Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive186

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Tactical Battle[edit]

Resolved: Blocked, talk page editing removed, WP:DFTT

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

Apparently new account since first activity is today. Vandalised article BraveStarr in manner similar to that that has been done repeatedly over the last few weeks. Previous vandalism has always been anonymous IP edits for IPs subsequently blocked. Given the nature of the eidt in question it appears unlikely that this is not the same individual now using accounts, althoug hadmittedly this is the only vandalism so far. Only other activity is a few quick reverts, some of which were questionable. It may also be worth checking for accounts creatign at the same time from the same IP.

In addition, user is impersonating an administrator. He has added himself to the administrator's category and made edits to an unblock request in a manner suggesting that he holds this position. CrispMuncher (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Troll. Blocked. Resolved? Pedro :  Chat  12:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Unresolved - I have re-blocked removing talk page editing after this trolling request to be unblocked. Perhaps I should have let another admin declie but I see no reason to waste time. Other eyes appreciated to endorse however, and if not endorsed please feel free to overturn my actions. Pedro :  Chat  12:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I was in the process of doing EXACTLY what you did before you beat me to it. Therefore, I completely endorse this action. We do NOT need this guy around here anymore. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Concur - we are well shut of this person with haste - Peripitus (Talk) 13:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both. I've re-marked this resolved. Pedro :  Chat  13:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem bot (CSDWarnBot)[edit]

Moved to WP:BON#Problem bot (CSDWarnBot). –xeno (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

RfPP backlogged[edit]

Resolved

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection Enigmamsg 18:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks better now. Tiptoety talk 22:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Deceased Wikipedian[edit]

I'm sad to report that one of our fellow Wikipedians passed away last week. I tried, but have been unable to verify his passing beyond the initial message left by his son (via an IP). However, considering the editor in question had acknowledged a serious illness and his account has been atypically inactive since, I considered it acceptable to take care of the administrative aspects today. I have not done this before, so could someone else cast an eye over it? Its obviously not something we want to get wrong. Thanks, and the editor's page is here. Rockpocket 21:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems okay to me, looks fine. As long as autoblock/ACB are off (which they are), it is pretty much just straightforward indeffing. — neuro(talk) 02:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Indef in memoriam — someone who contributed so much to Scottish football articles. RIP. – Toon(talk) 02:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Whilst I do agree that it is entirely appropriate to leave messages of sympathy and the rest (I did so myself), I beg of people to do it at the talk page, not here (wasn't going to mention it, but then I saw the above comment). — neuro(talk) 03:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
That was meant to be encouragement, not a message in itself, if it came across that way... – Toon(talk) 03:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Neuro. It would be best if the page is indeffed. Chamal talk 12:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Which has already been done by Rockpocket (talk · contribs) on 28 Feb. Chamal talk 12:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I have a feeling there is a page on Meta somewhere that catalogues and pays respect to deceased Wikimedians. I'll try and locate it. Do we want to add Titch Tucker there and write a short statement or no? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I joined wikipedia to find out why my dad (Titch Tucker) enjoyed it so much. When I came across this I was going to ignore it but feel I have to say something. I found this through looking at Rockpockets edit history, and was to say the least a little dissapointed. I e-mailed Rockpocket yesterday and he was very kind to me. I'm sure he would have laughed at this, as I know my dad loved this place, but I don't think it's for me. Little Tuck (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Fast track for cranks?[edit]

Have we got some sort of fast track for disposing of cranks (junk science, conspiracy theorists)? These single purpose accounts seem to take up an inordinate amount of time and resources with an obstinate willingness to argue their good faith yet ridiculous points ad nauseam. Simple vandals are easy to deal with, and edit disputes also have their own venue. But how shall we effectively deal with "flat earth" folks fueled by the "media" which is more than willing to give equal time to "opposing points of view" no matter how absurd. The general approach I'd like to see is a simple nomination of the offending user, a brief summary of the user's edit history, a vote by experienced editors/admins as to whether or not the offending editor is a crank, and a permanent banning if found as such. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any way to do that in a wiki that defines itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." But there are ways to alleviate the problems; see e.g. the next section. — Sebastian 18:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Can edit - any way they want? - or can edit to help make the world's best, free encyclopedia? Rklawton (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Currently Wikipedia is evolving in the direction of becoming Crankopedia. This can be stopped, but only if there is a will to do so, and at the moment it seems that the majority of admins believe that all views should have equal weight. Looie496 (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll strongly disagree with Looie496's assertion that the majority of admins believe all views should have equal weight. (On a side note, I wonder why WP:AGF never seems to apply to statements about admins?) But I can see a problem with fasttracking cranks -- who exactly is the arbiter of who is a crank and who isn't? I sure don't want to make that call. But if we hold firm to requiring independent, reliable sources, the trend towards Crankopedia can be reversed. And we already have processes for dealing with people who insist on inserting unsourced material.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
What process is that? Rklawton (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Educate/warn/block. Same as anyone who insists on editing disruptively. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The "block" part gets a bit tricky because there's an appearance that the block resulted from an edit conflict (not allowed) rather than from cranky edits. Rklawton (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The only tricky part is that the people warning and blocking need to focus on the true problem, which is making controversial additions without getting consensus on the talk page.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
This is all just words. Any clash of views gets classified as a content dispute, in which admins are not empowered to intervene. The practical effect is that all views are treated equally. Looie496 (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
That's problematical in the case of cranks. Content disputes take considerable time and energy. On the other hand, giving an individual the authority to determine what is crank/conspiracy and what is not seems to go too far the other way. Hence my search for some sort of fast track that provides sufficient oversight without becoming over burdensome. And, in the case of cranks, we're often not dealing with a single article but with a pattern of editing multiple articles to promote a specific crank theory. I think we need a process (or have we one already?) that addresses a user's pattern of behavior and addresses the user specifically rather than on an article by article basis. Rklawton (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Before you go to far down this path, review the case of User:!! and User:Durova from late 2007/early 2008. There are problems with quasi-automatic review of a particular contributor. To really evaluate someone takes time and effort, not just in review, but in attempt at education to wikipedia processes. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) The mechanism that Rklawton wants actually exists -- the problem is that it doesn't work. See WP:ANI#Community ban of ImperfectlyInformed for an example of what happens in almost every case. It typically takes around 100 net wasted hours to get people to support a topic ban, as far as I can see. Looie496 (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone care to propose a system that might work? Rklawton (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Users: Juanacho and Decodet[edit]

In the main Ashley Tisdale article which I have been editing for 1-3 days now. The page in the past before my edits included fake awards, Tisdale was never nominated for a Nickelodeon Australian Kids' Choice Awards, the link provided to support this statement does not mention Tisdale nor does it list the nominees, here is the link: [1] Then another award which she supposedly got nominated for which was the Germany Jetix Awards. The links provided to support this statement ([2]) does not show in German that she got nominated for the award. I clicked this: [3] which is what these users posted and I found nothing mentioning the Jetix Awards. Another fake award nominated that got posted it the Nickelodeon Brazilian Kids' Choice Awards, the link posted to support this award (In Brazilian): [4] is a blog. The site's host is Word press and the site does not look reliable at all, the first link posted was an article in Brazilian that when I translated show the pre nominations for the award. The el superficial site was a blog, not just any blog a celebrity gossip blog which is hosted by Wordpress en Español. In the end of this page: [5] the copyright of the site is shown and the host.

