Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive95

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

Noticeboard archives


talk deleted, but hidden deletor[edit]

Resolved: Just a little confusion on the history. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 00:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In the discussion page of Illuminati, my comment was deleted by (apparently), but the deletion was masked as if I had done the deletion. This has been reverted, but I wondered WHO and HOW this was done, and if you wanted to know that the IP had been involved in such activities. Searched for an appropriate place to mention this incident, and this seems to be the page. Over to you! docboat 09:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Don’t see anything strange going on there. Somebody restores a section on talk, deleted by an IP, after you had posted a comment (which doesn’t mean you did the deletion). If something was unclear, talking to Bigwyrm (who did the restoring) was probably the best first step. --Van helsing 10:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


hiya, i was wondering how can i edit a page that is protected? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by F o b girlie (talkcontribs)

Well, it's protected, so you can't edit it, but I believe you can use the {{editprotected}} template, which tells you what to do. If the page you want to edit is only semi-protected instead of fully protected, you might like to consider just waiting 4 days: after that, you can edit semi-protected pages, as far as I can remember. Moreschi Talk 16:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
If it's protected, you can't edit it. If it's semi-protected, accounts under four days old can't edit it. --Isis(talk) 16:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


I need help here, I work at a library on the computer. Two areas have the State mandated Library IP (, that has been blocked up untill July 1st. the third section runs on a sepreate funded dial up (, that is blocked untill June 28th. I work in the Third section. Is their anyway to unblock this or make it so only those with accounts can edit. Their are three known people with accounts, (User: Awsometrex, User:Wikimindless, , and Me) The Awsometrex got his card revoked for using the computers in the wrong way as well as looking at, well... "Adult" material. I am sorry for the confusion. Please pardon my english for it is not my native tounge. We really need these IP's unblocked ASAP. Wormdoggy 21:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That account was blocked because an editor was using multiple login accounts from it (block log). Because of that, I don't think it would be correct to unblock it now. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Question about decorative non-free images[edit]

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Book_covers, where I ask whether images of book covers are acceptable in articles about their books when those articles have no critical commentary about the cover itself. Similar questions apply for album covers and corporate logos. The question whether this is a legitimate "fair use" on Wikipedia will be crucial for making decisions about deleting images with possibly unacceptable fair use rationales. It would be beneficial if a consensus on this can be documented before we begin evaluating whether images have acceptable fair use rationales.

This is only an announcement; please keep all comments on WT:NONFREE so the discussion isn't fragmented. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sysop scripts[edit]

Are automatic deletion/blocking scripts permitted now? I remember seeing User:Tawker's proposed bot fail at RfA because people did not agree that sysop tools should be used automatically. Is there an exception to this rule now? I am just curious - I saw someone link to a mass blocking script quite similar to what Tawker's bot would have used, and allegedly this was mis-used by a particular admin who managed to mis-block a couple of hundred IPs (I believe the ArbCom is currently looking at this particular incident, so let's not start a second debate on it here).--Konstable 02:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference in the policy depending on whether the script is automatic or manually supervised. A script that takes a manually prepared list of IP addresses to block and blocks them doesn't violate policy - the person running the script is responsible for any actions the script takes. This is no different than doing the blocks by hand as far as policy is concerned. What is certainly not allowed is a script that watches recent changes on its own and chooses to block editors. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible banned user under different name[edit]

Hello. Noticed that user Monster Mail has a user page which welcomes contact with an Italian Wikipedia user named Panairjdde. Panairjdde has been banned from English Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. I don't have any other evidence to support that this might be a sockpuppet so I did not go to that page to open a case, was hoping someone might be able to check into it. Monster Mail seems to frequent the same types of pages Panairjdde did. - RPIRED 21:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the find, definite sock. --Palffy 16:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony Little[edit]

I've deleted Tony Little under CSD G11 because I felt the article was unrecoverably POV with a bent towards selling his products. He may be notable enough for an article, but I think it's gotta be a clean slate. I've posted here because the article was also recently featured on Digg or Reddit or one of those link aggregators and I wanted some external input to the deletion if it turned into a "STAB CHAIRBOY YAARRRGH!" session. kthxbye - CHAIRBOY () 02:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no comment on the deletion, but the amount of cleanup templates on the last deleted version is simply hilarious - there are 21, with at least two duplicates. --Golbez 10:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The "22:05, June 4, 2007" version by User:Wimt seems to be mostly free of advertising, though it is still unsourced. The POV was introduced primarily by User:Jac for TL, who is a self-proclaimed employee of Little (see here and here). Perhaps restore the revisions from 7 Oct. 2005 through 4 June 2007, remove any controversial unsourced content, and drop a note on Jac for TL's page regarding Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Double redirects caused by moves[edit]

  • When I obey requests for page moves, much of my time is taken up with tidying resulting double redirects. Do I have to tidy these double redirects, or will a bot tidy them up within a day or so? Anthony Appleyard 05:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I find that, by using tabbed browsing and some copy/pasting, I can get through them pretty quickly. I'm pretty sure there are bots that fix double redirects, but I think it's best to fix them right away. Is there a way to do it with AWB or something? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
See my bugzilla request. Od Mishehu 07:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
AWB can be used to do that. Initially say A redirected to B. Then you redirected B to C, so get AWB to build its list from "What links here" on B and get it to replace #redirect [[B]] to #redirect [[C]]. But generally a move does not cause more then 4 or 5 dbl redirs. They can easily be fixed manually.
@Od Misheu, are you proposing that redirects be followed till the article is reached? That would cause problems with circular redirects (A redirecting to B; B redirecting to A). It would put everything in an infinite loop. But may be the number of hops may be increased from 1 to, say, 5. But if we keep on making discounts, the navigation structure would never be fixed. --soum talk 08:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Page AWB says "The AutoWikiBrowser is a semi-automated Wikipedia editor for Microsoft Windows 2000/XP". But my PC has Windows 98. Will there be a bot that fixes double redirects?
    About self-redirect and circles of redirects: can't the process be programmed to stop if it comes to the same page again?

Anthony Appleyard 09:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There are several bots around that fix double redirects (including User:Scepbot, User:RussBot and others whose names I forget), but I don't think it's wise to rely on them. I don't know how they seek problems, and double redirects may go unnoticed for a considerable length of time. --Stemonitis 10:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I was specificly suggesting that the number of hops be raised to 2 - this should keep all articles in the process of being moved available directly by all redirects at all times during handling of move. Od Mishehu 10:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
It's normally, at the most, two or three days (it uses Special:Doubleredirects, which is cached). If you do come across a circular redirect, tag it with {{db-r1}} (spirit, not letter) Will (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
@Anthony, theoretically circular redirects can be detected that way, but it is not practical. What if there is a chain of 500 redirects after which it redirects back to the start? What if it redirects to some intermediate point in the chain? So, it has to remember and verify against all traversed pages, which becomes very prohibitive. Thats why an upper limit on the stack is needed. (Self redirs are trivially detectable, thats why I am not considering that). --soum talk 14:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sunn O)))[edit]

