Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive32

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

Noticeboard archives


User:John1838 (and User:Trollwatcher and others)[edit]

This seems to be little more than an attack page, and it now mentions me. What are my options...what can be done? Thanks for any advice/help...KHM03 00:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see something done, and strongly urge other admins to do so; the userpage definately is an attack page, and honestly, seems like trolling itself. Since Keith (KHM03) is a friend, I don't feel neutral enough to take action, but someone uninvolved with the parties should take a look and do something. Essjay TalkContact 06:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted the page and warned the user. Sasquatch t|c 08:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. AnnH (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't intervene, as I'm involved with this. In fact, I've no doubt that I'll soon be mentioned by name as one of the "trolls" (he still has these attacks on his talk page). We have two new (very similar) users, John1838 (talk · contribs) and Trollwatcher (talk · contribs), who both appeared around the time that the Checkuser showed that Giovanni33 (talk · contribs) was also BelindaGong (talk · contribs). There is some reason to suspect that they are the same user as each other, and may even be part of the Giovanni/Belinda sockpuppet/meatpuppet group. They use similar language (both referring to some editors as "DEWCs"...shorthand for devout, ecumenical, western Christians), and before either of them registered, IP posted very similar stuff (about the established editors being "trolls" and part of a "clique" to the Christianity talk page, signing himself "Trollspotter".[1] He later posted to John1838's talk page, obviously as John himself.[2] We also had Freethinker99 (talk · contribs) appearing on the Christianity talk page while Giovanni and Belinda were blocked, saying that he was new and had read the talk page and agreed with Giovanni, reverting to Giovanni's version, and then accidentally signing one of Giovanni's talk page posts (denying association with any of the new users) while still logged on as Freethinker[3] and immediately changing it to Giovanni.[4] Various explanations were given — Freethinker and Giovanni knew each other and Giovanni happened to be at Freethinker's house, and Freethinker let him use his computer, and Giovanni denied association with Freethinker because he hadn't seen Freethinker's name in the people being referred to. In one place, Freethinker said he wrote the post for Giovanni; in another place, he said that he allowed Giovanni to write it.
An unfortunate result of the checkuser was that SOPHIA left in anger after the checkuser showed that she was editing from the same IP address as TheShriek. (Unlike Giovanni/Belinda, SOPHIA and her husband had no history of casting double votes or taking six reverts between them.) We all regreat that, and we posted some very nice messages to her, telling her that we did not in any way associate her with Giovanni, but she was unable to accept that there was no cloud over her name. I can't blame admins if they haven't fully read my request for help here and here. It's complicated, and probably not particularly interesting for those who aren't involved. Basically, a new user, Giovanni33, turned up, and began to insist on inserting very controversial stuff into Christianity-related articles. He met with resistence from "older" editors. He went way beyond three reverts per day, despite pleadings and warnings. The other editors, who were trying to stay within 344, were reluctant to report a newcomer, so he was not reported for nearly three weeks. Four new, redlinked, editors appeared on the talk page and supported him. Some of them began to revert to his version, and followed him to other pages, where they did the same thing. That was why I (in consultation with the others) requested a checkuser, which did not include SOPHIA, but did include her husband.
Please, we need help. What's to be done about John1838 and Trollwatcher (if they're two people), who seem to be here just to stir up trouble on the Christianity talk page? What's to be done about Giovanni and Belinda (if they're two people), who actively went through a pretence of not knowing each other, while taking at least six reverts per day, plus voting twice on some issues? Giovanni seems to be claiming that since she is is wife, her reverts and votes are legitimate. We also sometimes get reverts (to Giovanni's version) from IP addresses when the new, registered users have run out of reverts. Doesn't anyone have time to read "Advice requested from experienced admins" and "Advice requested Part Two" above? It will probably be archived soon. :-( AnnH (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't even follow all that. It would help if you could provide sumaries of the situation that are much shorter including links to specific diffs and other evidence of what you are talking about. It all looks fishy and some of what you refer to looks blockworthy. Repeatedly counting up 3 reverts and returning the next day to do the same is blockable as disruption anyway, and I'm not swayed by the wife argument anyway. If they can't provide reliable references for their position, they shouldn't be allowed to revert back to their version. Consider creating and RFC to organize all the information and come to a consensus about how to stop the disruption. If they have valid points they don't need the sockpuppetry to improve the articles. - Taxman Talk 11:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

These are the high points:

  • Although his earlier attack page has been deleted, John1838 (talk · contribs)'s talk page is devoted to attacking what he sees as "a federation of devout, ecumenical, western Christians (DEWCs)" who he says "have a lot of free time, they are mostly lonely people." He posted this "Troll warning" to the Christianity talk page.
  • Giovanni33 wants to add what I think is a rather fringe minority view of the historical development of Christianity. It is too detailed and too far from the mainstream for the general survey article, but it could easily go in History of Christianity, Early Christianity, or any of half a dozen others. The problem is not the content, but the behavior, which has brought progress on the article to a standstill. When he was unable to get a concensus to support his changes, he edit-warred to force them. When he was blocked for 3RR, and used puppets to avoid the block. Tom Harrison Talk 16:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that both of the users in question have made it their primary mission to engage in personal attacks and violate the civility rule. I have been concerned about both, but brought the issue here when John1838 mentioned my name on his userpage. I don't know if there's any connection to User:Giovanni33, nor if these are sockpuppets, but the coincidences are striking. All I'm really asking for is that an uninvolved administrator or two monitor these users and check things out to see if there are WP violations...especially look at John1838's talk page. Thanks...KHM03 18:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I also see that John1838 has restored his userpage, attacks and all. KHM03 19:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
John1838's user page was deleted by Sasquatch. John1838 simply recreated it. It was then deleted again by CesarB and protected. To get round that, he has now registered a new account as J1838 (talk · contribs). He seems to have little purpose here other than to make accusations against other editors. I'm helpless in this matter because I'm involved, so I don't want to jump in and start blocking and deleting and protecting. AnnH 21:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
He has now switched to a new identity, User:J1838. KHM03 21:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I've asked him [7] to remove the page; no response yet. Tom Harrison Talk 15:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

He's now saying (on User talk:J1838) that the latest versions of his userpages (the ones I deleted) didn't have any personal attacks. I disagree; but even then, I want for other people to take a look. --cesarb 22:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the username may be an echo of John 1107, who got permablocked for complete lunacy. Phil Sandifer 22:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, this doesn't even get near that. I'd guess both names are simply references to random Bible verses; it might be interesting to look up the corresponding verses. --cesarb 22:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
FWIT, Pilate asks Jesus 'What is truth?' --Doc ask? 22:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
John 3:3 is, "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Tom Harrison Talk 00:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


