Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive190

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User talk:MacGyverMagic#List of highest grossing Tamil-language films[edit]

Someone contacted me about deleting an article, but I don't feel comfortable doing it myself because I was the nominator in the related AFD. Could another administrator make a judgement, perform an appropriate rename/merge action, or help the user in question mount a DRV? - Mgm|(talk) 22:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Since List of highest-grossing Bollywood films exists, what's the problem? The article is a mess because people are putting in what they think are the "best" films which is not objective. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Shahid misreads the AfD; the consensus was for the deletion of the "top" lists, not of the highest-grossing lists. One may, to be sure, remove from the article content for the exclusion of which a consensus exists (here, I gather, the "critically acclaimed" sections), but article deletion, in the absence of a new AfD (which is, I note, likely to result in a "keep", consistent with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Bollywood films, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing films, and [OTHERSTUFFEXISTS notwithstanding] the apparently uncontroversial existence of various other lists of highest-grossing films by country and language) is inappropriate. 69.212.22.27 (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I closed the related AfD, and received a similar request. I was uncomfortable with deleting this additional article because a) I don't see that it was discussed specifically in the AfD, which is often an issue in multiple noms. And b) the person requesting states an intention to replace the article anyway, so I see no reason to expunge the previous history of the article. I am happy for a consensus here to overrule this opinion, however. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Today's featured article semi-protected since last year.[edit]

Resolved

I tried to bring up this subject at Talk:Main Page, but nobody seems to be monitoring there tonight. Anyway, I noticed that today's featured article, Emma Watson, is under semi-protection and has been since last May. It has always been my own understanding that semi-protection is not preferred in the daily featured article unless there's a pressing reason for it, which I fail to see in this case. I'm thinking the semi-protection should be lifted- at least for as long as the article's linked to from the main page. Ashanda (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Done by User:SoWhy here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both very much! Ashanda (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of indefinitely blocked user talk pages[edit]

I have raised the issue of deleting the user talk pages of indefinitely blocked editors at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Deletion of indefinitely blocked user talk pages. Comments and suggestions are welcome. --Vassyana (talk) 09:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirected page in Wiki[edit]

Hello, I would like to make a redirection from the page Tasmeem to the wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmeem_(software)

Could you please add: #REDIRECT[[1]]to the Tasmeem page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=tasmeem&go=Go)

Thanks in advance, Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winsoft38 (talkcontribs) 15:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Image violates law?[edit]

 Done File:G839.jpg may be in violation of Counterfeit Detection Act of 1992 as it depicts both sides of a 500 dollar but Template:Money-US (which it uses) states that one of the requirements of this law is that "The illustration is one-sided;" (If this is the wrong place for this then oops but I don't know where else to put it) --Wanders1 (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The illustration is one-sided, but depicts both sides of the note. Given the objects of that legislation, I doubt there's a problem, and anyone who tried to use it as real currency would deserve all they got. Rodhullandemu 13:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not American, but there's no current $500 note that is legal tender anyway is there? Black Kite 13:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
They're still legal tender, but you'd get very funny looks if you tried to use one. – iridescent 14:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
It is a one sided representation. If you printed it out with each side of the bill on both sides of the same piece of paper then that would be an issue. Nobody is going to accept that picture as money, so I don't see how it could be seen as a counterfeit. Chillum 14:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, this type of discussion shows up how obsolete that law is. It's fairly simple to bring into clear and full compliance: split into two images, rotate and crop so it displays better, and resize so it is absolutely positively more than 1.5 times the size of an actual $500 bill. Now in compliance with Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550, in Section 411 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations, I am deleting all files used in creation of the following images. Suggest deleting File:G839.jpg per the above, and since it isn't really needed anymore. DurovaCharge! 14:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

image deleted as replaced by the two above Gnangarra 14:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


Bollywood and Plagiarism[edit]

Policy question[edit]

Resolved: No worries here. –xeno (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Could someone clarify the policy on moving an article space page WHILE it is in an ongoing AfD discussion? I can't seem to find anything on it. - ALLST☆R echo 16:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless it is the location of the page that is at issue, I don't see a huge problem with it... Is there a specific case you're talking about? –xeno (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't see a problem unless it's an attempt to avoid the AfD outcome. – Toon(talk) 16:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The location isn't the issue but someone's vote! for a renaming option prompted the page to be moved by the original creator. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama (disambiguation). - ALLST☆R echo 16:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see the problem. The AfD still links to the article. If you feel that it was a bad move, you can always move it back. Be the R in BRD, as it were. But it looks like an improvement to me and we certainly shouldn't stop improving an article because it is at AfD. Quite the opposite. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is perfectly fine and a more accurate name. Barack Obama (disambiguation) should really be used to disambiguate between notable Barack Obama's, but I think there's only one at present. –xeno (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive protection[edit]