Resolved: Discussion continuing on the article talk page; not an admin issue. Chick Bowen 19:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I noted on the talk page at Sunn O))) that as the "O)))" part of the name is a representation (and not a really accurate one) of a picture / logo rather than a word it should not be included in the title of the Wikipedia article, and Sunn (band) would be the way forward. One editor described the O))) as an "ASCII picture" which strikes me as something we really shouldn't allow. Of course, the fans of the band who edit the page seem to be of the opinion that this should be an exception, despite the fact that the manual of style disallows such interpretations of stylistic features. Any thoughts? I'd like to be clear about this kind of thing for future reference. Deiz talk 04:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The NYT calls them "Sunn0)))"[1] a bunch of times. I think it would be reasonable to use the name that the NewYorkTimes uses. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Looking at this further, it looks like in the interview they are referred to as "Sunn 0)))"[2] and their official website refers to them as "sunn 0)))"[3]. The "0)))" seems to be officially part of the name. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Is that the letter O or a zero? howcheng {chat} 01:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Let's edit-war over it for a few months. --Carnildo 02:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to {{PD-font}}[edit]

I don't think many people have that template watchlisted, so I am going to seek consensus for the proposed change here. Scalar fonts are considered computer programs and hence copyrightable whereas raster fonts are considered text and hence pd-ineligible. I am seeking consensus to change from the current wording to something like "This does not include images from raster fonts that have been converted to SVG, nor does it include bitmapped images of raster fonts" because as I understand it the original vector coding itself is what is copyrighted, not any image you can produce from the font. This is the same reasoning that allows AMD to copy Intel chips...the circuitry of the chips is copyrighted but the circuit logic is not. Any alternate circuit that produces the same results can be produced legally. -N 23:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've commented at Template talk:PD-font, and encourage others to comment there (as opposed to here) as well. --Iamunknown 04:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe WT:ICT is the correct location for this notice. howcheng {chat} 01:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


I have listed User:T--top at MfD, but this really should be speedy deleted. Not only is it nothing more than some sort of community notice board, but it's got some serious BLP violations there, as well. The supposed User associated with the page only has edits to one article outside of the User page in the several months that this page has been here. Corvus cornix 22:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion - Democide[edit]

An outside admin would be helpful on the Articles for Deletion, Democide page [4]. I do not think the majority of the participants understand the issue with Wikipedia:Avoid Neologisms that brought the deletion case. Abe Froman 22:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CANVASS. Corvus cornix 22:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, I posted this in one place, here. That is labeled "acceptable" in WP:CANVASS. Abe Froman 22:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Even so, this is not a place to make such a request. You're asking administrators to come and support your reading of a Manual of Style guideline. That's not what this noticeboard is for. Leebo T/C 22:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of Infobox criminal[edit]

Use of Infobox criminal in the upper right corner of an article generally is reserved for serial killers, gangsters, mass murders, old west outlaws, convicted murders, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 most wanted, serial rapist, and mobsters. Infobox criminal also is use as a secondary Infobox in the middle of articles, such as Winona Ryder, Martha Stewart, James Traficant, Duke Cunningham, and Tom DeLay corruption investigation. I went through all the current uses of Infobox criminal and believe that it's use violates WP:NPOV and to some extend WP:BLP in the following 12 articles:

By positioning Infobox criminal as the main infobox in the article, it singles out a relatively small aspect in comparison to the overall lives of these people to give undue weight to that criminal aspect of his/her life. This seems inconsistent with WP:NPOV. Some of these individuals have significant fame, so WP:BLP might be a secondary concern rather than a primary concern. Also, there may be a political motivation for such Infobox criminal use. I think the WP:NPOV and WP:BLP would be resolved if Infobox criminal for these 12 articles reduced to a secondary use, as in Winona Ryder, Martha Stewart, James Traficant, Duke Cunningham, and Tom DeLay corruption investigation. If you agree with my assessment for any of the above 12 articles, please consider tackling the issue at that article and the entrenched political motivations that may come with it. Please comment next to the name above if the matter is resolved. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as the articles are properly referenced, I see no WP:NPOV or WP:BLP issues with the use of {{Infobox Criminal}} on individuals convicted of felony charges (Bernard Ebbers, Jack Abramoff, etc.) --Kralizec! (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Al Capone, Jeffrey Dahmer, Theodore Kaczynski, Charles Manson, and ... Jack Abramoff? -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be a separate infobox for specific types of criminals (white collar, racketeering, serial criminals)?--Mantanmoreland 19:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC) --Mantanmoreland 19:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jreferee's view that if the person is notable on there own the criminal infobox should just be used in a later section. That being said, it may be difficult to determine if certain people were notable before they committed a criminal act or really only because of it (e.g. Scotter Libby would probably not have been heard of by 99% of the public but for the charge and conviction although he was probably notable before conviction). Remember 18:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, the US criminal code does not differentiate between "kinda bad felons" and "really bad felons" (which are ultimately just value judgments). However it strikes me as being a bit over the top that someone like Winona Ryder would warrant a {{Infobox Criminal}} since her felony convictions were reduced to misdemeanors. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I would tend to agree that if a person is convicted of a felony (not a misdemeanor), the info box is appropriate. Note my suggestion above about creating separate types of criminal infoboxes.--Mantanmoreland 19:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Having different infoboxes for different criminal convictions really is the best idea, as any attempt to screen out "white collar" crimes (such as those of Martha Stewart, Lewis Libby, etc.) will also remove the infobox from people like Al Capone (who was ultimately only convicted of tax evasion). --Kralizec! (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Why not just use the definition of the word criminal: "A person convicted of a crime" with the added wikipedia stipulation that it was a notable crime. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's just a name of an infobox...a template that the average reader doesn't see. It could be named {{Infobox of male people}} and it would still do its function – transclude useful information. hbdragon88 20:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have always been under the belief that that infobox was used solely for the articles dealing with persons notable only for their crimes, not persons who are notable for other reasons besides a crime they have committed. Winona Ryder, for instance who is known for her acting career not her criminal career. It also seems rather random to have that infobox appear in the midst of her article when that information is already covered in a section. For someone like Jeffrey Dahmer having that information displayed at the top, near the lead paragraph, helps give an annotated version of what makes his criminal career notable. --Ozgod 00:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, an article should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. The prominence of placement of such infobox in the above articles is what is raising the WP:NPOV. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is a lot more interesting than I thought - I thought it was going to be vandalism of the George Bush article. Although the US criminal code does not distinguish between different crimes for calling them felonies, we do. That's why we are an encyclopedia. Just like the the Actor's Guild does not distinguish between different kinds of actors and yet we use the Presidents infobox for Ronald Reagan, not the one for actors. It is still up to us to assess for POV concerns whether a bio fairly balances the overall achievements of a famous person. Having said that, the people in the list are known primarily for their crimes. Nobody would have any idea who Lewis Libby, Jeff Skilling, or Kenneth Lay are but for their notoriety as criminals. Although you could argue that their criminal deeds were but a small aspect of their life's work, one could also argue that their crimes had a bigger effect on the world and its culture than everything else put together. You go over that line when you get to people like Martha Stuart or James Brown and of course Paris Hilton and every other star who gets a misdemeanor or felony DUI. Whatever their crimes, they are not as notable as their accomplishments.Wikidemo 07:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Archiving at talk:Creation science[edit]

I recently performed a cut-and-paste repair to the archive of this talk page, which was repeatedly reverted by a user whom I consequently blocked. I have received considerable flack since. I would appreciate other admins taking a careful look at my actions and giving me some feedback. I have placed an outline of my actions on my talk page, at User talk:Banno#The sequence of events.