As if we didn't have enough on our plate, webcomics are heating up again. I havent looked at the exact timeline, but for my part I placed a comment on WikiProject Webcomics and nominated nominated one comic for deletion and weighed in on a few more... but there are I think five on AfD right now and Snowspinner is calling WP:WEB an essay and previous experiance shows this gets ugly fast. Can we have a few more eyeballs on this over all and the AfD's in particular? - brenneman{T}{L} 01:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, at a glance, none of the AfDs look unreasonable to me. Then again, I think my average in webcomic AfDs is about a 75% rate of voting delete. Phil Sandifer 02:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Please don't make WP:WEB internaly contradictory. Yes I know most of our guidelines conflict with each other (it's one of their more endearing points in fact) but generaly they are internaly consistant.Geni 02:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't see what the problem is here. There's no indication that the current content can be called a guideline, it certainly isn't policy but for some reason the "notpolicy" template is no longer with us. Historical doesn't fit. Proposed policy? Perhaps, but as notability is a very controversial deletion criterion in itself, this seems a bit far-fetched. Essay isn't quite right. Whatever, this semes like a storm in a teacup to me. --Tony Sidaway 03:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
{{nicetry}}? It sure as hell isn't policy or anything like policy. It could be rephrased as guidelines - David Gerard 15:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm back[edit]

Hi everyone, I'm just letting you know that I'm back from a much-needed break. If someone can bring me up to speed either here or on my user talk page on what has been going on for the last month, I'd appreciate it. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

One word. Userboxes (sorry, I couldn't resist). --Deathphoenix 17:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
With huge casualties. - Mailer Diablo 18:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure userboxes explains every major event that has gone on, I'm going to blame it on your wikibreak =). Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 19:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Probably the biggest conflict was the wheel war over a particular userbox that led Jimbo to basically de-sysop a bunch of admins and "fast track" an RFAR. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    Well, I saw that one (even added my $0.02 in the workshop). But apparently userboxes seem to be a major theme... Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, they only other thing I see that kind of upset some users is the new WP:OFFICE that Danny and Jimbo set up, in which they unilaterally speedy or protect an article based on valid complaints sent to the Foundation office. One such article that has been protected under this policy has been Harry Reid. But as you can see on Talk:Harry Reid, many users are complaining that Danny has not really given a full explanation on why he protected it, only that he claimed it under WP:OFFICE. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • There is also the Brian Peppers issue going on. Beyond that there is the normal background level of vandalism, we've introduced a new deletion system that appears to be working (as long as you define working as "no one appears to be complaining") and we've stoped useing the helpdeak mailing list.Geni 20:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah yes, the Brian Peppers article. Another issue that some are upset about because of Jimbo's unilateral decree to speedy delete it and have it {{deletedPage}} for a year.Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Several people have departed. Some fairly notable, like Radiant!! -- Samuel Wantman 00:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Radiant! was just one of the many casualties of the userbox wars. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Radiant! is now speaking through User:Xoloz, at least in some capacity - see the RFAr on Tony Sidaway, where Xoloz presents evidence apparently for him - David Gerard 15:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Who said that? Anyway, now nobody is speaking through Xoloz, because Xoloz is on a necessary, hopefully very long, vacation (not over userboxes, mind you). -- Xoloz

Wow. I leave for a month and the place blows up. Now that I think about it, this has happened every time that I've gone on a break... back to work, then. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 05:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because it happens all the time, but when you come back after some time the difference between "before" and "after" is bigger? --cesarb 15:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Jack Thompson[edit]

Is it just me, or is this article and sub-articles a completely muddled and unencyclopedic mess? He's a lawyer who doesn't like violent video games, and apparently every single thing he's ever said about them, and every single thing he's ever done with regards to them, is now documented to the minutest detail on Wikipedia. The article itself is about 48 kilobytes, with almost a dozen subarticles split off - Flowers for Jack, Jack Thompson and the Jacob Robida murders, Jack Thompson and Video Gamers, Jack Thompson/Video Game Activism, etc. I really think this is overkill. FCYTravis 07:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

So noted. Why exactly does this require administrator attention? :) --Golbez 08:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I edited out a lot of the dafter puff - but it keeps being reintroduced - I don't want to fall foul of 3R so someonelse might like to watch it. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper?) 11:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD deletion hiccup, Jed Baker et al[edit]

A week ago a user created half a dozen hoax articles. After a jolly mess of AfD discussion, blanking by author, and speedy deletion, three articles accidentally survived deletion. Someone want to do the honours and delete the remaining? See the AfD discussion. Weregerbil 11:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorted Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper?) 14:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Dancingmonkey07 keeps posting nonsense[edit]

Dancingmonkey07 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) --BNutzer 16:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like this user's been warned with a test1. --Deathphoenix 16:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Ariele Blocked by User:Fred Bauder[edit]

There is a problem here with Wikipedia's arbitration team. My user account was initially suppose to be blocked for 24 hours for sockpuppet "PussnPurpleboots" when "PussnPurpleBoots" put userboxes on User:Geo Swan's dull user page as a gift. User:Geo Swan has no humor and dragged the poor puss by the tail to the Arbitration committee and got the poor cat blocked. Then the arbitration committee decided it is easier to punish me and the puss than the Geo Swan who has been "trolling" me for well over a year now. Now my account and Puss's account have both been blocked for unfair and no plausible reasons. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ariele (talk • contribs) .

If you can post here, you are no longer blocked. Ceasing using sockpuppets to harrass those you don't like would go far towards ensuring that you don't get blocked again. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice I don't need. You really need to restrain User:Geo Swan whenever someone attempts to write the truth about this war in Iraq. This user attacks anyone (including those who have been to Iraq) who disagrees with him.-Ariele 14:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I have indefinitely blocked all of this user's sockpuppets, as detailed at User_talk:Ariele#Go_Ahead:__Vandalize_to_Your_Heart.27s_Content. If the password of that account is not changed (or the new one is publicized), I will block it indefinitely as well. Superm401 - Talk 14:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Further to that I have been asked by User: to delete some accounts related to this - diffs giving request/replies. --Alf melmac 10:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Account are not deleted. However, all those accounts have been indefinitely blocked (all but User:Ariele by me) for having public passwords; as always, that serves fine. Superm401 - Talk 15:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

User's Vandalism[edit]

The user at has been vandalizing the Nick GaS page and the pages of some of the shows that air on the channel. He has been warned to test4 and I've reported him on both the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and the Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. He keeps editing and it doesn't seem like anything's being done. I'm tired of reverting the article everyday, so can somebody do something to stop this?

