Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive139

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Is this 3RR?

[1] --Cream (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For your information: NL.wiki arbom has taken severe measures against Guido den Broeder because of his ongoing self promotion and his ongoing abuse of procedures to support that self promotion. At the moment he is even blocked at NL.wiki. GijsvdL (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This is something of an aside, as nl-wiki doesn't have much direct bearing here, but according to the NL-Arb verdict, that block was lifted. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not currently 3RR (currently at 3) and if it was taken to 3RR I wouldn't block anyway, because it is clearly removing self-promotion. Those aren't references, they're just adverts for the books. Black Kite 23:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
[2] says it all. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If these were actually references which linked to article text in order to improve the reader's knowledge, then they'd be looked on more kindly, but that addition is really just "this book exists", which given the obvious COI, is not good. I have reverted. Black Kite 23:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
These are the official tournamnet books. Please acquaint yourself with the guidelines. It does not matter who wrote them. If the other books are relevant, then so are these. But really, this is not the place to discuss this. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
We do not generally list every book about a subject unless it is a direct reference. If text in the article can be referenced from the text of the books, then I see no problem. I am however naturally uneasy about the insertion of lists of books by their author. Black Kite 23:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Uneasy is recommendable, but does not imply a need to act. It implies a need to investigate. And never discriminate: if some of these books are relevant, then all of them are. Now, obviously, the results can be referenced from the books (it's the official source, as mentioned). We only didn't place ref tags to keep the table neat; it is clear enough from the book titles which book goes where. Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Action by Ledenierhomme removing sections of "Hundred Years' War (1369-1389)

I need some consensus on this article Hundred Years' War (1369-1389) as this editor keeps removing sections of the article, saying "thought it was self-explanatory, that section is so amateur and obviously unreliable". He/she goes on to say "that it would be better if it didn't exist at all" and apologizes. Whereupon I told him that it wasn't self-explanatory at all and that he should improve it rather than blank it. I reverted it for the second time but L. just removed it again.
I should say, however, that I was against creating these several period articles of the War (1369-1389), etc. in first place, but now it's done, it shouldn't just be dealt with so high-handedly as this person is doing. Perhaps I am seeing it the way other people don't? Dieter Simon (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, so please seek dispute resolution. That said, the sections in dispute read as an individual's commentary, which is possibly disturbing considering that they are unsourced. So actually, I'd suggest you find citations for these sections, and then seek dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

NPWatcher Approval

Resolved

Not urgent, but if there's a sysop with a spare 30 secs at some point would you mind purging the approvals here. Thanks :) ALLOCKE|talk 01:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Tiptoety talk 02:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Misspelled category

Would someone please delete Category:Cancelled aircraft projects, I've transfered all the meaningful content to a new category Category:Canceled aircraft projects. Anynobody 03:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that there's any reason to {{Category redirect}} this or that we need situate anything else at the category page, such that deletion would probably be fine, but it should be observed that "canceled" need not (and should not) be preferred to "cancelled"; the latter is the usual British English spelling, and we don't (usually) substitute one variety of English for another in situations like this. Joe 04:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Either way, we now have two categories where there should be one, with articles in both. What a mess. --RFBailey (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you asked for the wrong one to be deleted. Which one do you really want? You can empty out the bad named one with AWB. RlevseTalk 10:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Err... I've put everything back in the original category, but then just noticed the "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." Given the consensus here and here I won't undo unless anyone is particularly upset. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Review requested

Per this instruction, I am requesting an uninvolved administrator to perform this review. While the original responding admin has taken notice of abusive behavior by a disruptive editor, two respected users and one administrator have requested that this page be fully protected. See the original request for details. Thanks in advance! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

BoxingWear/Projects/Vesa

Once again the persistent vandal BoxingWear/Projects/User:Vesa (aka, the George Reeves Person[3]) is doing his usual tricks of making nonsense edits [4], engaging in edit wars[5], and calling names[6]. He is going under the IP address of 64.107.0.76. Instead of getting into a further edit war with him, I bring this situation before you.MKil (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)MKil

64.107.0.76 blocked for 31 hours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Ditto 64.107.3.66 - small rangeblock coming if this continues. Black Kite 22:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
66.99.0.0/22 and 64.107.0.0/22 both blocked for 24 hours. Black Kite 22:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Now he's up to his usual tactics -- threatening me, saying I'm a member of the mafia, etc.[7].MKil (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)MKil
Um, I think we need to have a Block on Site ban on any ip this user logs on - unless the legal threat and threat of violence is removed. This may have to be passed to the Foundation re the legal side, and perhaps to ANI to get consensus for a ban of the editor per the physical threat. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
He's already banned. ([8]). Black Kite 12:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You can never call somebody vandal if he she does something good and out of her/his good will to correct articles, as mkil removes all in name of commentary, that is wrong, i improved it but you guys do not care about accuracy, great, that's why nobody is using wikipedia in colleges, just type on search wikipedia not allowed in schools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:64.107.0.76#More_information_on_my_original_reply_is_here_on_administrative_board_as_evil_people_will_take_it_down Read well and certainly I am not grp on vesa or projects. Only on wikipedia there are one sided judges. The real vandal here is mkil who can not cooperate, never did.

AutoWikiBrowser

Hi, there are a few applications that are over 24 hours old and as suggested on the page, i've mentioned it here. Regards, CycloneNimrod (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)



I've just added a request for my trial approved bot. Can an administrator go ahead and approve it? Thanks! - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 15:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, never mind - another user just approved it, and my new messages bar popped up right as I posted this. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

forwarding you a message from a self claimed "government associate" i just received.

exact quote: "My project - www.pixaerial.com (also .co.uk) is a government-sponsored project that has the built-in expectation that the information will be made available to as many people as possible. With this in mind, I entered a few links in completely relevant articles on wikipedia, but this has been flagged as 'spam'. I understand the reasons for genuine spam to be flagged, but this is a clear case of automation getting it completley wrong, and defaming us in the process!

Can someone please advise as to how the defamatory page about our organisations's name may be removed, as my attempts to remove it have been perversely identified as 'vandalisation'!