In addition, the archiving of the page is now a mess. Some independent advice to the present editors might be appreciated. Banno 11:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting the problem of the history of the talk page being removed, which caused considerable concern. Hopefully, the archiving is now getting back on track by agreement all round. .. dave souza, talk 22:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, despite the repetition of the same error by two people, one an Admin. Oh, forget it, this is a conversation that will go absolutely nowhere, and it's a shame. I think Banno was acting in AGF as far as the archiving (the block of ornis was bullshit and probably definitely an abuse of Admin powers), but he seems incapable of admitting that his rearchiving helped nothing, and only exacerbated a bad situation. •Jim62sch• 23:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The underlying problem here is that, when Banno's "authority" was challenged, he reacted with threats, and then with blocks. If you make an honest mistake, as Banno appears to have done with the archiving, you don't make threats, you don't block people for fixing your mistakes, and if you claim you are acting because someone violated [section x] of some policy, the onus is on you to find a diff where the policy is actually being violated, something that Banno has refused to do. The simple fact is that Banno was edit-warring with CO (the editor he blocked) before the archiving and he admits to edit-warring with CO and Silly Rabbit over the archiving. So under no circumstances should he have even considered blocking. In the midst of a heated battle you should never block. There are hundreds of other admins on this site - making a highly dubious block in the middle of an edit war shows terrible judgment. Refusing to consider that you may have made a mistake, despite the intervention of 4 or more admins (and solid contributors like Jim and OM)...just because you're an admin doesn't mean you have the right to behave like George Bush. Guettarda 05:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the problem at the heart of this is that a couple of editors, acting in good faith, understood WP:ARCHIVE to favour archiving the whole talk page, then inviting other editors to add back current discussions. That's not my reading of the guidance, which appears to suggest that the archiver leaves or pastes back current discussions. A bit of patience all round and discussions before acting could have avoided a lot of upset, but of course that's easier said than done. The block of CO seems to have begun with a dispute over deleting off-topic trollish ramblings – that's sanctioned under WP:TALK, and in my opinion the block should be formally withdrawn to leave CO's reputation unblemished. Of course I've been known to make mistakes, and so these can only be suggestions. .. dave souza, talk 08:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your considered comments. It's not the case that I had understood WP:ARCHIVE to favour archiving the whole talk page, but rather that pretty much all of the then-recent discussion (in the few days before this happened) had been contained inside the "trollish ramblings", and had been removed by CO himself. [5] That is, it's not that I chose not to re-insert them because of a misunderstanding of policy, but because they appeared to be several days old, and so not recent discussion. But since this was a value judgement, I did invite the editors to re-insert any discussion that they wished to continue, and offered to help them in doing so. Banno 11:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
While I continue to think that CO's editing was disruptive, I now accept that it was more likely to be the result of ignorance of the archiving process on his part rather than deliberate malice, and that I acted hastily in blocking him. I will formally withdraw the block. Thank you Dave, for providing an independent opinion. Banno 11:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd hope that settles everything. These articles are part of a very touchy debate, as Talk Radio Evolution points out rather eloquently, and when dealing with what appears to be trolling we should try to remember Grey's Law. ... dave souza, talk 11:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking of Hanlon's razor as I wrote my comment above. I promise to take it into account, and to count to ten before I block someone next time. Thank you for finally completing the archiving task. Banno 22:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to Talk Radio Evolution, too. As a foreigner, I've always found the apparent inability of America to come to terms with evolution, and the level of passion it arouses, a bit of a puzzle. Banno 22:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Ta, it's really quite extraordinary and as an outsider I too find it hard to grasp the extent of the anti-evolution mindset. .. dave souza, talk 17:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Although this issue appeared at one stage to be resolved, Orangemarlin and User:Jim62sch have chosen to escalate it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Banno. Again, I'd appreciate any independent comment. Banno 21:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Vincent Bethell[edit]

Resolved: Article deleted; no inhibition against creating a BLP-compliant, reliably-sourced new version. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 00:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've stumbled across this page which has been blanked due to BLP concerns. Can someone take a fresh look to see what needs to be done; either revert or delete the page. Thanks Kernel Saunters 11:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it as G7. The original author removed the entire article and replaced it with something that was obviously not able to be kept. That looks like a G7 to me. Chick Bowen 14:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Seems like it might be possible to write a appropriate article about the guy, if the unsourced assertions are true. Try finding some reliable sources and maybe prepare a version at User:Kernel Saunters/Sandbox that's appropriate given WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:BLP and it could be put up without difficulty. Cheers, WilyD 17:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
While Chick Bowen was correct in giving a G7 to the version that he saw, there is a previous history of the article in which it was in a much better state. See the entry called 'Vincent Bethell' in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 9. At one time a fairly balanced and neutral article existed. The problem was that the subject kept trashing the article, alternating between self-promotion and simple vandalism, and demanding that he be allowed to control what was in the entry. User:Vincent bethell was indefinitely blocked by User:Nick on 5 June, and the block seems fully justified. This user also edits via IP addresses, and that must be how he messed up the article again. I suggest that the history be restored, and that we go back to a neutral version and semi-protect that one, and keep User:Vincent bethell blocked. The last version that I could see did not appear to raise BLP issues, since there was nothing very alarming, and in any case this is someone who seeks out press coverage to promote nudist issues, even risking arrest to do so.
Take a look at the version at to see a surviving fragment of the neutral version of this article, overlayed with a bunch of POV edits by the subject. (The good version was much better than this one). EdJohnston 18:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem was that there was stuff in that history that Walton monarchist89 felt it necessary to expunge, which is why the earliest revision in the history at the time I deleted it was by User:Vincent bethell. I understand why it's frustrating to lose the work, but given that I don't see any way to preserve the GFDL-neccessary info without undeleting everything, and that doesn't seem ideal either, it seems to me the best thing would be to start over. There's been no afd and the title isn't protected, so a carefully sourced, WP:BLP-compliant article can be written now. I know this isn't an ideal solution either, so I'm happy to be shot as the messenger here. Chick Bowen 18:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't "find it necessary to expunge" anything. The article was tagged for speedy, as it was full of nonsense; I speedied it, but only then noticed that there was a much better version in the history, so I restored it. Subsequent deletions are nothing to do with me. Waltontalk 14:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The article has been replaced by a protected redirect. See User_talk:Kernel Saunters#Vincent Bethell for details. EdJohnston 15:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I misread your entries in the logs, then, Walton (since you didn't restore all the revisions, I assumed you meant to remove things from the history). It was a troublesome article from the start, because of edit-warring about personal info. As Ed says, it's now a redirect, and I think that's best unless (as I said above) someone wants to take it over. Chick Bowen 05:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Long-term abuse from a floating IP[edit]

The permabanned editor Light current (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) just can't seem to kick the Wikipedia habit. He edits from the Tiscali DSL IP pool in the UK (apparently, though Tiscali officially owns all the way out to, usually anonymously. (Occasionally he will go to the trouble of creating sleeper socks so that he can edit semiprotected pages or engage in pagemove vandalism.)

Typically his abuse appears on the Reference Desks and associated pages, but he will also show up on the user and user talk pages of admins who revert his edits.

The guy's obviously got problems, but I'm not sure what our next step is. Revert-block-ignore is of limited effectiveness due to the floating IP. There are technical limitations in place to prevent me placing a rangeblock of the entire /14 involved; even if that weren't the case, I'd be hesitant to place such a substantial block. (Is there someone who can work some database magic to determine if much useful stuff does come from IPs in that range?)

I also have his email address from dealing with him before his permaban; it provides the name of his Tiscali account, and presumably represents his (or his father's) real-world name.