I've looked at this contributions and they strike me as being those not of a vandal but rather someone who doesn't quite understand how articles should look.Mackensen (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Can't seem to figure out how wikilinks work either. A child, perhaps (given the chosen subject matter). Chick Bowen 04:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that it is probably a child given the times of editing and the subject matter of the articles being edited. I looked up the IP and found a contact for the person in charge of that IP address (it's coming from a government building). Should I contact that administrator directly and see if he can notify the user of what's happening or should something be done on Wikipedia's end?--Kilby 08:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Username Block[edit]

Is this the right place to request a username block? I just found a User:Goddess of War which is very close to my name.--God of War 20:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well at the very least all the usernames here should be blocked indef as "public" accounts (one of which is Goddess of War). --Syrthiss 20:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I've indefinitely blocked this user for violation of Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#"Public" accounts. I'm beginning to think that an indef block of Ariele (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) is in order as well. --Deathphoenix 20:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll second that - in fact, I'm blocking for a month for 'gross incitement to vandalism'. If anyone want to up that to indef, I'll not complain. --Doc ask? 20:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (evidence [8])
I'll check to see if her account is still public (she's already been warned to change her password). If it is, I'll up your block to indefinite for being a public account. --Deathphoenix 20:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
It's still a public account. I'm indefinitely blocking. --Deathphoenix 20:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed the passwords on all of these accounts except for Puss'nPurpleBoots and Goddess of War, which were not set up with the passwords listed. android79 22:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

All listed accounts have also been indefinitely blocked. android79 22:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
That was me. I blocked them primarly as public accounts. Superm401 - Talk 15:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
All those accounts should definitely stay blocked, I'm confused as to why this user's main account was unblocked though even though they were telling everyone to vandalize and gave out account names to do so. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 05:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Looks like The Cunctator blocked her for a week without realising that she was already indef blocked. He unblocked with the reason as "I'm confused by what's going on", so I'm going to restore the indef block, but I'm also going to sent Cunctator a nice message just in case that wasn't his intention. --Deathphoenix 06:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I have had a request to delete those accounts - see my post above in above section 5.60 - User:Ariele Blocked by User:Fred Bauder - Alf melmac 10:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the confusion. Carry on! --The Cunctator 21:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Dharmapada / Dhammapada Confusion[edit]

The article Dhamapada was redirected to Dharmapada (person). This is wrong, Dhamapada is a misspelling of Dhammapada. I changed the redirect, but now the talk pages seem screwed up. I don't think I can (or don't know how to) fix this. Also: Dharmapada is a person, and Dhammapada is a book. I'd like to see this straightened out, but don't know how to proceed. And if the spelling and redirects are fixed, then the "(person)" label can be removed from Dharmapada. Can anyone help?
— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 24, 2006, 03:52 (UTC)

Ok, so:
DhamapadaDhammapada (as you left it, no need to worry about the talk page, it might be needed where it is in future)
Dharmapada (person) has now been moved to Dharmapada and is thus a redirect.
Is that right? -Splashtalk 04:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Yup! — Looks good. Thanks! — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 24, 2006, 05:01 (UTC)

Undoing page move madness on Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging[edit]

Recently, Ezeu (talk · contribs) incorrectly moved Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (which is correct) to Afrikanerweerstandsbeweging (incorrect); since then a number of edits have occurred, and a few days ago Zaian (talk · contribs) moved the page to an even more incorrect Afrikanerweerstands Beweging. It seems like a copy&paste move has now been tried to get everything sorted out again, so could an admin please take a look at this and move the page with history back to Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging? Thanks! dewet| 07:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll do it. --cesarb 09:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Done. --cesarb 09:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks. I was trying to undo Ezeu's error when I accidentally introduced a worse one of my own. The best I could then do was attempt to tidy up the mess using a copy and paste move. Sadly these things are very hard to undo once done. I appreciate the assistance. Zaian 23:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, not really, if you know the trick: if you have a "chained move" A->B->C, simply undo the moves in reverse order (C->B->A). The rules which the software uses to decide when to allow overwriting a redirect allow that. Of course, once any of the other pages on the chain have been edited, you need an admin to delete the target pages. --cesarb 00:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


I have blocked this user indefintitely for adding a speedy deletion tag to the Jesus article. I believe the account was solely created to vandalise Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  • There's one other legit edit he has made [9], I thought it'd been better if you have issued him with a template warning first. Then again, I have no idea if this may be some sock. - Mailer Diablo 13:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • With a what? I don't think there's an appropriate template for something like this. It's time ... to get creative ... ahem. What I'm trying to say is, it's the warning that's important, not the shiny templates used. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What are you doing? We don't indef block after one bad edit, do we? Why do you believe the account was created solely to vandalize? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I shortened the block to end 24 hours from now; if there's some more compelling logic, we can re-block. I'm also not convinced any block at all is merited here, without a warning first. For now, though, I think a much clearer patter of abuse needs to be established before an indefinite block is even considered. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Good luck with making sure they stop editing. That account was obviously around for quite a while unused, I know this because they edited a semi-protected page. I feel sure that either the editor will stop using the account or will start vandalising the site quite a lot more. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

IP's posting legal threats[edit]

Various IP's have been posting legal threats similar to found at this link [10] on various pages basically containing a legal threat against myself, User:Shanel and a few other users, mostly admins. The consensus in IRC is to block for 6 months on all IP's who does this, if you notice it, please remove and strongly strongly consider a block, no sense in warning as it's a BV -- Tawker 21:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If they're going to keep changing IP (and you did say they were various IPs) then there is little point in blocking an IP for six months when we know he/she(/it?) has moved on to another IP. That would just cause "collateral damage". --Latinus 21:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe they are static IP's assigned to the customer from tracerts and Bell's allocation table. Tawker 21:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Merging Contribs[edit]

Hello, i would like it if a sysop merged my contribs from my old ip [11] into my NightDragon Account attribs please :)

Thanks! --NightDragon 21:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that is posible. Only buracrats can do that and merging IP edits causes problems with the GFDL.Geni 21:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
It's less than 50 edits anyways, I wouldn't worry about it too much. We won't judge you based on your edit count :-) Alhutch 21:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


This user is continuing to vandalize articles after repeated warnings. I reverted his edit to fog a few minutes ago, but he has since vandalized two other pages, User:Micahmn and dog. -- Kjkolb 00:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

More Images from nonsense conttributors[edit]

User:Njfreen1 whose only text contribution seems to be the now-deleted nonsense article Andrew David Wong uploaded an image. Can someone make sure that it should be deleted? Should I keep reporting these here, delete them myself even though I can't see them, or report them somewhere else? Academic Challenger 05:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

For an image with no source, like that one, you can just put {{subst:nsd}} and an admin will delete it. I've already done this. If he keeps adding nonsense, warn him and, if he continues after being warned, report him at WP:AIV. Chick Bowen 05:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I probably should have mentioned that I am an admin. I do almost all admin activities daily, including article deletions and blocks, but feel uncomfortable with image deletions because I cannot see well enough to see images, and images cannot be restored. Academic Challenger 06:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I'm sorry, I misunderstood. In any case, what I said holds; it's best to tag an image rather than deleting it straight off, since as you say, image deletions can't be undone. Chick Bowen 06:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[edit]

I unblocked (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) after a request on IRC. It was blocked indef as a possible proxy, but the chap claims that he just got this IP from his ISP, and this is not the first time the IP has been unblocked for collateral damage. However, since it was a suspected proxy, I bring it here. --Golbez 05:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Whois says it's an Australian ISP, so it's probably bona fide; but don't take my word for it, I'm just a hapless contributor rapidly giving myself a crash education about all kinds of blocking technicalities out of sheer self-defense (see Collateral damage below) Vremya 11:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the block logs, one of the blocks was for being the output side of an open proxy (with a different IP address). This probably means that is a transparent proxy; any user (or open proxy) in the range of IP addresses it services will be forced to use it to contact Wikipedia. --cesarb 14:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[edit]

I reverted the edit on the Angela (Inheritance) page.
Federico Pistono 05:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't need to be discussed on AN. You were right to revert. -Greg Asche (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sortan[edit]