Policies are fine, but we musn't tar everyone with the same brush... John Rowlands Welsh Assembly Government Sponsored Pixaerial Project."

as i'm no admin, i'll forward this directly to you guys. AnubisGodfatherT© 16:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Not and admin either but I am going to contact some one on it. Rgoodermote  16:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
He has been indefblocked and the links removed, just ignore him. Jackaranga (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/pixaerial.co.uk? AecisBrievenbus 16:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Not a clue, but I sent a message to webmaster@wales.gsi.gov.uk I am assuming that that is a government email. Rgoodermote  16:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok yeah it probably would have something to with that. Rgoodermote  16:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
He added only one link after the level one warning for spam, and that just one minute after the warning - so he may not even have seen it if he was already editing. DuncanHill (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

From the "oh no, not again" department

I would like to see some discussion, please on ways of de-escalating conflicts instead of escalating them. On BongBoing, they have the concept of "disemvowelling", which neutralises rants without drama. I don't think that would work here because edits / posts can be re-edited or reverted, but we need a credible way of calmly reining in "rhetorical exuberance" without over-reacting to it.

At the moment we have a very blunt instrument - blocking - and a very poor way of controlling it which means that "oh sod off, we already debated that five hundred times" is seen as more of a problem than bringing up the same rejected POV for the five hundred and first time. WP:CIVIL is all well and good, but there is a world of difference between being reasonably respectful of fellow editors, and cuddling up to a never-ending parade of zealots. There is also a tendency to focus on one diff that says "sod off" and go straight into Chicken Little mode, ignoring the dozens of exchanges that led up to it, the vexatiousness of those who work their way through every guideline in the book until they find one that suggest some slight ambiguity where none, in fact, exists, in some cases legions of sock and meatpuppets, and so on. In fact, Wikipedia's format lends itself well to a bait and report technique which looks to me to be the MO of some of the more clueful zealots on the project these days.

And above all we appear to be requiring long-standing editors and defenders of policy to become superhuman in order to be allowed to continue contributing.

Wikipedia is currently almost certainly the number one most important place to get your point of view promoted. I don't think anyone disputes that. It's also the case that some promoters of fringe theories, conspiracies and the like are vicious and unscrupulous, leading many people to give them a very wide berth, and some are just plain tiresome, repeating the same false assertions time and again in the hope that one day they will become true, or endlessly trying to draw a new "consensus" between the current state of the article and their preferred POV. This is not necessarily done with evil intent; many people sincerely believe that telekinesis exists, vaccines are killing and disabling children, the World Trade Center was blown up by the Government in order to justify a new oil war and so on.

That leaves a few people (e.g. User:MONGO, User:ScienceApologist) working hard to resist long-term egregious POV-pushing, with the result that tempers get frayed. Tempers get frayed anyway, in controversial topics such as the never-ending ethnic feuds. I really don't think that blocking people for tetchiness in the face of POV-pushing is a great idea. I don't think that many people here will be unaware of my view on this, of course, but in the end we are allowed to call a spade a spade sometimes, and we are actually allowed to be human. We are also allowed to become frustrated. And there should be a way of calmly refactoring or toning down such frustration that allows people to calm down, because blocking for sarcasm or snappish remarks is about as effective as "cool-down" blocks. Blocking is supposed to be preventive, but virtually every block of a long-standing contributor for civility infringements - even (perhaps especially) including Giano - ends up looking punitive. If the block were preventive, simply posting "OK, I am calm now" on the talk page should result in an immediate and uncontroversial unblock.

But I don't think blocking is a good way of handling people whose commitment to the project and its core values is never, at any point, in doubt.

I don't have a good idea for how to handle this. I'd be really interested to hear if anyone does have one. Guy (Help!) 14:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's probably an idea which is widely endorsed by members of the community, but just not conveyed in the actions that eventually happen. You're right about the blocking of long-standing editors though, cool-down blocks aren't permitted per se but are often implemented (at least from what I can see). Maybe a re-write in policy is needed here. Rudget (review) 15:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I also agree there is a problem. I also agree, Guy, that the solution, if one in fact even exists, will be messy and contentious. In other words, great essay. And also, sorry I dont' have a solution. A meaningless post by Keeper......Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I despise disemvowling. It basically says "This is not worthwhile content, but we don't care enough to remove and/or really do anything about it." SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Valid view, and it would not work here. So what would? I mean, we need to run something up the flagpole and see who salutes. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Guy, that's one of the best posts I've seen on the topic in a long time. I believe you're absolutely right.
Personally I believe we should never block established contributors except in extreme circumstances, e.g. the person has become berserk and won't stop reverting, or something. Blocking pisses people off. Good people. People we don't want to lose. Our core contributors are the project's most important asset, and a lot of administrators don't have the wisdom to see that a block which is strictly within policy can be hurtful to the project. It's something I've learned as a corporate manager: you have to give exceptional people a little extra slack sometimes. Admins here need enough wisdom to see what consequences to the project their within-policy block will cause; it's like look-ahead in chess, and only comes with life experience.
Every time a long-term contributor to the project gets blocked, there's a horrific drama scene on AN/I, and even worse, we have a high risk of losing one of our core contributors. We all make mistakes, and we all lose our tempers sometimes. Fringe POV pushers have learned to game our system, bait good users, and right now I feel like we're on the defensive, and losing ground fast. I don't have a proposal on how to fix it, ... yet. Antandrus (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Just our of curiosity, how many articles must I write before I am exempt from the civility policy? I'll be sure to get writing...No user, regardless of what they contribute, is exempt from our policies. Being an asshole is not excusable because an editor deals with POV pushers. It make "look punitive" but editors who routinely engage in incivility and attacks degrade the community, even if they aren't doing direct damage to the actual content of our articles. I am opposed to the greatest extent that I can be, to any rule that will exempt certain editors from treating other editors in a respectful manner. If a certain behavior would earn a new-ish user a block, that behavior should earn a block for a "longstanding contributor" as well; double standards should not be applied. - auburnpilot talk 21:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