Every time I edit on this page, these following users revert my work for no reason listed: Juanacho and Decodet. I put some of effort into fixing the spelling and pun caution errors (In January, 31, 2008, Forth, european etc. ), these children truly need education. And I have absolutely no idea how this article is a Good Article. I found 2 duplicate references, text that has references yet is repeated in another section with a brand new reference, trivial text (In her Music and Influences section, there was something about her singing a pop rock song in a TV movie. Well the song was a Shadows of the Night cover and was not released in any soundtrack nor was it over 2 minutes long. So why is it mentioned in her Music and Influences section?), over linking (over 3 links that are all reliable but are all of these references necessary? There was a very reliable reference from her official site that supported half of the text in her Early Life section that had dozens of references: [6].

All of Tisdale's magazine covers were listed, and most of them referenced. Now is this necessary to list all of the covers she has been on, she has been on dozens of magazine covers.. Notable or not, these two users were searching everywhere to find these links. It was a massive collection of links. To support the text stating Tisdale auditioned for the roles of Gabriella and Sharpay in HSM, t High School Musical Pop Up Edition would be used as a source. When it is just text, not even a link. I found many paragraphs which have been over linked with 2-4 references each sentence stating the same thing.

In the career section there was a lot of references from blogs, celebrity blogs and fan sites etc. saying when Tisdale's promotional singles, real singles, re-releases, music video releases, re-releases for album and singles got released in Germany, The U.K, Brazil, Poland, The U.S. and on. Why list and reference all of the release dates for her album's deluxe edition and Radio Disney promo single? Since all of this is listed and referenced in Tisdale's music pages which include her album page, discography, and on.. There is a large amount of links from Just Jared and Just Jared Jr which is a gossip blog, the site is quite reliable but the site is a gossip, celebrity site that posts rumors as well. Since it would take time and space to list all of her minor television roles, I listed a few of them. Her most notable guest appearances. All of her guest appearances have been verified in the past (IMDB, her official site). So I don't see why two references were added to support her The Hughleys and Still Standing appearances: [7] Honestly I am so sick and tired of cleaning up that article. It gets reverted every time. Gimmetrow and Gprince007 have reverted Juanacho and Decodet's reverts to my trimmed version,but it seems that these multiple accounts are never going to stop reverting. I am so sick of this. Please can an admin please stop this.

Look at these:

I could explain each of these edits but I am honestly too tired to do so. There are many more edits that I would like to explain and show but at this moment I am not willing to do this. Can an admin please sort this out. This article need a lot of serious clean up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivewildes (talkcontribs) 14:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Without looking too deeply into this, there are no posts from any of the three editors on the talkpage of the article. I'm going to recommend to all three they start communicating on the talk page and thrash this out there. If they can't dispute resolution can be tried. Exxolon (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Nutshell: Juanacho has a habit of making big reverts, often using misleading edit summaries [23]. This is rather frustrating to other editors like Olivewildes. Gimmetrow 16:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Bootleggers 'reborn'[edit]

Resolved: Bootleggers redirected to Bootleg, dabs merged in

I remember a while back, an article on a web-based game called "Bootleggers" was deleted as non-notable, and eventually converted into a disambiguation. Now, someone has converted the dismambiguation page into an article on the game again, leaving the disambiguation links on the bottom. I would delete it, but I don't want to start an argument, so I'd rather get a consensus first. But as this has been brought up before(quite a long time ago, probably around a year). Is it even appropriate to list the game on the site?--Vercalos (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Converting a disambig into an article is the same as creating an article at a new title: it's cirucmventing AFD and should be deleted. And that "article" was a fluffy POV-spam thing, so it should be deleted regardless, which I have done. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Bootlegging and Bootlegger both point to the dab page Bootleg, yet Bootleggers points to a two entry dab page of its own. Doesn't make any sense to me, and a 2 entry dab page is against policy anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Fixed. Black Kite 12:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Rabbit[edit]

The Rabbit article has several very long sections that are copied verbatim from the Encyclopædia Britannica. It isn't that the E.B. isn't cited, but the length of the passages that is the problem. The entire section of: "Location and habitat", Characteristics and anatomy", "Behavior", and "Reproduction" are made entirely of material taken directly from EB. I added quotes and described the problem on the discussion page, but nothing has of yet been done. Could someone with better understanding of copyright policy and style guide please have a look at this? I double checked the text against my copy of EB, it is the same. My copy is: "rabbit." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica 2009 Student and Home Edition Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2009. Rapparee71 (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It could be that these tracts of text come from the 1911 edition with the expired copyright. A large number of our articles started off that way. Rklawton (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
No, the citation even states the 2007 version of the Encyclopædia Britannica Standard Edition. I added a non-free tag to the top of the article. I didn't know what else to do. It has four full sections that are direct copies. I added the quotes, but I'm pretty sure that that isn't proper usage.Rapparee71 (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, except that copyright applies to the first, not latest, appearence of the text in published form. It is entirely possible that Britannica has not updated their text since 1911, which would remove the copyvio problem. Does anyone have a 1911 copy, or a link to one online, which would show whether or not this was the case? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
here. Have fun ;-) SoWhy 13:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The original edits that introduced this copyvio. And this seems to be the 1911 text. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 13:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Apparently User talk:Serendipity15 was a known copyvio'er. He was known to add verbatim text copies of brittanica.com material occording to the block statement by User:Durova. It's a shame it took so long to detect these. I'll be going trough the rest of his contributions to be sure that we got it all this time. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
What does User talk:Serendipity15 have to do with it? The CV seem to have been made by User talk:Ed Brey, or have I missed something completely? --Slp1 (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Forget it and sorry. I missed the intermediate edits. Here's a better link that makes Serendipity's involvement clearer.[24]--Slp1 (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I was just about to correct that. Sorry for the confusion. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 15:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have had to remove significant sections of Mammal, and I have serious concerns over Hamster health conditions. The latter seems way too similar to it's primary source, and although edited before it was brought to wikipedia, if you compare the original and the wikipedia version, it is simple to recognize. Perhaps full on deletion of this article might be the best approach?? :( --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought we had a bot the googled random sections of major articles looking for copy vios, did this slip through the net somehow? Chillum 14:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
New articles afaik. Majorly talk 14:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
No, full deletion is an overblown "solution". Remove and rewrite the plagiarised parts as necessary, even stub it down if you have to. Deletion of an article as important as this is a bad idea though. Majorly talk 14:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I just discovered that he actually took Hamster health conditions out of the primary Hamster article. So it's not "his" plagiarism in this case. Still needs heavy rewriting regardless. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 15:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hamster health conditions taken care of. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 15:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Lastly, there are these edits to Hamster. Although some of these additions are still recognizable in the current text, they have been edited quite significantly over the years, and I don't think they should be blanked at this time. I have notified the talk page of this article, and will keep an eye out to see if any editor can clean it up appropriately. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 15:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone might also want to look at the other rabbit related articles to see if there are other violations in them. Rapparee71 (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting WT:UP discussion of non-contributors' user pages + some related MfDs[edit]

There's an interesting discussion started by MZMcBride going on at Wikipedia talk:User page#Non-contributors. There are also some related MfDs listed in the subsection below it. I encourage folks to add their comments pro and con; broader participation would be useful since user page content is a recurring tricky issue. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 16:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Block review[edit]