This arbitration case has closed. Jguk is banned from editing with respect to era notation. This will be enforced by block, as per Jguk's prior arbitration case. Sortan is also warned regarding stalking Jguk. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 09:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ran into this...[edit]

What is referred to by "Offensive User Names" ? I've ran into this while examining block logs from a Wiki-link I have just placed in my Wiki-listings. Martial Law 09:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Hi, Martial Law! Like it says at the top of this page, it's a message board for coordinating and discussing administrative tasks on Wikipedia. The right place for the kind of question you ask there is Wikipedia:Helpdesk. Best wishes, Bishonen | ノート 10:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC).
Wikipedia:Username explains the policy. Secretlondon 15:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Collateral damage from AOL autoblocking[edit]

At the suggestion of Titoxd, I am here noting my personal experience as an AOL user and good-faith Wikipedia contributor in a wider forum. In my personal experience, the disruptive effect of collateral damage from the autoblocking of the dynamic IPs that AOL imposes on its members has become easily as disruptive as the vandalism it was supposed to combat in the first place. In the course of further reading about this matter, I encountered this proposal, which looks as if it may offer a solution to this problem. My apologies if I'm just being the naive newbie reminding everyone of what they already know, but it took me a while to find the proposal myself (it doesn't seem to be linked directly from most of the help pages I read) so even if it's old hat to seasoned administrators, I figured it might at least be useful to some people in the same predicament as myself Vremya 11:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a very known issue, but we always appreciate input from new users. And elderly users. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest as someone concerned with the issue as an AOL user you may actually be in a better position to convince AOL to cooperate and come up with a tehcnical work around which would allow much better selective blocking (allowing not just registerd users but those who wish not to register), by raising a query with AOL themselves as to the issue and to what they propose to do about it (i.e. providing some unique although not "identifying" header within AOL proxy requests such that selective blocking is practical for any site like wikipedia wishes to do so.) --pgk(talk) 01:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Image reversion unsuccessful[edit]

The image at Image:Hannah.jpg has been overwritten with another image, and I don't seem to be able to revert to the previous version. Can someone assist, and explain how I can make the correction in the future, please. Noisy | Talk 11:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverting did not work for me either, but uploading the old version again did. Eugene van der Pijll 11:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Usually, what you need to do is once you revert an image, refresh the cache of your browser and you should see the new image comping up. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 16:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, both. Noisy | Talk 23:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

A slightly odd example since I had deleted the image that was used to do the overwriting.Geni 05:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


Am I the only one dealing with this? There's a bit of a backlog, and I'd like some more experienced admin(s) to look at some of them; I'm not sure what, if any, CSD criterion some of them come under. Thanks, Hermione1980 01:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on it now. --M@thwiz2020 01:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I left the images along, but went through the articles and categories. Someone with more experience with images please go through those. --M@thwiz2020 01:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Good work with that! Hermione1980 01:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I zapped a few that were obviously appropriate to delete. I'll try to help out more often with maintaining this category in the future. --Improv 01:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy deletion is for obvious cases. If you're not sure it's under the CSD, it's not under CSD. If you agree that it should be deleted, list it as an AFD (or maybe prod). Superm401 - Talk 15:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Um, well, it could be the nominator was sure which CSD it was under but didn't indicate it clearly, so the request for help figuring it out is pretty appropriate. And just to emphasize, for something that clearly needs to go I highly recommend WP:PROD over AfD. -- SCZenz 15:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but if an admin can't tell at a glance, it's not a clear enough case for speedying. Superm401 - Talk 22:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on keeping this clear recently, but have been ignoring tons of userboxes geting dumped in at once for the most part. xaosflux Talk/CVU 06:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Editing MediaWiki pages[edit]

I just wanted to check if there are any special rules or guidelines for editing protected MediaWiki pages, aside from obvious things like using common sense and discretion. For concreteness, I'm interested in adding a link back to the WP:PROD list from the page that comes up after you delete something (for the same reason there's already a link to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion). Is there any reason that's a bad idea, or anywhere it should be discussed? -- SCZenz 02:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  • As a rule of thumb, any major edits to the MediaWiki pages should be proposed on their respective talk pages beforehand. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You can also post here or at the Village Pump. Going back to your question, I don't see any problem with adding PROD to the MediaWiki page. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I currently notice that MediaWiki talk:Deletedtext has yet been created yet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I can't imagine many people watch the Mediawiki pages—there are a lot where changes would be quite noticable—which is why I figured I had better post somewhere else. Since this seems to be an adequate place, I'll give my specific idea a little longer, and nobody objects I'll put the link in. -- SCZenz 03:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • You may as well post at the talk page anyway, just in case. Chick Bowen 03:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe the general rule of thumb is that if it's gonna be a significant visual change or change in meaning it should be proposed on the talk page and/or the Village Pump since people watch the village pump more than the mediawiki talk pages. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 05:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've always started on it's talk page, then listed a link at VP. xaosflux Talk/CVU 06:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:PROD is broken[edit]

If you check out , the list of proposed deletions, you'll notice that almost every entry was added to the list at 14:59 25th February. This is not the case, the bulk of those were prodded before that date. So you have articles like Ogie which should now be in the red csd zone looking like theres 5 days left to run.

I notified Interiot of this pretty much as it happened. I come back now later, and see that it hasn't been fixed. A possible cause for his script breaking, is that Template:Prod was blanked. It was only reverted half an hour later, at 14:59, which is also when all the proposals have been logged to have taken place. So this post is twofold really:

  • If the breakage is due to the blanking of Template:Prod, then maybe it's best to protect it.
  • Maybe you should go through the list and look for articles which should now be deleted, like Corinis

Hahnchen 05:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've protected it. In the meantime, this this is the last pre-vandalism version of the on-wiki backup. —Cryptic (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
He's using the cl_timestamp field in the database. That isn't going to be reliable. --Gmaxwell 05:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
In the context of this vandalism, it's not going to be reliable, or are you saying cl_timestamp won't be reliable in other contexts too? Anyway, I'll come up with a fix if I can, but for now Cryptic's pre-log looks like the best route to go for admins deleting things on schedule. --Interiot 06:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, actually I was wrong. I though cl_timestamp got refreshed when purges were performed, but that doesn't appear to be the case... I'd avoided using it in the past because of this. --Gmaxwell 18:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Final decision[edit]

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein case. Raul654 13:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Frys104 / User:Ryanlong / User:Pjh1810 (same user, just sockpuppets)[edit]

On Febrary 8th, I placed a cleanup tag on the Bashas' article.[[12]]

February 14 User:Frys104 removes the cleanup tag, even though the article is mostly advertisement. The user isn't aware at that time of wikipedia policy. I assume good faith

February 19 User:PaulHanson adds an advert tag to the article. User:Frys104 immediately removes the tag. [13] I replace the advert tag, explaining why on the summary, so User:Frys104 will know why the tag was added.