To an extent, I agree with the above. Another way to phrase this situation might be what would we do if a certain editor who has been a polite and civil editor for a long period of time, and has not been subject to blocking for conduct, suddenly, on a given article, for whatever reason, loses it? In a case like this, that person might just, for whatever reason be having a very bad day. I had one of those yesterday, throwing up I think five times. I don't think I said anything out of line though, as I was basically logged off most of the day. If we were dealing with an established editor who has had repeated, almost regular warnings for misconduct, but had never previously been blocked or otherwise reprimanded, I could agree to that if the situation warranted it. But if Kirill Lokshin or one of the other most respected, tolerant, and polite editors we have were to suddenly become far less than polite, I can and would try to find out what happened before placing a block, as there would be some reason to think that something really extraordinary, maybe something we didn't know about, like a death threat or similar e-mail, happened. But, yes, established users with histories of less than stellar conduct who've basically lucked out to date in not getting sanctioned I can't really see any objections to blocking or banning as the situation required. And, yeah, I'd include me in that number. John Carter (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Nobody's exempt an I'm not suggesting they should be. I am suggesting that people who work at high-stress points of the project should not be blocked for outbreaks of rhetorical exuberance. We should have a gentler but no less firm way to push back against that. When people are provoked, they react in different ways, and make no mistake: there is some serious provocation going on here. So I am suggesting we find a way to encourage people to be better, not punish them for not being better. This is, I think, basic psychology, in as much as parenting a teenager teaches you such things. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggestion; a posting time limitation - where an editor is restricted to posting an edit after the expiry of x minutes from the last. This would stop reflex responses to baiting comments, allow the editor to "refine" their response (or to cancel it), or require them to chose what venue they wish to contribute in their permited editing allowance. In short, it requires an editor to think about what they are posting before hitting the save button. Such a restriction will allow considered discourse (or good article space contributions) rather than escalating a heated argument. Again, this would be applied to accounts only after violation of policy followed by warnings.
In other places this system is known as a flood barrier. I don't know if this is practical in this Wiki, and it is likely to increase rather than decrease the sysop workload, but that would be my answer to cool down the rhetoric. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what incident Guy is referring to, but I would oppose creating a double standard for people who edit a lot. (Never mind for the moment that, in practice, there is one.) A newbie who can't keep his temper in check eventually gets blocked; sometimes (and much less often), the same happens to an established user who can't keep his temper in check. What bothers me more is the flip side of the issue; as mentioned above, when an established user runs afoul of a rule or guideline in some not-very-harmful way and gets blocked for it, there is a huge outcry, but when a good-faith newbie does the same and gets blocked, few people notice or say anything. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not proposing a double standard. I'm pointing out that we have no decent way of handling people who hit the civility margins in one out of every thousand posts as distinct from those who do it every other comment, and we seem to be in outright denial of human nature, as set out in Godwin's Law for example. The problem is not people losing their tempers, the problem is vexatious attempts to push a POV and endless slanging matches between entrenched positions. Blocking people does not fix the actual problem. I don't know what would fix the actual problem, but blocking an editor with over 40,000 edits for saying "get lost" on his own talk page (to cite one recent example) does not even begin to address it. In fact, it rather tends to make it worse. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, I wonder if it takes a certain personality type to consistently stand up to the fringers and loonies. (Oooh, was that uncivil?) Mongo, SA and if I may say so Guy and myself would not likely get voted into the Victorian Ladies' Tea Club and Encyclopedia Writing Society. Conversely I don't recall finding many of those who demand unwavering, unconditional civility hanging out in the darker corners of WP. Sorry for the amateur psychoanalysis but though I'd throw it out there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Guy has stated something that has been repeatedly noted and complained about by many experienced editors who deal with controversial topics. I have been collecting egregious examples of what I view as Abuse of CIVIL here where we seem to be applying CIVIL a bit too aggressively in my opinion, or at least approaching such a limit. The list of words and phrases which are judged to be unCIVIL seems to be getting longer and longer (I have collected some examples here). This phenomenon has been repeatedly noted and discussed at Raymond arritt's Expert Withdrawal pages. As for what to do with persistent disruption that drives people to this behavior, I wrote a draft of an essay for some measures which we find work at the pages related to creationism, the creation-evolution controversy and intelligent design. I have also developed a set of exercises, the first batch of which appear at User:Filll/AGF Challenge which describe some difficult situations which drive some people to these supposedly unCIVIL outbursts. I have found that many who lecture others about how awful it is to be unCIVIL and how mean many experienced editors and admins are to those who promote WP:FRINGE views and how they WP:BITE newbies have little to no experience dealing with controversial topics on Wikipedia. The AGF Challenge gives all a relatively painless chance to experience some of these difficult editing situations without reading a lot of material and without getting involved with a lot of drama. Interestingly, I have noticed that some who constantly gripe and complain about how unCIVIL others are and how we are too harsh with disruptive editors and how we BITE newbies are far far more aggressive when answering the AGF Challenge than is standard practice in controversial areas. The only reason they complain is that they are not familiar with these difficult editing situations and controversial topics. I suspect similar things are true of those who frequent places like Wikipedia Review, and complain at length about decisions made at Wikipedia; they have their own hot button issues, but when confronting a problem that is outside their area of sensitivity, they exhibit tendencies as harsh as, if not harsher than those exhibited by experienced admins and editors on Wikipedia. So I invite everyone; come take the AGF Challenge.--Filll (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Interesting thoughts, but basically codification of our existing double standard for "experienced" users. I'm not sure I like it, but some change needs to happen. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What about more a more granular blocking policy, if it could be programmed? I'm thinking along the lines of ACLs, which has been in numerous revision control systems for awhile now, including CVS. This way, a block could be placed on a specific set of articles for the user, while leaving the rest of the Wiki editable. Think of it as per-user page protection. This would be beneficial not only for these instances, but also in cases where Arbcom has put someone on restricted editing. Right now there seems to be a rudimentary infrastructure for such a system (article protection, which seems to operate at the group level (Anon, Editor, Admin, etc). If it could be refined to the user level, then you could just add a "Deny Write" to all articles, cats, temps, etc. related to the trouble the editor was causing. So if, for example, an Irish editor lost his cool over at one of the Irish articles enough to need a block, you would just flip the Deny bit on where he is causing trouble. We already have pretty good categories and wikiproject organizations that it should be rather simple to get all the related namespace instances which require this bit be flipped. Just a thought, since it would probably would be less punitive and much more direct in targeting the source of the problem. Meanwhile, the editor could either cool off somewhere else or work on articles which aren't a problem. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Linking to old versions of redirected articles

Resolved: As noted at the link below, this is fixed in the latest update. Gavia immer (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I know I should wait for an answer over there, but WP:VPT is not always that visible, so I was wondering if anyone reading this noticeboard had answers to this? Carcharoth (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Need assistance: coachella

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 07:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Might I ask why your signature is so illformatted? Additionally, what exactly do you require assistance at that article about? What is the nature of your problem? Anthøny 12:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The links at the top here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The redirect looks fine. I've pointed out why on its Talk page, but this editor is known to me. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Owning the 9/11 attacks talkpage

Forum for voices seeking improvement of 9/11 article(s) is closed for general public. I'm certain there are better ways to deal with malicious editors and I'm certain that administrators as well as arbitrators know better.