I would welcome any suggestions or advice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and he's promised to be back tomorrow. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Can we send it to WP:ABUSE for an ISP investigation? -- ReyBrujo 23:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Short of blocking half of Tiscali's IP addresses, an ISP complaint may be the best way forward. I wonder if Wikipedia:Abuse reports/88.109.x.x 88.110.x.x and 88.111.x.x Ranges is LC's doing also? Rockpocket 01:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't say, but I don't know that Light current has ever demonstrated an interest in the Malamute. Perhaps there are two nuisances in the one IP range? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have filed a report at WP:ABUSE: Wikipedia:Abuse reports/Tiscali DSL. Additional comment/correction/expansion is welcomed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Any bored admins?[edit]

PROD has a 2 day backlog, and there are plenty of NowCommons deletions to take care of :) ~ Riana 08:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm game! ;) Phaedriel - 08:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Have started Riana. Thanks for the heads-up. --VS talk 09:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Me too, for fear of incurring Riana's wrath --Steve (Stephen) talk 11:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
*cracks whip and cackles insanely* Good work, all ;) ~ Riana 13:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm on it, too. Though Riana is always welcome to hurt me. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Obviously not as welcome as I thought, I internal error-ed with you a few times last night :) ~ Riana 02:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
You all have way too much fun :). That's why I like ya! **Heads back to prod deletions** Jmlk17 05:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Why are there no board admin jokes, there needs to be a board admin joke. Prodego talk 05:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page problems resulting from page move[edit]

Resolved: talk page moved to proper location

The talk page at Template talk:Professional Gridiron football leagues seems to be a couple of page moves behind. Could you please correct the talk page so I can see the history.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

History merge help[edit]

Resolved: Or seems to be?

In Brian Whelahan, I attempted a history merge. Can someone review my efforts and explain to me how to handle history merges in the future where there are edits in the source article after the cut and paste move? Jesse Viviano 04:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  • It looks fine. I think you should be okay if you just move the articles in question to the same spot, then restore all deleted edits (unless in rare situations where an edit contains personal info and should stay deleted). --W.marsh 18:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yep. In the basic case (two pages to be merged, no deleted edits, no splitting to be done, no distinctions to be made), you can just move the one page over the target, which will delete the target; then, restore deleted edits, and make sure the currently displayed page version is the right one. Personally, I recommend copy-pasting the preferred version to Notepad or a similar application before moving things around, it can get a bit confusing once everything turns into redirects. ;) If there are deleted edits present, or other issues, things can get much more complicated. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Curious userpage[edit]


Compare the new User:Similaun0807 with User:GTBacchus. THF 13:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

people do clone userpages from time to time.Geni 13:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
appears to be a subtle vandalism account, duplicating same tactics as User:William Reid Blyton, also a cloned userpage. THF 13:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
May be a sockpuppet of User:Panairjdde? I'll take to AN/I. THF 13:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't discuss this further. Obvious User:Panairjdde sockpuppets. --Palffy 16:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Where is the evidence? Userpage cloning isn't something used for sock accusation. WooyiTalk to me? 23:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The evidence is his contributions. He creates a sock with a similar name to the one he had blocked recently, User:Similaun, and begins his "WP life" by reverting my reverts of User:Panairjdde sockpuppet edits (see contributions). --Palffy 23:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I will look into it. Thanks. WooyiTalk to me? 16:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
But regardless of whether or not you agree that he's a sockpuppet of Panairjdde, it's clearly not a good idea to revert back to a user page that claims that the user is an administrator and gives names of 24 articles he has worked on, when the contributions show that he registered that day, and has a total of five article edits. By the way, a checkuser has now blocked him indefinitely as a Panairjdde sock. ElinorD (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, creepy. I've never seen someone try to get away with something by pretending to be me before. Did he really think that was going to work? Perhaps I should feel honored?? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it's an annoying habit he's gotten into, thinking he can avoid his sock blocks by pretending to be credible. Not sure if you really want to be honored by a person who's gone through this. ;)) --Palffy 22:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I expect you to keep a lid on your impersonators, in the future! :p – Luna Santin (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Awaiting response from StormRider[edit]

Resolved: Pending further report, this seems about as resolved as it's going to get, for the moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to be notified as to wheather or not StormRider will be allow to get away with making completly and blatanly Racist remarks about American Indians. I will not contirbute to a site that allows this kind of behavior. He himself even admits that it is racist and continued the personal attacks on the administrators page by accusing me of Trolling. If Wikipedia is going to allow this kind of behavior then I will have no choice but to consider Wikipedia a fellow contributor to the spread and condonment of racism.--Billiot 13:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any diff-links that show where he made those comments? Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
And yes, the edits of one person means that the entire editing base of 10,000 is racist. Yeah, thats a logical conclusion. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC) (striking out my own incivility... sorry, my comments were uncalled for. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC))
  • I'm going to leave you a note about this issue on your talk page. Perhapse we can find some common ground between you and User:Storm Rider. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I see there's been some discussion, after this; as far as this board is concerned, it seems to be resolved, for the time being. Feel free to make additional reports as needed. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate user page?[edit]

Resolved: Or seems to be. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place, so apologies if not... The user page User:Felker30 seems to violate WP policy, WP:NOT etc (and is a little bit creepy). The user has made no edits except to this user page and uploading images for the user page. --Belovedfreak 18:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted as per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: Gadfium's response is on the mark. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot move pages on the English Wikipedia. On the Simple English Wikpedia, I can move pages, but somehow, on the English Wikipedia, I do not have the "Move" tab on my account. Please explain. I am a newbie (on both wikipedias), but I have been on Simple longer than I have here. --bibliotheque (Talk) 03:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Your account has to be at least four days old to be able to move pages on the English Wikipedia. I don't know what the policies are on Simple English.-gadfium 04:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
They are much...simpler. HA HA. *flees* hbdragon88 04:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Unusual notice[edit]

I know it's unuusual to put up a notice at AN for something like this, but the Chuck E. Cheese's article is absolutely atrocious, and has been a constant source of unchecked vandalism for apparently at least a year now. It appears to be an oft-vandal magnet, as it's a popular target among elementary age kids. I'm requesting that some other people watchlist this article so we can revert vandalism better. Thanks. The Evil Spartan 16:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist. Thanks for the heads up.--Kubigula (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm tackling the horrorshow wording, and I'm guessing copyvio of the history sect. I'm watching as well. Flyguy649 talk contribs 16:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Showbiz Pizza Place also seems to contain much of the same history info as was in the Chuck E. Cheese article - seems to make up most of that article, in fact. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 18:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Merging with Showbiz Pizza Place is contraindicated as that article appears to be wholesale copyvio taken from - CHAIRBOY () 15:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved article assistance please[edit]

Resolved: Or seems to be. Remove if not.

The article Sandeep Deshpande is up for AFD right now; problem is, that article as it stands started out as Williams Sassine and appears to have been moved to this name. Now, we've got Williams Sassine that looks like it is a cut-and-paste replacement of the move-created redirect, and this up-for-deletion article (which was just relisted, despite my explaining this in the AFD discussion) which contains the edit history of the proper Williams Sassine article. So! Can I suggest that someone with the magic buttons please delete the current edition of Williams Sassine, and move Sandeep Deshpande to that location, to ensure the edit history is correct? I think that'll sort it out... Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've histmerged the two; we need to keep the old history for GFDL compliance, but otherwise it's clear these are redundant articles. I don't believe this should cause any problems, please advise if you notice any. I haven't deleted the redirects, at this time, but would be happy to drop a note at any RfD, if you like. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the Sandeep Deshpande page should be speedily deleted, RfD is not necessary. It does not look like they are the same person. I looked up the net about Williams Sassine; he does not have anything significant to do with anything Indian to get an Indian name. The initial move appears a vandalism move. --soum talk 08:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Luna, perhaps you can speedy delete the Redirect as the sole author? I'm certain they are not the same person, see for example: DrKiernan 09:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the redirect. Feel free to restore if you disagree. --soum talk 09:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, folks! Tony Fox (arf!) review? 15:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael Howard impersonator[edit]