Could I get some people to take a look at the unblock request at User talk:Notabilitypatrol? It's a bit much to go over myself, however it seems Golbez has some good points about the conduct of this user. Considering the massive amount of text on that page, I felt the review would be better handled by several sets of eyes rather than one or two random admins that happen by the unblock category. Thanks, all. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Golbez should not have made this block; there is too much personal involvement. Golbez should have brought the problem to ANI and requested another admin to block. This block should be reversed on principle, leaving it open to any other uninvolved admin to make a fresh block. Looie496 (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Without commenting on this specific block, blocks should not be reversed on principal, they should be reverse for good reasons only. Chillum 01:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Without commenting on the block itself as I have yet to review it, I am curious why (as you never stated the block was improper) would the block need to be reversed? I understand the need for un-involvement, but if it is a good block why waste everyone's time by undoing it, then having someone else redo it? No need for all that pointless bureaucracy. Tiptoety talk 01:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed - but a note to the offending admin with appropriate suggestions would be in order. Rklawton (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Not agreed. In my opinion, it is bad to have procedures that encourage admins to make dubious blocks. If the default, once a block has been made, is to maintain it unless there is consensus that it is bad, that encourages bad blocks. It should be standard operating procedure for blocks by involved admins to reverse them and then look for consensus. Looie496 (talk) 05:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Pull it. User has been fairly good at adressing specific complaints so there is hope for improvement.Geni 01:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I am more concerned about the user blanking every warning and scrambling other messages so that the conversation on the page is completely incomprehensible. I warned the user about biting a newbie and it was blanked; they responded to this as harassment, then I restated again that no, it wasn't so, it was a reminder to stay cool, which was once again blanked. I know users have a right to blank whatever they want on talk outside of warnings, but the user has changed his page so much it's hard to follow any of the threads brought up. I'm also trying to stay on the periphery of this due to the editor accusing me (and others voting to keep) of being a sock based on my vote in a previous AfD (which was later closed as punitive); I don't want to get involved in this drama and feel backing off is better than anything else. I don't have any comments as far as the block, but the user's actions suggest that sanctions might be in order should they continue to be an editor here. Nate (chatter) 02:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I am aware of this discussion. As for the block, for several days I realized this editor needed some form of discipline, and while I was compiling my large list of grievances I realized that if I took this to RFAR I would likely be treated with a "This is a duck, just block them". If it is reversed, I certainly won't wheelwar over it. But I do suggest people look at the two-faced behavior of this editor, from forging comments (if anyone believes the story about it being a clipboard error...) to claiming to be so distraught over a "death threat" that they care not to delve into it and can't be bothered to give a link... but then continue to repeatedly bring up the death threat in some effort to garner sympathy. But my case has been made; fortunately it's in the history if we need to take this to RFC, either for them or for me. Should I have blocked? Possibly not, in fact I refrained for several days because I was so involved, but those days just gave more and more grounds for a block. Oh, and FYI, I am not stalking NotabilityPatrol in real life, nor do I intend to cause them any physical harm. Shock and disbelief, maybe. --Golbez (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I can see that Golbez did little wrong here. Based mostly on his username, Notabilitypatrol irked my "spideysense" and has been riding the disruption fence since he first showed up. Golbez may have been quite involved, but I don't see where this user has the best interests in Wikipedia at heart. Might it have been better to ask another admin to do the block? Possibly. Should this user be unblocked because of that minor lapse in judgement. No... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User has now asserted on their talk page once the block is dropped they will ask for a name change to "The Gigabyte Granny"; do we want to userblock that name and "TheGigabyteGranny" until a block expiration in case they try to register and round their block? Nate (chatter) 03:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Not until they show some semblance of calm and reasonableness. If they can ask like someone who seems like they will be helpful in the future, fine, but until then, I wouldn't trust that they aren't just going to be the same until a different username. If they cannot even make a request without being insulting or aggressive like that, we really trust that they are going well in talk discussions? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
And I think "I regret that I give up. It is clear User:Golbrez has won in his campaign to run me off wikipedia" means it's all a moot point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Yet he (or she? who knows, but I very much doubt this is a little old grandma; funny how until a couple of days ago he'd never mentioned anything about age and stuff, but all of a sudden there's grandkids and witnessing the moon landings and the holocaust?) continues to spend lots of time and energy editing their supposed goodbye speech. I continue to be amused by them claiming I have so many extra hours a day to spend on this than them, when they managed to wrack up an average of 50+ edits a day during their time here, not to mention an impressive 50+ edits in just the last eight hours. I very much doubt every word this person says; if they do turn out to be a little old lady named Gladys (again, funny, how she'd be giving me MORE personal, identifiable information, if she's so afraid of me stalking her IRL?) then I'm deeply sorry; I won't hold my breath on that one though. He's not a little old lady, I doubt he's a zoologist, and I doubt he's said a single true word during all this. He's just someone, perhaps an existing user, who knows, who has some agenda against public radio and Luke Burbank for whatever reason, and has resorted to near-insane tactics. --Golbez (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Golbrez probably should have brought this up here rather than blocking himself, given his involvement, but I also agree with those above who thought that the account seemed awfully fishy. I'm basically not convinced that the operator of the account is all that interested in constructive contributions to the project. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC).

The user in question has noted that she had a prior account. It might be useful to know which account for the purpose of determining whether or not the current account might constitute an active block evasion. Rklawton (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that the block has been repeatedly reviewed and eventually declined, I think we can assume this was a good block(we can also tell by the contribs of the blockee). As to if the correct admin made the block, that is a matter for debate, but is more relevant to the admin than the block. Chillum 14:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
In future, if consensus is that the block was essentially a good one but that the admin wasn't strictly uninvolved, one solution might be for a different admin to re-block with the same settings. This is less bureaucratic than automatically unblocking and (assuming consensus supports a block) later reblocking, and it removes the incentive for anyone to protest admin abuse.
In this particular case, I could informally hazard a guess as to which username this editor might have used before. Hint: [they] Received Death Threats. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
User:IReceivedDeathThreats is blocked indefinitely already for that username (block log contains link to the RFCN, if anyone cares). Taking a brief look at that account's contributions, it seems they also had a slight to moderate temper issue. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Joke accounts[edit]

Resolved: Users warned, one sock blocked.//roux   20:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Its the Cookie Monster (talk · contribs) is going around adding {{cookie}} to various User_talk: pages. I have a few questions:

  1. Are joke accounts allowed?
  2. Is this a role account?
  3. At what point does it become more than a joke and cross into disruption?

--MZMcBride (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(Also, can someone please inform the user of this thread, if appropriate. Thanks!)

I would say it's a role account, and we don't allow accounts that have no interest in making edits to the encyclopedia. --Golbez (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I see no evidence of a role account here - no reason to think more than one person is operating it. However, I do believe that this account isn't here to help build the encyclopedia - and I think that this may justify a block. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Not an admin, just an observer, but I don't think this account should be blocked. I think they should be told that while giving out {{cookie}}s is a good thing, they should be working on articles too. Let's not break out the banhammer before the person has the chance to show they are willing to be a contributing member of Wikipedia. - NeutralHomerTalk • March 3, 2009 @ 07:24
As an uninvolved admin, strongly agree with NeutralHomer. Please warn before blocking. This is not a role account, just probably a newbie fooling around. Andre (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The moment I saw this thread header I imagined the usernames "What did Tennessee?" and "The same thing Arkansas". :P -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 07:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not an admin, but rather a new user who is the target of several attacks by the user who I believe is the sockpuppeteer account of this one in question. One BeebleBrox has been harassing me since I first showed up. Him and his other alt account, BACON EXPLOSION, trolled me within a day of my accounts creation. Beeble is hiding behind the ruse that I am only on this website to have a social network or something, when in reality I am merely taking my time to create and article for this site. He and his alt accounts will not leave me alone, and I don't know what to do. I fear he is trying to get me banned because he hates me for some reason that I do not know.--GaryDaFatSnail (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, that doesn't really have anything to do with the discussion in this section, but... the reason Beeblebrox has been trying to engage you in conversation is that we are all here primarily to build an encyclopedia. A certain amount of social interaction goes along with that, and goes a long way towards fostering a collegial and cooperative work environment. The problem with your editing is that you are only using the site for chatting and whatnot, and that is not what Wikipedia is for. If what you want is social networking, please feel free to visit Facebook or Xanga or MySpace or LiveJournal or BeBo or any of the thousands of networking sites out there. At the same time, please start actually editing articles (try clicking here and correcting any errors you see, but you should probably read this first). Users who are here solely for socializing tend to be blocked from editing, period. Cheers. //roux   09:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I recomend giving a level 1 civilty warn to User:GaryDaFatSnail and then semiprotecting his talk page for a couple of days thus forcing him to do something that contributes to the encyclopedia.  rdunnPLIB  10:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
FOR GODS SAKE! I am currently working on a page to add. What is it with you morons always trying to rush me to post something! It is not my fault that I have people trolling on my talk page, I AM NOT USING IT AS A SOCIAL NETWORK I AM NOT!! Please, just stop the other people from posting on it! Warn them, not me!--GaryDaFatSnail (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Your warnings for breaking the image use policy, and making non-constructive talk page edits do not constitute trolling. Papa November (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolution[edit]

