Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive24

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Mistress Selena Kyle blocked[edit]

I have blocked Mistress_Selina_Kyle (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) indefinetly.--Sean|Black 07:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This is being discussed at WP:AN/I too. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah well. I liked her user page. I would have preferred the Arbcom to say something about this, to give due process, but that's just my two cents on the issue. Elle vécu heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 07:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned on AN/I I've seen mostly disruption from the user and thought about doing the dirty work several times myself. WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I've seen good things come from the user but I actually only heard of the disputes second-hand so I don't have a bad perception of her except that she's controversial. That's only my take, of course. Elle vécu heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 07:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Sure - that's why I mention it is kind of sad. I mean, she was involved in some community building etc. - but even then it was like an edit war on every page over silly things like the color of a template (Template:User aspie). I think she would have just took advice from other people seriously she would have been ok... *sigh*. Of course, I could say that about a lot of users, I suppose. Reccommended reading for cases like this is Dealing with difficult people (I hope I never cross that line myself...). WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
That's a good site: it describes the behavior of not a few people I've run across on here. This snippet in particularly is apt:
To counteract such behavior, it helps to understand the mentality of those who engage in it. People generally do not do it consciously. No one wakes up in the morning and says to himself: "Today I'm going to cynically manipulate procedural forms in order to be an irritating obstructionist." Instead, such actions are often preceded by a semi-paranoid feeling of being shut out of group interactions and decisions. The person feels he is not being taken seriously, or (in the more severe cases) that there is almost a conspiracy against him—that the other project members have decided to form an exclusive club, of which he is not a member. This then justifies, in his mind, taking rules literally and engaging in a formal manipulation of the project's procedures, in order to make everyone else take him seriously. In extreme cases, the person can even believe that he is fighting a lonely battle to save the project from itself.
ClockworkSoul 13:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • She'll be back.--God of War 20:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Uh, what does that mean?--Sean|Black 21:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I would like to see a rather more detailed justification of an indefinate block, persoanlly. DES (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Certainly. This user has been blocked 11 times is two weeks, all by fellow adminstrators whom I trust and respect, and always (in my opinion) wth good cause. This user has latched onto edit wars all across Wikipedia, frequently on issues that have long been areas of dispute. This user caused a huge ammount of disruption, frequently making disputes much, much, worse than they have to be. All this shows, to me, that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia, in fact seems to want to do quite the opposite.--Sean|Black 21:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

With good cause, and well justified perhaps. But for some reason, I can see good faith in this user. Don't ask me why. I suggest a few proposals to indefinitely blocking:

  • Block for six months, or a year. See how it turns out after that.
  • Remain blocked from all pages, except she has the ability to appeal to an arbitration case. If she violates this she will be reblocked immediately. If she does not violate (what we treat as a temporary injunction), then when the case concludes we accept the decision of the arbitrators.
  • Put under mentorship and parole, with limits on editing.

These I feel could easily work out with minimal risk, and she must understand we are giving her mercy, not a right, and that if she violates any terms of this she is reblocked ASAP. Oh, don't you think this could just be a symptom of having Asperger's? (As well as attention-seeking et al.) Just a thought. Elle vécu heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

These are 'remedies' in the spirit of Arbitration and any imposition of them, beyond simple block is a matter for the Committee. A simple block, of whatever length, is a matter for admins, unless there is disagreement amongst admins when it must then proceed through the usual channels. -Splashtalk 22:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

On a "lark" I ran a CheckUser on the dear departed Mistress Selina Kyle. It turns out that she shares an IP address with a veritable nest of program vandals. Two of the IPs she has used, including the one she shares with the squad of vandals, belong to a company not engaged in the business of providing web connectivity (they are actually a hosting provider). I suspect that "she" is in some way involved in the program vandalism we've been seeing for months. Given this, I see absolutely no reason why she should not be banned permanently, and the earth salted in her footsteps. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I think it quite likely that whoever is behind the Mistress did in fact "wake[] up in the morning and says to himself: 'Today I'm going to cynically manipulate procedural forms in order to be an irritating obstructionist.'" Kelly Martin (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
By "program" do you mean 'bots or somehow organised vandalism? -Splashtalk 22:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Organised. Such as Willy on Wheels, Obesity, etc. The IP she has been using for many of her edits corresponds to one being used for organised vandalism of the aforementioned sort. I suspect that much of that vandalism is automated at this point, as well. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Call me dense, but if organised/program vandalism was coming from a static IP, why wasn't it blocked before? If it was blocked, how did MSK log in from there? Rd232 talk 09:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm shocked, simply shocked to see that this took so long. Phil Sandifer 23:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I am shocked indeed. Perhaps it is my disbelief; when I came across her on Christmas I thought she was such a promising user. I literally cannot believe it. If there was an emoticon for Wikipedia for shock, I would certainly be using it now. For some reason, I always seem to get involved in petty disputes and never seem to be involved in intense disputes on Wikipedia-wide issues. Perhaps that's the good thing. Elle vécu heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 23:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If anyone wants to request arbitration against MSK, or myself because they feel it's necessarry, they are of course welcome to do so. I would respect whatever rulings were to come in such a case, obviously. I do not feel it is necessary, however, and I hope that this block stands.--Sean|Black 00:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I think MSK being able to file an appeal to the Arbcom is a good idea but then I don't want to antagonise the community with the need for unnecessary bureaucracy. Elle vécu heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 00:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Anyone who wishes to do so may file an appeal to the ArbCom about her block, and myself, is free to do so. That's their perogative.--Sean|Black 00:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course she'll be back. Under another name, if she doesn't have one already. It was pretty obvious from the very beginning that she was the reincarnation of some other blocked troll. I wonder what Wik is doing right now? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Absolute nonsense. I see no reason to believe anything other than that she was an overzealous contributor. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 03:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalbot[edit]

At the moment, Wikipedia is under attack from a number of IP addresses (apparently by a vandalbot). The anonymous users remove text from Wikipedia articles and replace it with kilobytes of nonsense. See my block log, for example. (By the way, for how long should I block them? One day or longer?) - Mike Rosoft 21:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally I take a very dim view of vandalbots...so the week you've been applying is the min I would do. Anyone remember what is our precedent the last time we were vandalbotted with the random username vandals? --Syrthiss 22:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Can/could they have been range blocked? Note that these were not random username bots, since those would be shootable-on-sight. These were all IPs. -Splashtalk 22:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
More activity from apparently the same source User:140.127.139.247 --pgk(talk) 20:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection of user pages[edit]

  1. What does everyone feel about admins protecting their user pages permanently? I know there are a few handfulls of admins who do it, and I know I don't like it, and have commented on it to a few admins already. This is because this is a wiki, and userpages aren't special. Most user pages don't get much vandalism, users that would are often watched by many people, and vandalism quickly reverted. Protecting these will tend to make users envy us. It also encourages us to be more pro-protection. Furthermore, I specifically allow people to edit my userpage, with a note at the bottom. I suck at web design and a few bored users have made my user page pretty cool.
  2. I've noticed that many user pages of indef blocked users are being protected. That's perfectly ok if the user is vandalizing their user page, but many are being protected pre-emptively. That's not neccessary, wastes time, and stuff. Some of these are just Willy on Wheels socks, and our wheelers normally don't care about their accounts...at this point, they're basically making the on wheels accounts to waste our time and never going near them again.
  3. Anyway, I've made a list of protected user pages at User:Phroziac/Protected user pages. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 04:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    1. I think the only reason to protect userpages is an onslaught of uncontrollable vandalism (in which case semi-protection works too). I used to have my userpage protected, but I have seen the error of my ways.
    2. I think this is okay just to play it safe.
    3. Umm —Ilyanep (Talk) 04:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

