Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive147

CoolKid1993

User talk:CoolKid1993 is creating poorly designed logos and inserting them in company articles. There have been complaints about the poorly designed logos in his talk page. Look at his "contribution" to the Whirlpool Corporation article history to give an example. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've started reverting the changes and are restoring some logos that were deleted. Nakon 23:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not all of the logos I created have problems. The only complaints I've had on logos was the Whirlpool logo, TV Guide Channel logo, and the In-N-Out Burger logo. There is no other problems with any other logos, and I will try to be accurate in creating company logos if it means that all of them are going to possibly be removed, and I will not add those that I cannot personally replicate. But blindly removing them, just by removing all the one's I've created, does not solve the problem. Especially since 99% of them are entirely accurate. CoolKid1993 (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The complaints are because you use fonts and elements which do not match the originals at all (The Morgan Stanley logo for instance is not in the company's color and the font does not look equivalent). There's nothing wrong with the previous logos and they were all appropriately licensed (and are not at risk of being removed as long they have appropriate credits and F-URs), and to change the logo to something which does not resemble the original can be seen as cheapening the company's image; companies even print guidebooks as to appropriate display and typefaces to use for their logos, which although this is a volunteer project, we do follow to respect their copyrights.. What you're doing is tantamount to changing the New York Times masthead font to resemble that of a cheap local newspaper. Please don't fix what's not broken. Nate • (chatter) 00:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been going through the uploads of CoolKid to see if the problems were just with Whirlpool, TV Guide, In-N-Out, and Morgan Stanley. Here is what I've found. The AP logo, WTWO, Jeep, etc clearly are not copies of the logos in question and cannot be used as such. Dodge, JC Penny, Helio, Yahoo mail, etc have minor issues such as color, letter spacing, size, and shape that are not glaring, but still problematic. And for CoolKid to claim that "Nothing is different in this logo from the actual logo" is simply not true. These recreations are simply not the same thing as the "actual logo" from these companies. Some are better than others, but NONE of them are the "actual logos" in question. I really appreciate that people who have graphic talent want to donate their time to wikipedia. I think a good place to start is Wikipedia:Requested pictures, WP:GL, (and for someone who likes SVG and inkscape) Category:Wikipedia requested diagram images. I do not see any call for (or need) for these logos to be amateurishly converted to SVG. A side note, my personally preference is to avoid SVG when it comes to copyrighted logos due to WP:FUC #3b, but I know that SVGs are not forbidden. My strong advice to CoolKid is to find a way to use his skills to contribute free and/or original content to wikipedia. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out to me, Andrew c. I agree that it would be best from now on that I not add any logos whatsoever unless I know I can accurately present the logo better than I have been, which I had not seen as extremely problematic. The thing about SVGs though, as you know, is that anybody can correct it, which is why I do not think that removing the logo warrants any purpose if someone else can fix it... CoolKid1993 (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is that there is absolutely no reason to alter perfectly good images for some perceived benefit of SVGs, particularly when the logos aren't 100% accurate. I also share Andrew c's concern that fair use SVGs should be avoided because of 3b. Ral315 (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Just this image of the People magazine logo doesn't meet any of the familiar hallmarks of the People logo. It's always been highlighted with a bold band surrounding the letters, and it always appears with white text with a color border, never as one solid amalgamim. Your logo for SC Johnson does not match up to the same font as the SC, and the A family company tagline has become as much of a part of the company's identity as the name itself. We're not trying to put down your work, but it's best to use the company logo properly rationaled rather than creating a copy on your own. It certainly doesn't meet the standards for public domaining them, the images are too large, and as much as I hate to say it, if some corporate lawyer hits an article for a company they represent and see a logo that doesn't look anything like their own, they might file a copyvio lawsuit against WMF. We need well-rationaled logos with a small size and the proper guidelines of display much more than recreations. Nate • (chatter) 07:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ten O'Clock Classics

I'm not sure exactly where this should go, so I'm posting here instead of one of the other pages (WP:OTRS, WP:SPAM, WP:RFPP, etc). If there's a good place for it to go, feel free to move everything.

I first became involved in the Ronen Segev article when it was up for deletion in January last year. Apparently the subject of the article was involved in an incident with Priceline which, while not relative to his notability, showed up when you Googled his name. User:Jimbo Wales was one of the voices to delete, on the basis that there was a small but insistent group who kept trying to insert the Pricelinegate thing into the page (apparently, Segev tried to get mention of the incident purged from t'internet with the services of Reputation Defender, and RD are apparently not a popular bunch).

Anyhoo, despite the AfD's "keep", Jimbo later speedied the page. His edit summary was a bit misleading—"courtesy delete, non-notable but for some tabloid nonsense, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, vandalism magnet, etc" makes it sound like he just over-ruled the AfD for the hell of it—but there was in fact an associated OTRS ticket (#2007011710000088). I had it on my watchlist, so I was able to salvage the notable stuff and move it to Ten O'Clock Classics, the organization Segev founded. I later asked Jimbo if a permanently protected redirect could be created, and that was OK'd both at his talk page and at a procedural DRV, on condition I kept an eye on the TO'C target.

I've done so since, and it's not been a big job; it hadn't been edited in months before today. However, this morning I noticed an anon IP had inserted three external links to the old story.[1] I reverted,[2] but a (slightly different) IP restored it again.[3]

I've reverted a second time and added a little "please stop" notice,[4] but I thought I should post here as a preventative measure as well. I'm not as busy on WP as I used to be, so some extra eyes on the page while I'm not around would be useful, especially if the edits continue, or escalate to the point where a measure of protection is required. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I've added it to my watch list and also left a notice on the talk page for the IP editor to not add the link again. Perhaps an innocent mistake by a newbie. If the editor persists I think short term semi-protection should do the trick. Too bad, if I were the gentleman in question I would be rather proud of the incident - taking one for consumer rights! Oh, well. Wikidemo (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

SB/Incivility

Forum shopping, see ANI. east.718 at 03:50, May 25, 2008

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

I am getting fed up of this user (including his false characterisations of other editors - including pedophilia and pro-pedophilia accusations towards editors who have been forced into veiling their language with unnecessary anti-molester rhetoric). He has driven too many good editors off the project, incited the blocking of too many good editors, and now resorts to characterising my friendly reply as "trolling", removing it from the talk page of someone from who he has no permission to behave in such a way - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Googie_man&diff=prev&oldid=214654729.

If any administrator really doesn't know what he has been up to, and is willing to actually do something about it, I will be more than welcome to flood this page with diffs. J*Lambton ^T/_C 17:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

An example from only a while ago - of how this editor is forcing very strongly held POV on the encyclopedia, and characterising the editors who he is supposed to be working with as pedophilia advocates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=prev&oldid=214652507 (and the following diffs). J*Lambton ^T/_C 17:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

E.g. "and/or reform of child pornography legislation, the latter in order to deliberately humiliate publicly the children they sexually abuse for the rest of the child's life (for instance child porn on the internet compounding an original abuse many millions of times)" J*Lambton ^T/_C 17:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A question on a rare situation