February 22 User:Frys104 removes the advert tag [[14]], and blanks out the talk page [[15]] User:Frys104 vandalizes User:Bovlb's user page [[16]] User:Frys104 vandalizes my user page [[17]] User:Frys104 blanks out my user page and leaves an ALLCAPS message about how I can't edit "his page". [[18]]

February 23 User:Rebelguys2 reinserts the advert tag, and reverts the page blanking done by Frys104 [[19]]. User:Rebelguys2 reverts User:Fry104's vandalism on User:Bovlb's user page.[[20]] I try to clean up the Bashas article, but it still has POV stuff in it, that I wasn't sure how I was going to edit out. I add a vandalism warning on Fry104's talk page.

February 24 I replace the advert tag on the Bashas article, explaining why on the summary. A 'new user' User:Ryanlong joins Wikipedia. His very FIRST edit is vandalism on my talk page [[21]]. User Ryanlong's other edits look surprisingly identical to User:Fry104 [[22]] User:Ryanlong blanks out the Bashas talk page, and leaves a message about how the previous info was nonsense [[23]] I replace the blanked out text on the Bashas talk page. [[24]] I add a second warning on Fry104's talk page, and a first warning on user Ryanlong's talk page. I report the vandalism of the two users on [[25]] User:Ryanlong removes the advert tag [[26]].

February 25th A 'new user' User:Pjh1810 starts editing similar articles as the first two vandals. [[27]] His first edit on the Fry's food and drug talk page is to try to remove references to Frys104's vandalism. [[28]] User:Pjh1810 removes the advert tag on the Bashas article [[29]] User:Frys104 removes the vandalism warnings on his talk page. [[30]], so he's obviously seen them. User:Prasi90 warns Ryanlong against vandalism. [[31]] Ryanlong removes the vandalism warning on his talk page. A new user User:Worstnightmare vandalizes my page and the pages of other a half dozen contributers to those pages, and reverters of Frys104's, Ryanlong's, and Pj1810's vandalism [[32]] He is quickly blocked.

February 26th User:Weregerbil reverts the vandalism warning blanking on Ryanlong's talk page.[[33]] User:Pjh1810 claims on the Fry's food and drug page that he is not the same person as the other vandals [[34]], but his list of contributions is the same as the other two: [[35]]

It seems clear to me that at least three of the vandals (Fry, Ryan, and Pjh) are the same person: the edit histories and vandisms of all three are nearly identical, occurring on the same pages to the same users. Take a look at Frys104's contributions: [[36]], compare to User:Ryanlong's: [[37]] and user:Pjh1810's: [[38]]. They are the same.

Many of the guy's contributions seem sound, but he vandalizes any user he doesn't like, and it's become a bad situation.

I am less certain about User:Worstnightmare's identity, because he was blocked so early that he didn't have a chance to make other contributions before he was blocked.

Please block this user/users for an extended period. I'm tired of dealing with his vandalism, and I suspect about 20 other people are as well. User active today.--Firsfron 19:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

British Raj to British India cut and past move[edit]

There was a WP:RM request to move British Raj to British India on 4 December 2005 (UTC). See Talk:British Raj#Requested move. The decision was "It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. WhiteNight T | @ | C 21:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

On the 23 January 2006 user: did a cut and past move from British Raj to British India. As can bee seen by the contributions of this was a sockpupet used to bypass the WP:RM consensus. Since the cut and past move there have been a number of edits to the page British India. Please could an administrator merge the newer history back into the British Raj page and make the British India a redirect page. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Reading the relevant discussions, it seems pretty straightforward. I'll do the move. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I got a problem[edit]

The User:SPUI has not only vandalized Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Squidward, but I consider his user page to be extremely obscene. I would like you to look into this and tell me if this user is violating Wikipedia standards or not. Reason being is my standards of obscene are set pretty high and I would like you to make a judgement call. Now User:SPUI just reverted to hus vandalism. If I revert in again then I would be pushing the 3RR Rule or would I? Thank You (Steve 02:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

He's free to have what he wants on his userpage unless an arbcom ruling (I'm not aware of any) explictly states that he cannot. However, it is vandalism, and 3RR doesn't apply to reverting vandalism. Use WP:AIV to report. NSLE (T+C) at 02:27 UTC (2006-02-27)
SPUI is an editor with a talent for dichotomy. That said, I fail to see the point of his edit to that page; as the bots only use that image, it's the logical image representing the bots. Reversion despite opposition is inappropriate. On the other hand, I fail to see the point of having an image at all. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 02:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The image is copyrighted and should not be used outside of the article namespace. SPUI is quite right, even if he's not going about it in the right way. Chick Bowen 02:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd advocate what Pathoschild says above, and remove the image totally, there is no point of having an image at all. NSLE (T+C) at 02:34 UTC (2006-02-27)
Second Chick Bowen. In his usual disruptive way SPUI has made a good point. What would be useful is linking to the image–it's the common thread in these attacks (which makes it easy to hunt down the open proxies involved and get everything reverted). --Mackensen (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Larger issue, different solution: I've temporarily deleted Image:Squid.jpg, after saving a backup copy. It's not an important image, and its only widespread use has been for vandalism and disruption. Will restore once we have the vandalism situation under control, which doesn't seem to be the case yet. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Please restore the image as soon as possible; it's used in the article Squidward Tentacles, and removing it does nothing to deter vandalism. The vandalbots don't care if they're blanking with red links instead of Squidwards. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 06:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I sort of agree with Pathoschild because this vandal will do something else... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Done. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Account Unjustly Blocked[edit]

[The following was moved by Chick Bowen from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard]

I have discovered that my account "Happyjoe" is blocked from editing due to some sort of misunderstanding over the Big Spring, TX article. I am uncertain who to contact to have this mistake fixed. Please remove this block so that I may complete necessary editing on other articles. Thank you for your timely assistance in resolving this problem... Happyjoe 04:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The block log shows that Essjay (talk · contribs) applied an indef-block to you. The justification of the block is shown in the RFC against you. You may contact the admin in question (Essjay). Thanks. --Ragib 04:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked this IP for 24 hours for block evasion, since he has admitted to being User:Happyjoe. Chick Bowen 04:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Heated edit wars over trivial differences[edit]

Can some mediation person talk to the two people involved at Angels and Airwaves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Both 3RR'd. -- Curps 00:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

WTF. WP:LAME? --cesarb 00:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I added it. It is one of the best examples. --cesarb 01:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Tykell and User:Alex 101 are both at it again. I've warned them that 3RR doesn't mean they get three free reverts a day, but somebody needs to keep an eye on them and the article. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Both have gotten two blocks in immediately after their return from 24 hour blocks for 3RR warring. I've blocked both for 24 hours more, and the blocks should start increasing if this continues. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Over 40 reverts, edit summaries using death threats, all over a case of "is" or "are"? Boy, I thought some things on WP:LAME were lame, but this takes the cake. It should be mentioned right at the top as the lamest edit war ever. Tykell, Alex 101, do you have lives outside Wikipedia? JIP | Talk 13:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:WP talk:Mooooooooooo~! (edit | [[Talk:Talk:WP talk:Mooooooooooo~!|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

article deletion history

*copied from talk page*

Category:Featured articles

  1. REDIRECT Cattle

um? delete this

this article is proof of a sytematic bias in wikipedia[edit]

against anons.. I mean look at this, an anon creates this nonsense article, it's deleted twice, an RU comes along and recreates it, and it gets labled as a featured article??! what is wrong with you people?-- 15:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

*end copied from talk page*

What? —Cleared as filed. 17:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
What article are you talking about? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
He's talking about Talk:WP talk:Mooooooooooo~!. --cesarb 12:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

movie plot summary copyvio by User:Katja9 10[edit]

I've come across a whole slew of movie articles recently created by User: Katja9 10. They've all got very brief descriptions ("19xx film directed by ___"), a brief cast list, and a plot synopsis which in every case I've looked at was cut-and-pasted directly from or some other site. You can look at the user's contributions list and probably spot lots more.