  1. {{uw-socialnetwork}} left for User:Its the Cookie Monster
  2. No evidence seen for sockpuppetry by User:Beeblebrox.
  3. Warnings regarding image use policy, civility, assuming good faith and social networking left for User:GaryDaFatSnail
  • User:GaryDaFatSnail - Stronger Warning Required? - Call me old fashioned but I think that threatening to "CRUSH YOUR SKULL IN" to another user warrants a stronger response - see [25]. Exxolon (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    Genuine threats of physical violence warrant a block, but I assumed this was just a rather abrasive comment. I'm watching the user in the hope that he'll eventually become a constructive contributor, but I won't object if another admin thinks a block is necessary. Papa November (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to note that early edits by Gary and Bacon indicate that they probably know each other in "the real world," but I don't know what bizarre game is being played here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I've run across these two before. They're schoolmates. They register for accounts, grief each other, get blocked, and create new accounts. Feel free to block both of them as they've been doing this for quite awhile and they're both quite unsalvageable. Rklawton (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
      Can you remember any previous usernames? Papa November (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I've reviewed my talk page history and my block log, but nothing stands out. It's been a long time, sorry. Rklawton (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Issue for further followup? Its the Cookie Monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has got a sign here to support me campaign started their userpage, in response to a supposed 3 month block by an unnamed admin. Checking their block log, no such block exists. User also admits being BACON EXPLOSION (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Blocked for block evasion. Rklawton (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
      • That's probably for the best; methinks someone was peeking out from under their bridge, there. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Range block review[edit]

Can I get a sanity check on these? User:Moulton is back (again) and I just punted a couple of his dynamic ranges. rootology (C)(T) 00:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the range which includes 141.154.72.204 (talk · contribs). I suspect the ranges you are aiming for should be at a minimum 141.154.64.0/20 and 141.154.80.0/21. You've blocked 4096 Verizon IPs for six months, or 6144 IPs including the range you missed, but I can only see 3 IPs from these ranges which you have had any dealings with recently. A proper sanity check would ask if you have balanced the collateral against the benefit for the next six months. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that he has access to most of the major IP ranges in the Boston area and the IPv6 nodes. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Bot gone crazy[edit]

Resolved: Done. Kralizec! (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:SoxBot has a typo and is replacing lots of links with "expn" instead of "espn," like on the Amanda Beard article. Maybe someone wants to turn it off?--Braindude (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Done - bot blocked for three hours. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
And fixed already by the owner! --Kralizec! (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Antony C. Sutton[edit]

Resolved: bad links removed
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Is it me, or is this article full of links to copyright violations? THF (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What links? I see only links to the subject's website and to Google. However, if you see any copyvios, just delete them. I've already deleted the image as an obvious copyvio. The image was taken from one of his books.
I believe THF is talking about the links in the Bibliography section. These point to a Russian and an American copyvio website. Admiral Norton (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks -- I wanted to get consensus before I removed these links; didn't want to be accused of furthering a conspiracy. THF (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah! Thanks. Do we know these are copyvio sites? Could the author have released them for online publication? While that's not the typical approach to publication, the author is not typical, either. If we're sure they're copyvios, then I vote we remove the links. Rklawton (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The Russian one is a copyvio and these are pretty common on the web, reformed-theology.org and reformation.org apparently claim they have permission of the author (see bottom of this and this page), the book on indymedia.org was scanned by some nicknamed contributor (very probably a copyvio). I had removed the links prior to commenting here, but I couldn't note that here because of my intermittent internet connection. Admiral Norton (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Wheel warring by YellowMonkey[edit]

Yesterday, in the discussion #Stopping a vicious circle of blocking and account creation, I unblocked a user after the blocking user confirmed my understanding that "It looks like the discussion there's resolved."

Today, YellowMonkey, whom I had also invited to the discussion, re-blocked the same user without consensus for doing so.

I only want to report this here; I will not pursue this matter anymore. I have more important things to do with my life, and I am taking this occasion to take an indefinite wikibreak. — Sebastian 07:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Per the thread you cite: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Stopping_a_vicious_circle_of_blocking_and_account_creation, you did not have consensus to perform an unblock. Also, are you a checkuser? Cirt (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
From what I've read in that thread and this one, you unblocked a clear sockpuppet for no reason I can ascertain. Yellowmonkey replaced this block which (also from that thread) you had no consensus to remove in the first place. Am I correct or am I missing something about assuming good faith to someone who has already had that chance and abused it?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I just want to make sure I understand what happened Sebastian. From this comment, the blocked editor promised to "remain civil and follow Wikipedia:SLR", correct? Then you said that because you felt the blocked admin was "awake but hadn't objected" [but never commented in the thread, you decided to unblock, even though I can't find anyone in the thread who supported that action. I will say that User:East718's comment after-the-fact that he doesn't have a real opinion on the original block I guess could justify this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll note here that WP:UNBLOCK requires that the blocking admin be consulted except in the case that it was an obviously bad block. Also, a checkuser block shouldn't (though I don't know if there is policy on this) be overturned without consulting the checkuser. I've unblocked some people without directly consulting the blocking admin (or seeing their tacit consent elsewhere), and each time I've realized it was a mistake. If I did unblock someone where the original block was reasonable and the admin blocked them again, I would consider that confirmation that the blocking admin disagreed with my decision (not a wheel war). Unblocking someone where the blocking admin continues to assert the validity of the block requires much more certainty than reversing one where they are ambivalent or supportive of the unblock. If you asserted in the unblock log or on the talk page that you felt the blocking admin had made a mistake (however reasonable or expected that mistake might have been) and YM reverted you, that could be considered a wheel war (IMO). Protonk (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • A new sockpuppet is busily forum shopping.[26] DurovaCharge! 18:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

40 lashes, Joe Taliban, etc.[edit]

Resolved: Blocks for everyone! Tony Fox (arf!) 17:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Seem to be connected with the following, as discussed above: [29]

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

The above are the latest (at this writing) of users created for the sole purpose of posting spurious warnings. This has been referenced in several places in ANI already. Can something be done to choke off any attempted new ones for awhile? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually intended to post this at WP:ANI, but I'll leave it here for now also. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
40 lashes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Joe Taliban (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
don't belong to
Melienas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log).