User pages are not articles. It is basically accepted that users generally have carte blanche on their own user space within limits. If I don't want someone messing with my user page, it is only logical (and perfectly acceptable) to protect it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Mine is also protected. With all the anti-vandal work I do, I just feel better that way; the only people who want to edit my user page are vandals, and I don't want them to. If others want their pages unprotected, so be it. Antandrus (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I never found it necessary to protect my main user page, although it has been vandalized often in the past, but I fully understand and have absolutely nothing against anyone else protecting his or her user page due to vandalism. Protection of user subpages used as boilerplates for subst'ing is of course also fine by me, as one wouldn't want some vandal changing it. From Phroziac's list I gather that there are about 300 protected pages in user space (user pages or subpages thereof). Why worry at all? It's not a performance bottleneck, is it? Lupo 08:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I protected mine once when some kid ran a bot on it, but in general I think it's better that vandal-time is spent on my simple and rather unimportant page than some article where it might not be discovered. Userpage-vandalism is usually reverted very quickly and the vandal revealed and blocked. And sometimes it's just a kid testing and having fun. I don't mind, but I can understand those who do mind and want it kept clean. Fine with me and no big deal. Shanes 09:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I've never found it nessecary to protect my page. Most vandalism I get is simple one off 'omg u suk!' things. I have however semiprotected a few users' pages over the past weeks, mostly because they've been hit on and off by AOL vandals. Blocking one vandal ip on AOL doesn't stop them from coming right back with a new one in the cases I've looked at. I don't think I would full protect a userpage though; vandalism not handled by semi should be handleable by normal channels of blocks. --Syrthiss 13:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jeffrey as well, but I have not completely disenfranchised the vandals, as my page is only semi-protected, and there is still a subpage for them to attack instead. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 17:32, Jan. 12, 2006
I agree with Jeff, obviously. If troublemakers are allowed to have virtually anything they want on their userpage by the reasoning that user pages are different, what reasoning would not allow me to keep mine from being vandalized? I see no reason anyone needs to edit my userpage and it's been really nice not having to worry about vandalism on it. Reverting vandalism on my userpage is wasted time that could better be spent on basically anything else. Besides, the protection policy specifically allows it: "A permanent or semi-permanent protection is used for: User pages and their subpages that are subject to repeated vandalism." I also don't like being included on a list as if I've done something wrong. - Taxman Talk 14:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Phroziac's lists are of pages that are protected against both moving and editing (by anyone other than administrators). It's widely accepted at other projects that protecting a user page against page moves only is entirely reasonable, given that there are few occasions where one would want to rename a user page, and given the propensity of some vandals to rename user pages. Uncle G 18:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with protecting against moves only. Userpages never really need to be moved. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 18:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

User creation pattern[edit]

  • Nothing wrong with it, but I don't like the pattern on the user creation log I'm seeing, could be someone setting up a WoW run or something similar. Bringing here for higher visibility. Wikibofh(talk) 15:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Notable is that Wikibofh only mentions 10 users...which means that they're probably all from the same IP, and the 10-per-IP-per-day limit kicked in (at least, I think that's what the limit is...) Perhaps it would be of interest for Kelly Martin to checkuser these and see if they correspond to other vandals...then again, it could just be someone who was bored and decided to make a ton of articles. Ral315 (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Note: I don't know if you made a typo or forgot a letter, Wikibofh, but the last two user names (Susisan and Susisan) are the same. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 18:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Removed last one that was a duplicate. Cut-n-paste error. Had to dig through the user creation log to find them again. Wikibofh(talk) 01:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Internal error... um... error[edit]

If one goes to delete a page that has just been deleted, you get an error message that reads:




Internal error

Could not delete the page or image specified. (It may have already been deleted by someone else.) Return to: * Category:Candidates for
speedy deletion
* [[Special:Newpages]] * [[Special:Recentchanges]] (anons


Newpage patrol is war, baby, and war is hell.

What you see above is exactly how the error looks, bad wiki/html syntax and unfinished parentheticals included. I've tried like hell to find the MediaWiki code for this to fix it, but cannot seem to find it. Does anyone here have an inkling where this is, and better yet, can fix it? This has been like this for quite a few days now. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, while I'm at it, ffs, WE NEED MORE ADMINS ON NEW PAGE PATROL! This has been a public service anouncement. Thank you. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the error message is contained in MediaWiki:Cannotdelete, if anyones interested in trying to fix it. :P —Locke Coletc 17:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Lol, I couldn't agree more. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 17:40, Jan. 12, 2006
Very fixed. Thanks for mentioning it. [[Sam Korn]] 17:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
You, sir.... are the man. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

reverting after 3RR block expired[edit]

If a user immediatly after his block for a 3RR expires, starts reverting again (against overwhelming consensus on the talk page), can I immediatly list him for a 3RR again or should I wait until he makes 4 reverts? Cheers, —Ruud 17:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Technically, they haven't broken 3RR. However, if they continue to revert and revert, a longer block may be required, or else a request for comment might be filed. Ral315 (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
POV pushing is enough for a block.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 18:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
What gave you that idea? Jkelly 19:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I was refering to severe POV pushing. It comes in the form of constaint reverting for days, near vandalism edits, bad faith, and disruption. IMO, those constitute a well-earned block.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 19:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I read that as a general statement, instead of specific one. Jkelly 19:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE: please get this tool[edit]

I have been reverting WAVES of IP vandals in mere minutes today. Please download Lupin's tool and use the IP edits and filter pages allong with new page patrol. I need help down there sometimes. Check out this [1] too .To much elephant...Voice of AllT|@|ESP 18:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Forest Wraiths[edit]

Yesterday I listed Forest Wraiths for speedy deletion because it was a work of fiction created by Caseycool. It was deleted by Administrator Enochlau. Today Caseycool posted to my talk page stating that he'd wished he'd gotten a chance to move the contents of the page to his user page before it had been deleted. This is probably an odd request, and I know it's not quite a normal administrator task, but I'm under the impression that administrators can view deleted pages. If that's the case, would it be possible for an administrator to copy the former contents of Forest Wraiths to Caseycool's talk page as sort of a favor? I understand if you guys don't have time or can't do it. Thanks! TomTheHand 18:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved to User:Caseycool/Forest Wraiths. DES (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Outer Hebrides[edit]

The article Outer Hebrides has been moved to Na h-Eileanan Siar again. (This is the Gaelic name for the same place). User:Warofdreams (admin) has moved it back twice already, please could an admin move it back again? Perhaps the time has come for some stronger action? CarolGray 18:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • No actual moves, just edits. You can fix those yourself. I've added test1 to the user's page and rolled back the changes. Wikibofh(talk) 18:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The page could be protected against moves. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio images from User:Mad stratter[edit]

Greetings. The above noted user has uploaded a bunch of images. They have no license, and most are copied from websites (probably without permission). I addressed one of the images, placing it up for deletion, but there are several more, and I just lack the time today to get to it. --Durin 21:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