I tagged several of these with {copyvio} and listed them at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 26, but I'm thinking that's too tedious and the wrong approach. I'm afraid the expedient thing to do will be simply to delete every article this user has created since at least February 9. Checking all the text is timeconsuming, and the trend is clear, and the articles aren't worth keeping once the copied synopses are removed. (They aren't encyclopedic; they don't contain anything the imdb doesn't. I assume we don't want to try to duplicate imdb, that if we're going to have an article on a movie, it ought to have some pretense of being notable and encyclopeic.)

I left a message on the user's talk page a little while ago. They may have seen it, because the synopses they've posted since then (yes, they're still at it) are lightly paraphrased from the imdb ones, although I notice they're now cutting and pasting the "goofs" list, too. Steve Summit (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, you can't go through and delete all of this users contribs because she has copyvios, the right thing to do is go through each and every article and tag it. You have to assume good faith, especially with a new user. Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 19:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Or you could tag all of the offending articles with a speedy delete A8 copyvio, but i dont know if the articles will meet all the requirements for it. Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 19:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, I am A'ing GF here. Another question: when adding {copyvio}, is it proper to blank the whole page, or just the offending text, or what? Steve Summit (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
We can assume good faith–I'm sure that the new editor does mean well–while still cleaning out the copyvios. There's no point in producing scores (hundreds?) of extra edits and clogging up our copyvio process just because new editor doesn't understand our policies. Encourage the new editor to try to write more detailed articles about fewer movies. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Did that, and he appears to be listening to some extent. But there are dozens of copyvios extant, and I fear they will "clog the copyvio process" somewhat. Steve Summit (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Whats the point of the process if we don't follow for fear of creating a backlog? Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 22:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
What's the point of process for the sake of process when we already know what the outcome will be? Save the bandwidth, server space, time, effort, and potential legal exposure. As far as I know, there hasn't been any objection to deleting these cut-and-paste copies; unless there's a serious objection here, then I think it's not unreasonable to assume that there is a consensus to delete them. We're better off saving the 'process' for cases where there is some dispute. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to a mass deletion. If the cases are identical, it makes sense. However, listing them on copyright problems will not clog it, though there is a perennial backlog. -- Kjkolb 03:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
TenOfAllTrades == mega-correct. Process is important only in disputes; anywhere else (where WP:SNOW applies) can have process safely ignored. Anyway, this sounds familiar; I distinctly recall we used to have someone who added almost totally useless articles on TV shows, actors, and movies. I don't think they were copyvios, though. Johnleemk | Talk 03:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I tagged 10 or 15 of the worst of them as {copyvio} before I got tired of it. I tend to agree with TenOfAllTrades and Johnleemk, although anything truly expedient would have to be done by an admin. If I proposed them all for speedy deletion it would be about as cumbersome as if I tagged them all with {copyvio}. Steve Summit (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocking function not working?[edit]

It seems to me that the block pages are not working for me at the moment. Is this true for anyone else? --HappyCamper 13:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocks issued for 3RR at Anarchism[edit]

I've just blocked two users for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR at Anarchism.

User:Infinity0, [39], [40], [41], [42]

User:RJII, [43], [44], [45], [46]

I have also minded them of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, given recent edit summaries and comments on Talk:Anarchism. Hiding talk 13:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Advice requested Part Two[edit]

I would very much appreciate more input from admins on this matter, as otherwise this can just turn into a back-and-forth litany of accusations between Giovanni and me. The Christianity article has now been protected. I would like to answer some of the accusations made against me, and then to request advice as to what should happen now.

I seem to be accused of having driven SOPHIA away. I disagreed with SOPHIA about some of her edits (while agreeing with others). I respected her and have never at any stage suspected her of anything dishonourable. At one stage, she said on the Christianity talk page that it had been "scary" to have me and two others "at" her at the same time. Following that statement, Str1977 left her a message saying that he was sorry if we had scared her, that it had not been our intention, and that he appreciated her efforts at calming down tension. I followed that with a post saying that I also regretted if we had scared her off, although I didn't recall having done so, and that I respected her as a genuine editor, here to improve the encyclopaedia. Our posts (Str1977's and mine) are here. She replied here that she had expressed herself badly, and that she had been trying to explain that the process of trying to reply to three simultaneous editors who agree (and can type a lot faster than she!) was scary when she was new. She also said that Str1977 had left her a nice message and that she regarded us both and KHM03 as serious, thoughtful editors, and that she admired the patience that we had shown towards Giovanni33.

Facebook moving[edit]

Recently, a vote was held on Talk:Facebook (website) on whether or not to move the page to Facebook. The vote was four in favor of moving and four not. User:Nightstallion closed the vote as "no consensus." A couple of days later, User:Savidan, one of the users who wished for it to be moved, went to Nightstallion himself and convinced him that the page should be moved, so he did. My grievance is that I feel the vote on requested moves was for nothing, especially if the user is going to disregard the opposing voices and get the page moved whether there is a vote or not. Someone please keep an eye out on the situation, because I am absolutely livid that the user has gone behind my back as well as others' just to get what he wants. Mike H. That's hot 08:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

(Move was reverted by FCYTravis. Quarl (talk) 2006-02-20 10:34Z)
I don't understand this; why was a vote needed? There's no article at Facebook, only a disambiguation page in which there's only one link to an actual article: Facebook (website). Isn't a move pretty automatic, given naming conventions? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Since there was disagreement, clearly discussion was/is needed. WP:AN is the place for process discussion, not content discussion, so I suggest this discussion be continued at Talk:Facebook (website). Quarl (talk) 2006-02-20 13:44Z
I would agree with Mel on this. The only other links are to a Wiktionary page and to a Wikipedia: project namespace page, and it's my understanding that interwiki and cross-namespace links are not exactly compatible with mirror sites, even if self-references weren't an issue. — Feb. 20, '06 [20:17] <freakofnurxture|talk>
It didn't used to be a Wiktionary page, there was actually stuff written there. My point is that there was a vote, there was no consensus, and a person went behind the backs of others and got the page moved anyway, which is wrong. Mike H. That's hot 23:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Since significant changes (transwikification) were made after all votes had been cast in the first vote (and since the original vote was not listed at WP:RM until after all votes had been cast), another vote was held. The result of the debate was move. As far as the earlier actions of savidan, it appears he noticed that there was no longer a namespace conflict and believed that exsisting guidelines allowed for a move; please remember to assume good faith. --L1AM (talk - 'tribs.) 11:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