I was reading over blocking policy the other day, and I realised there is no accountability within that states whether accounts that have been unblocked (with the intent to be reblocked) but haven't been. For example: say if I was blocked for 48 hours, but then someone unblocked me to reduce it to 24 hours, but never did, do admins have a responsibility to re-add that time to make sure it fulfills the initial sanction? And if so, how long would the admin have to wait before the re-blocked happened? Sorry for this slightly weird question. Rudget (Help?) 17:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say that if the editor hasn't breached policy while being mistakenly unblocked, the block has had its intended effect; if they have, they can be reblocked for the fresh breach, although personally I'd make it the same length as was intended in the reblock, to be fair. Unless there had been a repeated or egregious (how I hate that word!) breach, in which case I'd have no problem extending it to match the circumstances. --Rodhullandemu 17:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What Rod said. We do need to remind ourselves and each other that blocks are not punishment and are not "sentences" to be served concurrently or consecutively, they are simply one tool we have to protect Wikipedia and its community. There have, of late, been a couple of editors (not admins) who appear regularly here and on ANI, shouting loudly for punishment and particularly for long blocks to teach various nebulous lessons and generally wanting an iron fist on anybody who isn't perfect. This damages Wikipedia rather than protects it. In the above case, if a mistake is made and no block happens but the editor in question had their behaviour corrected anyway, then a block would be inappropriate to the point of ludicrousness. Amending the policy to say this (or a variant, or the opposite) would be instruction creep. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 17:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that blocks are preventative and not punitive, and I do endorse that a block would be inappropriate if the editor served a reasonable length of time and had recognised and reflected upon their behaviour. So common sense is in order, if this situation was to occur? Rudget (Help?) 17:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I came across this very situation awhile back, but I figured it was best to simply leave the user unblocked. After all, if the editor continues the same behavior that lead to the first block, they'll earn a second one soon enough. A note on the unblocking admin's talk page, just to make them aware of the slip up, wouldn't be out of order. - auburnpilot talk 18:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Common sense is always in order. Mr.Z-man 19:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If the user has been unblocked and noone has seen fit to block for new behaviour then chances are they wouldn't have needed to be reblocked. Orderinchaos 22:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with "egregious" :D ?? I think it's a great word... but yes, definitely common-sense - if the reason you're looking at their block log is to decide whether to block them again, then something like this would probably swing it, but if they've been good ever since, then let sleeping dogs lie... Happy‑melon 22:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica#RFC:Dead link or live link?

Appologies for using this board, but it get's a wide audience. Could we have some more views at the above RfC? It's important we get a wide community input into this so we can put it to bed once and for all. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• No need to apologise Ryan, your post hath brought forth comment from me. Love thy enemy say I, not because of any Christian doctrine, but mostly because they really dislike it when you show up their intrinsic bitterness. RMHED (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

history merge backlog

There's a bit of a backlog at Category:History merge for speedy deletion. For the dramatic majority of these you'll just need to move the page indicated in the tag over the tagged page, deleting it temporarily, then restore all deleted revisions. --Rividian (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Working on it, but deleting/restoring many revisions seems to be tasking the servers. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That was really fast. --Rividian (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs

I have just left Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) a warning about his ongoing habit of leaving uncivil comments on ANI. Things like lest it get promoted to Featured Article, Spam is spam, no matter how well written, My assumption is that they've got egg on their face, any moron can edit and this are really not needed and appear as gratuitous insults on other editors. I have notified him about this posting. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Endorse warning. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh my goodness an editor with strong opinions who employs sarcasm as a tool of expression, ban the bastard toot sweet I say. (Yes, that too was sarcasm). RMHED (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Strikes me as someone who simply likes colourful ways of saying things, I'm not seeing any particular incivility here, although they wouldn't necessarily be phrases I'd use, "gratuitious insults" seems a bit strong. Orderinchaos 21:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but bad warning. Nothing wrong with the first couple of diffs, whilst the latter two were unhelpful but certainly no more than the usual rough and tumble around here. If warnings are to be issued from so little, then by extension there are blocks to be handed out to half a dozen people on this page alone. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I never suggested that he needed to be blocked or even thought that he should be. On the other hand I am surprised to find that some editors agree with Baseball Bugs that an editor deseves to be called a cunt based on their user name. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that last one was over the top. But the others are not, and there's even some perceptive commentary in there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not endorse vulgar or obscene name calling under any circumstances. I only said that someone who chooses that username is asking for trouble. And I am no pal of Mr. Shankbone, I assure you. He and I have also clashed at one point in the past (though I don't recall when or why, as I try not dwell on those kinds of things). Otherwise, yes, I do get too sarcastic at times. If you think my comments are fundamentally unfair or untrue, you may take appropriate action. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

A comment from the admin who blocked DS for using the specific obscenity referred to; I am both familiar to why Merkinsmum is so named (i.e. who and what "Merkin" is in this instance), and that a merkin is a female genital "wig" which covers the mons pubis - not specifically the labia. Given that BB was not aware that Merkinsmum was female, I considered that BB was not in full possession of all the facts in regard to DS's comment toward MM and made a reasonable comment in view of the knowledge they had. I do not feel that BB was inferring that DS was correct in using the term, only that there was a interpretation of Merkinsmum that could lead to such a term being considered. At the time I thought it best that BB's comment be ignored, so not to cause more drama. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Endorse warning for the TFA related comments. IMO Special:Contributions/Laser brain says it all in that regard. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Other editors also complained about the promotional nature of that article. Wikipedia is not supposed to be used to aid and abet sales. That's "spam" disguised as an article. This is another sore subject that I have called editors on from time to time. Sometimes they get away with it, sometimes they don't. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

So you are accusing Laser brain of being a spammer because he wrote a featured article? Come on, you can't seriously think that writing what the sources say is spam. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 04:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm? I missed where we established that Laser brain was acting in bad faith to promote the company. Mr.Z-man 04:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I never accused the editor specifically of attaining any personal gain from the article, that's a false spin that some are putting on it. Nonetheless, the article was prominently featured. Others complained about its promotional nature also. Wikipedia needs to decide whether promotional articles are OK or not. At this point, it's unclear. The message is muddied. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I could write a fine, glowing article about a certain insurance company, for example. I don't happen to work for that company, but I think it's a good company, and if I do it well enough, I could theoretically get it to FA status. And it would still be spam even though I gained nothing from it financially. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that LB is acting in bad faith? Mr.Z-man 04:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

None, nor have I ever accused him of such, despite his attempts to spin it that way. In the self-hypothesis I described above, I would also have been acting in good faith. And it would still be spam. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec galore) I have nothing against Elderly (I've bought parts from them for my Stratocaster), but the article is written in a bit too laudatory tone. That's not at all saying that the author wrote it in bad faith, just that it could take a more detached tone. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. I hate to quote that, but I notice we have boatloads of edit conflicts (process wonking) with people getting angry at someone for issuing a warning (process-wonking) about the nature of someone's posts at ANI (process-wonking). We're several steps removed. (Meanwhile, I've been fighting sockpuppet vandals all night, most of the time of which AIV has been backlogged). The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the Spider-Man metaphor an updated way of saying "making a mountain out of a molehill"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I was already warned by the admin, and it was a fair and justifiable warning in general, even if I don't agree with some of the specific complaints. And you're right, there are many other fish to fry. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I just woke up to see this and the only person I agree with 100% is The Evil Spartan. To Raymond Arritt's first comment above, I did tell Baseball Bugs that he made good comments. To Baseball Bugs' first comment, a user should not expect to be insulted based on the fact that they may have chosen the first name of their child or the family surname as part of their uesrname. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete

Resolved

 – Unblock handled by Jpgordon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). PeterSymonds (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin delete User:SimsFan/monobook.js. Jimbo has given me a second chance, and I want to break my wikibreak to request unblocking.
If an admin would unblock me, as Jimbo suggested here, it would be great, but otherwise, i'll just go through the normal procedure. 92.5.91.181 (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC) PS: Please don't put 'wait for your wikibreak to end'.

