouri articles and messing up the exit lists. I would suggest using HTML comments to embed a pointer to the ELG page on the user's favorite pages. If they continue editing after that, you know that they're willfully violating the guideline as opposed to merely being ignorant about it. Just an idea.—Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not that simple - the IP is using one Caltrans source that disagrees with every other source, and refuses to discuss it. And I just found out now that that's what he's been using, because he bothered to name his source in the edit summary. It's basically a content dispute, and I don't know what to do. --NE2 00:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Ask someone else to revert for you if they don't mind. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 02:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
That's kind of poor form. --NE2 02:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Well you asked people for advice. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 03:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but not help with gaming 3RR... --NE2 03:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Well revert again after 24 hours. The rules said that you can't do it within a 24-hour period. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 03:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and then it's 24 hours later and I'm back at square one. I'd like a more long-term solution, preferably one that involves getting the IP to communicate. --NE2 03:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't game the system. 3RR is not an entitlement. The spirit of the rule is to preent edit wars. If you constantly war just outside the 3RR an admin can still block for it. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

If you can't BRD, RBI. Will (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not vandalism though. --NE2 13:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It's going against consensus, which is considered contentious and disruptive. EdokterTalk 18:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


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

— Jimmy Wales, May 2006[1]

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

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

"Undid revision 193620895 by NE2 (talk) (Sorry, you are denied to submit your text; please avoid nonsense and lies from this moment". Yeah, you're being trolled. — CharlotteWebb 22:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
So what should be done? His latest IP - Special:Contributions/ - is doing the standard mix of valid and invalid edits. --NE2 23:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Can one block for not AGFing? --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
In a word -- no. In two words -- hell no. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Resolved: Blocks handed out by various admins


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

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

  • These wingnuts are hysterical. They consider that torture is fine, but sex between consenting adults of the same sex is something that absolutely must not be tolerated. I have not the words. OK, I ave the words, but I land in hot water whenever I use them around here. Luckily they are all blocked, so no temptation to use some of my colourful block summaries. See you next Tuesday, sockpuppets. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Effective trolls elicit the sort of reaction above. I know the type--they figure "liberals" are easy to bait, and they would love nothing more than for you attack them in the manner you described.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, this fellow "Wikzilla"[8] gets around. He will be attending the NYC meetup, along with his dog, Dufus[9]; if you'd like me to say something to him on your behalf when I meet him, I can.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Backlog volunteers?[edit]

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

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

Wikipedia:General disclaimer[edit]


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

 Done Happymelon 11:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Toledano Tradition[edit]

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


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

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

Unjustly banned from editing homeopathy related articles for 7 days[edit]

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

I have advised Jehochman of this thread. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The user has dragged a red herring across our path. The ban was placed for reverting without attempting any sort of discussion. The use of an edit summary which suggested an attempt at discussion, "See talk", when none was attempted only magnified the problem. We have a problem with tendentious pro- and anti- homeopathy editors who instantly revert any change they don't like. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Those who battle at homeopathy will be temporarily banned from editing those articles as allowed by Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. Arion 3x3 has persistently contributed to the problems surrounding that article, was warned previously, and banned once previously. If we lift the ban, I would suggest placing a 1RR (one revert per day) limitation on this editor for Homeopathy related pages with a requirement that all reverts be discussed on the talk page. Jehochman Talk 20:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
1RR limitation is a sensible way to address this issue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree. 1RR would seem to benefit the encyclopedia (which is our focus, as opposed to "justice"). Cool Hand Luke 21:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The actual facts are:

  • (1) I have not "persistently contributed to the problems surrounding that article". I have consistently contributed extensively and constructively to the talk page discussions, with changes made only after I discussed them.
  • (2) To say that I was "banned once previously" leads to the erroneous assumption that I had done something wrong with regard to edting, when I had actually objected to a personal attack upon my comments (which were called "meaningless drivel and spam").
  • (3) As for "Cool Hand"'s comment: yes "justice" - as well as kindness and fairness - should be a factor in Wikipedia as well as everywhere else.
  • (4) Anyone who cares to can examine the Archives of the Homeopathy talk page since December 7, 2007 (when I first commented) to see the record of the actual comments that I have consistently written. I have repeatedly tried to get everyone focused on improving the article and reaching harmonious consensus. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (5) I have not been one of those "editors who instantly revert any change they don't like" so it is baffling why "Jehochman" would bring up the problem we have with other editors when discussing me. Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a problem with homeopathy-related articles. The probation is an attempt to fix that problem and make these articles editable again. Seven days away from the article is not the worst thing in the world, and I'm inclined to go with Jehochman's judgement on this one for the simple reason that if we expect probation to be a useful tool, then we need to extend a reasonable degree of deference to the judgement of the admins enforcing the probation. If every enforcement is subject to a lengthy I-said-this-no-you-said-that on WP:AN, then the probation is worse than useless, because it will actually add a dimension to the endless bickering surrounding this article. Except in cases where a clear injustice or administrative error has taken place, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the judgement of the enforcing admin (Jehochman in this case). 1RR would be a reasonable substitute, though again I don't think 7 days away from homeopathy is cruel and unusual punishment here. The mandate from the community appears to be to err on the side of stricter enforcement of policy given the disaster area that this set of articles has become. MastCell Talk 00:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

I can't help but note that your framing of the situation is one of "anti-homeopathy" vs. "neutral". There are many who wouldn't characterize it that way, including me. Some, I'm sure, would actually consider it more of a "pro-homeopathy" vs. "neutral" (also incorrect). Your statement is a microcosm of the overall issue: please help be part of the solution and better measure your own contributions and biases. — Scientizzle 02:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the ban and replaced it with 1RR limitation (one revert per day per homeopathy-related page) and a requirement to discuss reverts on the talk page. I live by 1RR myself, so this is hardly a cruel or onerous condition. Anybody who reverts you twice without discussion should receive the same remedy, so just let me know if it happens. Additionally, if you know who the problem editors are, please do tell and provide diffs of three to five egregious examples for each editor. Given that information, I will gladly do whatever I can to make your editing more pleasant. Jehochman Talk 02:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Arion 3x3's edit history shows that he has never had a problem with multiple reverts on any homeopathy-related article (or any other article as far as I can tell). So what is the point of 1RR in this instance? Why not apply a sanction that is appropriate to the issue at hand? Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
What do you suggest? Jehochman Talk 18:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought the original 7-day recess was appropriate. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
They can execute a small, finite number of POV pushes before somebody implements a stronger restriction. Patience. Jehochman Talk 18:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll believe that when it happens. You've been preaching "patience" for weeks now,[12] and the situation with those articles is worse than it ever was. Teaching people that they can get their sanctions lifted if they complain loudly enough doesn't help solve the problem. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It's interesting to see those editors who have had their restrictions lifted and who haven't. Shot info (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


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

User:Terrence Wrist[edit]

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

Please note that WP:AGF is a required policy that applies to all users, including this Terrence one. Users are entitled to use alternate accounts so long as they violate no policies. Under what policy basis would further investigation be warranted, let alone the Checkuser you are implying here? What problems are there with (talk · contribs · WHOIS)'s contributions? It should be noted that AlisonW is the subject/same person as Alison Wheeler which was nominated for AFD by the user she is reporting here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Wheeler (2nd nomination). Lawrence § t/e 22:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
For information: you'll see that this is not "AlisonW's bio of Alison Wheeler", because AlisonW quite clearly sets out her relationship to the article on her user page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
User:AlisonW = Alison Wheeler which is not a secret and common knowledge. That's what I mean by it being her "bio". Clarified the language. It just seemed a bit questionable for the BLP subject to be reporting the user that nominated their own article for deletion with implications of foul play. Lawrence § t/e 22:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
What has Terrence Wrist done wrong? How is this an attack account -- other than nominating the Alison Wheeler article for deletion (after an month-long discussion of notability problems by other editors)? As for the AfD, so far 4 other editors have recommended deleting the article.--A. B. (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
While still assuming good faith (and humour), I'd say the user name is borderline acceptable as well (hint: Terrence is usually shortened to "Terry"). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 13:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The Chaser did a stunt at an airport with that name. Like User:Michael Hunt, I doubt it's legitimate and considering the knowledge I would not object to a block as an abusive sockpuppet. 13:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by James086 (talkcontribs)
Sometimes people just have unfortunate names. Internet people finder results, just for the US: Mo Lester (4), Mike Hunt (408), Hugh Jass (5), Robin Banks (43), Mary Christmas (16), etc. Some of those might just be people with too much time on their hands, but some pretty clearly aren't (like football player Mike Hunt, baseball player Dick Pole, and NASCAR driver Dick Trickle). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