All are now tagged Template:Unknown or Template:Nosource as appropriate. Jkelly 22:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Jkelly. --Durin 00:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Second opinion please[edit]

User:Flacinhell uploaded this iumage as part of an ongoing attack campaign waged at Pedro's BTMusic Only Tracker; I was wondering if I should tag it for deletion since it's now been reverted from the only article where it could possibly have a place, and I for one can't see any way it could go back consistent with policy. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delve into the attack campaign, but if the image is an orphan it should be listed at IFD. --Syrthiss 22:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, thought so. Thanks. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 00:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The special character cheatsheet?[edit]

Umm, someone must have changed something in the special character cheatsheet template that appears at the bottom of edit pages. If I knew where it was kept I'd go take a look, but I don't. --Syrthiss 14:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That's MediaWiki:Edittools Carbonite | Talk 14:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I thought the CATEGORY REDIRECT etc stuff was normally hidden things that were showing up because it was broken...not that they were there as one clicks for putting Category:Stuff etc. Thanks! --Syrthiss 14:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

User:rbj[edit]

Hello all, rbj (talk · contribs) has been doing little else than a constant NPA wikistalking campaign against myself(no need for diffs, just see his contribs and throw a dart, that's basically all he does), please advise on an action to take regarding this. karmafist 03:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest a short block from an uninvolved user. And remember, he makes lots of noise over tiny 24 hour blocks. (which is what started this crap anyway). :( --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 04:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Yep. The noise is getting absurd in regards to WP:NPA vios though. Can someone assist here? karmafist 05:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 48 hours.--Sean|Black 05:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
You don't mind playing the role of "bad guy", do ya, Sean? :) Quadell 20:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this seems absurd to me. Wikistalking? Karmafist, you claim there is "no need for diffs"... well guess what, I'm gonna ask for one anyway. Please identify even ONE page that Rbj has 'wikistalked' you to... some article or talk page where you were contributing and he showed up not for some legitimate interest, but just to harass you. Just one diff to show that this 'wikistalking' claim isn't completely baseless. Or were you claiming that he 'wikistalked' you to the RFC you filed against him? The arbitration vote pages where he voted based on how likely he thought people would be to oppose what he sees as your harassment?

If wikistalking is "basically all he does" then no doubt you are a regular contributor at Gravitational constant, Shannon-Hartley theorem, Planck units, Disrete-time Fourier transforms and the many other pages where he has contributed in the last few days. Either that or you just engaged in personal attacks / false accusations against him.

Yes, Rbj complains about Karmafist and Phroziac (and some of their friends)... just as they complain about him. The complaint above happens to be untrue. Plainly and obviously untrue. A 'personal attack'. There are absolutely no grounds for the claim that Rbj 'does little else'... he does ALOT else. I can actually provide diffs showing that (see above). Yes, he also spends alot of time complaining about the (largely baseless) RFC these same users brought against him. They attack him... he attacks them... it's all an unseemly uncivil mess. Yet what happens? The regular user gets blocked based on blatantly untrue claims that he is not contributing to the encyclopedia and creative re-interpretation of blocking policy to allow blocks for such, while the equally 'guilty' admins do not. It is dead wrong. --CBD 21:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

User:KDRGibby[edit]

Please review his history[2] and Talk:Wal-mart. For disclosure I am slightly involved and Rhobite is very involved, but this kind of conduct is problematic. I'd like another admin to look it over before I start passing judgement around.--Tznkai 18:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It took so long for the rest of the community to notice, eh. I have been in conflict with KDRGibby for over a month. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 23:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

KDRGibby has opposed my ArbCom candidacy without suffrage. Mine is the only one hehas voted in, and he gave a reason [3] that to me is a WP:POINT. NSLE (T+C) 01:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
The vote should have been flagged by now (I think this is one that I flagged myself). Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
It was flagged by you, yes, heh, thanks. NSLE (T+C) 01:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible problem with User:Sleepyhead81[edit]

User's company was deleted following AfD, user is now AfDing articles on other companies Sleepyhead81 (talk · contribs). Nominations are sketchy ("non-notable" being about the sum of it). Some may be justified, some not according to the article contents. I have left a heads-up on the user's Talk page User talk:Sleepyhead81#ERP companies. - JzG 12:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The following comment was directed at the user during the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24SevenOffice (second nomination) AFD discussion:
This argument is specious - existence of other articles for minor software of no verifiable importance does not justify inlcusion of all such. You are free to nominate those other articles for deletion should you feel they fall below the level for inclusion. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks like he's taking you up on that. ;) Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, he's probably skirting WP:POINT, but if you ask me, less advertisements masquerading as articles on tiny companies is a Good Thing. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 13:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The guy's doing fine. He made four AFD nominations, two of which tend towards delete so far, one would be an obvious keep, and one is borderline. Looks like he's just cleaning up to me. Radiant_>|< 00:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Issues with MediaWiki messages[edit]

I have a couple problems with the state of the system messages. First, there is currently no specific GFDL license grant on the edit screen. This could result in legal problems. I have proposed a fix at MediaWiki talk:Copyrightwarning#Minor_Change. Also, I feel useful text was removed from MediaWiki:Edittools. See MediaWiki talk:Edittools#Mistaken_Removal. In general, admins need to be less unilateral about changing these pages. Remember that they are permanently protected. Proposals should be made on talk first. Superm401 | Talk 20:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Jake Remington vandal[edit]

Upper-class_Jake_Remington (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

He just created this account; can someone block him? — Moe ε 01:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Curps had gotten it, great bot work. NSLE (T+C) 01:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirected Page[edit]

The page for Kurt Beyer, famed professional wrestler and son of Hall of Famer The Destroyer, was redirected to Kurt Beyer Films. Kurt Beyer Films can keep it's page, but it should NOT have taken over the page dedicated to Kurt Beyer the wrestler. How do we get the original page restored? (above unsigned but by User:Zatoichi101)

It was a normal old redirect so just a matter of going into the history and reverting to an older version, which I just did. When there is a dispute over who should be at the plain old name usually we do some disambiguation and discussion instead of erasing the article and redirecting. I'll leave a message for the anon as well. I don;t know if your article meets notability guidelines (didn;t really look) but some discussion needs to be done here on the appropriate talk pages. DreamGuy 08:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not only not sure which Kurt Beyer is more notable, I'm not sure either one is notable at all. For fairness I tagged both Kurt Beyer and Kurt Beyer Films and hope people will discuss and give good reasons. Both seem a bit vanity/spammy to me. DreamGuy 09:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into the matter. We are currently working hard to get the verification you require. Since most sources for information on Kurt Beyer are Japanese, that process is taking us a little longer. Please be patient - we will get the information you require. And although relatively unknown in the States, except among serious professional wrestling fans, Kurt Beyer's name value in Japan is much, much higher, and, therefore, a candidate for a page on Wikipedia.

In the meantime, we are adding U.S. sources gradually -- and added a short note at the top of the page that links to a U.S.-based source.

Again, it should be noted that Kurt Beyer's fame is centered more around Asia, especially, Japan. His father, Hall of Famer The Destroyer, will be added soon -- as soon as we all learn more about Wikipedia. This has all been quite a learning process. Thank you!