User:Owlperson, assisted by User:Crowqueen, has been posting as Michael Howard, and taken seriously by other users. Michael Howard's office confirms this is a hoaxer, and I've indef blocked the users. I suggest verification is required in such cases, and the user asked not to contribute under a RL identity until it is received.[8] I'm not sure where the best place for such guidance would be. Tyrenius 13:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

1993-94 OHL season[edit]

Resolved: deleted article and page history restored

After a user moved this page to another title, an inexperienced editor apparently attempted to move it back, but instead managed to leave the page as a redirect to itself. The original content appears to have been deleted, and an admin's assistance may be needed to restore that content. --Russ (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I tried to restore the page, but nothing seems to have happened, only now I cannot access the previously deleted version. Can a more experience admin examine what I did and tell me where I went wrong, and if the situation is salvagable? Sorry about this.-Andrew c [talk] 15:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC) OK, perhaps I just had to wait for the cache to catch up or something. It seems to have worked. I have restored the page at 1993-94 OHL season. If you want the page at another title, I'd be glad to help with that as well, but I'd like to make sure there is consensus for whatever title to be used to avoid future page moves or copy and paste moves.-Andrew c [talk] 15:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Month-long backlog[edit]

Category:Disputed non-free images--Konstable 11:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I put in a plea for help fix these images? Most just have missing (ex: 1 2 3 ) or incomplete (ex: 4 5 ) fair use rationales. Only a few are irredeemably mis-tagged (ex 5) or ineligible for non-free use (ex: 6 ). WP:FURG says we should to fix them before deleting so if you see an obvious case please add the rationale. To make that a lot faster I'm rolling out some templates to augment the FURG master template. Wikidemo 13:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
And remember to look out for other problems, like this image has. MER-C 13:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
And more here! Category:Images with no fair use rationale --Wikidemo 13:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
If I may say so, I've been chipping away nicely at the I6 backlog. It was much larger. The backlog was at 26 days at the start of the month due to the temporary moratorium on I6 deletions. Now the backlog is down to 13 days, still large, but a big step in the right direction. --After Midnight 0001 19:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone's noticed but the main CSD page seem to be missing the big pile at Category:Images with no fair use rationale as of 6 June 2007. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Are there guidelines for admins that want to help out but are relatively new to non-free image use? I'm familiar with WP:FU, but I'm not exactly sure on some points. Are logos and album covers generally allowed in articles about the album/organization, even if there is no critical commentary on the album cover? Are there any requirements that an article about an album must meet before an image can be included, or is there a generic fair use rationale that applies to basically all album covers (as long as they are not used for decoration in other articles, such as galleries or discography pages). Most, if not all images of living people (especially "promotional" photos) are deletable, right? Are there any other tips? It's obviously easier to simply delete articles that have improper license/no fair use, but I want to learn the situations where its better to fix the problems than delete (and I want to learn how to fix). So any tips would be appreciated.-Andrew c [talk] 21:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

On point #1, absolutely, yes. Not "in" per se, but the purpose of identification is currently widely accepted. And they must also meet other requirements, e.g. knowing the source. "Decoration" is not really a sensible concept, it snuck into the policy page recently and will probably sneak back out in favor of better constructs. That is currently under discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content‎. It is always better to fix than delete because every time you delete you are undoing not only the work someone spent a while doing, but the availability of knowledge to an audience of hundreds of millions of people who use Wikipedia. If the fair use rationale is obvious, add one, don't delete the image. Right now there are no good automated solutions to fixing images, however. Some people have gotten adept at deleting images at 5-10 per minute using the tools. It takes 1-2 minutes to add a fair use rationale even if you're very good and that's a matter of rolling up your sleeves and typing. But keep in mind it took someone a while to add it. They did it in good faith when the rules were different and if you delete it someone will have to add it again or else the world will do without. No doubt other people have different opinions. Wikidemo 21:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that helps some. I started going through the unknown source backlog. I've deleted a couple that were orphaned with no source or licensing info. But what would you guys suggest be done with Image:26011907.jpg, Image:1913 Katharina.jpg, and Image:1537985.jpg? The first two seem like they are inappropriately tagged GFDL, and therefore wouldn't pass FUC #1 as these are living people. The album cover seems like it could be acceptable, so should it be tagged with a album cover license, and a fair use rationale added, and the source field ignored? -Andrew c [talk] 00:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The first one is kind of tough. It's an old photo that may or may not be public domain. It's not old enough to be, but it could have happened. Perhaps the uploader forgot to add something. The same user, though relatively light on Wikipedia, has made a bunch of sincere edits to Scandinavian-related articles. I notice that there's no tag on the article discussion page. What's with that? A dozen or two editors have been working on the article for a couple years. There's a delete tag on the image but no notice to the talk page? So if you delete it they will all be blindsided. They have no idea or reasonable way of knowing it's going to happen. One day the image will be missing. It's a new image, only a couple months old, so no great harm. The second image is easier. It's an article less than a month old about an album that isn't even out. If those people can't be bothered to get their images right it's time they learned, if they mean to stay around on Wikipedai. That's not the official way to do it, that's just my thought process. Even on the first image, if they can't get to where the image comes form and whether it's truly free use, we can't have it. All the patience in the world, but the image still has to be legitimate. Wikidemo 00:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Local Spam Blacklist[edit]

Any English Wikipedia administrator may now edit MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (a local version of M:Spam blacklist) to blacklist URLs linked to by spammers. URLs added to that list will only be blacklisted on the English Wikipedia, rather than Wikimedia-wide like the ones M:Spam blacklist. FunPika 19:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm ... nothing could possibly go wrong with that ... --BigΔT 19:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, much obliged. I wouldn't have known otherwise :) Moreschi Talk 20:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Where to file bug reports?[edit]

Resolved: Or seems to be. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this a bug, or is it just on my computer?

  1. Try going to the 'history' of, say, this page.
  2. Try choosing some diff. (Any diff should work)
  3. On the screen that shows the diff, try clicking on, say, "history".

Am I the only one getting directed to 'Wikipedians'? (But I don't know where to file bug reports) Bladestorm 19:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Goto bugzilla to file bug reports. FunPika 19:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I am getting that too! If I go to Wikipedia:Wikipedians, I get a random article. Why is this happening? Joie de Vivre T 19:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
See bugzilla:10529. FunPika 20:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem now. FunPika 20:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: Or seems to be. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I may be going crazy, does anyone know what the heck is going on here? I'm not really sure what to make of it, but people are changing the page to display what appear to be real articles. Also while trying to revert vandalism here it took me to the Wikipedians' page. Anyone have a thought to spare? KOS | talk 19:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah see above, I was beaten to it. KOS | talk 19:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible database issue?[edit]

While trying to revert some anonymous edits to Independent Task Force on North America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), some really odd stuff is happening. Hitting this Newer edit → link in the article's history instead goes to a diff on Wikipedia:Wikipedians. Likewise, trying to compare any of the article's diffs after 11:25 today also takes you to Wikipedia:Wikipedians. Does the database server have some of its pointers crossed ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Everyone, please see this thread on AN/I. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Lost history[edit]

I moved History of the People's Republic of Bulgaria to History of Communist Bulgaria and History of the People's Socialist Republic of Albania to History of Communist Albania by cutting and pasting. The edit history was lost and I'd like the full history to be restored at the new locations. Can this be done? Biruitorul 21:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the History of the People's Republic of Bulgaria was restored to its rightful and more common (according to Google Books and Google Scholar) name.Anonimu 22:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
See WP:SPLICE. Regardless of where the title winds up, we need to get the history patched. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for <s>validation</s> review[edit]