Melienas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is part of my accounts.Cheares11 (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've started an RFCU to look for sleeper accounts. Mangojuicetalk 21:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Assistance on Action T4[edit]

I've been having some issues with a new user on the Action T4 article. It stems from a content dispute, but since I am involved I am hesitant to use my admin tools. I did however protect the talk page briefly (1 hr) since one of the users (an anon with dynamic IP) has been trying to remove my own comments. If I could have another admin look in on it, I would appreciate it. Thanks, --19:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SemBubenny[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. SemBubenny (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been found to have failed or refused to communicate with editors who have raised questions about his administrator actions. As such SemBubenny is admonished and warned to:

  • speedy-delete only articles that fall within the criteria for speedy deletion or are otherwise blatantly inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, and to err on the side of caution in cases of doubt, unless the article contains BLP violations or implicates matters of similarly high concern;
  • provide clear explanations of his administrator actions and to respond promptly and civilly to questions and comments regarding such actions; and
  • not to take administrator action regarding any matter where he would be unable or unwilling to reasonably discuss any questions or concerns that may arise regarding that action.

Should SemBubenny continue to delete phobia articles outside of process, the user may be brought back to the Committee and a motion to desysop can be requested.

For the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 19:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

User:ParaGreen13[edit]

Resolved: Already at ANI //roux   21:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to take this to ANI as it's not immediately ongoing, nor is it of vital importance that anything is done quickly. ParaGreen13 (talk · contribs) has had multiple warnings regarding his/her use of the term 'negro' as a replacement for 'African-American' on articles such as Roger E. Mosley and Obesity. I feel that he/she has repeatedly ignored warnings that this term is offensive and addition of it can be classed as vandalism, and the user continues to add such remarks to articles. I am not going to ask for anything in particular, but instead would like opinion on what should be done here. Thanks. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's already at ANI. //roux   21:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
My bad, sorry. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh please, I've spent today correcting myself from capitalising improperly. We're all basically kinda dumb ;) //roux   21:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding picture[edit]

I work for the Tioga Central Railroad and I am trying to upload the newer version of our logo. I uploaded the picture to the wikimedia site but can not change it out. Last time i contacted an administrator and they changed the picture for me, so who should i send the picture to in order to change it out. Thank you very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jss5104 (talkcontribs) 23:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Latest ED attacks[edit]

I've been playing whack-a-vandal for nearly two hours over what I'm certain is another coordinated Encyclopedia Dramatica attack. Plausible sounding usernames, vandal articles regarding a non-existent book about Jimbo Wales. I've been simply blocking the accounts and the talk pages and I've been salting the titles as they've been coming in. Anyone with a CU want to run a check on some of these and maybe hit them with a range block?

FYI, the most recent attack came from User:HobbyHorseday. I suspect that there's a sleeper under a similar username a bit farther down the list. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

And a second one for fun, [30]. If there is a common range a block might be nice. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Still another one, but someone else just got it. The title variations have been along the lines of "Jimbo Wales Is A Thieving Cunt" and other such monstrosities. What makes me laugh is the fact that these kids log on, they follow their marching orders, the article goes up, it comes down in about ten seconds and their account is permanently blocked. I once read that the true definition of an idiot is someone who repeatedly does the same thing while hoping for a different outcome. We persist. Back to the new user log. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Dangit! Who says Jimbo is a thief! I don't have CU, but I can block with the best of them. Rklawton (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Right on, bro. :) I'm tagging and bagging as quick as they come in. Seems to have quieted down. The first one I blocked was User:Lyger99 and I've requested a CU on that account. Dang, it's harder to file a CU than it is to block the socks, but if we can initiate a few range blocks, it would have been worth it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sign me up for CU. Um, where are the rules? Rklawton (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You have any actual proof these are people coming from ED, other than your own suspicions? Jtrainor (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, just my own suspicions. It fits their MO. All of the pages are basically the same, no one person is likely to have such a broadly shifting dynamic IP nor will a single person (short of a psychopath) would be hammering this site for hour after hour. It's a clear variation on the "Grawp" attacks. I was the victim of a coordinated attack the other day. Multiple usernames, one username after the other either pretending to be the "Pee-Wee Herman" vandal or usernames insulting me. It was utterly relentless for the bettter part of an hour. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Aren't these attacks usually from 4chan? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You're right. I forgot about that charming little group. One way or another, it's still coming. Blocked the first sock at 2359 UTC on the 4th. I just blocked yet another at 0346 UTC on the 5th. Sheesh. Kids. :( --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Just checked the checkuser report...and it may in fact be one person responsible for all this idiocy for the past four hours (with apologies to 4chan and ED). No shortage of insanity on the internet, eh? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lyger99/Archive & RMHED (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). rootology (C)(T) 05:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Remember WP:BLOCKME?[edit]

Resolved: Moved to WT:BLOCK. Protonk (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I recently came across a situation where Ikip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) apparently asked to be blocked and the request was granted. I remembered going through new admin school and reading about WP:BLOCKME and thinking that wasn't right. I went to the WP:Blocking Policy and found to my surprise that it was no longer policy. Looking a little further I found where it went but couldn't find any discussion. Did I miss something? Toddst1 (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I would gather someone removed it because it's not that difficult to find an admin who will block you at your request, so the policy wasn't really set in stone any longer. –xeno (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
A user has two options: ask nicely, or do something stupid. All things considered, I'd rather users have two options in hopes they'll take the former. Rklawton (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, in fact, I removed it, saying I'd block anyone who asked. Saves them the trouble of plastering NSFW images across my userpage. I certainly have blocked people on their initiative (this guy comes to mind), so it also isn't policy on the grounds it is not what happens. Why wouldn't you block someone who asked? WilyD 03:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't bother investigating. It isn't policy, i'd prefer that people not do it (especially in cases where the user appears to be cruising for a block for unrelated behavior), but I can't elevate that preference to some binding principle. The right answer (IMO) is that we just don't block people. Either they install a wikibreak enforcer, scramble their password and disable email, or just walk away from the project. The kind of person who, when told that we don't do blocks on request, determines that the best course of action is to warrant a block otherwise shouldn't be our guiding light to change policy.
As for the ikip block itself, I asked the blocking admin and received a prickly response. Beyond that, I don't see any reason to bring up old issues. Protonk (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Whoa...scratch half my comment. We removed this section of policy? Anyone mind if I move this discussion to the blocking policy talk page? Protonk (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't mind. Maybe I should have brought it there instead. Toddst1 (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Ahmad Batebi -- He is revising his own page and is changing verified facts with misleading and unsourced materials. Conflict of interest issue.[edit]

I have noticed that Ahmad Batebi is editing his own page, and repeatedly replaces verified and sourced information with unverified content that is extremely misleading. In addition, for some reason, he does not want to allow certain information to be posted, despite the fact that the information is extremely relevant, verified, and neutral. If someone wishes to change the story of his own life due to whatever the circumstances of the particular phase in his life may be, that is best done on a personal blog or website, not on Wikipedia. The revisions that Mr. Batebi makes to his own page are not neutral, they present a conflict of interest problem under Wikipedia guidelines, and the fact that they are unsourced and slanted towards what Mr. Batebi has decided is in his best interest at this time in his life only adds to the problem. I find this behavior extremely problematic and would like to ask for a page edit protection or some other type of Admin intervention. --Kindness55 (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Stopping a vicious circle of blocking and account creation[edit]

This seems to be pretty much done. Unblocked user has been reblocked; see further down the page: Wheel-warring by YellowMonkey for the rest of it.//roux   19:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