Also, as for sources for images (pictures), I see that the picture submitted has been questioned for source -- but through The Destroyer (www.thedestroyer.com) we have received permission to use photos on this entry. What are the steps we should take to meet your requirements for authorization? Again, thank you!

Spam rollback[edit]

Could an admin look at doing a roll back on this user's link fest. I'd do it, but without admin priviledges, it'd take all day... thanks. --Jgritz 06:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

All done. NSLE (T+C) 07:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! --Jgritz 07:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The Puppeteer[edit]

There has also been some recent creations of users that have been calling themselves sockpuppets of each other and I feel that "The puppeteer is an inappropriate user name.

  1. The_Puppeteer (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
  2. reeteppuPehT (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
  3. ATeppup (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
    I've indef blocked this one. The accounts only actions were adding {{delete}} to pages and using divs to hide the template from view. --GraemeL (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. BTeppup (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

These are the list of "Puppeteers". — Moe ε 18:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Bah, let em be. Block if anything actually starts to happen though.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking[edit]

The current Special:Blockip page sucks just a wee bit. I'd like to improve it, but I can't just go off willy-nilly adding things, without asking you lot what you'd like to see. Asking for ideas? Yes, I have gone off the bat. Still, your thoughts, suggestions opinions will be welcomed at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Robchurch/Blocking - sign, please, so I know who to ask for more information on an interesting idea.

Ta, Rob Church (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There are some pretty good ideas there. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Notice about when you protect/unprotect pages[edit]

When admins full protect, semi protect or unprotect a page, please remember to make the appropriate changes on the protected pages page. User:Splash, User:novacatz and I are having to go through the PP page daily to take out pages that are no longer protected and to add pages that are protected but that haven't been added to the page. For example, I just removed pornography, which was unprotected 4 days ago. It's a major pain in the rump to have to do this every day. So please remember to add/remove pages from the list when you take action on a protected page. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Will do. I don't know if I've ever forgotten, but I'm sorry if I have.--Sean|Black 09:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
A feature for this comparable to Special:Ipblocklist would be a useful addition, don't you think? Talrias (t | e | c) 19:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Why not simply check Category:Semi-protected, etc. Pages are automatically added there. -- Curps 22:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we do have that, but it's handy for those who watch the protected lists to be able to see at a glance the original reason and datetime of protection, neither of which are available directly from the category. It's a little more paperwork but, since admins seem often (HINT) to forget to unprotect pages, especially semi-protected ones, it makes others' lifes a little easier. -Splashtalk 23:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I've added a notice to MediaWiki:Protect-text reminding people of this, as well as a link to WP:SPP. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 18:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Uploader unsure of copyright status[edit]

looks like this needs some serious clearing out.Geni 01:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

What sort of cleanup do you want? I can turn OrphanBot on it to remove those images from articles. --Carnildo 08:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
anything older than a week old needs to be orphened then vaporised.Geni 14:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Commencing operations. --Carnildo 07:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Mistress Selena Kyle blocking (2)[edit]

Obviously by looking threw the Wikipedia block log there hasn't been a clear consensus on how long Mistress_Selina_Kyle (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) will be blocked, Few have said 24 hours while one says 1 month. Some sort of agreement has to be made. — Moe ε 17:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It is clear by the 12 other previous 24hr blocks that a 24hr block does absolutely nothing to solve the situation. There is also no clear consensus to block indefinately. My one month block was a long enough period to actually make MSK sit and mull the constant NPA/Civility issues as well as 3RR violations. 24hrs is clearly not going to do a damn thing.  ALKIVARRadioactivity symbol.png 23:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I would say up to 1 week, possibly with some kind of Wikipedia:probation or Wikipedia:mentorship on return. MSK's longest actually-served block previously was 24 hours (4 times, all for 3RR), and regarding the snowballing disruption and NPA violation and so forth, we shouldn't completely disregard the Asperger's issue (nor that the extent/severity of that behaviour is disputed). The other allegations (of sockpuppetry for User:chaosfeary, who isn't banned anyway, or of having any connection with program vandalism) are at best unproven. Rd232 talk 00:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Looking over some of her "contributions" I tend to think a 20 day block is in order. Chooserr 00:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd say no more than 96 hours (or time-served + 12 hours, if 96 hours have already elapsed). —Locke Coletc 04:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Probably the best solution would be, as suggested, a 20 day block, to let MSK think about it and Probation to monitor her actions in the future. — Moe ε 03:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Didn't we checkuser her to find out that she's the same IP as a bunch of vandalbots? In which case "forever" sounds good to me. Phil Sandifer 03:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

IIRC that was proven false. —Locke Coletc 04:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
IIRC it was (said to be) a proxy of some sort, and hence unproven (unprovable?) that MSK had anything to do with the vandalism from that IP. Rd232 talk 12:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Regardless if the IP addresses are/were vandals, I don't think MSK ever vandalized under her user name space. She did however get blocked 3 times for 3RR. Also, she commits several infractions of other various WP guidelines such as WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:COOL and WP:POINT. I believe she can become a valuable contributor here but she needs some couseling. — Moe ε 13:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

MSK was apparantly the only person editing through the IP group that wasn't an obvious vandal, and there is circumstantial evidence that she is not using a proxy. If this isn't good enough for quite a few other admins than I don't mind sitting it out and seeing if her behavior improves, but I suspect that we have another, slightly brighter, Enviroknot on our hands. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Please review my actions[edit]

I have just been promoted to the adminship, and I'm not sure I have followed the proper procedure. A user had moved his userpage, User:Mistle, to the article namespace (Mistle) because he didn't like the user:-prefix. I have moved the article back to User:Mistle and deleted the resulting redirect (Mistle) and its talk page, which had become a redirect to User talk:Mistle (afaik, cross-namespace redirects are speediable). I have left a note at the user's talk page explaining to him that userpages do not belong in the article namespace. Have I done everything the way it should be done, or have I made mistakes? If I have, please tell me so I won't make them again. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 01:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

No, looks fine to me -- Francs2000 02:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
(ec) I see that you did the right thing with the move, and explained the situation very well on the user talk page without biting. Looks good to me. Friday (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've awarded Aecis a barnstar for a) doing an excellent job as an admin, and b) being quick to ask for help when he needed it. If more of us did this, Wikipedia would be a lot better place. Let's all take a moment to stop by Aecis's talk page and tell him "Good job", as well as a moment to reflect on how this new admin can teach some of us old admins a thing or two. Essjay TalkContact 02:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection of Wikipedia today[edit]

It is a vandal target and it is linked off of the main page today. Today is our 5 year anniversery. I know the temptation is to protect or semi protect it. Don't do it. :) Why? Well it's not good to protect articles linked from the main page anyway, but I feel like this one is particularly important given it's about us and it's our anniversery today. We even have a small notice up at the top of our pages today. If we need to SP for 10-15 minutes to clean out vandalism, I think that's ok, but let's not go beyond that. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Didn't last long. Got hit by a new user attack and then it was SP and we had a sleeper account hit it. *sigh* --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if these vandals have realized the irony of vandalizing Wikipedia on Wikipedia. JtkieferT | C | @ this user is a candidate for the arbitration committee ---- 17:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

User:152.163.101.13 and User:63.138.121.4[edit]