Resolved: Doesn't look like this is going anywhere. — Jake Wartenberg 20:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I imagine Village Pump would be the place to bring this up but before doing so, it'd be nice to see what, if any, consequences would result from this proposal. It seems that at times, archive pages get vandalized. And who has the thousands of archived pages on their watchlist? Not I. You? So, what about an auto-full-protect of archive pages related to the various notice boards, such as this one, ANI, etc.? And of course archive pages of AfD, MfD, RfA, RfB, etc. This would also do away with the many "This is an archive, don't edit it!" banners on archive pages. Thoughts, opinions, trouts? - ALLST☆R echo 18:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too sure. I think there are probably times when it is appropriate to edit talk pages - see my relevant proposal at WP:VPR for adding {{Reflist}}s to them. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Our huggle army probably catches most of it. –xeno (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The admin archive pages do get vandalized. I've found it useful to watchlist a few of them: one long term vandal tends to edit his own ban discussion when he returns on new socks. That archive page is a useful honeypot. DurovaCharge! 19:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
@Jerry1250: that couldn't be done via {{editprotected}} on the archive page's talk page? For example, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive189 would be fully protected and any changes needing made to it could be brought up on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive189 with the editprotected template. - ALLST☆R echo 20:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
There are several reasons why archive pages might one day need to be edited (updating redirects that have been retargeted, for example). Forcing people to use edit protected requests in these cases to stop vandalism once in a while doesn't strike me as a net benefit. –xeno (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (I'm assuming you mean me!) Yes, but the currently proposal is for clearing the backlog i.e. the equivalent of hundreds of PERs. I'm not sure that's going to pass anyway (I was merely testing the water, as you are here), but it's just one point to be considered. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this would create a huge backlog but I guess it could add to the work in a sense. - ALLST☆R echo 20:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't we have a bot that watches all archives and update one page that we can watch? That should ease detecting vandals. EdokterTalk 20:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Is a useful honepot. Moreover, they get edited on occasion for legitimate uses. Since they are all NOINDEXED vandalism is not a serious concern. Net benefit is negative. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Archive pages are often edited en-masse by people removing old signatures when they do not want their name/pseudonym associated with an account any more. I don't like the idea of people having to bug admins to do that (but, to be honest, the fact they do it bugs me anyway). I would support such a proposal. Shouldn't be too hard to get a bot to do all the protecting. J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I would strongly support such a proposal, too. This is a problem with an easy, common sense solution. In fact, if we made the archive bots adminbots, full protection could be applied to article talk and user talk archives, too. — Jake Wartenberg 00:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd like to think that one doesn't have to gain administrator privileges merely in order to be a WikiGnome. Uncle G (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • One probably shouldn't be wikignoming talkpage archives, if I understand you correctly. Can you elaborate a little bit? — Jake Wartenberg 01:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm. You both make really good points, though we still have {{editprotected}}. I would say that giving the bots the ability to edit protected pages still makes sense though, as there are times when full protection is appropriate. We just might not want to indiscriminately FP all talk page archives, and instead do so on an as needed basis. The changes that would be made to the protection policy as a result of this proposals implementation should probably reflect that. — Jake Wartenberg 18:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback all. I guess I'll let this one rest, as some valid points for not implementing this have been raised. - ALLST☆R echo 01:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirection request[edit]

Resolved

Hello everybody. Im not sure if this is the right place for my request. Now, you will surely tell me, if this is the case. I write this, because I need the help of an administrator. It has to do with the following article: Jacob Westervelt. Actually the common/usal name of the person, which is described in this article is Jacob Aaron Westervelt. I cant move the article, because the article Jacob Aaron Westervelt already exists (redirection to Jacob Westervelt).

I wrote a huge article (60kb - 150 hours of work) about Jacob Aaron Westervelt, that I would like to upload as soon as the old article is moved. I also wrote an article about Jacob Westervelt (a sheriff and Assistant Alderman, who lived in the same period as Jacob Aaron). There is even a third man called Jacob Westervelt, but I have not written an article about him yet.