I've blanked the monobook. I think unblocking requires further discussion, considering there are so many sockpuppets. See User:SimpsonsFan08. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Blanking will do as much as deleting, SimsFan. Clear your cache. Request unblocking the proper way, and somebody will deal with it as they see fit. Alex Muller 16:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted it as well, but you need to clear your cache. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought unblock requests were meant to be made from the master sock account which is Simpsons Fan08? (although its user talk page is protected) I think this would need community discussion first though. EJF (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

I have posted an unblock request at User talk:SimpsonsFan08. Can an admin attend to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.91.181 (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with EJF that there should be community discussion before an unblock takes place. Jimbo admitted having no idea what the case was about. But as this user has apologised and swears not to do it again, I think there should be some forgiveness. I would support an unblock at this time, for the one account. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

As does Jpgordon, who unblocked. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And everyone's happy ;) I can support this if SimpsonsFan08 gives an honest answer to a question I've asked on his talk about another probable sockpuppet. EJF (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I support the unblock made by Jpgordon. I don't think a community discussion was really neccessary. They know they will be watched, any slipups and they are gone forever. Woody (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Advice

I've just blocked Admin User:Arthur Rubin for 24 hours for edit warring on the Alex Jones (radio) article. He made 4 reverts in 24 hours. Is my block justified or not? I also feel slightly miffed by blocking an admin. Thoughts? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's fine. There's no need to warn him because he's an admin. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Arthur's been blocked I see for 24hrs for edit warring, it's nice to see the same standards applied to admins as to us lowly editor peons. So all in all a good block. RMHED (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the block. Even though Arthur Rubin was discussing the edits on the article talkpage he should know enough that there should be a max of two reverts before going to dispute resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Two comments: That article seems rather contentious. There has been a lot of reverting for at least several months related to whether Mr. Jones is a "conspiracy theorist" or otherwise. Perhaps an RFC with more than the regular editors would be beneficial? Also, this is the third time Mr. Rubin has been blocked for breaking the 3RR rule on that article. Something more than a block might be warranted. --Iamunknown 02:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, is this trash still going on? I previously bombarded the lede with about nine citations of sources calling him a conspiracy theorist, but apparently that wasn't enough for those of his fans who are disrupting the article. WP:3RR is policy, so is WP:NPOV, and editors who are clearly determined to break the latter should also be blocked. <eleland/talkedits> 10:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In particular this fellow is clearly a WP:TEndentious editor and needs more than a series of wrist-slaps for 3RR. <eleland/talkedits> 10:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I did only have 3 reverts, but I have no objection to the block. Nonetheless, if I could have found an appropriate tag to put on the infobox, I would have done so, rather than reverting. Any ideas. knownfor={{improperly-removed-inline}}? Also, the editor Eleland mentioned has been blocked for 3RR 6 times, at least 3 on that article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Advice

I've just blocked Admin User:Arthur Rubin for 24 hours for edit warring on the Alex Jones (radio) article. He made 4 reverts in 24 hours. Is my block justified or not? I also feel slightly miffed by blocking an admin. Thoughts? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's fine. There's no need to warn him because he's an admin. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Arthur's been blocked I see for 24hrs for edit warring, it's nice to see the same standards applied to admins as to us lowly editor peons. So all in all a good block. RMHED (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the block. Even though Arthur Rubin was discussing the edits on the article talkpage he should know enough that there should be a max of two reverts before going to dispute resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Two comments: That article seems rather contentious. There has been a lot of reverting for at least several months related to whether Mr. Jones is a "conspiracy theorist" or otherwise. Perhaps an RFC with more than the regular editors would be beneficial? Also, this is the third time Mr. Rubin has been blocked for breaking the 3RR rule on that article. Something more than a block might be warranted. --Iamunknown 02:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, is this trash still going on? I previously bombarded the lede with about nine citations of sources calling him a conspiracy theorist, but apparently that wasn't enough for those of his fans who are disrupting the article. WP:3RR is policy, so is WP:NPOV, and editors who are clearly determined to break the latter should also be blocked. <eleland/talkedits> 10:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In particular this fellow is clearly a WP:TEndentious editor and needs more than a series of wrist-slaps for 3RR. <eleland/talkedits> 10:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I did only have 3 reverts, but I have no objection to the block. Nonetheless, if I could have found an appropriate tag to put on the infobox, I would have done so, rather than reverting. Any ideas. knownfor={{improperly-removed-inline}}? Also, the editor Eleland mentioned has been blocked for 3RR 6 times, at least 3 on that article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Advice

I've just blocked Admin User:Arthur Rubin for 24 hours for edit warring on the Alex Jones (radio) article. He made 4 reverts in 24 hours. Is my block justified or not? I also feel slightly miffed by blocking an admin. Thoughts? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's fine. There's no need to warn him because he's an admin. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Arthur's been blocked I see for 24hrs for edit warring, it's nice to see the same standards applied to admins as to us lowly editor peons. So all in all a good block. RMHED (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the block. Even though Arthur Rubin was discussing the edits on the article talkpage he should know enough that there should be a max of two reverts before going to dispute resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Two comments: That article seems rather contentious. There has been a lot of reverting for at least several months related to whether Mr. Jones is a "conspiracy theorist" or otherwise. Perhaps an RFC with more than the regular editors would be beneficial? Also, this is the third time Mr. Rubin has been blocked for breaking the 3RR rule on that article. Something more than a block might be warranted. --Iamunknown 02:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, is this trash still going on? I previously bombarded the lede with about nine citations of sources calling him a conspiracy theorist, but apparently that wasn't enough for those of his fans who are disrupting the article. WP:3RR is policy, so is WP:NPOV, and editors who are clearly determined to break the latter should also be blocked. <eleland/talkedits> 10:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In particular this fellow is clearly a WP:TEndentious editor and needs more than a series of wrist-slaps for 3RR. <eleland/talkedits> 10:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I did only have 3 reverts, but I have no objection to the block. Nonetheless, if I could have found an appropriate tag to put on the infobox, I would have done so, rather than reverting. Any ideas. knownfor={{improperly-removed-inline}}? Also, the editor Eleland mentioned has been blocked for 3RR 6 times, at least 3 on that article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Block review of Bart Versieck

Resolved

 – Block reduced to three weeks, but with a final admin warning. Blueboy96 20:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate more input into the recent block of Bart Versieck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Canadian Paul (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked him for three months for what I'd consider very minor misconduct. Bart has been altering other users comments in discussion, although they are certainly not changing the meaning of what someone is saying. These are the specific edits he was blocked for. He has been blocked for editing other users comments before, but three months for such minor behavioural issues strikes me as excessive. I'd have no problems with a block of up to a week, but no more than that really. I'd appreciate thoughts because me and Canadian Paul have had a friendly discussion about it, but we just can't come to agreement. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Tough call. On one hand, that block log is genormous. On the other hand, three months is simply too excessive. He was blocked for a week before and he kept it up ... I say knock it down to three weeks. Blueboy96 18:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, three weeks still strikes me as a tad excessive, but I do agree his block log speaks a thousand words here. Three weeks is certainly better than three months. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd support three weeks. I don't think it's too excessive when considered against the warnings and block log. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this has been discussed at ANI before. Definitely a long-standing problem. I'm going to cut the block down myself, but leave a stern warning that if there's a next time for this, the block will be much, much longer. In my view, a community ban won't be out of order if he does this again. Blueboy96 18:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Three weeks is better than one week, and I could live with it, but I really don't think it's going to do anything. Bart's been blocked half a dozen time on both the English and another Wikipedia (I forget which, I can't find the link anymore, but if I do, I'll let you know) and on this one, at least, makes promise after promise to modify his behavior, but fails to do so. Maybe those particular edits aren't that bad, but changes "comments" to "irony" is certainly not particularly useful, especially not after you've been warned to not edit people's comments numerous times - after all the warnings, you would think the last thing you would want to do is anything that could even be construed as editing other people's talk page comments. I really believe that people not directly involved with his behavior do not have a clear grasp of his entire editing history and his refusal to accept the way Wikipedia runs.