These two (assuming they're actually two people) need to be blocked PERMANENTLY. They have constantlly defaced pages. Both of them do so on the Tim Lynch page, and may therefore be the same person. The former, in fact, User:152.163.101.13, has been warned on his user page numerous times, and has been blocked at least TWICE, and yet continues to deface pages. The temporary blocks obviously have no effect on him, and he needs to be blocked permanently. The latter, User: 63.138.121.4, has been warned on his page at least three times for vandalism to various articles. Something needs to be done about him/them. Nightscream 05:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all it's against blocking policy to indefinitely block IP's, it is also against policy to do long blocks on AOL IP's which is what 152.163.101.13 is, the other one I don't know about but I'll keep an eye on both of them in and will implement blocks if they start vandalizing again, though neither has vandalized for some time. JtkieferT | C | @ this user is a candidate for the arbitration committee ---- 05:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Special:log/check[edit]

I have made suggestion administrators of wikipedia may be interested in at Wikipedia:Help desk#¬¬¬¬\_How long are IP addresses logged and stored by Wikimedia?_/¬¬¬¬

I think it is probably good suggestion, I got the idea from meta:Talk:Checkuser_Policy --168.131.46.80 18:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Open proxies and range blocks thereof[edit]

I'm in the process of expanding the blocks for the various open proxies I've found to cover the entire range owned by whatever hosting center hosted the proxy. Several of these proxies move (their hosting centers reassign IPs on a semi-regular basis), and as a result I end up blocking them over and over again. For more infomation, see my list of open proxies. Such hosting centers are range blocked with block message {{OpenProxyBlock}}, so they're obvious in the block log. Please exercise caution when unblocking one of these blocks. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Pages with userspace redirects[edit]

I found this category somewhere in maintenance. It contains about two dozen "user/old" pages with apparently little history or anything. Any reason for not deleting the lot of them? Radiant_>|< 22:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say delete the redirects. Secretlondon 22:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, will do. Radiant_>|< 14:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Image deletion logs[edit]

I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to ask. I just provided information from the deletion logs of two images for the editors of an article who were wondering what happened to the images. Is there any reason why the images cannot be deleted while keeping the image page with the image history and deletion history? It seems that all it would take is to replace the images in the history with blank ones. This would only be in the case of copyright problems. Is this possible? Who would I talk to about this? -- Samuel Wantman 09:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

People putting libious statements into edit comments.Geni 13:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
In fact, this information was publicly available at one point, but the devs were increasingly forced to manually edit the deleted edit summaries on high-profile pages. Ral315 (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
That would be a reason to delete the page, but otherwise, why not just delete the images? -- Samuel Wantman 01:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of British Commonwealth-related pages[edit]

User:Hu has been listed here, as he persists in vandalising pages in relation to the British Commonwealth. The worst act of vandalism is of Category:British Commonwealth Honours Systems. He has left this namespace blank. What a waste of space! - (Aidan Work 23:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC))

What's he actually been doing. Can you give an example? Secretlondon 23:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
He's right that you've misunderstood categories. They are not a list of links. Secretlondon 23:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The category was created by Aidan Work (talk · contribs), who, instead of adding the category markup in the related articles, created an article in the category space, with lists of the related articles. That's not how categories work. Hu (talk · contribs) is entirely correct in dealing with the page. Thanks. --Ragib 23:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Look at Help:Category for more info. Leave me a message if you need help. Secretlondon 23:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Left a message at User_talk:Aidan Work, recommending him to use lists instead of categories for this type of thing. Bjelleklang - talk 10:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Willy sock[edit]

Page deletion and merging on article that has failed two votes for deletion by user[edit]

Islamofascism (term) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Islamofascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect to (term) page)

Both of these are being revert warred by BrandonYusufToropov (talk · contribs) and Irishpunktom (talk · contribs), the latter of whom is making personal attacks on me for reverting the change without consensus, calling me "abusive" when I was polite as possible, see for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamofascism_%28term%29&action=history
(I left a message about the sockpuppet message on Talk:Islamofascism after BYT said that he wasn't using it as a sockpuppet and have now put a notice on User:24.34.154.167 and User talk:24.34.154.167 as there was no indication that it was him previously, and from the contributions he has been using the IP as an alternate username for a while - hope this is acceptable, not really sure what's the standard to be done for this kind of thing)

Talk:Islamofascism has a small debate near the bottom involving 3 users, this is claimed to be consensus by BYT. The article has failed two previous votes for deletion, the latter of which was made by Irishpunktom (talk · contribs) who is the other editor reverting the change to point to Neofascism and religion: This is the exact change he sought to make in the vote for deletion that failed, except he and a small group of friends are now seeking to make the change by force of "pack-reverting" behaviour (so bypassing 3RR) --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 17:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Tone down the rhetoric and deal with it on the talk page. And review the sockpuppet policy carefully.--Tznkai 18:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Virago[edit]

I found this page, which had a {{deletedpage}} on it. However, there was a legitimate disambiguation page on Virago (disambiguation). Since I had edited the disambiguation page, and moving it over the {{deletedpage}} would mean the content would end up being protected, I took the unusual decision of pointing Virago to Virago (disambiguation), which is exactly opposite the usual way. I would like for other admins to review that unusual decision (since, while it was an editorial decision, it involved changing a protected page). --cesarb 17:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Virago was recently AfD'd (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Virago_2); why not move the disambig page there now? Any attempt to recreate the article can be dealt with. Rd232 talk 18:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, done. --cesarb 21:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

User:A1sdf Sockpuppet[edit]

A1sdf Sockpuppet (talkcontribs) ...was blocked, and it was implied that it was my sockpuppet!? Trust me, If I make a sockpuppet, you'll know about it(like now for instance)--I (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) really should check in on this place more often 21:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I blocked User:Dantine Ice indefinitely. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 22:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
You're easily confused, so I corrected your error for you--I (Dantine Ice) really should check in on this place more often 22:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Username impersonating well-known figure[edit]

Hi. I've received a request that User:Adrian Appleyard is impersonating on Wikipedia someone named Adrian Appleyard well-known in the Big Footy forum. Is this considered to be a violation of the Impersonation guideline and what is the proper response? I thought I had seen something like this before, but can't find it now. --Scott Davis Talk 05:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, I'd say if we don't have an article on the person, he's not a well-known figure. So unless the user is creating disruption in some other way, let it go. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:53, Jan. 15, 2006
Or it could be him, or some other nn person with the same name. Mike 05:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The BigFooty Appleyard has contacted another Wikipedian expressing concern that he is being impersonated. The problem is that in the AFL fan community, the Adrian Appleyard at bigfooty is well-respected for his opinions, but the Wikipedia Adrian Appleyard is claiming to be the same person and making edits to footy-related articles. --Scott Davis Talk 06:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, Adrian Appleyard himself, has e-mailed me telling me of the situation. This is his user profile on BigFooty, and he is the administrator of that forum. As many people do in response to authority, a user from that forum has apparently signed up as "Adrian_Appleyard" on this site as a joke. Look at User:Adrian_Appleyard, it says "Dictator of bigfooty.com" on there, meaning someone has set up the account as a joke.
Anyway, surely there's some way to allow the real Adrian Appleyard access to his own name on this site, and force the imposter to use another name? Rogerthat 06:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I've received further correspondence from Mr. Appleyard:
 That would be satisfactory if I could get that account.
 A few people have been talking about the project on the site. I'll
 include a link in my next e-mail. 