Please resolve this issue as soon as possible. Tachyonbursts (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks is just semi-protected, so registered editors with accounts older than four days are free to post messages there at will. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Just semi-protected you say? Yes, but editors (such as myself) unwilling (or way too busy) to create account have no means to participate in the discussion. Needless to say I'm in no way related to the persona which caused the protection. Do say, what is the use of our public service if it is not open to public? People should be encouraged to share their opinions and suggestions there, not forced to wait in front of the gate, or into this whole registration.., which even comes with the trial… eh? Tachyonbursts (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's official policy on Protection indicates that "Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are ... subject to heavy and persistent vandalism." Since the 9/11 pages are some of the most heavily vandalized articles on Wikipedia, and as the talk page in question has only been semi-protected for a month, I am not sure what the issue is. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Policy, is it? Eh, I'd say don't use taser on folks until absolutely necessary, but all bright then, have it locked for general public… if you must. You know when you say how 9/11 pages are some of the most heavily vandalized articles on Wikipedia, you are absolutely right. And in more than one way that is… Thank you for response, till later. Tachyonbursts (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
To correct, the talk page in question has been semi-protected for around 24 hours, under the terms of the arbitration agreement, in response to trolling and disruption from an anonymous editor. --Haemo (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Funny, MONGO leaves due to a bad block, and look at what happens... Just sayin'. Corvus cornixtalk 22:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Wohho

Possible conflict of interest here. Not really vandalizing, but all his edits to date have involved the inclusion of a website called Jalopnik. Been quiet for a long time and now he's adding bios on the entire staff. I've left polite word on his talk page re. COI, but he doesn't answer. He has, however, found the "hangon" template. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

LesTout.com

LesTout.com was salted by user Jossi‎ due to my initial lack of experience adding/editing article in Wikipedia. Admin עוד מישהו requested me to add a separate page for the artice at User:Shivaji Mitra/LesTout.com for him to preview the final article and approve it. Admin עוד מישהו requested me to put it into WP:RUP. I listed my message twice, but I did'nt get any response. So now, Admin עוד מישהו requested me to bringing it up on the administrator's noticeboard. Thanks. --Shivaji Mitra (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your request and to the best of my knowledge the title should be unprotected. « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) 04:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --Shivaji Mitra (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Soon after granting permission for the article LesTout.com it is being speedily deleted by (AndrewHowse). I was working with the Audio version of the article and now the article seems gone. Thanks. --Shivaji Mitra (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Grawp sockpuppet

Please help. See the contribs. Page move-vandalism. Enigma message Review 06:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it and blocked him immediately to prevent any more damage, but could definitely use some help fixing what was done. faithless (speak) 07:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I was using WP:HUG when all those edits started popping up on my screen. Unfortunately, I could not fix them through the program, because Huggle can't deal with page moves to my knowledge. It searches back through the history of the page, and since this guy is the "creator" after moving it, Huggle can't revert to a previous version. Enigma message Review 07:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 Confirmed as Grawp - also the following accounts. I checked as there are always more when Grawp is involved:
  1. Unferð (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Wealhþeow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Weohstan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  4. Wæls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  5. Wondred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  6. Brosinga mene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  7. Gavin the Loser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
and  IP blocked - Alison 07:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
All accounts blocked. RBI now? Keegantalk 07:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Have the talk pages been salted? Whenever a Grawp account gets blocked, he locks it with an ungodly-large table that replicates a certain pic. -Jéské (v^_^v X of Swords) 07:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Have at is, Jéské! Collaboration, after all :) Keegantalk 07:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid to ask; what pic? - Alison 07:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, let me guess .... - Alison 07:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I've done the honors and salted all the talk pages, removing those avenues of attack. -Jéské (v^_^v X of Swords) 07:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems like there's a Grawp attack every few days. Enigma message Review 07:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I've been noticing a pattern recently. Grawp gets exposed and blocked, and shortly thereafter, several users are harass-crapflooded from a certain site (Not ED), which leads to (now-)3-month IP blocks on all participants and constant deletions. I swear, nowadays more than half my IP blocks and almost all my deletions involve such attacks. All the same, I'm preparing. -Jéské (v^_^v X of Swords) 07:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Nothing we can't take care of (and thanks to Bencherlite, who tagged the userpages). Keegantalk 07:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Then you'd better be prepared to delete and restore pages. Keep an eye for a user talk page being blanked except for a short sentence or two, and delete the revision immediately. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 07:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I can handle that. Keegantalk 08:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Note to all: if you're blocking Grawp socks, it is worth semi-ing your user and talk pages for a while. Black Kite 12:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I stopped caring long ago what vandals do to my userspace. It's a Wiki! after all ;) Keegantalk 07:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Same here. My userpage is semi'd and I have popups. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 07:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring, removal of sourced info, personal attacks

User:Noah30 keeps removing sourced info added by me in several occasions: here, here (including a personal attack), here is another example of an offending personal attack. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

one more personal --TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

LesTout.com

LesTout.com was salted by user Jossi‎ due to my initial lack of experience adding/editing article in Wikipedia. Admin עוד מישהו requested me to add a separate page for the artice at User:Shivaji Mitra/LesTout.com for him to preview the final article and approve it. Admin עוד מישהו requested me to put it into WP:RUP. I listed my message twice, but I did'nt get any response. So now, Admin עוד מישהו requested me to bringing it up on the administrator's noticeboard. Thanks. --Shivaji Mitra (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your request and to the best of my knowledge the title should be unprotected. « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) 04:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --Shivaji Mitra (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Soon after granting permission for the article LesTout.com it is being speedily deleted by (AndrewHowse). I was working with the Audio version of the article and now the article seems gone. Thanks. --Shivaji Mitra (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Grawp sockpuppet