And why has someone reduced the blcook while this discussion is going on? Neither I nor Moondyne got to make a comment here before things were changed. Not, as I mentioned above, that I really want to fight it, but I feel that it was very premmature to take any action before the other side had an opportunity to respond. Cheers, CP 18:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Actually, if the next one promises to be stronger, with the possibility of an indef, I can support that. Cheers, CP 18:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Dutch Wikipedia block logs here. John Nevard (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If I'm reading that correctly, it looks like he's been blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia (dating back to 2005) numerous times for the very same problem. 3 weeks may not be enough. - auburnpilot talk 00:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In recognition of repeated vandalism despite numerous blocks on more than one Wikipedia, a block of three weeks is the bare minimum he should have been given. While 3 months may be a little excessive, only 3 weeks isn't going to detract him from vandalism as much... Lradrama 09:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see less than two hours from opening the discussion, the block got reduced by Blueboy96. I think given the length of the block discussion might have been left open a little longer before boldness got involved. 1 week is very generous, 3 weeks very tolerant, 3 months ... well, the guy should be at permaban stage by now, surely. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Faizaguo

Ok, I'm not sure this is against the rules, but User:Faizaguo is using some kind of automation ok, might be humanly possible, and it doesnt seem too harmful, at up to 7 edits per minute to spam post to new user's pages with a premade welcome message. See contributions here he has made over 300 edits like this.  Atyndall93 | talk  12:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I may have been overeacting. Probs just an overenthusiastic user with friendly.  Atyndall93 | talk  12:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

He's welcoming users that have registered for two minutes and which have had no contributions [5], and he is not signing with ~~~~ but with a copy paste of his signature, so all welcomings have a date from before the account was registered. I warned him about that. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate WikiProject?

Resolved

 – Brought to MFD. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Fancruft

This two-member project seems to exist entirely to attack other projects' articles (it aims to trim "most, if not all, Doctor Who articles" - though many Who articles are good and/or featured); its template {{WIKICRUFTWARN}} has been unilaterally placed on numerous project talkpages and is currently up for deletion - also see my reasoning there.

What should I do about this? —TreasuryTag—t | c 11:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it meets any CSDs, but an MFD would easily be justified. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

MFD definitely. D.M.N. (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)OK, I'll do that now, then you can !vote :-) —TreasuryTag—t | c 11:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone may want to remove the links from other pages to this project. D.M.N. (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it be inappropriate for me to do it using Twinkle? Should we wait for the TfD to be dealt with? —TreasuryTag—t | c 11:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain how this differs in principle from the League of Copy Editors? A project whose goal is to remove cruft isn't a project that is attacking other projects, it's a project whose goal is to improve the output of other projects. Kww (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The MfD is probably the best place for further discussion of the group's merits. —TreasuryTag—t | c 12:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Offensive user

Resolved

 – Blocked 2 days

Now if it was up to me, people like this (note the edit summaries) would be denied even the recognition of a warning, and simply be blocked immediately. He's got two warnings now anyway, so I don't see any reason to let him carry on.--Kotniski (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I reported the user to WP:AIV for racism in his/her edit summaries. Rgoodermote  21:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 2 days. Rgoodermote  21:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

See discussion at 'crats noticeboard

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Temporary bureaucrats --Maxim_(talk) 22:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Corrected link. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for revision of my 3RR vio nom status

Resolved

 – Editor's reputation is intact

Sorry if this isn't the right place, but I couldnt decide of there is a better place.

Bacically, the issue is that I have been nominated for a 3RR vio[6] that didnt take place at all by a suspected sockpuppeteer who didnt understand the 3RR rule. But he has been smart enough to hide the edits done by his sockpuppet(and my subsequent reverts) and deliberately reported me as doing 6 reverts(which took place in a week and ont in a single 24-hour period).

An admin has taken a look and changed the status to "stale". But the fact it that it isnt a 3RR vio at all. Just look at the reverts mentioned. they are not mine. I request someone to take a look at it and change the status if possible. I had contacted the admin who changed the result to stale and requested him to do it but he/she has not responded. It is only fair that a wrong nomination should be closed as such and not treated as stale. It gives the impression that I had actually violated 3RR which I havent done. Please look into int. Thanks--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's already marked as "Stale. No vio anyway". What more do you want? --Stephen 05:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that. Thanks for letting me know :-). It must have taken place while i was writing the message above. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

List of discretionary sanctions

Is there a list anywhere of all the topic areas that have ArbCom discretionary sanctions applied to them? I seem to remember Digwuren and something Balkans-related, but am a bit hazy on the others. It would be useful to have. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General sanctions. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Rename

Resolved

Please rename my account from Max sonnelid to M.M.S.. Max sonnelid (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Visit Wikipedia:Changing username --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

User has filed a request at CHU. I'm calling this resolved, there's nothing more to be done @ AN. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ *** 17:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrator Hu12 apparent abuse

Toward the bottom at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mount_Hood My reply is: "Please remove Hu12's Libel and Vandalism above and please report this user's abuse to Wikipedia administration. Also, Hu12 of the "google results" you searched most are in support of Dan Howitt, with tons of his official summit photos on Rainier, Adams, Hood, Shasta, and listings of his timing officials. You strangely give weight to the abusive chat-site gossip and unsupported libel, and your own post above is of that nature. Chat-sites with this sort of conduct are sad. I'm reporting your libel and abuse to the wiki administration."--Saffron1x (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hu12 writes: "After going through the "google results" (a disturbing education of sorts), there appears to be a long line of aliases for Dan Howitt, posting over various websites and forums promoting himself and besmirching the characters of fellow climbers and related. Appears this is an attempt to use wikipedia to import offsite conflicts and further an adjenda. It has been removed. I'd suggest that Dan Howitt read the following, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world and Law Of Unintended Consequences — Saffron1x (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC).

This is a content dispute in which Saffron1x appears unhappy with Hu12's actions. Hu12's actions look to be in line with policy, and, to me, sensible. There appear to be no obvious grounds for a listing on this page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Tagi. I reviewed that article's talk. Looks like there was healthy conversation going on there over this issue. 8 Hours late Saffron brought it here because he saw some form, of admin abuse. I'm not seeing any of it, Hu (and the rest of the lot over at that talk who are agreeing with him) was in line with policy, Saffron's edits were not. I would suggest Saffron continue the discussion in that article's talk, there is no real incident that needs to be further discussed here. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

...what administrator action is required here? Or really any action? seicer | talk | contribs 15:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

See - Special:Contributions/Saffron1x

• Source soliciting
• Wikipedia is not a vehicle for Self-promotion
• Persistent spamming (of Dan Howitt on Mount Hood)
• Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption
  • Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.

Saffron1x (talk · contribs) is an Self-promoting and Source soliciting (WP:SPA) account pushing the mention of "Dan Howitt ", for inclusion on Mount Hood. Additionaly Saffron1x has made no other edits outside pushing inclusion of "Dan Howitt ". The account (Saffron1x) exists for the sole or primary purpose of promoting "Dan Howitt " in apparent violation of Conflict of interest guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Talk:Mount_Hood#Hu12_administrator_apparent_libel_and_abuse
• User_talk:WJBscribe#Hu12_administrator_apparent_libel_and_abuse
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Administrator_Hu12_apparent_abuse

Can we get a block, this is blatent WP:CANVASSing and Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption from this account, which meets several criteria for such a block. Clearly meets Spam / advertising-only account. I'd do it but, i'm involved--Hu12 (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Now is using IP 71.193.192.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the account indef on spam and harassment; will examine IP next. I anticipate there'll be an unblock request. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 16:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

IP blocked 24 hours as a sock. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 16:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I expect he'll try to come back under another IP.--Hu12 (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

interesting edit, looks like a small linkfarm.?
Frothh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
67.160.129.153 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) (note the edits to Mount Whitney
Iger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Appto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
--Hu12 (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Saffron1x (talk · contribs) is also DanHowitt (talk · contribs), and has just registered the new account R44r (talk · contribs). It is likely that the same person is 77ty (talk · contribs) and Appto (talk · contribs). Iger is on a different ISP though possibly a proxy (needs checking) and Frothh is stale. Thatcher 18:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to Hu12 and Thatcher for their work here. Have a stuffed tiger. :) Durova^Charge! 19:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