Rogerthat 08:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Given the lack of contribs for Adrian Appleyard (talk · contribs) and his userpage, I think it's entirely reasonable to ask him to change his name, and reserve the account for the Appleyard that mailed you. Radiant_>|< 10:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You might do better to take this up at Wikipedia:Changing username, where it will get the direct attention of the people who actually have the power to change usernames. My understanding is that one cannot "take over" an existing account. In any case, it looks to me like the person who registered User:Adrian Appleyard may have gotten bored and gone away. FreplySpang (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well the current Adrian Appleyard account can be moved to another name, moving all its edits with it. In the renaming procedure we then recreate an account with the original name and block that to stop impersonation. In this case we'd recreate the account and then send the real Appleyard the password. Secretlondon 23:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll leave you to get in contact with the real Appleyard, I will give you his email, drop me a line on my talk page Rogerthat 07:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

User Attacked[edit]

Can I get a Admin to have a look @ my Talk page ? I have a User who says he is leaving due to attacks as soon as he became a Wikipedian. see Re.:"hello" on my Talk page.

Appreciate the assisstance. Martial Law 10:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The attacked User is DeveloperFrom1983. What he said happened to him is in violation of WP:BITE and WP:NPA and no telling what other Wikipedian protocol has been violated. Martial Law 10:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The guy's got a point. Wikipedia seems to be becoming increasingly unfriendly. Unfortunately such problems are far easier spotted than resolved. Radiant_>|< 10:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've left a couple of nicely worded notes to the involved users asking them to take a look back at things and see if there is anywhere they could be of help to DF83. Hopefully, they'll take the gentle suggestion and make a reconciliation; if not, there is always RfC and/or disruption blocks if there is a recognized history. Essjay TalkContact 10:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ack! Turns out, DF83 was an abusive sock account! (Checkuser confirmed.) I've blocked the account as a sockpuppet used to evade policy, and if someone can find me the diffs where it was used to avoid a 3RR block, I'll block the puppetmaster for 3RR and possibly disruption. Essjay TalkContact 18:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Curps email address[edit]

Hi everyone, I've asked Curps to add an email address to allow users to email him (due to the number of blocks he places, occasionally sometimes an innocent user will be blocked and will have no way of contacting him to be unblocked) twice now[4][5], and he hasn't even acknowledged my messages. I think it is important that an admin who places as many blocks as Curps does should be contactable by email to be able to deal with any cases where he has blocked another user because of shared IPs. What do other people think? Talrias (t | e | c) 20:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I second this as I was misidentief by Curps as a pagemove vandal and had no way of contacting him directly. (Although in this case he unblocked me within two minutes after realizing his mistake, he forgot the autoblock and I could only contact him by using another IP address.) —Ruud 20:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I have a strong feeling either way. It isn't like someone blocked has to email only the blocking admin...tho I suspect thats one of the easier paths to unblocking. In most cases, they still have access to placing {{unblock}} on their talk page. --Syrthiss 20:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
True, but you assume that Curps reads the talk pages of all the people he blocks (my experience was that he doesn't) or that you know an admin (the page you see when you are blocked only allows you to email the admin who blocked you. —Ruud 20:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be mandatory for an admin who performs blocks on a regular basis to have an email address enabled in their preferences. I might even go so far as to say that the software shouldn't enact a block if an admin isn't contactable by email. It's trivial to get a Gmail, Yahoo, or other free email account specifically for Wikipedia use. Carbonite | Talk 20:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
It's also trivial to give a non-working email address or just ignore email entirely. android79 20:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that restriction could easily be bypassed, but it would be a clear message that admins were expected to provide an email address if they're going to perform blocks. Carbonite | Talk 20:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
If an address were required, then that would be a breach of policy, thus not allowable. [[Sam Korn]] 20:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression that it was considered at least good form for all admins to provide an email address, for the reasons stated above. It's not policy AFAIK, but common sense. Rd232 talk 10:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk page being vandalized by malber[edit]

Can someone please get malber (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) to just leave me alone? He's edited my user page, which I reverted, and now keeps trying to change the formatting of my Usr Talk page and has been deleting my comments from there and changing things too

I have already previously asked him to stop, and he has been previously blocked for making personal attacks on me elsewhere, see User talk:Malber#Vandalism of talk page. yet he continues to change the formatting on my talk page and delete messages by me, and repeatedly changing links that have nothing to do with him, some examples:

He seems determined to harass me as much as possible, despite prior to these edits having asked him to stop..

At this time he is STILL making changes to my talk page that aren't messages, editing the layout, reformatting, changing links and deleting messages after I have told him to stop...

User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle ([[Talk:User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle|talk]] · history · watch) --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 01:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Drop him a {{test4}}, and report back if he does it again. NSLE (T+C) 01:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
No, don't do that. That is very provocative and thoroughly unnecessary. Politeness never did anyone any harm. [[Sam Korn]] 01:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's not vandalism. Nevertheless, it is definitely Not Cool to reformat others' user pages/user talk pages without just cause. Have you asked Malber to comehere to discuss the issue? While I would request Malber ceases doing this, I would also ask you to reread Wikipedia:Vandalism, which doesn't include reformatting talk pages. [[Sam Korn]] 01:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
He is still doing it over and over again. I left the test4 message already, Pilotguy reverted it and I said that I got told here to put it on and not to use rollback to revert non-vandalism
Every time I revert he changes my page again in a different way --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 01:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm currently talking to malber in IRC, and he agrees to ignore you, if that's a fair compromise. NSLE (T+C) 01:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Politeness went out the window a long time ago in the case involving MSK unfortunately. He should still stop, it's not nice. MSK, have you checked to see if he's broken 3RR? NSLE (T+C) 01:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
In all fairness, I have not reverted your template continuously, it was just once and an honest mistake on my behalf, but it is not nice to take it out on me. Obviously there is still debate on it. You see the top of my talk page, MSK? I thought you were different; apparently I was wrong. --Winter 01:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I never said you reverted my template continously! O_o I said malber was reverting me continuously, or if I didn't say that clear enough that's what I meant anyway. I know you reverted only once, I wasn't saying that. sorry! --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 01:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not about reformatting or layout. MSK has struck out part of Malber's comments on her talk page and added "(blatant lie, see below for proof --Selina)" in the middle. And there's a couple of other lines that the two are reverting over. MSK should simply blank the relevant paragraph entirely rather than editing in the middle. Malber should stop reverting. Both need to grow up. Radiant_>|< 01:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
While I don't condone MSK's response to it what Malber was doing was blatantly innapropriate, since he has continued to do it I have blocked him for 24 hours. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"Supercunt" vandal[edit]

We seem to have a very pesky new vandal a la Jake Remington and his ilk. I've nicknamed him the "Supercunt Vandal." I keep blocking his user names and he just keeps hitting us with nonsense. Can a sysop look into blocking the range if at all possible? - Lucky 6.9 03:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Bah It's an AOL ip range... and how do I know? you ask? because every 20 seconds I get a "blocked because your ip range was recently used by supercunt..." message, this is too many ip autoblocks to be an accident, this is a good ol' fassioned denial of service type vandal, gets himself blocked, then takes as many AOL ip ranges with him as humanly possible, blocking all of AOL is probably what this person is after, may have to just ride it out like with all the other AOL vandal sprees--205.188.116.200 16:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • With all due sympathis, may I suggest that "supercunt" may not be the best name for the vandal? Putting that name in a block summary will give messages like the above to the many AOL users who will be affected. It does not reflect positively on Wikipedia to use such a label. [[Sam Korn]] 16:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