My idea: making a disambiguation page from the current Jacob Westervelt-page, and creating a new page for Jacob Westervelt (Sheriff). Could anybody help me? With kind regards --Rectilinium'♥' 19:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The best place to request this is WP:Requested moves. – ukexpat (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Oops looks like someone is working on it already. – ukexpat (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I've moved it to Jacob Aaron Westervelt over the redirect - leaving Jacob Westervelt yet to be created. Go forth and disambiguate! In future the best place is, as Ukexpat states, WP:RM. – Toon(talk) 19:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that was fast! Thank you very much Toon05 and Ukexpat... :)--Rectilinium'♥' 19:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Did it... I hope it is ok like that...--Rectilinium'♥' 19:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal[edit]

Resolved

I just reverted the last four contributions from this IP user. Because it's a shared IP and it's been blocked before, but it doesn't look like the IP is currently engaged in a vandalism spree this instant, I really wasn't sure where to report it. If you've got future guidance for where I should ask about these (or if I shouldn't bother at all), please let me know - thanks. Townlake (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, not much to do with that IP anymore (no vandalism in about the last hour as of time stamp). In the future, if you see that it had resumed vandalism about now after a break, report it to WP:AIV. If you had caught it ongoing, same place. If you notice it after the editing has ceased, leave a strongly worded warning on the talk page just in case. We aren't prone to blocking if the disruption has ceased. Thanks, Townlake. Keegantalk 20:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure thing - and thanks for the helpful response. Townlake (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Userpage redirect to article?[edit]

Resolved

Hi, not sure if this is something worthy of anyone's attention. I noticed that User:Phdmaven redirects to an article authored by that editor. I was wondering about the appropriateness of that, and whether it would lead to confusion from people who try to navigate to this editor's talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Looks like he wrote the article on his userpage, and then moved it into articlespace, leaving a redirect behind. I've simply removed the redirect. Black Kite 22:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirect for Simpson Criteria/Simpson Grade[edit]

Hi there, please excuse my ignorance...but why can I not create a redirect page for "Simpson Grade" and "Simpson Criteria" to redirect to the relevant section in the Meningioma article?

Anyway, please create two new redirect pages, one for Simpson Grade and one for Simpson Criteria, with the following text:

"#REDIRECT Meningioma#Treatment"

Russthomas1515 (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it was actually stupidity on my part - I entered the wrong syntax to create the Redirect. Egg, and my face, now in alignment! Russthomas1515 (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverting in the midsts of article creation[edit]