SUL / cross domain logins

I could not find the bugzilla number, but I thought this might be interesting. It appears that with the exception of meta, any SUL unified account, visiting another wikimedia site while logged in to the home wiki, will have an automatic account creation and automatic log in to the other wikimedia site. :) Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It also appears that SUL has been enabled for all users. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Woot! Lets see how much drama results... ffm 17:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what it's supposed to do. What's the problem ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not post on ANI because there was no problem. :) This was an announcement. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Aaah, right. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to work for me. I'm not logged in when I go here, for example. --Conti|✉ 17:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it did. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, but the automatic log in doesn't seem to work, which is a feature I'm very much looking forward to. :) --Conti|✉ 17:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

m:Help:Unified_login#What_it_doesn.27t_change it is still necessary to log in --Hu12 (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the automated login works for me. Perhaps the bugs are being worked out. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like everyone's giving it a go :). Seraphim♥Whipp 17:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The majority of the people on that list are en.wiki admins. If I had to guess I'd say that global accounts have to work their way through a global job queue or some other delay before the global login feature gets fully configured; and that new local accounts are automatically created whenever the user visits a particular wiki 'logged-in', be that using xx:wiki:Special:UserLogin or from the global login. Most of the people clicking on the link you've posted, Seraphim, will find themselves at the top of it, because they just created a local account by looking at the list! Happy‑melon 18:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I noticed that you have to login at least once to each domain (.wikipedia.org, .wiktionary.org, etc.) before MediaWiki creates an account on other sites for you. So, if all you've done is visit en.wikipedia.org, you'll be able to create accounts on any Wikipedia (but not Wiktionary) by just browsing to other Wikipedia sites. You can manually login with your en.wikipedia login anywhere, though. :) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It uses a different cookie than the normal login based on the domain, you may have to log out, then log back in to get the new cookie. If you log in normally to a Wiktionary site, you will be able to autologin to other wiktionaries and so on for the other projects. Mr.Z-man 19:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

On another look, it seems that you only need one cookie, logging into any project gives you a cookie that can log you into any other project. Mr.Z-man 19:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It is also necessary to unify your accounts before any of the SUL stuff works for you. Admins may be a special case - I recall SUL was tested with their accounts. Normal mortals need to do the legwork first. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask a silly question. I am User:B on Wikipedia. There is another active user with this name on Commons - Commons:User:B - this person is NOT me. I am Commons:User:UserB. Is there a way that I can tell the system that I am Commons:User:UserB or does it not care? Am either I or the other User:B going to lose our accounts at some point in time? --B (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not silly: see the answer to "Someone is using my name on another wiki, how can I get that account?" on the FAQ --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm assuming then that my commons User:UserB and my Wikipedia User:B are not going to be linked. Presumably, Commons is not going to rename an active good-faith user (nor would I expect them to) so I'll just continue to have two separate accounts. --B (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• If you guys are interested in spamming logs, see Special:Sitematrix. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• So this means that anyone who is blocked here with autoblock enabled can simply create an account on another wiki and return here? Is there any way to do global autoblocks to prevent this? EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it is kind of defeating the point that I now have two global unified logins? ;) Woody (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Depends on how it works. Does autoblock also prevent automatic account creation when foreign users visit us? EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If an IP is blocked with account creation blocked, automatic account creation is disabled for people on that IP. Mr.Z-man 19:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay thanks. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

QUestion on account creation

Patrolling the account creation log, I came accross a few issues that may need addressing, or at the least, explained to me. Consider these recently created from the log (culled from the bigger list, I included only the questionable ones):

17:17, May 27, 2008 WuBot (Talk | contribs | block) Account created automatically ‎

17:17, May 27, 2008 Totenmontag (Talk | contribs | block) Account created automatically ‎

17:16, May 27, 2008 QuickCatBot (Talk | contribs | block) Account created automatically ‎

17:13, May 27, 2008 Artstar04 (Talk | contribs | block) created new account User:Artstar87 ‎ (Talk | contribs | block)

17:11, May 27, 2008 FelixBot (Talk | contribs | block) Account created automatically

Now, what does "account created automatically" mean, and are these newly approved bots? And if you look at Artstar04, they have a null contribs list, what does is mean when a user with no other action creates a new account? Are these red flags for a problem? Or am I just an idiot? There has been a spate of these recently, not just these few I have pulled... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"account created automatically" means that the Single User Login functionality has created an account for this user on this wiki using the same details that they used when they registered their original account on their home wiki. This stops vandals registering names of good users on wikis they don't visit, and then tarnishing their reputation. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's global accounts that visit the English Wikipedia, and who have an account created transparently for them in their first visit (just enabled today). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah... so what about the situation where a user creates another account for themselves, such as where Artstar04 creates Artstar87... That has been going on from before now..., not just as part of the SUL stuff, as far as I can tell... Is that something else? The first account has an empty contribs history, and creates the second account? What's up with that? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As for Artstar04/87, that just means they logged in as Artstar04 and then, without logging out, went to Special:Userlogin/signup and created the Artstar87 account. May be worth taking a look into, but it's not as if the user is doing a very good job of hiding the fact that these are socks, if they're even trying at all. (There seem to be several accounts starting with "Artstar" — though, mildly oddly, no User:Artstar — created at different times, each with one or no edits. Maybe they just can't remember their password?) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You get a lot of account-created-account when people signup, then change their mind and immediately sign up under a different name. That and WP:ACC are the main reasons why those particular log entries come up (and they're normally easy to tell apart, by looking at how experienced the creator is). --ais523 12:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Guitar problem

Resolved

 – Not our problem, anyway. Bencherlite^Talk 23:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why every time I visit the Wiki Guitar page about octaves, I am instantly redirected to this page: http://www.thestringery.com/ ? It's rather annoying and I can't maneuver anywhere else on Wiki Guitar without still being transferred to that site. Mikhajlovich (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you mean http://www.guitarwiki.com/index.php/Octave I'd opine that your computer has a virus. Their page has just two lines of text, so you're not missing much. The GuitarWiki site has nothing to do with wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a virus or some sort of adware or spyware, I’d guess. —Travis^talk 23:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, I believe he's talking about http://www.wikiguitar.net/, which appears to have an HTTP redirect to http://www.thestringery.net/. However, that doesn't change the fact that it isn't a Wikipedia issue, and I don't think there's much we can do. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm having the same problem.

Kansas City

Resolved

 – Wrong forum. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time with the Kansas City page. When you do a search for "Kansas City", the "Kansas City Metropolitian Area" is the result. This is not the case when I do a search for "Boston", "Chicago", "Omaha", "Topeka", or "Seattle". The list actually goes on, the majority of cities around the country, including "Rio Linda" are directed to thier corresponding page, the one exception I've found so far is Kansas City that takes me to a Metro Page instead. Check out Minneapolis, that doesn't take you to a Metro page, in fact, it gives you the option at the beginning of the article! I've tried changeing it, but it will not hold, I need to take this to the next step please. SakuraAvalon86 (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a content issue; specifically, over naming. Discuss it on the talk page; it's not an admin issue. --Haemo (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Haemo than AN is not the proper venue. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

this happens on many computers.

Backlog

I'll note the following backlogs in need of experienced users:

1. 31 Users seeking adoption at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user
2. 50 Users seeking review at Wikipedia:Editor review
3. 48 Users seeking an admin coach at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching
4. 33 Images needing uploading at Wikipedia:Images for upload

MBisanz ^talk 05:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And here's a fifth: 35 days' worth of possibly unfree images to delete. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Warning without any reason

Resolved

User:Mojska has warned me with out any reason. I split List of atheists into different list after talking with fellow editors. List of atheists is too long and I split it. I split it into:

• List of atheists (Activists and educators)
• List of atheists (Authors)
• List of atheists (Film, radio, television and theatre)
• List of atheists (Music)
• List of atheists (Philosophy)
• List of atheists (Politics and law)
• List of atheists (Science and technology)
• List of atheists (Miscellaneous)

I did not blank any page. User:Mojska was never involved in the discussion. I split the list after discussion with fellow editors. See: Talk:List of atheists.