Please help. See the contribs. Page move-vandalism. Enigma message Review 06:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it and blocked him immediately to prevent any more damage, but could definitely use some help fixing what was done. faithless (speak) 07:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I was using WP:HUG when all those edits started popping up on my screen. Unfortunately, I could not fix them through the program, because Huggle can't deal with page moves to my knowledge. It searches back through the history of the page, and since this guy is the "creator" after moving it, Huggle can't revert to a previous version. Enigma message Review 07:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 Confirmed as Grawp - also the following accounts. I checked as there are always more when Grawp is involved:
  1. Unferð (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Wealhþeow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Weohstan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  4. Wæls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  5. Wondred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  6. Brosinga mene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  7. Gavin the Loser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
and  IP blocked - Alison 07:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
All accounts blocked. RBI now? Keegantalk 07:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Have the talk pages been salted? Whenever a Grawp account gets blocked, he locks it with an ungodly-large table that replicates a certain pic. -Jéské (v^_^v X of Swords) 07:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Have at is, Jéské! Collaboration, after all :) Keegantalk 07:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid to ask; what pic? - Alison 07:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, let me guess .... - Alison 07:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I've done the honors and salted all the talk pages, removing those avenues of attack. -Jéské (v^_^v X of Swords) 07:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems like there's a Grawp attack every few days. Enigma message Review 07:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I've been noticing a pattern recently. Grawp gets exposed and blocked, and shortly thereafter, several users are harass-crapflooded from a certain site (Not ED), which leads to (now-)3-month IP blocks on all participants and constant deletions. I swear, nowadays more than half my IP blocks and almost all my deletions involve such attacks. All the same, I'm preparing. -Jéské (v^_^v X of Swords) 07:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Nothing we can't take care of (and thanks to Bencherlite, who tagged the userpages). Keegantalk 07:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Then you'd better be prepared to delete and restore pages. Keep an eye for a user talk page being blanked except for a short sentence or two, and delete the revision immediately. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 07:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I can handle that. Keegantalk 08:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Note to all: if you're blocking Grawp socks, it is worth semi-ing your user and talk pages for a while. Black Kite 12:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I stopped caring long ago what vandals do to my userspace. It's a Wiki! after all ;) Keegantalk 07:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Same here. My userpage is semi'd and I have popups. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 07:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposing unblock for RS1900

Resolved: Unblocked. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 12:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

RS1900 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was blocked in October for personal attacks and sockpuppetry. [9] [10]. The threats were against user Nick Graves who has subsequently forgiven him and who sought to have the block rescinded in Decemeber [11] but the consensus was that the user needed to sit the block out for a longer period. The user has now sought unblocking [12] and has apologised for their behaviour and promissed to behave in future. They also understand that their behaviour is under scrutiny and that further misbehaviour will result in an instant and unappealable permanent block. I am personally prepared to unblock this user but am seeking a consensus that this is an acceptable thing to do. The user does not have a record of disruption or poor bahaviour. The sockpuppetry was inept and predated the block and the threats were completely out of character. Examination of previous contributions suggests this user is generally veru polite and careful of other's feelings. With the threat of an instant block/ban hanging over them I would say that there is no risk of long term disruption from the unblock and much to be gained from having a productive user back contributing to the project. Spartaz Humbug! 10:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I take a very dim view of this kind of thing (admin only). The harassed user accepted the apology and asked for the indefinite block to be removed, so I wouldn't stand in your way if you want to remove the block, but it wouldn't be my first choice. --B (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
What B said. Any evidence that the guy is no longer going to behave in this creepy and despicable manner? Guy (Help!) 11:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Since the user who was harassed by him doesn't mind if RS1900 gets unblocked, I don't mind too. But only if someone explains me what the sock tag on his userpage means. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 11:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
He used a sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RS1900. I favor unblocking; the user has promised to behave and has already been blocked for about 5 months, and has a history of productive edits before the incident that got him blocked. I think another chance is in order. Mangojuicetalk 14:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm a fan of second chances and since even the target of the harassment has forgiven him, so do I. Besides, if he put another toe out of line it will lead to a pretty indisputable indefblock, so there's not much risk here. faithless (speak) 17:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Spartaz asked for my views on unbanning. I still support unbanning, and I think the terms of his return (permablock for any further violations) are reasonable. I believe RS will prove to be a productive editor again. In his unblock request, RS expressed concern about my exposing some personal information in the sock report I filed (note that this was information he had previously shared on his user page and elsewhere, though he later requested a wipe of the history). Out of respect for his wishes to remove that personal information from the "public record," and to erase any lingering ill will, I suggest that that sock report be made an admin-eyes-only page.

I appreciate the swift and vigilant response of admins and other editors to the original offense, and commend them for their latter willingness to give a promising editor one more chance. Thank you. Nick Graves (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked him, on conditions of good behaviour. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 12:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring, removal of sourced info, personal attacks

User:Noah30 keeps removing sourced info added by me in several occasions: here, here (including a personal attack), here is another example of an offending personal attack. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

one more personal --TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A (personal?) note on today's featured article