I run into a problem I haven't seen in my 4+ years of wiki experience, and in none of the ~1500 articles I've created. While creating this article (movie) from a redirect, I was reverted by a user who stated in the edit summary that the article is not-notable ([4]). I recreated the article, expanding it, assuming that it had not enough content, only to have the same thing happen two more times: [5], [6] (the links I've added here have also been reverted three times...). Needless to say, even through I have more material to add to this article I can hardly edit the page in what has to much of my surprise turned out to be a strange edit war: my experience was that a possibly unnotable article gets tagged by {{notability}}, perhaps prodded, perhaps debated by the community on WP:AFD, where all sides plus an influx of neutral editors can discuss notability for a few days; what to do in the face of "revert to redirect", with 3 reverts within ~2 hours - I am not sure. RfC? AfD the redirect (which was, btw, my initial plan, per WP:RED, than I decided to stub it...). Movies are not my usual subject of expertise, so perhaps I am wrong and this is indeed not notable (What puzzles me is that the article in my latest version looked as notable (sources, top 10 box office, etc.) than the prequel: here) but I'd like to generate at least some discussion, somehow (at least one other user suggested this article should be created, see article's talk). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus is, of course, completely miscategorizing this. The film was merged, by consensus, months ago as unnotable. It is still unnotable and he simply reverted the merging. He was reverted, on good faith. He continues, however, edit warring with multiple editors instead of following proper WP:BRD and starting a discussion. Nor has he attempted to actually get details from any of the reverting editors, nor taken this to the project. He was, however, given a 3RR warning for the edit warring, which he removed claiming it was "harassment." The main Bleach article contains all of the same information, there is nothing else to add. As is, the film is still not notable enough to warrant a spin out. It is also fully in compliance with WP:MOS-AM to have it in the same article. Box office alone is not a valid reason to resplit it from the main article (and the "sources" couldn't even agree what kind of Box Office placing it had). The first two movies have separate articles because they have been released in English and so there is significant coverage on both in reliable sources, including reviews. Both were, however, considered for merging recently. There is no need to AfD the redirect as it is a valid redirect. Obviously, this is not a legitimate AN/I issue. Piotrus should actually attempt to discuss, as was suggested to him in the revert summaries (which he obviously read). He has also left a false and retaliatory edit warring warning on my page, when he is the one who has reverted 3 times (and he spefically states he left it purely as "tic for tat".[7]-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea why Collectonian is so hostile to me and to this film, also I see he has reverted the creation of this article in the first place. I've removed the 3RR warning as I've not reverted thrice anywhere, just twice; on the other hand, Collectionian has indeed done three reverts on Bleach (manga). As I've pointed out on article's talk page (where Collectionian is yet to reply), the two previous movie installment of this franchise (none of which is significantly more referenced than my lastest version of the 3rd) had articles created few months before the movie even aired, none were ever challenged as unnotable. A movie which had hold a top 10 position in a national box office for 5 weeks seems rather notable, and I am sure there are non-English (Japanese) reviews and such. I am still assuming good faith, and I would hate to invoke WP:IDONTLIKEIT / WP:OWN seriously here... PS. I can't find any discussion of merge on the talk pages of two other mentioned movies, despite Colectonian's claim to the contrary. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Since AnmaFinotera Rd232 restored the article and opened a proper discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleach: Fade to Black, I Call Your Name, I consider this issue resolved, no need to fan the flames any more :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
(EC) I am not hostile towards the film at all. The create of the article, and many other versions, have been reverted by almost every editor in the anime/manga project at one time or another on agreement it shouldn't exist. The name isn't even real, its the presumed translation. I will invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because the other two did not get properly challenged when created is not a reason to try to claim this one is valid. They also were challenged late last year, but sources showed they have received enough reviews to justify the article. If there are Japanese reviews, please find them and point them out in the AfD since you have demanded it be taken there. And by mentioning you are invoking and neither applies. I am NOT the only one who reverted you, nor am I the only one who has said it previously. IDONTLIKEIT obviously is ridiculous as I am a heavily active editor in both the Anime/manga and Films projects (unlike you, by your own admission, indicating more of WP:ILIKEIT situation). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

American tax dollars at work[edit]

Indefinitely blocked user is back with a new account[edit]

Zoomzoom316 (talk) was indefinitely blocked (as noted on his talk page) and is now back, as Desi15 (talk) (he self-identified as Zoomzoom316 on Talk:Sino-Indian War‎). Bertport (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef and templated per WP:DUCK. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nommagdor and Talk:Smiley face murders[edit]

Resolved: Blocked, Tiptoety talk 17:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nommagdor has been making threats and violating the 3RR rule on the Talk:Smiley face murders page. The user is probably a sock puppet from earlier problems on the page based on his poor English and threats. Angryapathy (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked Sock account. Tiptoety talk 17:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Some advetising[edit]

A couple of days ago, there was some debate about X-Y country relations but we didn't come far with it. Now, a centralized discussion has been opened in order to create some guidelines when to have such articles and when not. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations Feel free to leave comments. --Tone 17:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Spam template[edit]

Is it just me or is this a spam template? {{Modelref}}. It links to a load of arbitrarily selected sites including at least one that was previously blacklisted. Should we really be encouraging this kind of thing? Guy (Help!) 17:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well if the sites are legit, I don't see a problem. Anything blacklisted should be removed from the template of couse. There is at least one precedent with geographic coordinates that link to a truckload of map sites. If that worked, I'm sure the people editing movie articles would gladly have a template that links to imdb, rotten tomatoes, metacritics and whatever reference sites are commonly in use... Equendil Talk 17:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Links are not supposed to eb decorative, though. This amounts to an official endorsement of sites that are in some cases just paparazzi twaddle. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Further, does this template just link to the site, rather than to the article subject's listing on the site? If so, I would be very much inclined to agree with Guy. J Milburn (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The template docs say that it links to specific model info if the necessary id's are given as parameters. Looie496 (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that is clearly an inappropriate use of external links. If the links are useful for references they should be present at at WikiProject Fashion, but not in a template like this. ThemFromSpace 21:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Open Proxy that needs to be blocked[edit]