I need some assistance from my fellow admins. I placed a prod tag on the article Siflige, as I considered it a non-notable gaming community. The prod tag was contested by User:Erik Navkire, so I attempted to change the prod to an AfD nomination. When I did this however, I discovered that the article had previously been deleted through AfD, so the AfD tag automatically linked to the old Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siflige discussion. How can I renominate this article, without it linking to the old AfD discussion? There are some arguments for the article to be kept on its talk page. Cnwb 03:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siflige 2 or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siflige (second nomination) would work. Then just change the target in the tag. Essjay TalkContact 03:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
That's also what {{afd2}} is for. Superm401 - Talk 15:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Never mind. I wasn't thinking at all. Superm401 - Talk 18:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images[edit]

I recently told users at Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars that they cannot use fair use images in their templates because it is in violation of WP:FAIR policy. A user removed them. However, he also asked what is the policy on one person's artistic impression of something that is copyrighted (the example he was referring to was someone drawing an image of the Rebel Alliance logo and using that). I replied that I wasn't sure what the policy is. What is the policy on that exactly? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deskana (talk • contribs) .

IANAL and all that, but copying is copying, whether you use a photocopier or a scanner or you trace it. If the original is not eligible for fair use, a copy will not be either. --bainer (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The user in question has recently pulled up Image:Small NES controller.png. He's asking that since this is an original work based on the SNES, why can't he create an original work based on the Rebel Alliance logo and give it to Wikipedia for free use in the WikiProject Star Wars? Deskana (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
IANAL, but one difference is that the NES controller is a three-dimensional object, while the Rebel Alliance logo is two-dimensional. Thus, a picture of a NES controller is not a substitute for an actual NES controller, whereas a picture of a Rebel Alliance logo is a Rebel Alliance logo. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
IANAL either, but you can not copyright most three-dimensional objects. The controller may be trademarked, but it is not copyrighted. The image is almost certainly trademark fair use if the controller is a trademark at all. Superm401 - Talk 15:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if a particular nation's laws are preferred here, but in the United States, artistic derivative works, in particular, artistic pieces making use of other works -- whether the original work was copyrighted or not -- do not generally require approval from the original copyright holder -- it's typically considered fair use. See Andy Warhol's Campbell Soup Cans as a reference. If you like, I can dig around WestLaw to find a case or two on the issue to finalize it. Jkatzen 08:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
It depends on how the derivative is being used: it's fine to make derivations for artistic purposes (e.g. Warhol) or to satirize; it's not ok to use them just as a means of getting around copyrights. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 15:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
IANAL, but not all artistic derviatives are appropriate, and most satires aren't. It's most likely to be fair use when the derivative is parodying the original. Note the difference between parody and satire. Superm401 - Talk 00:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

the appropriateness of signing posts under another user's name[edit]

Recently, SoothingR (talk · contribs) was promosted to an administrator. It seems that it is a Wikipedian custom for newly-created administrators to personally thank each supporters with a fancy message. However, it seems that he forgot to acknowledge MONGO (talk · contribs), and MONGO copied SoothingR's message onto his talk page, as if SoothingR posted it.

I know that registered users who don't feel like logging in will sometimes sign their posts under their registered name. But I'm not sure if posting a message under someone else's name is so appropriate.

Any thoughts on this? --Ixfd64 07:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Copying someone's full message, including signature, is quite common; however, in situations like that, where the context where it's posted is important, a small note to the effect should be added. --cesarb 09:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Ixfd64...thanks for asking me?...SoothingR (talk · contribs) posted his/her thank you to my USERPAGE and all I did was move it to my time, WP:AGF.--MONGO 10:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, no wonder. I didn't think of that. --Ixfd64 10:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Ixfd64, if we can assume good faith of suspected sockpuppets of prolific vandals, then surely we can assume good faith of MONGO? — Feb. 24, '06 [10:30] <freakofnurxture|talk>
I think this quite clearly shows why edit summaries are important. --cesarb 10:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. --Ixfd64 10:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Edit summaries I usually don't do on talk pages or especially in my own usersapce areas...maybe a bad time you assume I am up to something how about simply asking me? Thanks in advance!--MONGO 10:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
MONGO, I know they didn't assume the best of you, but I think we could all do without catty comments like "if you think I'm doing something bad, why don't you just ASK me." Mike H. That's hot 10:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Is that a fact...since when is it not appropriate to ask someone up front what the deal is rather than posting incorrect commentary about them in this manner behind their back. I didn't capitalize ask as you don't overemphasize a simple request on my part.--MONGO 10:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
If you are going to "quote" me make sure the "quote" is what I have written...thanks!--MONGO 10:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. I'd like to think you should have brought this to MONGO's attention before reporting it the noticeboard as if it were disruption, without prior discussion. Please assume good faith, Ixfd64. Don't do that again, it's utterly violating of trust and sneaky. Quite beyond belief. -ZeroTalk 11:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
MONGO's request is quite a reasonable one. I'd expect the same. — Feb. 24, '06 [15:17] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Yes, I also have the same bad habit of not using edit summaries on my own userspace; I've been trying to avoid it. Sorry for not noticing the paired edit to your user page; if you were a vandal or a new user, checking the contributions would quickly spot the other part of the move; however, I remembered seeing your name before, and went the "old user, probably did a small mistake, no need to even look beyond the diff" route. --cesarb 13:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't accusing MONGO of anything - I was just curious about what happened. I apologize for the misunderstanding, though. --Ixfd64 22:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Collateral damage, again[edit]