Weird note and marginally appropriate venue, but I just realized I was the first to request speedy deletion for this notorious article while newpage patrolling back in April. Although that particular revision did clearly meet the criteria (unlike several posterior ones IMHO) I still feel this makes my reply to question 6a on my RfA seem incredibly disingenuous. Is there a "Wikipedia Confessions department" where I can, erm, disclose this? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your sins are absolved, my son. Just say three hail Jimbos on the way out. --Steve (Stephen) talk 03:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You forgot to absolve the sins in the name of Jimbo! :)Kurykh 03:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Father Steve. Our Jimbo, who art in St. Petersburg, hallowed be thy logs... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Great Pyramid of Giza[edit]

I just changed the protection level to full protection because of edit warring going on among registered users. Would someone take a look and let me know if you think my decision was correct? Thanks JodyB talk 17:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the edits I don't think it's needed. User:Narinen needs blocking for WP:3RR and what amounts to vandalism. This is a fringe viewpoint trying to push over the article from an unreliable source, not standard edit warring. Ben W Bell talk 17:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I've changed it back to semi after talking with other admins and after the editor was blocked. Thanks for your input. JodyB talk 17:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow! Looking at the edit history, I counted at least 28 reverts so far today and at least ten socks. Someone sure has an axe to grind! --Kralizec! (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it a dynamic IP, or open proxies? Is there any reason he's not permabanned? - hahnchen 12:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I've submitted a request for checkusers to block the IP address(es) involved, if possible; until then, or if not, we can only be vigilant. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Great Pyramid of Giza has always been a kook magnet & a perennial problem for Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt; I'll put it on my watchlist, but any interested & otherwise uninvolved Admins are invited to add it to theirs. Also, I was informed Narinen engaged in a similar edit war at Hyksos, & may be a sock for another troublemaker. (I don't know the exact details.) I referred the editors handling that other page to WP:SOCKS (I think that's the correct abbreviation.) -- llywrch 18:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


Can someone please deal with the hoaxer(s) using ips registered to Microsoft- they are the ones beginning with 65. listed at Talk:Barbaro_family#Dynamic_IP_Nest as well as one who is currently vandalizing Special:Contributions/ Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 09:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Note this also involves two hoax articles currently for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pugilist Club Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent authored by this user. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Looking at these lists, it seems like we're talking mostly about 65.54.154.*, 65.54.155.*, 65.54.97.* and 65.54.98.*. Are there any others? Od Mishehu 10:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that's all of them. Is it likely to be someone at Microsoft or are they somehow using Microsoft servers to access Wikipedia? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd say I'm 99.9999% sure those are not actually anyone at Microsoft. If you look at pre-hoax contributions for any of the IPs, they're almost exclusively kid-oriented stuff: cartoons, video games, pro wrestling, etc. Consider me officially amazed if these aren't actually high-school IPs. For what it's worth (not much) the hoaxer himself has denied having anything to do with Microsoft, although I guess they'd say that either way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, the irony. The msn user WBardwin, who has been trying to help out with this, got caught by the autoblocker at, the IP used by Thost. Would that mean these IPs are dangerous–and perhaps pointless?–to block? Bishonen | talk 08:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC).
Saw that, too, but you dealt with it before I could. Given that they seem to be dynamic, I'm not sure if there's a lot we can do, aside from watching for and helping with collateral. Assuming you have email enabled, I'll send you a slightly WP:BEANSy detail on autoblocks, in a moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I strongly suspect that this one too is connected with this hoax User talk: I have just removed a load of what I suspect is rubbish from Balti dynasty which claimed our modern day Barbaro hero's mother was descended from this pre-Roman dynasty. There are no families existing who can reliably make this claim. Giano 10:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The hoaxer(s) also uses addresses beginning 4.142...., Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/ which are ips of Level 3 Communications, Inc., and all trace to Chicago or Tinley Park, Illinois. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • yes I had spotted him too. Here he is deliberately falsifying the correctly referenced quote from a very eminent author indeed [9] in order to show dome modern day person's possibly fraudulent ancestry. This is the sort of think that Wikipedia's critics love to seize on, and needs to be stamped on hard and fast - with these amount of IPs though the question is how? Giano 11:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Well they obviously aren't that advanced as they keep using the same providers so ATM it's easy to recognise them. We might need to go through all the 65...and 4.142...edits that we can find to check what they have done to other articles. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
How the hell does one do that? I think this is all some vanity and delusion of someone trying to claim a few bogus ancestors - the problem is they are damaging some good pages in the process. Giano 11:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't feel bad, I dealt with these guys on OTRS and the problem is big. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hoax threat[edit]

Note in addition to the Hoaxer thread above, the hoaxers have now admitted what they were doing [10] and it looks like they are threatening to sabotage more pages. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm... I'll try and keep an eye on this, I guess. Looking things over, I think I may have blocked a few of these, previously. Now that I'm a bit more aware of the pattern, hopefully I'll know what to look for. If you need admin attention, feel free to drop me a note. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Note as well as Microsoft/MSN dynamic ips they use ips of Level 3 Communications, Inc., beginning 4.142.. which trace to Chicago and Tinley Park, Illinois. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
One wonders which article they think they killed. Corvus cornix 16:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User category in category space for articles[edit]

Recently, I came across Category:Fictional maps by User:Briangotts and Category:Historical maps by User:Briangotts. After some initial lack of communication, we now agree that the categories should exist as part of the Category: User-created maps hierarchy. However, I am more concerned about these categories being included in the Category:Fictional maps and Category:History maps categories. The reason is because it appears that user content is part of the article space. It looks like the equivalent of an editor adding his or her signature to the text of an article, and it seems to violate the guidelines at WP:CAT under "User namespace".

I have had communication problems with User:Briangotts, and the discussion has been heated. At this point, I would like to avoid an edit war with him. Could another administrator intervene and possibly provide advice on this issue? Dr. Submillimeter 12:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Those two Briangotts categories should only be in the User-created category. Avoid self reference may be of use.Neil  12:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a content issue and not an administrator issue. I would suggest taking this to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (either on the talk page or by nominating them). -- JLaTondre 12:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It probably is a admin issue, as Brian has refused to take heed of Dr S's correct request. Irrespective, I've left a message on Brian's talk page. Neil  12:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not an issue for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, which generally does not deal with editing the contents of categories but instead deals with merging, renaming, or deleting categories. Thank you for contacting the user about this issue, and thank you for the speedy action. Dr. Submillimeter 12:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Submillimeter's point appears to be purely formalistic, and Wikipedia is not about formalism, for what I know. Since we have user-created categories in Commons, I don't see why we can't have them in Wikipedia and why we should nominate them for deletion (as Brian's was last night). As for the overlapping of spaces, I believe the transgression is rather harmless. Unlike Neil, I don't feel strongly about it. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't particularly feel strongly about it, but keeping mainspace and non-mainspace categories seperate is done for a good reason. However, I think Radiant is wrong to want them deleted. Neil  13:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

2007 Balad aircraft crash[edit]

Hey, we've got an unresponsive user here who has persistently been fiddling around with this article - apparantly good-faith, but various negative things going on. For example, he continually removes the only correctly liscenced image and has added a pile of images without sources or copyright tags, apparantly of the crash. I have attempted to raise the issue on is talk page, but he hasn't responded. I would continue to revert any poor edits on a case by case basis, as well as seeing about getting the problem images deleted, but I'm about to go off on holiday and won't be able to. If a few people could stick the page on watch, and see what they can do about images or getting the user to respond, it would be much apreciated. Strictly speaking it doesn't need admins yet, but I foresee it in the near future for image deletion etc. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Shawn Hornbeck[edit]