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

As seen here, the IP states that it is an open proxy owned by some company. Per our policy regarding open proxies, and the vandalism we've been getting from it, it needs to be blocked.— dαlus Contribs 03:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Port 80 is open, so blocked. J.delanoygabsadds 03:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
While the diff is certainly evidence enough, who doesn't have port 80 open? Chillum 03:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Its actually a CGI proxy in this case, [8]. Mr.Z-man 03:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
You can report open proxies at WP:WPOP BTW. Hut 8.5 19:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion request backlog[edit]

There's a big deletion request backlog. Any admins wanna pitch in? [here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/#Open_requests]. I'm particularly eager for someone with a legal mind and patience to look at this and provide some consistency.

While we'd love to help you, those deletion requests are on wikipedia commons and this is en.wikipedia. Not every admin who has admin access here has admin access on commons as well. User rights are typically restricted to the local project. You would be better off asking the admins at this noticeboard. Also, don't forget to sign your posts! :) Icestorm815Talk 05:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted redirects to my page[edit]

Resolved

Ento-Ag (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Hello, I am trying to create redirect pages to a project page I am working on. The page I have is Sarcophaga haemorrhoidalis, I am trying to create redirects from s. haemorrhoidalis and s haemorrhoidalis. It says, "The page title or edit you have tried to create cannot be created or edited by you at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, used to prevent vandalism." Thank you.

I posted a message on Talk:Sarcophaga haemorrhoidalis before I saw this post, instructing how to create redirects. After seeing this request I went ahead and did it for them. Killiondude (talk)

Returned blocked user[edit]

Is claiming to be
Also known as

Who was indefinately blocked for nasty attacks against users.--Otterathome (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the relevant section of LOTRrules talkpage, the indef block was not overturned and the editor seems more concerned about being able to edit than to resolve the issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Is now back as SonGoku786 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log).--Otterathome (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Deferred Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LOTRrules, please :) -- lucasbfr talk 13:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of potential rangeblock of 70.108.0.0/16 based on major disruption[edit]

The range 70.108.0.0/16 has been confirmed to be frequently used by Lilkunta (talk · contribs) per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lilkunta/Archive and by a deafening quacking sound based on the near single-minded disruption caused by it. The pattern is clear. The user shows up at a random address in the range, and starts deleting WHOIS information from IP address talk pages. The WHOIS information is always removed from either one of the numerous 70.108.0.0/16 talk pages, or specifically from the User talk:173.79.58.33 page, or sometimes from other random IP addresses which are assigned to Verizon Washington DC pool. The IP addresses change often enough to be a nuisance that Whack-a-mole blocks are ineffective at stopping. This has been going on for weeks now. A 1-week rangeblock issued on March 31st was effective at stopping this problem. Since this is such a large range, I thought that we should discuss how best to handle this problem. Its been a nuisance for some time now, and I want to know what others think about solving this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:ABFILWknight94 (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
a) I think the abuse filter is the most wonderful invention since Wikipedia itself, and if it could stop this problem from happening, that would be Most Excellent In Every Way. b) I am a technical moron, and have NO IDEA how to use the abuse filter myself, so any help with doing so would be Most Appreciated. Free Barnstars to whoever makes this work!!!!--Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
What should 70.108.0.0/16 be stopped from doing? If the answer is all editing then just block it. If you have more a more nuanced set of pages or edit behaviors, then the abuse filter may be useful. Dragons flight (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that it is a large range of addresses in a very active ISP; blocking essentially 65,000 Verizon addresses for a narrow set of disruptive behaviors by a single person may be excessive. A checkuser at the case cited above indicated that the range was "busy" which would seem to me to indicated that a rangeblock should only be considered as a last resort. The abuse filter may be useful, if it could stop ONLY edits by that range which removed WHOIS information from IP addresses, or a similar carefully targeted action to stop only this mess. Since this is really a single, narrowly defined sort of disruption, abuse filter may be the way to go. However, as I stated, I am completely flying blind in this department, so any help would be most appreciated. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Starting with User_talk:70.108.118.234, it basicly all started with 3RR violations at some articles, then it esclated to the IP (User:Lilkunta) removing the whois templates after they were put on after he was blocked for the 3RR violations. Momusufan (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
70.108.93.13, Here is clear evidence that he was removing those whois templates from his other IP pages. Momusufan (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the rangeblock should be instituted again as this user is clearly being disruptive by removing the whois templates, believing that the IP talk pages are his own, and in some instinces, making personal attacks especially to FisherQueen anytime she makes a response on the IP pages, see User_talk:70.108.118.234 and User_talk:70.108.93.13. About him thinking the IP pages are his own, he put a speedy up twice here and here. I do believe there should be an abuse filter made to stop people (mostly IP addresses) from removing whois templates once they are on the page. I think that is worth considering. Momusufan (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Also it is believed that Lilkunta is using 173.79.58.33 claiming it belongs to his apartment, see here. But how could it be assigned to an appartment when he is using the 70.108.0.0/16 range? Both are dynamic IP ranges. The whois info for the 173 IP says it's 173.64.0.0/12 but we could just block 173.79.0.0/16 if needed, see here A bit puzzling if I do say so myself. Momusufan (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There are several possibilities here. One could be that he is editing from a static IP address at work or school, and a dynamic one from home, or visa versa. I have not done any analysis of editing times from the two address sets, but one could make such a correlation based on that. The other possibility, if we take the claims made by 173.79.58.33 and by 70.108.0.0 is that the later range belongs to a different person than the former address; but that they are closely related. My speculation is that the 173.79.58.33 address is assigned to a public figure who does NOT want it known what his activities are at Wikipedia, and that the 70.108 range is used by someone he has asked to clean up his mess, such as a secretary or press agent or something like that. I have no proof of any of that, but it is my gut feeling. That has been my actual belief as to what is going on here since almost the beginning; but regardless the entire enterprise needs to stop. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Well the checkuser case determined that Lilkunta was using 70.108.0.0/16 for his disruption, I seem to think that 173 is either him or one of his comrades wanting to "clean up the mess" like you said. Either way it's got to end. Momusufan (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, based on this unblock request, it may appear to be someone else saying "I was asked to delete". Momusufan (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