French Revolution[edit]

Hit very close together by two different ips that traced to two different ISPs. Might be wroth doing an open proxy cheack on them.Geni 04:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Hu[edit]

Hu has put in this very offensive message that when I put in a catagory listing at the bottom of an article such as Rhodesian Honours System, it really proves how ignorant he really is about British Commonwealth history. A lot of people, especially those in New Zealand have never heard of the Commonwealth of Nations. We have all heard of the British Commonwealth. Can an administrator please correct this offensive category tag to read 'Category:British Commonwealth Honours Systems', which is politically neutral? - (Aidan Work 05:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC))

I'd request that administrators disregard this, as the message stating that the organisation is called the Commonwealth of Nations is in fact correct, and Aidan has been the subject of an RfC which covered forcing incorrect terminology on articles. Wheter people in New Zealand have or haven't heard of the correct name is irrelevant, however I really doubt that they haven't, to be honest. --Kiand 08:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Bertrand Meyer[edit]

According to this, the article on Meyer article stated that he died on 24th of December. Where is this edit? It's certainly not in the deletion logs or in a deleted version in the history! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's refering to a bit of news making vandalism in the German Wikipedia. Dragons flight 08:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Got it :-) Ta bu shi da yu 08:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensus or Supermajority?[edit]

There is talk on Wikipedia:Consensus concerning the statement that certain Wikiprocesses, in particular WP:RFA and WP:AFD, no longer work on the principle of Consensus, but instead on the principle of Wikipedia:Supermajority, which seems to imply a more-or-less strict numerical limit. I would appreciate it if some bureaucrats, or AFD regulars, would weigh in on the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Consensus to comment on this. Radiant_>|< 14:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Haham hanuka and war crimes reverts[edit]

Fellow admins. I'm a baby admin and am slightly new to this, but we have a situation with the above user. Ths user is going to several articles on Nazi leaders and removing them from a category devoted to war crimes. The user then states that to call such Nazis war criminials is "POV". However, the nazis we are talking about include Heinrich Himmler, Amon Goth, and Adolf Hitler to name but a few. In Goth's case, he was convicted twice of war crimes, Himmler was convicted posthumously at several different trials, and Hitler...well...to say he wasn't a war criminal is revisionism in my opinion. In any event, this user is not responding to talk pages and continues this campaign. I am at my third revert on Amon Goth and could use some help. Thank you! -Husnock 15:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 24 hours, for the moment. He has created Category:Persons convicted at Nuremberg and is apparently filling it with people convicted there. That seems okay, but it does not imply that those people not convicted at Nuremberg are not in fact war criminals. Radiant_>|< 15:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Category:Persons convicted at Nuremberg strikes me as a useful subcategory of Category:War crimes. Jkelly 17:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Category:Nazi war criminals seems to me a much better formulation. Besides being less linguistically awkward, the fact that these war criminals belonged to the Nazi movement is a more relevant categorisation that which tribunal happened to convict them. Mark1 17:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Please discuss that on WP:CFD. (Anon)

Help needed with autoblock on 80.177.165.204[edit]

Someone has made a reasonable request to have an autoblock removed but I find no trace of any such block. Probably just me, so could someone else please give it a go? See User talk:80.177.165.204. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I unblocked the only autoblock I saw with your name attached to it; it was over a non-vandal username block, so it should have been released anyway. (Let me clarify: the original block was a username block of a username that was inappropriate for WP, but not one of the vandal-type usernames; those autoblocks are routinely lifted so the user can choose a new name.) Also, I've unblocked that IP directly; if you go to the unblock screen and type in that IP, it will unblock it even if it is blocked as a result of an autoblock (and thus, a block doesn't acutally appear under that IP number, but a cloak instead.) Problem should be solved. -- Essjay TalkContact 20:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

AIDS reappraisal[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the place to do this, but in the article AIDS reappraisal there is a constant reference to wikipedia edits. Is this ok in articles? I was under the impression from Wikipedia:Self-reference that we shouldn't do this. --Bob 21:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the only one I could find. But I think self-reference is the least of that article's problems, as a quick glance at the edit history suggests. Guettarda 22:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed from my casual reading. --Syrthiss 22:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I just removed another self-reference, and I fully agree with User:Guettarda about this article having much more dire issues than self-ref. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes for deletion[edit]

In the past month, wikipedia has seen an explosion of userboxes. Many of these templates feed into dedicated categories. Wikipedia has also seen a massive controversy over which userboxes are desirable and which are not, and what actions and processes are appropriate to deal with "undesirable" userboxes. I personally don't see this issue being resolved soon. Also, a lot of bad blood has been created, which might interfere with community operations in the future. Would it be an idea to create a new deletions process, Wikipedia:Userboxes for deletion (UfD), to deal with this issue? I believe that there are now so many userboxes, with so many more being created every day, that filling this with new deletion requests shouldn't be much of a problem. It could also prevent an overflow of deletion requests at tfd. This overflow could obstruct non-userbox-related deletion requests. Furthermore, the occasional linkage of templates and categories could create some friction with tfd and cfd. The same has happened between rfd, cfd and tfd on one side, and sfd on the other side. I don't know if this is the proper place to raise this issue, or whether I should go to the Village Pump for it. I also don't know if this is feasible, viable and/or desirable. What are the obstructions to this issue? Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 00:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Or just delete the lot. --Doc ask? 00:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Strongly disagree with Doc. I thought that the recent RfCs should have taught one that single-handed actions by people "feeling strongly" about issues is unproductive. I would also add that it is abuse of administrative powers to go on a deletion rampage; actually to delete even a single userbox without proper process, unless it is clear nonsense or clearly offensive. For full disclosure, I hate userboxes, even the Babel ones (the granddaddy of them all I would guess). But if one does anything, let it be done by proper process, whatever that may be. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
A terrible idea. Witness the morass that WP:SFD has become, where perfectly good redirects like Template:Us-rail-stubTemplate:US-rail-stub are unanimously deleted, until it's gotten so that it's practically impossible to sort stubs unless that's almost the only thing you do. Specialized wikiprojects should not have sole voice in deletion. Send 'em through TFD. —Cryptic (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Cryptic. TfD is the appropriate venue. I'm also concerned that having a separate UFD would lead to a subcommunity of voters that develops a sense of consensus and practice that is at odds with the broader sense of community standards. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
What Kelly said about a separate UfD culture developing makes sense to me - we don't want that. The userbox situation is going to have to be resolved by some kind of widespead discussion and consensus about the role of the Wikipedia community and what bounds, if any, need to be placed on its growth as a community, which is a non-trivial question. That's the root of the userbox issue, though, and has to be addressed somewhere.
Meanwhile, I would take issue with Cryptic's characterization of SfD - are you aware that template redirects cost double the server resources, and that developers support deleting template redirects? Fascinating stuff, that. Turns out not all redirects are cheap. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware that they cause an extra database query. I'm also aware that they're cheaper than normal redirects, since don't make the squids cache an extra copy of the whole, rendered page. This is an argument for either a soft redirect or bot enforcement. The rest of Wikipedia abandoned CamelCase a very long time ago. —Cryptic (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I find your referring to a "UfD subcommunity" a bit of a fallacy. That's a risk you get with every deletions process, whether it's AfD, CfD, TfD, IfD, MfD or SfD. I don't see why it should be more of a problem with userboxes than with other types (although I agree that some people have become overly owneristic of new userboxes). Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 11:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It still never ceases to amaze me that we have new users with a ton of fugly userboxes and very few actual edits. One quick example: The Ungovernable Force, with all of 15 articlespace edits and 18 userboxes, most of which express an opinion rather a skill. I'm still suffering from red-userbox-blindness. --Deathphoenix 05:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I sense the impending invention of Deathphoenix's Law: The number of opinion-expressing userboxes on a user page is inversely proportional to the number of edits to articles. ☺ Uncle G 18:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Ha! I like the Law, it pretty much summarises my sentiments. --Deathphoenix 16:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Río de la Plata[edit]