A chain of administrators recently have been busy blocking sockpuppets of user:Melienas. He/she is not recreating accounts in bad faith, as is clearly evident from his/her openness about it. For this reason, and based on what I wrote at WP:HD#How to prevent a vicious circle of account creation and blocking, I would therefore like to unblock one of these accounts. I'll watch that account and nudge them towards becoming a normal editor. — Sebastian 18:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the problem here is the use of sockpuppuets. YellowMonkey initially indefinitely banned the user due to the nature of his edits, inclduing repeated WP:BLP violations. If you see the edit summery one of his socks used here [31], you can understand the type of user we are dealing with. Unless their initial block is overturned, per banning policy, they are not allowed to edit pages on this project anymore. Therefore I don't think the ban should be overturned. The orignal account's unban request was denied by Sandstein this morning [32]. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 18:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
But then it's not an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Rklawton (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
So we should get rid of bans altogether? Let every other vandal do as they please?--snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 18:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
You'll have to ask Sebastian. It was his/her idea. Rklawton (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course not. I have myself blocked people before. That is just an appeal to ridicule. I think my point is clear, that blocking is not the panacea, and it is a particularly bad idea if different partisan opinions in a heavily disputed conflict are involved. It's futile to try to enforce censorship by blocking accounts here. — Sebastian 19:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
So removing junk science and conspiracy theories from articles is censorship? Isn't that a bad thing? And I've had great luck getting rid of vandals via blocking, so while it might not be a cure-all, it sure helps. Rklawton (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I can't talk about junk science, I have stayed away from that area ever since the incident from which User:Paul August saved me, for which I nominated him for admin many years ago. In the area of this case, I found that only patience with the people behind the accounts helped. I've seen it work with editors from both sides, and I believe it is the main reason why the Sri Lanka conflict has less problems with sockpuppets than other areas. (See also WP:SLR#Why we can do without trickery.) — Sebastian 19:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to ridicule the comment. I was merely pointing out that there are people who are banned from editing the English Wikipedia. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 19:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem - we know each other well enough to not be offended by such things. And I agree with your point; I'm not completely against all banning. — Sebastian 19:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
(EC) I'm very well aware of what you mean by "repeated WP:BLP" - this is a silly revert war, which we already discussed at length at WT:SLR. As I pointed out there, this would have been easily preventable, if we had stuck to the "Don't re-revert" rule. If you guys had agreed with that, then I would have protected the article in your version.
The reason given for the indef block of the sockpuppeteer is "sock troll". — Sebastian 19:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Melienas (talk · contribs) is not the original account. I believe it is Marinecore88 (talk · contribs). The first edit by Melienas was a revert to Marinecore88's version, with the summary "RS supports". That doesn't sound like a new user.[33] --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 19:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that seems very plausible. — Sebastian 19:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
And Marinecore88's unblock request was denied this morning [34], not by a partisan editor seeking censorship of Wikipedia, but by, I pretty sure, a neutral admin. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 19:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this editor has done a number of bad edits. But I wouldn't condemn them forever for that. That was a month ago, and they has shown signs of goodwill since. — Sebastian 19:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Another sock is Sobberrs. Ruslik (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think calling YellowMonkey a "Psycho ArbCom Troll on Tamil issues", asking me to take online English lessons because I extensively lack writing skills, accusing admins of vandalism etc etc within the last week are signs of good will. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 20:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, these are not nice. But it wouldn't be the first user who started out like this and mellowed down with the help of WP:SLR. As long as we keep hectically pounding the user, it's only human that he/she reacts emotionally. Why not give it a try and break that vicious circle? — Sebastian 20:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Why should we trust that user to behave calmly when all that is asked is basic civility? Don't write that people are "maggots" on their articles and don't create a million other accounts to try to do the same thing. If the user's normal reaction is to melt down like this, I really don't want them anywhere near this project. If you cannot do a basic thing like read what people are criticizing and respond appropriately, you don't get to play here. Period. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The answer is simple: Because it works. Trust me, I have two years experience doing just that here. And please don't be so judgmental about other people who may live under circumstances that you may not even imagine. Are you sure you would be always civil if you experienced this trauma? — Sebastian 20:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
That is a noble mission, but don't expect all others to join in, and don't be surprised if some do not. It's secondary to Wikipedia's primary mission: write a free and reliable encyclopedia. Rklawton (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you. To be honest, I did put in more time than I would have if I were only motivated by Wikipedia's primary mission. See my reply here. — Sebastian 21:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
It is a noble mission, and an inspiring one. I can only wish for as much patience and dedication as Sebastian has shown in guiding editing in a topic area that could very easily be as much of a disaster as Sri Lanka is itself. If Marinecore88 can come to realize that civility and well-sourced research pays, and that there are two sides to every conflict, (both on and off WP), then I would actually construe this as being, in a small way, part of WP's primary mission to bring knowledge to the world. If s/he can't, well, we just block again. I trust Sebastian, and if he is willing to give it a go, I say let him try. --Slp1 (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your votes of confidence. It's deep night in South Asia now, so I'd like to give the blocking admin and the blocked editor a chance to say something before I proceed. — Sebastian 22:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Got a promise from blocked editor, and the blocking admin is awake but has not objected. I will therefore resolve this. Thanks everybody! — Sebastian 02:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)    (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)

Er no, there have been periodic sock bursts from the city of the said sock every now and then, all with intricate knowledge of all Wiki policies. Just the usual rampage from meatpuppets and socks. Seb, you've been had, again. Simply saying that one is sad about some victims of war doesn't mean people are here for fthe right reasons. Quite a few "model" users on that project consistent make synthesis to push their POV, adding massacre cats when no proof of intent vis a vis deliberate premeditating/targeting of air strikes. Most articles on SLR are a joke. Some people might be polite, but given that they are part of the media outlets and PR for some groups in the RL conflict, it's no wonder. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I strongly agree with the first comment in this thread by Snowolfd4 (talk · contribs), as well as this most recent one by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both for giving me the occasion to counter your opinions with facts that highlight the achievements of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation with respect to sockpuppets. In 1996, before the project was founded, sockpuppets were one of the big problems in the SL conflict. A big raid on sockpuppets in fall 1996 did cut down on sockpuppets, but also left good editors with deep scars, such as Lahiru, who apparently had been wrongly accused because of technical pecularities of the IP number system in Sri Lanka. Since the project was founded, this ceased to be a problem altogether.
The reason for the present problem is that the user was caught in a vicious circle, from which they could not escape on their own. By addressing such issues calmly, we always break the vicious circle. We treat people like people with emotions and shortcomings, not like dreadful demons that need to be banned for eternity. We're not afraid of any bullies or sockpuppets, and we don't give in to any POV pusher. We set clear boundaries. This includes our unprecedented system of classification of sources, which alone reduced the incidence of edit fights dramatically. This will shortly also include our new Don't re-revert! rule, which will effectively eliminate edit warring, including any advantage people might gain from sockpuppets and tag teams. Facing our strict rules, some decided to leave, and others stayed and became better editors. Many, from both sides of the conflict, decided to join the project. I don't think anyone can deny this success.
Your disagreements with individual users and your assessment of the quality of articles are off topic here. You are cordially invited to bring that up at our project talk page, where we welcome editors regardless of their position in the conflict. But you have to be concrete, as vague allegations are against another one of our strict rules. — Sebastian 05:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
After looking further I also agree with the decision to decline the unblock request as judged by Sandstein (talk · contribs) [35], who cited this disturbing diff of the sockpuppet on a WP:BLP article. Cirt (talk) 11:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