OK, everybody knows that TFAs are very heavily vandalized, and just as rarely protected. I would, however, like to request that available (i.e. awake :) admins keep an eye on today's featured article and WP:RFPP and please be more lenient in their application of WP:NOPRO and (I can't believe I'm saying this) less lenient in their application of WP:IAR. Although I'm just one guy, I don't think anyone would want to see disrespectful, childish vandalism on this of all articles, on this of all days. I myself am only in favor of protecting TFAs under exceptional circumstances. To me, this qualifies. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it for as long as I'm here. I know others will do the same. If it gets out of hand, I (for one) am willing to invoke IAR out of respect for the dead and protect the article. I don't pass judgment on others, but that's the moral thing for me to do. If I'm found to be out of step with the community, I'll recuse myself. - Philippe 03:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This is one of the most heavily debated issues on wiki. TFA is so heavily vandalized that I think it's embarrassing to call it "some of wiki's best" and have it be one of the first things newbies see, ie an article that's vandalized practically every minute. RlevseTalk 09:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
All TFAs should be protected on their day, but in this case especially so. It isn't even semi-protected. Everyking (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It was semi-protected originally but the protection was removed just before midnight.[13] DrKiernan (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
That would be my action. I've been move protecting the TFAs since late Nov '07, and usually do so as soon as Raul schedules them. For this article, I intentionally waited as close to midnight UTC as I could, due to the subject matter (and knowing that I might be away from the computer after that point). I haven't done any statistics or hard analysis, but a quick look gave me the impression this article has actually seen less vandalism than usual. I also noted several constructive edits from IP editors. Of course, the school day in the US is just starting, and vandalism will likely pick up. - auburnpilot talk 12:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Your experience indicates that the article should remain unprotected for now - which is different than my initial view. Ronnotel (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Threat of violence at George Bernard Shaw

Resolved

An anonymous user made a threat of violence at the George Bernard Shaw article in which they stated "fuck cypress creek high school i hate everbody that school is going to blow up at 10:26 wednesday 04/16/08". Although I believe it's just a case of vandalism, especially since they had previously vandalized the article, WP:VIOLENCE suggests that such outbursts be reported here, so here 'tis. María (habla conmigo) 12:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for now, schoolIP. I can't call Florida from here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll send them an email...hopefully it gets there on time..though this most likely is a prank. Rgoodermote  14:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Email sent waiting on reply. Rgoodermote  14:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It is way past 10:26 and no-reply has come and I do not think this is serious so I am going to call this resolved. Feel free to go against me.Rgoodermote  14:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Usernames

Resolved

Hello

As you can see User:Police, Mod, Jock is obviously trying to tarnish my accont by using this name in the hope that the two will get confused, quite a few months ago I made another report on this exact thing where someone had copied my username for trouble not so long ago. Please see to this that the account is blocked like the last persons, thank you. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 14:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC) (The genuine one)

Blocked Rgoodermote  14:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) Agreed, this account was created to impersonate you (edited the same article immediately after you). I have{{usernamehardblocked}} it. --barneca (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, appreciated. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 14:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User who posts nothing but hoaxes/self-promotion

I just recently put up two articles, Akira Tetsugake‎ and Soul Blade (manga)‎, up for deletion. The author of both articles is Kira99er (talk · contribs), who I have noticed has done almost nothing but create articles about made-up anime and manga series and characters for as long as he's been registered here. His various articles have been deleted (see here, here and here for examples), and he has been repeatedly warned about creating hoaxes and self-promoting articles on his talk page, but he refuses to respond to any messages on his user page, removes deletion tags from his articles and just keeps on creating more hoaxes. Of his contributions that haven't been (or will be) deleted, they were spent adding original research to various anime articles ([14], [15])! This user has absolutely no constructive edits to the site and he has not shown any evidence that this will change. Can someone, please, take some sort of admin action on this hoaxer? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty tired and my mind is gone, so maybe I'm wrong, but I second the motion. Per this link, http://comixpedia.com/manga_artist_looking_wrighter#comment-30723, User:Kira99er appears to be using Wikipedia to promote his work. Cheers, and good night. Dlohcierekim 05:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked the account, currently set at indefinite since the user doesn't seem willing to comunicate. The talk page, contributions, and deleted contributions speak for themselves. Misuse of the project, adequately warned over the past year. I advised an email to unblock-en if they wish a review. Keegantalk 06:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Endorse block. GlassCobra 18:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed unblock of Live and Die 4 Hip Hop

I’d like to propose an abbreviation the block of Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk · contribs), who I blocked as as a block-evading sock of Payne2thamax (talk · contribs). Payne2thamax was originally blocked for gross incivility and personal attacks, culminating in this edit. After being blocked, he used a number of socks to evade this block:

Some of these socks also had civility issues; in fact, he has admitted to me that Payne2thamaxx was basically a bad hand account of Same As It Ever Was.
The user also had a long-running content dispute, the details of which are frankly to arcane for me to fathom, with Tasc0 (talk · contribs). Tasc0 himself was once blocked indefinitely, for incivility and personal attacks culminating in this edit. The indefinite block was shortened to a month by Fred Bauder after Tasc0 e-mailed arb comm; Tasc0 has since returned to Wikipedia at the conclusion of this block and is editing, from what I can tell, productively and within all policy and guidelines.
Tasc0 and Live and Die 4 Hip Hop have a great deal in common in that both are productive content editors with extraordinary incivility in their pasts. Both have been blocked indefinitely, but Tasc0 has won a reprieve. LAD4HH has e-mailed me, taking responsibility for everything and seeking a similar reprieve. Working in his favour is the Tasc0 precedent and the fact that his most recent account, LAD4HH, seems to have edited productively and within policy. Working against him is that fact, while Tasc0 responded to his indefinite block by following proper appeal channels, LAD4HH responded by engaging in block-evading sockpuppetry and occasional continued incivility. Nevertheless, I’d like to reset his block to expire May 1 (one month since he was blocked, during which time he appears to have refrained from sockpuppetry), with the understanding that upon his return he is limited to one account and on come form of civility probation. Are there objections? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I should also note that LAD4HH's socks, in addition to being block-evading, were also used to vote-stack (see, for example, here). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
A user with that sort of sock history needs to do a lot more to convince me they've mended their ways. RlevseTalk 09:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Non-rhetorical question: what else could the user do to convince you? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Kathleen21503

We seem to have a well-meaning user a bit unclear on the concept of this site who is insisting on writing, expanding and defending a seriously POV and OR essay. I'm trying to help keep her from wasting her time, but she just keeps on. Would someone else step in and have a gentle word with her? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide links? Thanks, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry: See User talk:Kathleen21503. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a speedy deletion, try prod (likely to fail) or AfD if you think it should be deleted (probably). Try not to use your teeth too much. WilyD 15:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There is potential for it becoming a legitimate article, it even has some references already. However, we should tell the user that articles are not to be self-referential, and if she has things not ready for publication to keep it in her userspace. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 16:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