Could an admin please review the discussion at Talk:Río de la Plata on the articles' name? It has been at River Plate as the common English name for a considerable time, but it was moved to Río de la Plata a few weeks ago after a limited discussion, which only came to the attention of the wider community when links from Battle of the River Plate started to be changed. There has since been a "vigorous" discussion which has, in my opinion, demonstrated that "River Plate" is by a considerable margin the preferred English name for the place (even when discounting the battle, the movie of the battle, and the Buenos Aires football club from the search). I would move the article myself, but I've already been involved in the debate and have no wish for an RfAr! -- Arwel (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The page is currently listed at WP:RM. Maybe no need for intervention is needed. Sebastian Kessel Talk 20:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Zen-master banned regarding article titles[edit]

After his previous two proposals to remove the term "conspiracy theory" from articles failed, Zen-master has now started a third, nearly identical proposal at Wikipedia:Conspiracy_theory_titles. I've tried pointing out the mistakes in his reasoning for a while, but he tends not to be responsive to any opinions other than his own, and prefers wikilawyering to back his claims, and prefers repetetive polling or voting over sensible discussion. I do believe he qualifies as being a vexatious litigant.

Hence, to put an end to these fruitless one-sided discussions, and by his ArbCom probation, Zen-master is hereby banned from discussing, or commenting on, article titles on any page in the Wikipedia namespace, and is requested to use the relevant talk pages instead. Additionally, Zen-master is hereby banned from starting polls or votes related to article titles on any page in the Wikipedia_talk namespace, and is requested to use consensual discussion instead. Both bans have a duration of one month.

I'm putting this here for general notification (and discussion, if need be). Note that several other admins have recently expressed disagreement with Zen-master's opinion and methods, such as on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions and WP:RFAr. Radiant_>|< 22:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a request for clarification on the WP:RfAr page where I'm asking for zen to be banned. At this point, he's been blocked from enough articles that I can't even keep track of them. Is there a listing somewhere? If there isn't, one should be compiled. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 22:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
There is a listing. It is on zen's RfAr page. Apologies. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I endorse User:Radiant!'s enforcement. User Zen Master has been pushing this issue throughout his Wikiepdia career, and his actions have been disruptive to the project. -Will Beback 22:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I formally dispute this ban, for starters Radiant and those allied with him are only censoring me and my User:Zen-master/Conspiracy theory titles proposal because they disagree with it. Secondly, there is no justification within Wikipedia:Probation to ban a user from discussing or proposing a straw poll/vote or criticizing a title as being non-neutral, that is the antithesis of Wikipedia. By what justification was the proposal moved to my user namespace? By what justifiaction did Radiant rollback my edits to other user's talk pages informing them of the vote 2 days ago? By what justification was version 2.0 of the proposal speedy deleted, after 4 months of work, from its Wikipedia:Title Neutrality location? User Radiant falsely claimed the proposal failed twice, voting on version 1.0 of the proposal closed 6.5 months ago, version 2.0 of the proposal was mistakingly speedy deleted 2 days just as voting had begun. zen master T 23:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine zen. Then what you do is to challenge the speedy delete at Wikipedia:Deletion review. It's what it is there for. You often ask "how is x disruptive?" Well this is a textbook case. Instead of using the correct process, you decided to create new versions of the same proposal. If that doesn't define disruptive, nothing does. And you are not a newbie, zen. You should know better by now. If you disagree with the speedy delete, fine. Use the propoer channels. We don't hide these things. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Radiant and others were well aware version 2.0 of the proposal was substantially updated, the previous vote closed 6.5 months ago and it has been worked on, by both sides, for 3 months so the speedy deletion was completely without merit and is an obvious case of censorship of a proposal certain admins don't like. Even if it is the same core proposal they can be resubmitted for renewed debate, discussion and voting. If you are so confident the updated proposal would still be rejected by the community why are you so adamantly against allowing the community to become aware of it? zen master T 05:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Since Zen was once more started discussing article titles on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions (of all places), I've blocked him for 24 hours. Radiant_>|< 23:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That's actually a good block. Hopefully he'll learn to use the correct process. We don't hide these things. What he was complaining about is exactly what deletion review is for. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Paranoia[edit]

It's official, we're all part of a big conspiracy, as proven by the very clever IP who figured it out and made this quote. Let's send him the ninja already to tie his shoelaces together, that'll teach him to expose us.

"I estimate that over 93% of admin accounts are sock puppets of other admin accounts. I see all over articles, admins who control a small number of articles. They check these articles around 16 hours a day" -- some IP

  • If I were an Admin I'd be very worried about now about this exposure about all the things that are all about stuff that nobody is supposed to you know, know about. hydnjo talk 03:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm blocking Titoxd (who is my sockpuppet anyway, so it doesn't really matter) for exposing the cabal behind the cabal. Essjay TalkContact 18:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That's silly, there is no cabal behind the cabal, it's just Mark. Dragons flight 18:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This is the sockpuppet of Jimbo Wales. Watch it, or I will delete Wikipedia. --Jimbo Wales16:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The irony is that by deleting Wikipedia, you are automatically permabanning yourself since there isn't a Wikipedia left to not be banned from. If that made sense. Radiant_>|< 17:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wehatetech recreations[edit]

Wehatetech and We hate tech were deleted per an afd vote. {{deletedpage}] was put on both of them. Well today, it was recreated as Wehatetech.com. I just put the deletedpage tag on it. I'm alerting everyone because now we have it recreated with names in different languages! Oi. Nous détestons la technologie is the name. And we've also had a user account created which consists of the deleted material. It was at User:Wehatetechdotcom. I just deleted it. So please be on the watch out for any more recreations. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are all over the place - I speedied a couple myself as well. Keep a look out on afd and other places for articles that sound like it. WhiteNight T | @ | C 21:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
They tried to bring it up on DRV yet again, and I deleted the discussion. Now I'm being threatened. It was also recreated with a name that had nothing at all to do with wehatetech (I can't remember the name right now), but I just happened to encounter it while doing Recent Changes patrol. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Zoe: "and I deleted the discussion". I am sure that is helping the problem.
Yup - it's also been recreated a few more times here and here. I have no doubt it will show up again and again under other similar names --Bachrach44 02:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Titoxd Imposter[edit]

Well, I don't know where else to post this so..

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

Tito has an imposter account. Block? —