Hello everyone, it is me Marinecore88, unfortunately my account has been blocked so I made this account (notice the extra 8) to have a opportunity to voice my opinion here. First I'd like to thank Sebastien for his support. I appreciate it very much and I promise to be a well contributing member of this site if given the chance. The two only incidents of vandalism I made were a month ago, but I've not vandalised since and I've taken a serious stance on editing by voicing my opinions on the SLR page. I'm commited to making this site a better representation of what it should be. The first thing I'd like to note is that I am not associated at ALL with Melienas‎/Meliioure‎/Sobberrs‎/Cheares or any other accounts. The only accounts I have are Marinecore88 and this new one. I've been mistakenly marked as a sockpuppet. There is a large tamil population in my city so this maybe why yellowmonkey thought I was related with them (I don't really know how IP's work, but i'm guesing similar ISP's from similar areas have similar IPs? yes? no?), but I have no idea who they are or there stances. Melienas wrote on my talk page about one of the controversial edits but I've not been able to reply because I was blocked. Also, I believe users Sowhy and C_J_M_B, agreed with me that there were no WP:BLP violations, as I had argued on the SLR page. I admit I've made mistakes in the past but I'm ready to be a serious editor, including using the SLR page rather than do these revert wars. I have a strong ability in both english and knowledge on the SLR conflict. I'd like to use this account (or my other one if i could have it back) to help where possible. Also please note again that I am not involved with Melienas‎/Meliioure‎/Sobberrs‎/Cheares so any issues with them still would need to be adressed after you've delt with me, since we are not related at all. Thanks again. --Marinecore888 (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Another sock? [36] Compare against [37] --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 23:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats not me if thats what your trying to say. Considering that you've falsely accused me and other users of WP:fringe, Wp:BLP, and vandalism, can you, Snowolfd4, please stop accusing people of being socks just because they have a different opinion than you. Again, Marincecore88 and this are my only accounts. PLease ignore Snowolf4d who seems to have his own agenda. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SebastianHelm#Marinecore88.E2.80.8E.2FMelienas.E2.80.8E.2FMeliioure.E2.80.8E.2FSobberrs.E2.80.8E.2FCheares please read Cheares comment where he acknowledges that I was not part of his several accounts. --Marinecore888 (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

From my CU analysis, I've  Confirmed that StopGenocide=Marinecore888. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I respect Nishkid64's findings. He has a proven track record of being neutral in the Sri Lanka conflict. It doesn't necessarily mean that Marinecore lied; as I wrote above, the SL system of IP addresses has already burnt other editors. But it does mean that we have to treat the two accounts as one. This is settled, since YellowMonkey already blocked StopGenocide indefinitely for this reason. — Sebastian 05:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
FYI, these accounts have nothing to do with Sri Lanka. They're pretty far away in fact. [38] --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 12:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Another sock showed up and started spamming forum shopping complaints against Yellowmonkey, and has been blocked. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Wheel_warring_by_YellowMonkey. When weighing the appeal of a sitebanned editor it's important to double check their assertions before deciding whether to try a test unblock. Sebastian's heart may have been in the right place, but this was not well done. DurovaCharge! 19:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability check on Bleeping Computer[edit]

Resolved: The consensus seems fairly clear here. Back to the drawing board! Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I recently userified this article after speedy deleting it A7. An editor has since made further additions to the page, with an emphasis on finding reliable sources that discuss the topic. This user is now asking me if it should be placed back into the mainspace. The article is now clearly beyond A7, which is good, but I'm still not entirely convinced that it would survive an AfD nomination. As I'm a little bit involved here, I would appreciate it if some uninvolved editors who are knowledgeable about such things (particularly WP:WEB) could have a gander and offer an opinion on whether they think the article is ready for the mainspace yet.

Apologies if there is somewhere better to post this - the help desk didn't seem particularly appropriate, and I wanted to cast the net wide for some opinions from more experienced editors. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC).

I once used that site to clear some adware junk from my PC. So I don't know if it qualifies as notable in general, but in my case it did. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
It clearly fails criteria 2 and 3 of WEB, so the question is whether or not it meets the WP:GNG. There is no "gotcha" reference - an article devoted to the topic in a reliable source, so the question becomes "does this satisfy the five pillars anyway" – is this an encyclopaedic topic on which it is possible to write a decent-length, reliably sourced, neutral article that does not engage in original research? At this point, looking at the sources on Google News, I would say that it is not, because the coverage does not go beyond passing mentions. I'd advise the editor to wait until a noteworthy publication gives the site a write-up. For future reference, the usual forum for returning deleted articles to the articlespace is WP:DRV. Hope this helps, Skomorokh 12:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought it desirable, given the editor is a newbie, to get some quick preliminary opinions before sending it to DRV, as they can quite often be merciless over there and I don't see any point in wasting their time unless there's a reasonable chance the article will make it through. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC).
(edit conflict) If the editor just wants to know if it meets notability, it might also be appropriate to seek feedback in a forum like WT:WEB or some relevant wikiproject or the other, since this isn't an admin issue, per se, and speedies don't necessarily need consensus for recreation. Generally, when asked to userfy articles, that's what I'll suggest. (Quite frequently WP:COIN works, since often I find those asking for userfication are in some way involved with the subject.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi folks, pardon me for sticking my nose in, (having sworn off the drama boards, and de-watchlisting such things), but perhaps I can offer two sides to a "coin" (so to speak). To a computer tech, yes - without a doubt, Bleeping Computer is quite notable. In fact, the very mention of their site on Microsoft alone, is a huge deal (at least for them). There have been many articles about the site in computer niche mags. When us geeks get together, very few folks are unaware of the site. They are reliable, and provide some very valuable resources and innovative information and tools.
On the other side of the coin, computer related articles can be notoriously difficult to get up to snuff here. Part of the reason is the constant and rapid change in technology, viruses, and resources. Secondly, the technical knowledge required to discuss (or publish) this kind of information often leads editors (main stream as opposed to wikipedians), to avoid such topics in fear of looking like fools. As the article stands now, I would not be surprised in the least if it didn't make the cut at an XfD discussion. I'd probably suggest that the editor look for some assistance at the Computer Project here, or more specifically at the Security project here. The geek contingent at Wikipedia isn't real high, but it does seem to be growing somewhat. I'd suggest the editor keep the article in user space, expand and modify the "Media" section to paragraph form per MOS - get some feedback from some of the other computer geeks around, tweak, and then move to article space. all IMHO — Ched ~ (yes?) 19:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Bunch of indef blocked IPs need review[edit]

We got an email today at on the unblock list for an IP address that had been indefinitely blocked by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me several years ago. On looking further, it seems there were several hundred of these blocked during his tenure as an administrator, nearly 200 of which are still under these blocked. I'm personally sick and tired of looking at block logs, having been at this for more hours than I'd care to mention, but if some really bored administrators wouldn't mind reviewing and shortening or lifting these blocks where appropriate, some potential editors would probably appreciate it. They're all listed at User:Hersfold/Vandal watch#Indef-blocked IPs by User:Cscwem. Please remove these listings when they are no longer indefinite blocks. Thanks, all! Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

He tends to have less patience for random IP vandalism than most of us do, and most of us don't like it to begin with. HalfShadow 04:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd gathered that by going through his entire block log... I'd forgotten when I started that he has the highest number of blocks by several thousand, despite having been desysopped for the last several months. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  1. Open proxies - report to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. Those which still are should be shortened to 5 years (current duration for open proxy blocks); those which aren't should be unblocked.
  2. Other IP addresses - I think we should just unblock; however, if they are from IP addresses with a major history of abuse, it should be shortened to a year from the original block time.
עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

HBC Archive Indexerbot down ?[edit]

Resolved

The HBC Archive Indexerbot appears to be down/switched off/bored with it's job. It's set to run twice daily but the log says that the last run was 11:23:27 26 February 2009. I left a message for Krellis a few days ago but they don't appear to be around. So, here I am wondering what to do now. Any thoughts ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Email is the best way to notify him, aparently. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
ahh..didn't think of that rather-obvious-in-hindsight solution. many thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Should be all set now, see my talk for the reply and resolution. —Krellis (Talk) 11:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Tarysky[edit]

After looking at the block around User:Tarysky, I feel that the "indef" is excessive. I would recommend that this would be shorten to something more appropriate based on the standard scale. The first, and only other block, was for 48 hours and skips standard progression. So, what would the next step be? I really don't know. I would recommend somewhere from 48 hours to 96 hours.