It's back on the front page of today, in the form of an AP story with this statement: "While it is The Associated Press' policy not to identify suspected victims of sexual abuse in most cases, the story of Shawn and Ben has been widely publicized and their names are now well-known." The boy hasn't been interviewed since the initial time in the spotlight, but his stepfather is still giving updates to the media and he's obviously not trying to supress him from the public. Interesting to note, considering the furor that we mustn't give him publicity and needed to let this slip away quietly. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. I wonder how we can reconcile the statement by a notable news agency with ours as an encyclopedia? We are different organizations with different goals. --Iamunknown 05:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC) (I want to clarify that I don't really know the answer to this, and I'm posting it to, hopefully, prompt discussion; additionally, I'm not attempting to marginalize anything. --06:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC))
How about, "Wikipedia is not a newspaper?" Thatcher131 11:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that was my original conclusion. It is my opinion that we should not apply the same conclusions to our encyclopedia that the Associated Press has come to for their news reporting. --Iamunknown 19:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Night Gyr misrepresents the case. The article was not a biography, it was a distillation of news stories about an event. It is encyclopaedically covered in the article on the Shawn Hornbeck Foundation. Nothing to see here, move along please... Guy (Help!) 08:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. When the kid grows up and wins an olympic gold medal, starts an international business or cures cancer, we can write a biography. In the meantime, any article would merely be a true crime story masquerading as a biography. Since Wikipedia is not Front Page Detective Magazine and does not exist to provide salacious details about crimes against minors, let's stick to an article about the foundation, which can properly describe it's history as part of the article. (I note in passing that the family has separated from the foundation, and I suspect that in a year or so it will have dissolved, but that's a battle for next year. Thatcher131 11:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
How do I misrepresent it? I didn't claim that the article was a biography. The conflict I'm addressing is that people thought we ought not to mention them at all in any context. People were repeatedly excising the names from the article that covers the crime. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not CNN and is not bound by decisions of CNN's editorial board. Since these facts are so blindingly obvious, why has this discussion been brought here? --Tony Sidaway 14:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"People" in this instance was primarily me. The issues involved here were surveyed in a pretty thorough deletion review in which I acknowledged that at least in Shawn's case (Ben's is a much closer call), Shawn and his family had affirmatively decided to become spokespersons for missing children, abating some of the privacy interest in his case. I gave an enormous amount of time and thought to this situation, and Night Gyr, I think your presentation in this thread is a little bit simplistic. In any event, I'm not clear what administrator action is being asked for at this time, unless your purpose is just to tease those (such as myself) who you believe may have temporarily erred on the side of respecting the privacy of minors who are kidnapped and sexually assaulted. Newyorkbrad 14:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is the deletion review? I tried to find it before commenting. Off the top of my head it sounds like a routine debate about whether a fact is significant enough to add to an article, or whether the salaciousness of the fact (or in other debates, whatever the negative reasons are) outweighs its informative value. I agree that we don't have to take the lead from newspapers, but because of the encyclopedic and ubiquitous nature of Wikipedia we should probably be more respectful of the privacy of non-famous people, not less. The name itself is not notable and it is not going to link to other events or anything else. It's a cul-de-sac of a fact, unrelated to any other facts. I see no harm in waiting a few months or even a couple years, then deciding at that time whether the name really contributes to the article or it's just not worth saying. It's not as if we're burying information or revising history. The source material still has the name. Just my $0.02. Wikidemo 14:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 28. My comments are at the top and then again (much too long) in roughly the middle of the discussion. Newyorkbrad 14:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
My point was to raise the profile of 'How do other organizations handle these situations?' I'd think people would appreciate the example. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
How editors enforce BLP is totally arbitrary. The arbcom ruling which said "obey the spirit of BLP" means you can do whatever you want without any kind of reprecussion, because the "spirit" is so ever undefinable. Doing no evil means speedy deleting Al Gore III, making a useless redirect from a kidnapping case - Tanya Kach, whilst not making a useless redirect out of another kidnapping case - Michael J. Devlin, and raping an article on a murderer because it was negative.[11] (At least the history was restored on that page, because it was a pretty asinine move) - hahnchen 20:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Query on warnings to anonymous editors[edit]

After their edits to an article were apparently reverted as vandalism [12], an anonymous editor posted [13] the following to the article's talk page:

Viewing this as a personal attack against Eleemosynary (talk · contribs), I immediately left a {{uw-npa1}} warning on the IP's talk page. The anonymous editor has since replied with an amusing, yet succinct "FUCK YOU ASSWIPES" [14]. While certainly lacking civility, I do not believe it was a personal attack directed at a specific editor, and thus does not warrant a {{uw-npa2}} warning. Is my understanding correct, or should I have issued the user another warning? Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you could reasonably have left an npa2, though my personal policy when it's just a rant on their own talk page is to revert and ignore.--Kubigula (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you could have as well as I don't want to draw too sharp a line between the community and individual editors. However, we don't want to "feed the trolls" either. JodyB talk 19:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Anon talk page abuse[edit]

Resolved: talk page semi protected

Could someone take a look at (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and their talk page history? I left a welcome message on this user's IP and that resulted in a series of personal attacks and warning templates subst'd onto their talk page. I'm thinking another warning is only going to instigate another outburst, which is nice if I want ammunition to have this IP blocked. However, what would really be nice is a satisfactory end to the personal attacks. BigNate37(T) 21:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I protected his talk page for 2 days, don't hesitate to block if his rants becomes disruptive. -- lucasbfr talk 21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Ethanhawke[edit]

Besides the fact that the User ID is that of a living celebrity, What the heck is going on at User talk:Ethanhawke? Corvus cornix

The account was engaged in spamming, and I'm guessing attempted spamming, I don't know why it looks like monitoring it has become active again, though, since the account was blocking indefinitely in March. I'm not too worried, though. Mak (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Why isn't the talk page just blanked with a block notice? Sure beats loads of pointless links, is this what usually happens with blocked spam accounts? - hahnchen 00:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I deleted both the user page and the talk page and they are now cascade-protected. -- John Reaves (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Block review for Ron liebman[edit]