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

Dont you think it is not fair to delete an article while most of the people voted to KEED the Article,
I am talking about:
Please check it, Thank you

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

Given the number of WP:SPAs on that AfD, a checkuser for abusive sockpuppetry may be in order... — Scientizzle 23:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll eat my hat if there's not a significant IP address overlap here... — Scientizzle 00:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed there's a related and resolved ANI thread about this. The pages in question have been salted. — Scientizzle 00:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LakeOswegoScientizzle 02:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
...and now Wikipedia:DRV#G._Edward_Griffin, with more apparent socks. — Scientizzle 07:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Meatpuppetry. See [13], [14] and a Google search, lots of weird stuff pops up here, but most obvious is this (scroll down a bit). " My listing in Wikipedia is being considered for deletion because some readers have labeled me a conspiracy theorist and a promoter of quack cancer cures. These people undoubtedly are well intentioned but suffering from a severe case of knowledge deficiency. If you are inclined, please go to the Wikipedia web site and enter a statement of support. Hopefully, there will be enough of these to offset the voices of ignorance. Here's how: (1) go to; (2) click on Discussion; (3) set up a user name and password; (4) log in and submit your statement. Thank you." LegitimateSock (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
That's amusing in that he apparently suffers "from a severe case of knowledge deficiency" regarding how Wikipedia works. I guess he just can't know everything about everything, despite what some people think. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please cancel an edit violating The 3RR[edit]

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

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

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

Requesting review of indef block executed without warning[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just wanted to point out that blocks are not "punishment," they are measures meant to protect the 'pedia from farther harm. Also, blocks can be instituted without formal warning (although there was a warning on the talk page to the AN/I thread). Just wanted to point those two things out. – Gonzo fan2007 talkcontribs 02:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware that blocks are not "punishment". I used that word in this case because to a person who is blocked suddenly without warning, that's how it appears, and, a short initial block would have gotten the user's attention, whereas an indef block is out of proportion and indeed does seem punitive in this case. The user has promised to learn and change, and has entered comments indicating understanding of the problem. That means that the block is no longer needed to prevent disruption.
Regarding the warning link to the AN/I thread, that was posted only moments before the indef block was executed, not allowing any time for the user to respond. While process may not be "required" for an indef block, my comment is about fairness, not about rules. An indef block is the most severe action possible against a user. This user is a good-faith editor who was a bit off-track; there was no extreme disruption to warrant extreme action. S/he has promised to learn and improve, therefore the block has served its purpose can now be lifted. If the promise is not kept, that can be addressed at that time as needed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This is already being discussed on ANI. Why do we need a second thread? Abuse Truth was blocked to prevent disruption, and still at this time shows absolutely no sign of understanding why, which is a great reason not ot unblock yet. Guy (Help!) 08:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I posted this note only because the thread on AN/I was not receiving any comments by uninvolved editors, and that page is archived quickly. This post was simply to request attention for the AN/I thread.
If you'd be willing to shorten the block to a day or two instead of indef blocking, then the whole thread would no longer be needed. The user has promised to learn and take a new approach. Why not give him/her a chance to make good on that promise? This is not like other major disruptions recently that have needed that kind of action. This user is a sincere editor who has done a lot of work for the project and maybe made some mistakes, but s/he is not a trouble-maker and does not deserve to be tossed off the boat without a second thought. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I think your definition of uninvolved might be agreeing with you. Actually I am uninvolved, I blocked the account because Moreschi couldn't. I've told Moreschi that he's free to set an expiry as soon as he thinks the potential for disruption is removed. What we don't need is yet more crusaders for WP:TRUTH wasting the community's time. It's also disingenuous to say there was no warning: numerous attempts were made to get the editor to alter his behaviour. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I understand "uninvolved". When you imposed the block, you were uninvolved at that time. But now, with regard to a review of the block, you have become involved as the blocking administrator. That's what I meant by asking for uninvolved editors to review the situation. This is not meant as a complaint about you.
Your statement that what I wrote was "disingenuous", is an implication that I was lying ("lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity") and is inappropriate. You're welcome to disagree with me, but that doesn't mean I wasn't sincere about what I wrote, based on what I had observed.
I appreciate that you indicated you don't mind if Moreschi shortens the duration. Since the user has shown willingness to cooperate, there is no need for the extended block and I hope that you or some other administrator gives the user a chance to show improved collaboration methods. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It looks to me at this point that the world divides into people who agree with you and people who are wrong. Pardon me for not wanting to go down that route yet again. The thread on ANI is sufficient, there was no need to open another one just because you weren't getting the answer you wanted, and editors in that other thread have expressed concerns (which I share) that the user seems completely unable to even comprehend what the problem is, let alone work to fix it. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Troubled editor[edit]