Sigh. I have just been autoblocked again for happening to share an AOL dynamic IP (in this case with a suspected vandal. Although this is usually already extremely frustrating, in this case insult was added to injury, because the autoblock was under the signature of Lucky 6.9, an administrator who, according to their own talk page, no longer wishes to be affiliated with Wikipedia! I try not to lose my temper that easily but I should very much like to know how the clucking bell being autoblocked by an absentee admin who has apparently just packed up and gone is any different from vandalism perpetrated by an anonymous hit-and-run vandal?! As I have noted before, I think the collateral damage issue has gotten to the point where the autoblocking is more disruptive than the vandalism it is supposed to combat Vremya 16:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Related to the famous Bug 550, is there any reported bug to take the autoblocker off AOL or similar massively-shared IPs? - David Gerard 16:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
<devil's advocate> Or we could just ban anon edits from AOL and the like... flood of complaints might just get them to change their IP allocation policy... Ban anon editing from such IPs, but allow people to register if they supply a validated email address... is that a bird? is it a plane? no, it's a pig! </devil's advocate> Rd232 talk 21:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
That's an amazing idea, and after providing their email addresses, how exactly do they edit from a blocked iP? Oh yes, wonderful plan! Hey, here's an idea, maybe even though AOL 100% ignores its own paying customers, maybe they'll be more responsive to an administrator from an online encylopedia! That will certianly inspire them to radically overhaul a server system that hasn't been updated since the 1990s! Now if only we had some sort of {{template:sarcastic emoticon}}, that I could place at the end of my sentance, maybe AOL will make one for you if you ask nicely!-- 22:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please, can we ban all AOL IP addresses with an explicit request for them to email AOL's support and policy making people for long enough to get a change made? I'd like to think it wouldn't take too long, but can we at least try for a week or two to get some press out of it? - Taxman Talk 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
LOL - AOL is part of one of the largest media conglomerates on the face of the earth, they can't get bad press unless they want it and literally choose to write it themselves; AOL/TIMEWARNER/ABC/CABLEVISION/SONY/NEWSCORP/PARAMOUNT, if you can find a press/media outlet that AOL isn't affiliated with, then by all means, take it to them - LOL - 00:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting that out of all the times people complain about AOL, no one ever mentions that having or not having a unique sharedip is a choice made by a given user, AOL not withstanding, the only time AOL actually applies it's bizaire sharedip system is if you're one of those idiots who thinks that AOL is a perfectly good web browser, the second you exit the AOL shell you are assigned a reasonably unique IP in the - range, yet I don't think I've ever seen a single AOL user on wikipedia actually fess up to this, the only inention I can gather from that is that all the AOL sharedips are either idiots, or harboring some sort of malice against wikipedia, and since 10 minutes on an AOL message board will clarify that it is in fact the former, not the later, there's little than can be done about it-- 00:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I mean look at me, yes I'm using an AOL sharedip, and yes theoretically someone else could eventually wind up on this very IP, but chances are so small that I can assure you, I will never be faced with a sharedip autoblock, as long as don't use AOL's native browser-- 00:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so much for calling me an idiot. Now that we know where we stand, could we cut down on the sneering and actually explain how to exit AOL without being unceremoniously signed off? Don't think I haven't tried; I just haven't managed to stay online in the process. Not all of us whose parents weren't smart enough to pay for a PhD in computer science are vandals, you know Vremya 02:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
(Deep breath) Okay, I probably should not have lost my temper. The only excuse I have to offer is that in the last week I have been autoblocked every single time I was trying to contribute, any edits I succeeded in making only being lucky enough to make it in before I got the door slammed in my face (yes, it's that bad). Having said that, I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings. Insert your favorite picture of Vremya munching humble pie here. However, I would still like an answer to my question, so let me try to frame it less abrasively: The statement of User: that "no one ever mentions that having or not having a unique shared IP is a choice made by a given user, AOL notwithstanding" may be technically true in the same sense that having or not having a French-Latvian dictionary is a "choice" made by a given user, but just try to buy one at your corner bookstore. Note the operative phrase "no one ever mentions." I assume that has not realized that one likely consequence of the fact that no one ever mentions this is that for the vast majority of AOL users for whom, like myself, computers are not their field of technical expertise but tools to do something else with (like, say, contributing to an encyclopedia), the fact that unique IPs are available to AOL users under certain technical circumstances amounts to a well-kept secret. So: What is the secret? How exactly does one obtain a unique nonshared IP from AOL? As far as I could gather, it involves shutting down the AOL browser. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to do that without effectively losing my connection (and I have tried); as far as I with my lack of technical training can tell, AOL's dial-up program is the browser. Could someone please give a more extensive, less technical, and (pretty please) less sneering explanation? I promise I won't snarl again if it means chewing my own arm off (which I've nearly done in frustration at the constant blocking anyway :-( Vremya 04:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I know this is probably completely unhelpful, but... have you considered switching ISPs? android79 04:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if this is true, but I've heard that running an application that requires a continuous connection to the Internet (e.g. an IRC client), will force AOL to keep you with that IP for the session. Also, I believe that the AOL IP means that if you run Internet Explorer or Firefox instead of AOL's built-in browser, you're assigned an IP in that 172 semi-dynamic range. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what I mean, the second part anyway, more or less, the trick is that of course, you can't actually close the AOL shell because it's what's providing your interent access, but you certianly can open a new window, the part about a continuous internet connection however, is, creative.. but nothing more than a rumor, and I'm sorry if I offened, to be fair my harsher comments were directed at the unregistered users who are always going "oh I'm not a vandal, that other guy who looks like me is", sorry if I offended
The only drawback, is that editing like this, AOL behaves like a true rotating IP address, so you have to contantly explain to people "yes I know how to use wikipedia and only have 2 contributions but I'm not a sockpuppet" which gets tiresome-- 04:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I use AOL, and I have never once been involved in a collateral block. I run an IE window separate from AOL's Internet connection. I used to use Firefox, but there seems to be an incompatability between Firefox and AOL which keeps causing Firefox to freeze up. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah I used to get into autoblocks alot, now I do the same thing Zoe do, it's better off to run a IE window seperate from AOL, I gives the 172 semi-dynamic range instead of the three problem ones. --Jaranda wat's sup 02:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Given that the discussion seems to have focused on AOL (naturally enough, as AOL users are among the most common victims of collateral damage), it may be worth recalling that dynamic IPs vulnerable to collateral damage are not confined to AOL users. Solutions for AOL users only, though helpful, do not solve the deeper problem that autoblocking is arguably a loose cannon Vremya 23:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocking summaries[edit]

I notice that many users are blocked with cryptic summaries like "User...". Since the summary is shown to the user as the reason for their block, these are totally useless. Please use "Inappropriate username" or another wording that provides a valid reason for the block to the user. Zocky | picture popups 05:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Many of the usernames that get blocked are just throwaway sockpuppets or vandals playing denial of service games or username creation performance art and watching the block log and never even triggering a block (for instance the "block me" accounts... but if we ignore them and don't block, they sometimes go ahead and vandalize anyway, for instance [47]). In other words, much of the time when "user..." is used, the user who actually created the username will never even read or see the block message.
Because of autoblocking, meaningful block summaries very often do more harm than good. In cases of vandalism, I do put "vandalism" in the block summary, but every single day I get e-mail from one or more collaterally damaged AOL users asking "why are you accusing me of vandalism?"
The way that the Mediawiki software handles autoblocking is entirely inadequate and often harmful. At the very least, "established users" (non-throwaway accounts) should be immune from all forms of IP-based blocking, and since autoblocks almost never make sense for AOL addresses, the software should internally detect AOL IP ranges and silently not autoblock them.
Perhaps it's time to get rid of autoblocking altogether. Half the time it doesn't work because the vandal can shift IP addresses, and most of the rest of the time it causes more harm than good because it blocks everyone stuck behind an ISP or school or corporation proxy IP. -- Curps 06:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Every single day I get e-mail from one or more collaterally damaged AOL users asking "why are you accusing me of vandalism?"
Well, at least as to that point, I have been working on a template that might not necessarily diminish the volume of such messages but would at least ensure that they are less confrontational :-) Vremya 07:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Zocky. Undescriptive block summaries are not helpful at all. Unless the blocked accounts were created in bad-faith, I will usually reset the blocks and use more descriptive summaries. Even other administrators may be confused by undescriptive block summaries. Sometimes I will check the block list and I would have no idea certain accounts were blocked. I'm pretty sure that we have lost several good contributors this way. --Ixfd64 22:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Curps is assuming bad faith, which is against the ideal of Wikipedia. Robust Physique 01:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Curps's block performs a vital service though I agree about the block summaries, maybe someone should ask him if he can change the summary from username... to innapropriate username or some variation of such. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)