How about Special:AbuseFilter/145? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Filter is private so I am unable to see the details of it but "Socks abusing talk page privilege" seems like a good filter. Momusufan (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It's specialized for the {{whois}} removal but can be adapted. It's only logging now for testing purposes. How about disallowing any 70.108 IP from editing a different 70.108 IP's talk page? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that a 70.108 should not be allowed to edit another 70.108 page based on 70.108.93.13's contributions. Momusufan (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Special:AbuseFilter/145 looks good, let's wait until it logs something and see if it works alright. Cirt (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

While we are waiting to see how Special:AbuseFilter/145 works out, I have instituted another one week rangeblock - other admins please feel free to change it. Cirt (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The range is huge and checkuser says it's "busy" though. Perhaps we should wait for the abuse filter first. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, good point, unblocked, let's see how the AbuseFilter does on its own with this. Cirt (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Question: Would it be technically possible for the whois information be added automatically to every IP's talk page by wikimedia? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Typically whois information is only added to IPs who vandalize or are otherwise disruptive. –xeno (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It would be rather simple for a bot to simply track the recent changes for active IP addresses and add WHOIS templates to talk pages where there isn't currently one. However, as a matter of course, it is better for a human to do it as needed. For one thing, a bot would not automatically know whether {{whois}}, {{sharedIP}} or {{sharedIPEDU}} is most appropriate, and each of these would be used in different situations. I think the abuse filter cited abouve has the most potential, once it goes "live". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thinking aloud here, but could a bot use a 4th template with a (initially) unset parameter? My thinking is: a bot tags the page as being an unreviewed IP address, and lists the basic whois details. A human review would then come along and set the parameter to one of "whois", "sharedIP" or "sharedIPEDU" (automagically marking the template as "reviewed"). A script could list all un-reviewed pages. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

nudie pics on user pages[edit]


Notification of WikiProject Living people[edit]

In order to have an organized page centralizing all the tasks relating to biographies of living people, a WikiProject has been created. There are several areas in need of greater attention, each listed on the project page. This is a project-wide problem that needs everyone's attention. Please take a look and help where you can. لennavecia 20:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested interface change[edit]

I have posted a request that requires consensus first at MediaWiki_talk:Common.js#Requested_change_to_Monobook_skin. -- IRP 22:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Gay nigger Association of america[edit]

I've just salted