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

I don't see any major problem, certainly not one requiring admin intervention; she may well have problems focussing on one article for an extended time, but have you considered mentioning this to her adopter? I'd advocate some understanding here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I assume that the "adopter" already knows this and also am not overly eager to leave any message on the "adopter"'s talk page. And yes of course I am AGF. I am also taking seriously what the person has written. -- Hoary (talk) 06:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Trivia POV pusher[edit]

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

Yeah, I was warned previously, and since then I've mainly been going around tagging trivia sections. But apparently there is no limit to some people's determination to keep cruft around. BTW, I didn't violate 3RR. WillOakland (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, there's cruft, and there's potentially encyclopedic material. Takes time to sort out the wheat from the chaff. Baby/bathwater, bathwater/baby. Let's not lose the value under pressure, and particularly not label modern literature as trivia. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

I can see little or nothing of obvious value in what WillOakland removed. Some of it may have potential value; if so, it's for those who think it's valuable to reinforce it by showing its significance. WillOakland's removal of the whole lot looks like a good thing to me.
However, a good thing to do when removing a wodge of trivia is to plonk it in the talk page. See for example my own dump of Omega-cruft here. Notice how it led to strong disagreement but how that in turn led to milder disagreement.
While I don't see material of value in what WillOakland removed, I also don't see any insult in what Rodhullandemu wrote. And even if he'd written an insult this would have been no reason for his adversary to remove a whole chunk of discussion. -- Hoary (talk) 06:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
That's one of the big problems in situations like this: "adversary". We are supposed to be a cooperative group of editors, achieving consensus before deleting (or, by the same token, adding) large amounts of material. My recent experiences with Progressive rock are another example of unilateralism & lack of communication, and frankly it's getting tiring trying to explain to these people that there are no one-man bands on Wikipedia. I don't want to do it particularly but I'll just have to rack up the {{subst:uw-delete}} warnings & then shove it all on WP:AIV. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, especially if the trivia is unsourced and out of context-(Cunt plays a pivotal role in the Ian McEwan novel Atonement???) While I echo Hoary's view that it is bit more productive to move the info to the talk page and encourage discussion and work to incorporate/source the truly worthwhile info, I don't think there should be a hindrance to editors BOLDLY working to improve the encyclopedia. If the information in question fell under any other topic other than "Trivia" (such as someone adding unsourced material about what notable Victoria Cross winners did to display their awards or an unsource listing of notable restaurants in Canberra), I don't think there would have been any controversy if an editor removed the unsourced and out of place of material from those articles. Why is it suddenly an issue because it is labeled as "trivia" or "pop culture"? Any content in those section should follow the same WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:NOT and WP:NOR policies as everything else. AgneCheese/Wine 14:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
WillOakland was also removing sourced and relevant content, repeatedly. And frankly, a lot of items on wikipedia are unsourced and the bar has changed since some editors correctly thought they should use a trivia section. Nowadays I certainly wouldn't start one knowing that deletionists will target it. Clean-up is good and can improve articles but hacking away valid and constructive content seems to fly in the face of consensus building. Benjiboi 19:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Page Semi-protected[edit]

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

Don't hold yer breath; this has been going on all week. HalfShadow (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Should we create an unprotected sub-page (like Articles for Creation) for IPs with genuine concerns, during this semi-protection? MBisanz talk 06:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
That's probably a very good idea. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Done at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts, feel free to pretty up the formatting at that page. MBisanz talk 06:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Pure Testing[edit]