Can any administrator look into this matter? Please remove warning from my talk page and take some actions against User:Mojska. Thank you. RS1900 11:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You are allowed to remove the warning from your talk page. I haven't looked into this in depth yet, so I won't comment on that yet. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I dont see that RS1900 has done anything wrong. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 12:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore I suggest you remove the warning from your talk page, and all the involved have a civil conversation on the talk page of these articles about the changes and see if we can reach a consensus. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 12:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at both talk pages, it appears this was resolved before you even brought it here. The only issue left was the template warning on the talk, which you can remove yourself. Resolved? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I removed the message. I think it is a vandalism, but the user created some subpages (look at the page talk). Mojska ^{all you want} 12:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

@RS1900: the next time can you give us a motivation of your "bold" edits in the edit summary? :) Mojska ^{all you want} 12:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with User:Mojska. I would like to thank User:Mojska for removing the warning. RS1900 13:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Could I just make a suggestion that both of you should take into account? Before carrying out major edits like splitting lists etc, it is a good idea to discuss on the talk page and also when you actually issue a warning you should issue a "Level 1" polite warning at first not the Level 3 like what has been seen here. And I suggest now that both of you put this behind you and continue to edit. Dont let disagreements over edits cloud the air at another time. Thank you. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 13:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Better yet, just don't use a template warning. Typing something out yourself often works better. Good to see you guys resolved this OK. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Can an IPA range be blocked on specific articles where disruption is occuring?

• Can an IPA range be blocked on specific articles where disruption is occuring? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • IPs can't be blocked from editing specific articles, although they (the articles) can be semi-protected to stop them from editing. Is this a purely hypothetical question, or is there an ongoing spate of IP vandalism? RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ *** 16:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

ðɪs ˈkwɛsˌtʃʰʌn ˈfɹikˌwɛnt.li kʌmz ʌp æt ðʌ ˈvɪlˌɪdʒ pʌmp, bʌt ˈjuzˌŋ ˈaɪ.piˌeɪ ˈsɪmˌbɨlz hæz gɑt tu bi ə nu twɪst. — ˈʃɑɹ.lɨtˌwɛb 19:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's easy for you to say.... --Rodhullandemu 22:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Specific cases. See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Disruption by IP user 199.125.109.XXX. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate fair-use image?

Resolved

Could an admin more versed in image policy take a look at this? We have two identical images of Troy McClure (Image:Troymcclure.png and Image:Troymcclure.jpg). Ought one be deleted? Cheers, faithless (^speak) 05:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The second one is not used in any articles and can be deleted as an orphaned fair use. (CSD I5). --Haemo (talk) 05:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and ordinarily I would have just done that. But as the article is today's FA, together with my relative lack of image policy knowledge, I figured I'd play it safe. Thanks for the response! :] faithless (^speak) 05:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If the image is unused, it being TFA shouldn't affect anything. Deleted now, but just for the record. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHU

How often do admins/beaurcrats patrol WP:CHU, I've been waiting for 3 hours (or something) for a username change. SimpsonsFan08 ^{talk Sign Here Please and get Award} 10:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Name changes can only be done by bureaucrats, not any admin. Once a day is probably a reasonable expectation. Thatcher 10:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Three hours is not a long time to wait at all. When there's a backlog, request sometimes take a week to be looked at. The thing is, it's not that important a task, so it doesn't matter too much how long it takes. Just carry on editing and it will happen in the not too distant future. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge history

Could an admin history merge User:Serviam/Hastati into Hastati? I've been working on the article in my subpage and I'm now finished. Thankyou :-)--Serviam (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done - great work! Neıl 龱 12:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Neil :-)--Serviam (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand2 edit to BetacommandBot page

It's my understanding that User:BetacommandBot is blocked. Is this edit appropriate, then? ~Pesco^{Say it!} 17:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Not the end of the world. It is not even the account of a person. Either way. _{1 != 2} 17:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand2 (talk · contribs) has removed the notice that BetacommandBot (talk · contribs) is indef blocked. That seems inappropriate. BetacommandBot remains blocked, as it has been for over a week. Wikipedia operations seem to be going along well without it; other 'bots have taken over the more important functions, and nobody seems to be complaining that essential functions are not being performed. --John Nagle (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we really need the indef block tagged. A better idea would be to have a short statement directing users to the result of the community discussion and state that the account is no longer permitted to make edits. The indef block tag suggests the user is also blocked, which is not the case here. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the bot user page here. Hopefully it's slighty more descriptive than the indef block tag. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Good solution. --John Nagle (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, although it's not a blockable edit, I'd say it's bad form (if anyone uses that phrase anymore). If the information is incorrect, then BC ought to ask one of his friends (or advocates) to correct it to prevent the appearance of impropriety. Otherwise given the abundant emotion around the whole matter, his changing it will only lead to another chapter in the Wikidrama. -- llywrch (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I propose a topic ban of "Betacommand is not permitted to edit any pages relating to his subsidiary blocked accounts." DuncanHill (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose that and I found his edit to be perfectly correct. He was not blocked. The tag that is there at the moment sums it up well. Drama ended. Woody (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Duncan I don't think a topic ban over a single incident makes sense, if there was a pattern of this then perhaps. _{1 != 2} 18:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Bring it back to the table only when it becomes a chronic problem. One incident isn't enough to require a topic ban. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 22:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a good idea, topic bans are for continued abuse of a specific topic, not seeing that here. MBisanz ^talk 22:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Other BetacommandBot functions

Resolved

 – great! Thanks -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for posting this here, but I lost track of the threads while I was away. John Nagle says above: "BetacommandBot remains blocked, as it has been for over a week. Wikipedia operations seem to be going along well without it; other 'bots have taken over the more important functions, and nobody seems to be complaining that essential functions are not being performed." - well, the following functions seemed to have been missed: the updates to User:BetacommandBot/Free Template Useage and User:BetacommandBot/Non-Free Template Useage - could someone arrange for those to be taken over or restarted? Were any other functions missed? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I can add those two lists to AWeenieBot's tasks without too much trouble. - AWeenieMan (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

User:AWeenieMan/Non-Free Template Usage and User:AWeenieMan/Free Template Usage - AWeenieMan (talk) 04:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You don't need to do the updates as frequently as that. Once a day will be fine. Many images (correctly) get deleted before they contribute to those totals. Carcharoth (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It will only update once a day. Most of those edits were to fix minor issues with the script. - AWeenieMan (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sanity check

I have just blocked TheScotch (talk · contribs) for 31 hours following this edit. This follows a slow edit war as evidenced by [7], [8], [9], [10], and, following the diff at the top of this section, [11]. I had attempted to discuss the matter at User_talk:TheScotch#McCartney in the midst of the editing dispute, where I noted that the claim of co-founder had established a consensus within the article and that the consensus needed to be changed before the text might be altered.

Since I am involved in the dispute, and am a long term (though largely historic) contributor to the article, and enacted the sanction I am requesting review of my block and the use of my sysop bit in this matter. Should a consensus form that the block was inappropriate in regard to the dispute then I have no objection to it being reduced or lifted, or if it was inappropriate owing to a conflict of interest it being lifted (and re-imposed at the original or other tariff if considered appropriate), and if my actions were not in keeping with the role of admin that a seperate thread be commenced.

LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm seeing things, but it would appear that you blocked an editor with whom you are in a content dispute. It appears as if you used rollback to revert in that content dispute. It would also appear that TheScotch (talk · contribs) wasn't even near a 3RR violation (let alone disruptive editing). Looking strictly at the history of Paul McCartney, it's a bad block in my opinion. - auburnpilot talk 22:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like AuburnPilot is right on all counts. I'd recommend undoing the block and letting someone else take action during a WP:ANI thread or the like. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblock endorsed. It’s not a good idea to use the sysop bit in an editing conflict in which one is involved. —Travis^talk 23:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Special:Contributions/LessHeard vanU, it appears that LessHeard vanU is offline, so I've unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh.

Okay, seems I need some wet trout applied - I thought I was distant enough and the edits violated policy sufficiently, but it seems I was wrong. Perhaps I was too close to my bedtime to focus properly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

None of this should be interpreted to mean that the "Paul was not a co-founder" assertion has any merit, though it does sound bloody familiar. — CharlotteWebb 15:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

CAPCHA

Hi I'm trying to set up a Wiki for Sheffield Independent Film but I keep being asked to submit Capchas multiple times am now fed up and bored with getting nowhere! what next - with thanks ( deborah.egan@[EMAIL REDACTED] ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.17.33 (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC) removed domain from email address — Gavia immer (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't have anything to do with wikipedia, so get in touch with whoever hosts the wikis.--Serviam (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Final decision in CAMERA lobbying arbitration case

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Mere membership by an editor in some external group that has been involved in violations of policy is not actionable without evidence that the editor has some personal involvement in said violations. Sanctions previously imposed are confirmed. An amnesty is extended towards any editors who may have been involved in this external group and who have not been sanctioned for their participation in it. This is coupled with an expectation that these editors will not participate in similar efforts in the future. Members of the community who may have information regarding similar efforts by external groups to unduly influence our content are urged to forward that information to the Committee for review. Hypnosadist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to maintain an appropriate level of professionalism at all times, and to avoid misrepresenting Wikipedia policy to other editors. For the committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 20:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge usernames

Please change my recent username user:achaemenian to user:kamix and if it is possible transfer all of my contributions to this new account. I want to merge all of my accounts but here (english wiki) my username is different, Am I put my request in the right place?!. thankx --Achaemenian (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username is what you're looking for, but that username is already taken. - auburnpilot talk 20:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This request should be at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations, as the target account already exists. Hut 8.5 20:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

thankx both --Achaemenian (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with admin action privately?

I have been contacted by a user that contacted me via email to look into a matter involving another editor. Due to an off-line presence this other appears to have based on the first user, the first user has asked me to keep the specifics in confidence though to seek out what can be done. Is there a method of which other admins can discuss this matter in a private matter as to respect the user's wishes? --MASEM 21:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

#wikipedia-en-admins —Travis^talk 22:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Talking about it in -en-admins is about as private as posting it to Foundation-l. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Rather unfortunately; I detest IRC. But I digress; I think Travis thought Masem meant a place where admins could discuss it privately. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It may just be me...

Resolved

 – Yep, just you. Tiptoety ^talk 23:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

...but is the Wikipedia logo on the top left missing? I'd check the history of the relevant page, but I don't know where in the MediaWiki space it is. J Milburn (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is just you. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's just you, but that image isn't stored in the MediaWiki space. It's a copy of Image:Wiki.png but needs to be stored elsewhere by a developer with shell access. Alex Muller 22:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin review needed at Taser

Could neutral admins familiar with NPOV policy and especially POV Forking review the discussion on the Taser and Taser controversy articles at Talk:Taser#RFC:_Criticism? There are only two or three regular editors of the article, all relatively inexperienced, so if an experienced admin could weigh in it would help us proceed. (timestamped for archiving reasons) Fram (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Today's main page featured article protected

Hey, I've had to protect today's main page FA (Oil shale) due to revision attacks by multiple IPs. I'll be logging off shortly, so I'd appreciate it if someone could unprotect it and keep an eye on it whenever it seems safe to do so. Thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Things were getting out of hand, I agree. Will try and keep an eye on it while I'm still about. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

History merge

Could an admin please merge User:Serviam/Principes into Principes? I've been working on it in my sub page, and I think it's of much better quality now. Thankyou :-)--Serviam (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Should be done. Thanks, awesome work. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot :-)--Serviam (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Page move vandalism

Just a quick note - we had a page move vandal again this morning, he moved around 50 pages before being spotted and blocked. The initial page moves looked legitimate, but were actually disruptive. If editors see anybody moving more than one or two pages, please alert an administrator - and please don't assume because the username and talk page isn't a red link, that the account can be trusted - double check any moves, see if the introduction to the page matches the page title and so on. Please see Special:Contributions/HyperBeamR9K for an indication of the sort of activity you should be looking out for. Thanks folks. Nick (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Note the first 10 edits all to his userpage to bypass the autoconfirmed limit. Has this guy been CUd? I doubt he's a newbie. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that will be necessary... Happy‑melon 11:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha, I was too busy looking at the other contribs. Point taken. Can we please find a way to have the autoconfirm limit set to mainspace-only? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just writing up a bot now to making the reverting side of things easier --Chris 11:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, please do CheckUser it - I don't think it's the real deal. Happy‑melon 11:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Another one; see Catch the Breeze (talk · contribs). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

And blocked; anyone got a mass pagemove revert tool? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

They were all Bots, including Special:Contributions/Hyper_Beam_9000, Special:Contributions/RomaniWedding and Special:Contributions/The_German_Lesson, it will be better if the CU's try to find a trend rather than just blocking and ignoring, we already have grawp to deal with now this new problem all --Cometstyles 12:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Another: The German Lesson (talk · contribs). *sigh* This is such a waste of time - I have much better things to do (oddly enough, it's cleaning up after more vandals) and my (deleted) edit count doesn't need any more padding. MER-C 12:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, estoopid question here, but: Isn't there a way to invoke a limit on how many pagemoves a given account can do in one period of (x) hours? It could be set to infinite for admins, for example, and maybe started at 0 for newbies, increasing with mainspace edit count? Is this even possible, or is this my writer's mind overriding my tech's mind? Gladys J Cortez 14:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Scaling by mainspace edits would be hopelessly inefficient (under the current database layout, the user's entire edit history would have to be loaded, and then filtered by namespace, before every edit) but I expect pagemoves could be throttled according to user-rights with minimal difficulty. Is it time to resurrect the Page-move-throttle discussions? Happy‑melon 14:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea, surely there can't be many circumstances where it is necessary to move hundreds of pages in a short space of time, so i can't see the harm in setting a throttle--Jac16888 (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure enough, if an editor needs to move a lot of pages, then he must have a really good reason for that, which means that he can easily convince an admin to help him --Enric Naval (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:VPR anyone? RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ *** 16:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There already is a page move throttle (I think it's 8/minute, excluding talk pages). I ran into it several times when reverting this yesterday. It was annoying. MER-C 05:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

We could make groups such as rollbackers and account creators exempt from a pagemove throttle, so if a trustworthy non-admin wants to move lots of pages they can just apply for one of those usegroups. A pagemove throttle is an excellent idea. Hut 8.5 17:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Another one: ZapdosThunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Hut 8.5 16:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey...apparently this is already an open discussion. Shall we adjourn to there? Gladys J Cortez 17:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a few suggestions: 1)Install thisimportScript('User:Mr.Z-man/moverevert.js'); in your monobook and 2) if you notice suspicious page moves the logs, check when the account was created. If the account was created several days ago and the moves/sandbox edits were its first edits as of the day you are checking, its a pretty good indicator.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at User:HyperBeamR9K's changes , I'm not sure that this qualifies as vandalism . Instead of changing names unrecognizably , he seems to have merely specified the names . His lack of previous account history and the apparent automation of the tasks are suspicious , but the actions don't appear to be destructive . --Frank.trampe (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

How about this?. MER-C 07:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Chris G Bot (2nd Request) once the bot is approved, you will just have to add the user's username to the bottom of User:Chris G Bot/Users.js and the bot will revert the moves for you --Chris 11:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