MovieZen "borrowing" our content

Resolved: Reported to WP:MIRROR. --Yamla (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A website, moviezen.com, seems to be using our content for all their articles on celebrities. For example, here and here. Their copyright notice makes no mention that their content is available under the GFDL, nor does their terms of service. It appears to me (but I make no direct accusation) that the content is or was automatically pulled from Wikipedia in bulk rather than submitted by individuals, given that every single celebrity article I went to was taking content from Wikipedia. As such, I believe they are violating Wikipedia's copyright and/or the copyright of Wikipedia contributors. I'm reporting this here because I can't personally be bothered to take any action against them myself, but someone may want to draft up a polite letter informing them of their legal obligations under the GFDL. --Yamla (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia itself owns no copyright, it's just the contributers that do. There's a noticeboard around here somewhere ... Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks maybe? WilyD 16:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:MIRROR goes into the details of handling such situations. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed blocking of an IP user (62.64.200.158)

Would any member of the community disapprove of a block on the name IP for edits like this? I'd suggest a 24 hour block for disruption, but I am open for disapproval. Rudget 18:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

See also: 62.64.201.155 (talk · contribs) and 62.64.213.157 (talk · contribs). - auburnpilot talk 18:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. seicer | talk | contribs 18:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks like an anon upset about an admin making a ruling on a debate in which they are involved. That seems like a legitimate concern, what am I missing here? --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 18:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a follow-up from here and all these IPs are rather obvious sockpuppets of Smurfmeister (talk · contribs) --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Block review please?

Resolved

Hey there admins, I don't do a lot of blocking, but I stumbled into one just now that I'd like a review on. I recently blocked Fieldgoalunit (talk · contribs) for attempting to out another editor, namely User:JamesJJames. (Check fieldgoalunit's contribs to JJJ's talkpage, as well as this diff and immediate withdrawal. Those two diffs piqued my interest, and once I saw Fieldgoal's contribs to Usertalk:JamesJJames, I blocked indef. Please review for me? Permission to reduce/remove block if warranted. Consider this prior discussion, no need to discuss further with me before unblocking. Thanks! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In the example you linked, the user just said he knew the other user in real life, he didn't post a phone number or anything. An indef block seems like overkill. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 18:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I read a couple of diffs (In Fieldgoalunit's contrib history, I hesitate to link here) with Fieldgoalunit taunting JJJ and calling him by a different first name, attempting to out him. I have no problem with a reduced block, hence my post here. I'd just like to see a few more eyes on this, as it may very well be I'm overreacting based on my own strong need for privacy. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Would agree that an indef is overkill. Would recommend downgrading to 48 hours or so with a strong warning. Stifle (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Block reduced to 48h, additional warning left on usertalk. Thanks for the input AN Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Metaphysics

If a vandal updates a vandalism counter, does it count as vandalism? :-) Classic paradox territory. BTW, if someone wants to deal with the IP vandal? The IP was blocked for a week, but started vandalising again once unblocked. It also has some notice on the user page about reporting abuse to the ISP. Is that only for severe abuse? Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not the only paradox. J Milburn (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33 blocked for sock puppetry

Could an uninvolved administrator please review the unblock request at User talk:Giovanni33 after viewing the evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rafaelsfingers and discussion at Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Rafaelsfingers. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 01:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a valid block. The history of sockpuppetry and extensive block log shows that he has clearly been using socks before. Nakon 01:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I have provided Giovanni33 the names of three Checkusers and suggested emailing one of them to discuss the matter confidentially.[16] Perhaps Giovanni33 can provide some sort of explanation. Further opinions are welcome here. Jehochman Talk 01:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I've edited with Giovanni in the past on the Allegations of state terrorism by the United States (there's 10 versions of that title) where I was generally in agreement with him. I can see why Jehochman decided to block in this case, but I'm not at all convinced by the evidence presented. It would very much surprise me if Giovanni started using socks again. The other accounts, from a quick scan of some of their posts, tend to post very short notes that don't sound like Giovanni at all (I'm familiar with his writing style). Giovanni is extremely loquacious as most who've seen him around the wiki would know, whereas User:Rafaelsfingers starts out with this and this on an article talk page. Sure, Giovanni could have adjusted his writing style, but if he was smart enough to do that, why would he not have made some dumby edits using those accounts instead of jumping right into the conflict? He sockpuppeted before, and I doubt he would do it so sloppily if he did it again. But I really don't think he would start up on this again, and would ask others to note that his past sock activity is well in the past and that his block log is misleading (many of the entries there are wheel warring over blocks, or blocks followed by unblocks - though he still has been blocked a lot obviously).
The main evidence here seems to be that these accounts are interested in the same topic as Giovanni and they edit from Northern California. Honestly, if I had to pick one geographic region in the United States where it was likely to find a lot of folks who agree with Giovanni's views on the article in question, it would be the Bay Area. Thus I don't think the geographic closeness tells us much of anything. I can't help but think that the evidence here is about ten times less convincing than the evidence in the Mantanmoreland ArbCom case, and that an analogy between the two is appropriate in that in both case we are dealing with established users who have socked in the past (though Giovanni's block log is much worse than Mantan's, and that is an important difference). I'd like to see a more careful review of this situation, perhaps by comparing contributions, and an openness to the possibility that these other accounts are really run by different people.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
(EC) Sorry for this petite drama. I have too many doubts to let this stand, so I have unblocked Giovanni33. Jehochman Talk 02:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I think we would get along with so much less drama if we saw more of this sort of willingness to review from people. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tankred

Resolved: Closing duplicate thread. Discussion continuing at WP:ANI#User:Tankred. --Elonka 10:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tankred (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

Multiple personal attacks on his userpage against various users, currently edit warring on at least 30 pages (see edits). When runs out of reverts, goes IP[17]. Blocked multiple times for edit warring (see block log). Also warned multiple times for edit warring as well as refraining from false edit summaries (latest warning:[18]), wich he freqwently uses to delete things he personally dislike. Last such edit (false edit summary to remove content he dislikes):[19] - the "forum":[20] is a leading national newspaper in Hungary). Does anything else needed? --87.97.111.140 (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Also posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tankred. --OnoremDil 01:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
And WP:AIV. --Elonka 01:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

DRV backlog

There is a backlog at DRV. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Safe Search" or "Adult Filter" function proposal