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

Some claims are certainly presented, I'm not sure how notable they are. It's alright as long as it stays in userspace, for certain - if you still don't think it's suitable if/when he moves it to mainspace, then PROD or AfD it. Happymelon 12:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
If it's WP:SPAM (and I haven't read closely enough to say it is), it can be speedied even in user-space. Just fyi. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


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

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

No idea how is this relevant, but it's certainly brightened up my day! :D Happymelon 12:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Presumably you'll take the time to properly digest it - if not you may have trouble later working it out. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Geometry's funny that way. The more you work on it, the more it comes out right in the end. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
takes a deep breath Can't you work that stuff out with a pencil and paper?--Alf melmac 15:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the paper would have to come AFTER, according to how I was taught. Gladys J Cortez 21:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Shit a brick!? --Stephen 22:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
So the staid Britannica tackles Tubgirl? Caknuck (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Big delete and WP:AN[edit]

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

Seeing as a fairly large percentage of the viewers of this page have sysop rights and can see deleted material, if someone really needs information to vanish then, yes, oversight is the route to go. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
As long as it's within the oversight policy. There's been some discussion on foundation-l about the impact of not being able to do a poor-man's oversight will affect the usage of oversight. As far as I can tell, consensus says oversight hasn't changed, so minor things will have to just stay in page histories, it seems. ^demon[omg plz] 15:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
In my experience, blanking the offending content (using an innocuous – dare I say misleading? – edit summary to avoid attracting attention) followed by a quick request for oversight has worked delightfully quickly. (Be sure to include links to the first and last revisions containing the offensive material, or a diff between them.) If something is bad enough to require deletion from AN/I, it almost certainly ought to be oversighted anyway. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

user:The Devil's Advocate[edit]

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

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


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

Editprotected request to ArbCom evidence page[edit]

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

Only clerks or arbitrators should edit the page until the dispute is resolved—whatever that means. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#STOP. Cool Hand Luke 17:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Generaly best to stay away from that area for now the further the better.Geni 01:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Archiving Archtransit[edit]

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

Sounds like the fat lady has sung, so I've no objection. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
No objection. Anyone who comes up with any genuinely new information about the situation can start a new thread with a link to the old one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. And by damn if it doesn't halve the page loading time :D Happymelon 19:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:LessHeard vanU Admin recall[edit]


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

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

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

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




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

This issue has been discussed for more than a week, with ample help from myself and others in assisting Godgiven in being a more productive editor. Unfortunately, by their own admission at the top of their user talk page (as well as even a cursory review of their edits), this user is unable to effectively communicate in any language, which makes their productive involvement in editing this encyclopedia doubtful at best. I have no problem with a user trying to ease their way into this community, but before you go making thousands of edits to user pages and user talk pages, I don't think it's too much to ask that one edit be made to the actual encyclopedia that isn't immediately reverted because of its unproductive nature. I don't want to keep them from using Wikipedia as a resource, or anything like that, but isn't the whole purpose behind user pages and user talk pages to facilitate collaborations on the encyclopedia? No productive collaboration seems to eliminate the need for userspace. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, I'd just like to emphasize that there have been zero productive edits from Godgiven. They made a gibberish edit to the Talk:Cloverfield (creature) page and I wanted to see if they would maybe be better served by moving to another language's Wikipedia. After looking at their contributions, however, it became clear that there was no effort of their part to become a productive editor and 99%+ of their efforts were dedicated to userspace edits. After trying to help for a week, I got nowhere with Godgiven, and decided to take action as per WP:NOT and WP:UP. I'm really not trying to "bite the newbies" or anything, I just would prefer that this website's resources be put to more productive use. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
So bring the issue to WP:ANI; bring the user page to WP:MFD. Blanking user pages is not the correct course of action. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
There is more discussion about this topic on User talk:Grant.alpaugh. contribsSTYROFOAM☭1994TALK 02:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Protecting the signpost[edit]

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

Cascading protection from a page like Wikipedia:Signpost/Protection would work, but you'd have to be careful to substitute any templates you don't want protected. Of course, most of the templates the signpost uses ({{tlx}} etc) ar