Blocks are preventative. Seeing as how this was the second block, not for a clear case of vandalism only edits, not for a bad user name, not based on mass community consensus, etc, I think that an idef block (practically a ban) is inappropriate. Iridescent suggests that the block may have an "if you do this you will be unblocked" type of clause. I believe that such are inappropriate and go against our blocking policy. By demanding an action in return for unblocking, that is one of the most egregious types of punishing a user that can be accomplished. It is also on the level of black mail and unfair.

I believe that this user has been treated in a manner unbecoming. I am not saying that he does not deserve to be blocked. But, seeing at the level of antagonism by certain individuals, there is enough to see an indef block as highly problematic. I have no plan to fight over this, as I only noticed this and wish to point this out to the community. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"Indefinite" doesn't necessarily mean "infinite", Tarysky can post a reasonable unblock request anytime he want. John Reaves 17:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
That would be punitive, not preventative. Indefinite are not to be used to force someone to post unblock attempts. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
He's more than welcome to not post an unblock request too. John Reaves 17:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what this thread is about. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Demanding an action (though I'm not sure that is a wholly accurate judgment of iri's position) is not punitive. Let's say we have a user who uploads copyrighted material and ignores warnings to stop. I feel that it is completely reasonable to block them until they make some response on their talk page noting that they have received and understand the messages. This would be designed to prevent future uploads of copyrighted material, which create work for other editors to flag and remove. In no way is it punitive. Comparing this to black mail is hyperbolic and inaccurate. Indef might not be the right length, but a week or two weeks (long enough to catch the attention of the editor and make it unreasonable for them to simply sit the block out) would work. However, the length doesn't turn it from preventative to punitive. Protonk (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) If an editor has been blocked for disruption, they will generally succeed in an unblock request if they can convince an admin that they are not going to cause further disruption. That principle applies particularly to indefinite blocks, it is perfectly consistent with blocks being preventative and not punitive in nature, and explaining it to a blocked editor is not blackmail. Having reviewed this particular user's Talk page, I think an indef block is quite appropriate. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Please find anything in the blocking policy that even comes close to verify what you say is appropriate as determined by the community. I just can't find it, Protonk, and I find that the promotion of it to go against most of our core values. Blocks are not a legitimate means to demand anything from a user. Any demand is a punishment. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Please provide a diff of this blackmail / punishment. I can't see it. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
SheffieldSteel, what are you going on about? I stated that if there was a demand of action for someone to do while being indef, then that goes against our blocking policy because you cannot -demand- anything via indef blocking. That is not what blocks are for. Your comments above suggest that you have not bothered to look at the blocking policy in regards to the topic and concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Let me try to be more clear. Unless you would like to provide diffs to the contrary, I am asserting that no one has "demanded" anything; ergo, no blackmail, no punishment, no admin abuse, no violation of policy, and no reason for this thread. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Unless you can provide a legitimate explanation in the blocking guidelines to justify an indef block of this user, you have no grounds to stand on Sheffield. This block is excessive. I have consulted 7 admins and 4 users in high standing who agreed. This is a proposal to seek consensus on what a lower amount would be. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to panic about injustices quite yet. Indefinite only means "look, you're not getting editorial access back until you show you can be trusted with it". Indeffing a disruptive user is obviously preventative if it prevents disruption. Blocks like this happen. LessHeard vanU gets the benefit of the doubt to do things like this, but if a concern is raised (like this one by Ottava Rima) LessHeard vanU can explain the action and the folks on AN can review. LessHeard vanU's explanation can be heard in relation to Tarysky's defense (should he produce it), and a more appropriate (if any) remedy can be discussed. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If blocks like this happen, then there is a severe disregard for the blocking guidelines. We are not preventing disruption by blocking to excess. That only removes any potential for the user to contribute and instead encourages them to do things like sock. This is common knowledge, which is why the standard progression of time increases is followed. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Your first step should be to discuss this with the blocking admin. Have you done this? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
This block and the events leading up to it were on Iridescent's talk page. This was known. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) I agree with Deacon. The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment. The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. Longer blocks for repeated and high levels of disruption is to reduce administrative burden; it is under presumption that such users are likely to cause frequent disruption or harm in future... an open-ended block may be appropriate to prevent further problems until the matter can be resolved by discussion. I'd be interested to hear what others have to say. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Having a user like Daedalus blanking the page and blanking the page only verifies that there was no method or desire to allow for any kind of discussion on the side of those who instigated the blocking procedure. Such actions go against consensus and only verify that this was punitive. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • A couple of comments; I don't believe that "Indefinite" forms part of the "progressive" block length durations - it can last shorter than the minimum 15 mins or longer than the standard 1 year maximum. Unless it is being used in conjunction with a community ban, ArbCom decision, or Office action then it lasts for exactly the length required to ensure the discontinuence of disruptive behaviour. To that aspect I would make my second comment; per WP:BLOCK nutshell
Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern.

(my underlining) This is where I suggest the idea of persuasiveness in encouraging a blocked editor to give an undertaking not to continue their past behaviour in any appeal comes from. Who is going to unblock an editor from any tariff who appeals on the basis of "Yeah, I now understand that what I was doing contravenes WP policy and is therefore is disruptive... but I want to do it anyway. Can I please be unblocked?" Along with acknowledgement there needs necessarily to be an indication of intent not to repeat whatever behaviour gave rise to the sanction. Lastly, I would note that I do tend to give out indefinite blocks upon my personal determination of whether the previous recent block (whether it is the only other, or the latest in a long line) has had the desired effect - if it hasn't I do not see any reason why there has to be a continued testing of the resolve of the disruptive editor. If they are prepared to wait out the 24, then 48, followed by 72 hour, then a week, two weeks, a month then three months and then continue, are we then going to see if 6 months or a year will do the trick? If it takes 5 months to dissuade an editor from creating disruption then put them on an indef tariff and let them make the appeal 21 weeks into the sanction, and if it only takes 5 days all the better. Since, of course, I am wedded only to the idea that the indef block is a flexible tool then if a consensus arises that X time is exactly (or close enough) to that which will ensure that future edits from a previously troublesome contributor with be beneficial, then I have no problem with the period of any block I make being altered according (I have no objection to any admin exercising their remit and varying a block I make of my own determination in any event, to be honest - situations and circumstances change, and a different perspective may lead to different conclusions). I hope that people realise that although there is the potential for the indefinite block to be the longest available tariff, it is far more flexible (and therefore conducive to creating the best editing conditions) than the use of increasing sanctions in the face of repeated disruptive behaviour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you please find something in the blocking guideline that verifies this use of blocking? There seems to be nothing similar, nor anything deemed acceptable by community consensus on the matter. Your own justifications makes it seem like you blocked via time out, until they "learn their lesson", which is strictly prohibited.