Ron liebman (talk · contribs) has been sitting in Category:Requests for unblock for about two days, now; thought I might bring this one here, for review, to get a larger discussion going. Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've stated my opinion on his talk page. I don't even see a willingness to adhere to any of Wikipedia's basic editing principles, let alone an admission or explanation for all of the checkuser-confirmed sock abuse. Until I see a glimpse of either, I can't recommend unblocking. He caused months of disruption to numerous editors so this case should not be taken lightly. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I already commented at User talk:Ron liebman, to say that I didn't think he'd given a convincing explanation of his involvement in all the sock puppetry. See, for example, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ron liebman. That's a lot of socks. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Not just a lot of socks but a lot of checkuser-confirmed socks. And yet he continues to deny the sock accusation. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Or claim it's others making the edits at the same place without his knowledge. Self-guided meatpuppets, apparently. Editting precisely the same way, with the same questionable grammar and snide remarks. Extraordinarily unlikely, imho. -Ebyabe 15:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, there's a long-term abuse case open (with many more accounts... 39 total named accounts, plus a bunch of IPs) - Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Baseball Vandal aka Ron liebman
I asked Ron to contact unblock-en-l to start an ID check; I think that's a reasonable non-negotiable step at this point (though OTRS staff could do it too). Georgewilliamherbert 19:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Update: there are apparent socks operating even today. See Ken raffensberger (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and Steve grinberg (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). —Wknight94 (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I've filed a new (currently pending) RFCU request on these (and the other socks that came by after the last CU was run). Either this is an abuser with chutzpah, or Ron really is being impersonated. Either way, hopefully we can find out for sure. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ron liebman Georgewilliamherbert 21:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I tried to caution him about that. If he really is being followed around on NY library computers being impersonated almost perfectly, he may have bigger worries than whether he can edit Wikipedia. That's more than a little creepy. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This looks like a fairly open and shut case to me. Who the heck is going to go to the effort of stalking someone around and editing Wikipedia to impersonate them (as if they would somehow know their user account and who to link it with). Seriously. With the same editing pattern, etc., this is beyond unlikely. If I were an admin, I would deny the request right now. The Evil Spartan 18:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Just on a semi-related, yet unrelated note, Ron liebman (talk · contribs) is not the only one who has been waiting patiently at Category:Requests for unblock. Seems Yamla is on a wikibreak, and since he handles most of these, nothing is getting done...bored admins are welcome to jump in. - auburnpilot talk 16:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

captcha issues[edit]


I am using a screen reader, and want to log into my account (fastfinge). I lost the password to it, and had one emailed to me. But now I need to enter a captcha to log in. How can this be resolved?

How is this an admin issue? You might want to post this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)--Isotope23 16:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Because this is the page the info link next to the captcha edit box gives to contact an admin about the issue. Perhaps that link should be changed if this is the wrong place?
I'm afraid there is little an admin can do about this so I'm not sure why it is linked here. I can't think who could help with this. GDonato (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, folks; the page on captchas needs to be expanded. First, this seems to be the wrong place to ask for help. Second, it should say that if you wait about 15 minutes after entering an incorrect password, you can try again without entering a captcha. I have access to my account once more; how do we close this issue? Fastfinge
Like this. By the way... is there a help page on captchas in relation to Wikipedia (you can respond on my talk page if you'd like)?--Isotope23 16:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about where we should guide people at MediaWiki talk:Captchahelp-text. GDonato (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I was just getting to that!--Isotope23 17:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I made a change that should address the problem. Thatcher131 18:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a good change, but as Fastfinge's experience makes clear, there's a serious accessibility issue here. Chick Bowen 12:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Editors of magic ?[edit]

Can any one here figure out what is going on with these two accounts? I noticed them after seeing a confusing post at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes and found a mess... --Jack Merridew 09:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My suspicion is that they are sockpuppets of each other, and that they are attacking each other in order to make fools of the rest of us. I'm going to file a Code G checkuser to see if that's the case. The older of these two accounts made its first edit on July 6, and they have been editing each other's userpages and talk pages. Either that, or the newer account is trying to impersonate the older one, and in that case should be blocked and asked to change his username. Shalom Hello 16:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


TREYWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was blocked "based on a diff which has now been oversighted, in which you purported to state the first name and geographical location of another editor." I can find no diff, but even so, an indefinite block, which was given, is a tad excessive. 12 or 24, yes, but indefinite, no. I request that admins take a look at this and would kindly request that Trey's block be overturned outright or knocked down to 12 to 24 hours with an apology to the editor whose name and "geographical location" was given and let all be forgiven.

Trey is a very hard-working editor who keeps his nose clean and has a track record to back it up. He was only blocked one other time for something I got him in the middle of and we both apologized to the editor after our blocks expired....which is what I think should happen here.

Again, I request an admins attention, Trey's block reduced to 12 or 24 hours or overturned outright and the request of an apology to be issued to the editor whose name and "geographical location" was given.

Full disclosure, I am a friend of Trey's (online) but I was not asked by him to post this. Thank you for your attention. - NeutralHomer T:C 20:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a neutral comment, but oversighting means no one else but oversights can see the diff. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
What I was trying to say is this diff was not included in the block summary...and more so, indefinite is still too harsh for what is claimed. - NeutralHomer T:C 21:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
No. No unblock. Outing someone is the worst type of misdeed. I worked with Trey a lot as well, and ever since the outrage with H, I believe anyone who outs someone's real-life identity should be indefblocked and stay that way. Blueboy96 21:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Trey could apologize and say he won't do it again, any time he wants to. I don't see that he's made any attempt to do so. Hard-working or not, I see no reason to even consider lifting the block until he at least does that. Friday (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Note: see also User_talk:Nick#User:TREYWiki_Block, the blocking admin's talk page. Apparently this is going through ArbCom via email. Just sit tight. Flyguy649 talk contribs 21:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
"I've only submitted a summary of the situation to ArbCom via e-mail, there's no case open as yet, and indeed, there may not even be a case." It has only bee submitted via email, that is why I brought it to AN's attention. I am unfamiliar with the situation, just Trey...nor am I familiar with User:H. But, don't some of us kinda tell where we live on our userpages? In some cases, our real names. I will wait for ArbCom, but I think this block should be reduced considerably. - NeutralHomer T:C 21:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Some do. But that should be our decision, not that of someone who doesn't like us. If I deal with trolls a lot, I do not want them being able to search for an identity I never made public and then harass me in real life. That will seriously impact my real life, in a way I can only partially deal with by ceasing activity on Wikipedia. Driving people away and causing real life problems is TOTALLY unacceptable. -21:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it should NOT be an indefinite block offense, especially for a user who has cause no trouble in the past, with the exception of the problem I got Trey caught up in, which should not be held against him.
For a user with such a clean track record, he should be only blocked for 12 to 24 with the stipulation that he apologize after the block expires and does not do it again or the punishment will be reinstated. I think that is reasonable. - NeutralHomer T:C 21:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I have received e-mails from both the blocking administrator and the blocked user and forwarded them to the Arbitration Committee mailing list. Inasmuch as the arbitrators have Oversight access and can see blocked diffs, it struck several administrators that they might be the best people to review the unblock request at this time. Newyorkbrad 21:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
An update, Trey has apologized to the editor in question (without naming names). I think the apology is enough to lift this block. - NeutralHomer T:C 00:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It was kind of a backhanded apology. He was apologizing that the John Doe wanted anonymity moreso than apologizing for his actions. --Hemlock Martinis 01:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It kinda upsets me that I am the only one willing to assume good faith and give Trey another chance. He has apologized (which if you add a comma to one part, it sounds better) and has no history of problems, I think we should give him a second change and assume good faith here. - NeutralHomer T:C 01:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Once ArbCom sorts it out, then we will see what action is needed. Until then, it is useless to waste oxygen on this topic. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom hasn't even taken up the case and what if they don't? We continue to show bad faith? :S - NeutralHomer T:C 01:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
If ArbCom doesn't take up the case, we will cross that bridge if and when we come to it. I also disagree about showing bad faith, I believe, that by continuing to block Trey, we are taking an appropriate precaution at this time. Nick 01:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This is now moot point. Trey has left Wikipedia. You all should be ashamed, you tell everyone to assume good faith, you have done the opposite. Trey apologized, you continued to assume bad faith. Trey was an editor who was not a trouble maker, but you all treated him like one. Pathetic. - NeutralHomer T:C 03:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Will you stop pouting in our faces? What makes you think that you are the only one assuming good faith here? You think I wanted him to go? I did not, but I did not say anything because this matter was out of our hands, and therefore of no use. —Kurykh 03:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is important to assume good faith, but what good faith explanation is there for posting personal information? --