Many search engines and websites have something called a "Safe Search" or "Adult Filter" function. Wikipedia does not have such a thing. This causes many parental controls and corporate content filters to block Wikipedia. That sucks. Is there any way we could create such a feature so that Wikipedia would not get blocked? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll start by throwing out the obligatory WP:NOTCENSORED, and follow up with a comment that such an idea isn't really for administrators to decide, and would probably do best somewhere on the Village pump. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, this would be better brought up at the Village Pump, there is really no admin intervention needed here. Tiptoety talk 23:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This isn't for any of us to decide, in the absence of an objective way to determine which articles should not be read by children (other people's children in fact!). As for "corporate content filters", there are easy ways for readers to circumvent (less so for editors). Server-side censorship is something we don't do, but we do have pages offering advice to those affected by client-side censorship. — CharlotteWebb 14:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Poochiedontsurf

Resolved: attacks deleted

On Poochiedontsurf's user page, he makes a truly libelous attack on another editor: "After a long break from Wikipedia I decided to use my intelligence and resources ridding this Wiki of pedophiles."

Pedophiles links to User:Freechild, a longtime editor and proponent for youth rights, which has absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia. I don't want to start an edit war on someone's talk page, but this has to go. What should be done? (edit: sorry, forgot to sign)J0lt C0la (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I unlinked the personal attack. -- Flyguy649 talk 00:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I really should have been bold, but I've never been one to edit userpages except for vandalism reverts, as people are very touchy about that. J0lt C0la (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
These edits suggest serious WP:POINT and WP:SOAP. Shame it went unchecked for so long. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have removed the offending diffs on the user page and on Youth rights. Black Kite 10:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Impartial closure of a poll requested

I wonder if any uninvolved admins wish to review the poll here (the discussion is quite long though, with a long history too), Template_talk:Infobox_Football_club#Opinion_poll_for_the_clubname_infobox_parameter, and wrap it up in the way they see fit under the 'Conclusion' section. I set the poll up, as a way to end a mass article edits from early this year. I suggested a week long run and it appears to have reached the starting to go round in circles stage, but I would rather see someone uninvolved judge it, I don't want the result becoming 'my view' as it were. MickMacNee (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A bot or not a bot, that is the questions.

Okay, I need some help here. I know zip, nada, nothing about bots, and only a tiny bit about hoe the whole approval process works. I ran across this “bot” while working over at WP:UAA. I was unable to locate the approval request so I asked the user who stated they ran the bot, they pointed me here which clearly does not look approved. After looking over the bots contribs it appears that it was already live, and when I tried to ask the operator I got no response, so I went ahead and blocked the bot account for the time being. Then I started looking over the bot operators contribs to find edit summaries that looked like in fact his account was also a bot. There is nothing on the users userpage to indicate that his account is a bot, nor can I find an approval request. Will someone with more bot knowledge help me out. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 16:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

user and bot need blocked. that is not approval. βcommand 16:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. When the user was asked by Tiptoety, he first created the "Requests for approval" then directed Tiptoety to it.
14:53, 17 April 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:VictorAnyakin‎ (→Unauthorised bot)
08:52, 17 April 2008 (hist) (diff) N Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MrVanBot‎ (←Created page with '3}} ==User:{{subst:#titleparts:Administrators' noticeboard== ...') (top)
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/VictorAnyakin
Great job Tiptoety. MatthewYeager 16:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It's probably easier just to remind the guy to (1) get bot approval and (2) use the bot account for bot edits. Unless he's causing harm, I would give him a couple weeks to remedy the situation before blocking. Remember that the bot policy differs from wiki to wiki, so the interwiki people may not realize what is required here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that there are lots of interwiki bots (at least, I think they are bots) that edit using IP addresses and don't even have accounts. In general, unless they cause actual harm or edit on a large scale, I just ignore them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the user did not appear to not understand the bot approval process here, they clearly tired to cover up their tracks by creating the bot approval request after I asked, and made it out to be no big deal, like they had made the request a while ago. Either way having a live bot with out approval is not a good thing, and that is why I blocked the bot account. There is nothing saying it can not be unblocked once the approval request has been excepted. Tiptoety talk 18:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Denshaw

Resolved: Done. Rudget 18:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A semi-protection for Denshaw wouldn't go amiss. It's been in the national news today for having a silly Wikipedia entry and is recieving high ip-vandalism. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Odd "images"

I've created a list of "images" where the MIME type doesn't match the file extension. The list isn't perfectly filtered, but it's close enough. The "number" column is just arbitrary to give an idea of how many mismatches there are. Some of the them are simple mistakes -- having .jpe instead of .jpg. Others are more nefarious (.txt files being called .ogg, etc.). Any help would be appreciated in either deleting these or fixing the file extension and re-uploading them.

The list is located here. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Any reason why bmp isn't one of the extensions supported by the site? Many of these images were merely attempts to get around that problem. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Bitmap images are highly inefficient - where lossless compression is needed, PNG can provide that, and where it isn't, JPEG does even better. There's no reason to use them, and some very good reasons not to (they take significantly more bandwidth to serve to users, even as thumbnails). Zetawoof(ζ) 06:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Mediawiki actually has code to verify mime types during upload. Since your list only has 600 items, that may mean that it works pretty well, but doesn't catch certain types of cases. Dragons flight (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I've started going through and converting some of the bitmap-masquerading-as-JPEG images to actual JPEGs at a decently high quality (95%), as well as tagging a couple of the unused ones for deletion. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it legal to change a fair-use .bmp into an other format, or is it considered a modification to the image? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Mu. Yes it is legal, and yes it is a (minor) modification of the image. Modifications, even very major ones, are not incompatible with fair use. Dragons flight (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This is also a perfect opportunity to move the free images on this list to Commons. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't .xls actually the correct suffix for "application/vnd.ms-excel"? (Of course, the issue of whether we should be having Excel spreadsheets on Wikipedia at all is a different matter.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Community ban of self proclaimed "Asia Fan Club President"

This is a disturbing tale of abuse. Many, many months of extensivly relentless abuse of wikipedia in order to promote asiafanclub.com and use Wikipedia as a "vehicle for advertising"

Extensive abuse of wikipedia