WadeKeller2008

Resolved

 – Resolved per thread at ANI. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if this is the wrong place for this, I think there is a trying to get through WP:PW policies by impersonating a well-known wrestling columnist. Yesterday EverythingDies (talk · contribs) showed up and attempted to add week by week results to Deuce 'n Domino, which go against WP:PW conventions. I reverted him. About an hour later, a user named WadeKellerTourch08 (talk · contribs) showed up and claimed to be Wade Keller. He said that the info was notable because he covered it in his newsletter. [12] I was skeptical for several reasons, including the fact that he mis-spelled torch (his newsletter is called the Pro Wrestling Torch). I reverted him again. At this point, a third user, WadeKeller2008 (talk · contribs) showed up saying the other user was not Wade Keller and stating that he was the real Keller. [13] Naturally, several users were skeptical and his responses were accusations of "libelous edits". I asked him to prove his identity by posting something on his official website. His response was "frankly I couldn't care less about the whole ordeal" and he then removed both my request and his response. This is a basic dodge, and in my mind it proves that it is simply a user impersonating someone in hopes of bypassing policies. I'm unsure of what to do about this, so I thought I would report it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Appreciated. I believe this was discussed and resolved at ANI, in this thread. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User's talkpage prohibited by local title blacklist

I can't create the page User_talk:Nooooob, because it gets picked up by the local title blacklist. The resulting warning suggests notification here. Eve Hall (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. I have no idea what a local title blacklist is. For what it's worth, I was able to create the page just by leaving a welcome message there, the normal way. Friday (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's odd, oh well, at least it's sorted now. Eve Hall (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sysops are exempt from the title blacklist, located at Mediawiki:Titleblacklist. Nakon 21:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Admins are exempt from the title blacklist and don't even get a notice that the page is on it. The problem is probably the repetition of 'o.' It should only prevent creation though, so further edits won't be affected (though an admin will need to make the first edit to his userpage, if he wants one). Mr.Z-man 21:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It always interests me to look at the blacklists and wonder what it took to get those things on there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:86.149.200.196

Resolved

 – IP has one edit... On May 22 (7 days ago). No action needed

Does anyone else here think the warning on this IP's talkpage seems a bit pointy/harsh? Saying "You have been warned" sounds a bit nasty IMO. I think it could at least be toned down a bit, or replaced with a proper warning. D.M.N. (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, especially for a first edit and a relatively insignificant test/piece of vandalism. However, the warning was given 4 days ago, what administrative action really needs to be taken? RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ *** 11:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I am resolving this one... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Image removed

Hi, I have been filling in the gaps in the list of ABC Local Radio stations that are missing articles for some of the stations. I re-used an image that had already been used in articles already created, for example 891 ABC Adelaide. The image remains in all the articles I didn't create, but has been removed from the ones I did create, eg: ABC Riverland. The removal is noted as: . This doesn't make sense, if the image has been left in every other similar article why would it be removed from the ones I created? Can anyone help please? Blueturtle01 (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You need to add a Fair Use rationale at Image:Abclocalradio.png. Then it should stick. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Libel on my page

I've got some libel on my webpage. Can anyone give the appropriate warnings on it.--Bedford ^Pray 02:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the offender has been blocked. Did you want that edit oversighted or something? -Pilotguy contact tower 03:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably need to. On a website I have not been a member of for six years I am now a target again. As seen on this thread I would not be surprised if this happens again soon. They did a real job on moving my user pages, but two other admins took care of that.--Bedford ^Pray 04:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oversight requests have to be done through email, see Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Hut 8.5 17:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, since thisUser:HerpesVirus moved two pages to "Hagger", and some of the other edits were either "gnome edits" (getting rid of silly small vandalism like people saying "hi") or misleading edits, I think this may have been the same Page Move Vandal who a short while ago moved Russia and Vladimir Putin to "Hagger" ... --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a long term vandal who has been doing this with lots of accounts for some time (or someone else impersonating them). The vandalism reversion was to get around the 10-edit limit before the user is allowed to use the move page function. Hut 8.5 17:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

New page instuctions

When a user clicks to start a new page, the following appears:

• Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article, or search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title.
• To experiment, please use the sandbox.
• As you create the article, provide references to reliable published sources. Without references, the article may be deleted.

I have recently forked Wikipedia:Your first article from Wikipedia:Starting an article, with the ultimate objective of making YFA more newbie friendly (i.e the article just has to be "good enough" - i.e. not a CSD candidate), while SAA can keep the instructions related to making new articles "good", not just good enough, and speak more advanced (and less newbie-friendly) Wikipediese: talk about policies, guidelines, etc. (and as an aside, any help in this forking effort is definitely appreciated).

IMHO, the first two bullet points in the new page instruction box should really read:

• Before creating an article, please be familiar with Wikipedia:Starting an article, or search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title.
• To experiment, please use the sandbox or your user page.

and should not refer to YFA: editors should be following SAA on ALL new articles, not just the first one they start. How would such a change to the instruction box get made? UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Also the link at Template:Did you know needs to be changed. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You could submit an {{editprotected}} request at the talk page of the relevant MediaWiki talk page. YFA is mentioned in both MediaWiki:Newarticletext and MediaWiki:Noexactmatch. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason the two pages exist? They are largely identical in information and scope. Couldn't we just merge the two and expand WP:YFA? And for that matter, why NOT encourage new users to work towards writing good articles??? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand the reason: because we ask our new users to read pages and pages of stuff as it is. So these two pages can differ in scope in that one of them tells you how to write an article that doesn't get deleted, while the other is much longer and tells you how to write an article that's good. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a lengthy discussion at WT:CSD about how new users tend to make a new article as their first edit, and ways to make the ensuing speedy deletion less painful or avoidable altogether. Franamax (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Moulton (un)ban

Discussion on a potential unban of moulton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Moulton. Ryan Postlethwaite

time stamps. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Cross namespace redirect

I just lost teh game (talk · contribs) has made his userpage into a redirect to article space, and keeps refusing to change it & reverting it back. I've temporarily changed it to redirect to his talk page & protected it; while this seems to me to be patently disruptive editing, he is technically correct in that Wikipedia:R#DELETE does only mention redirects to userspace and not from it. Can someone else review this one, and either confirm that the redirect shouldn't be in place, or confirm that it is allowed and lift the protection? Thanks! — iridescent 00:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say that this editor is attempting to use the letter of the guideline in an attempt at bypassing the spirit of it. Perhaps a viable alternative is to transclude that article to his user space if he so desires his userspace to mimic that article? Resolute 00:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:POINT overrides any other guidelines as written. It is disruptive to link your userpage to an article, as it renders your user talk page inaccessable from a signature for those not highly capable in navigating Wikipedia. Daniel (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This loophole has irked me for a while now. Anyone know why it exists/want to change the wording to explicitly forbid this action? faithless (^speak) 05:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why we want to forbid it, to be honest. It doesn't seem too terribly disruptive to me...if you were trying to get to someone's talk page, most signatures and history/RC/log type pages include a talk page link. Quite a few admins redirected their user pages to Never Gonna Give You Up on April 1st, and I never heard anyone raise a stink about it. This isn't really a big deal, in my opinion. If someone wants to redirect their userpage to articlespace, ok, that's sort of unusual, but it's not compellingly or maliciously disrupting the standard operations of Wikipedia...why outright ban it? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention there are several people, including admins, who have article space redirected to their userspace. Nothing wrong with his userpage being redirected to an article as long as his talk page isn't. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 08:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

diffs or it didn't happen. I think you are getting confused with redirects from wikipedia space which are being discussed on this RFD --Enric Naval (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Who has article space redirected to userspace? What legitimate reason could there be for that? --Onorem♠Dil 14:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm no admin, but I pretty much think the above mentioned point - about admins doing the same thing at one point and no trouble being raised - single-handedly declares my actions as acceptable unless there's been a policy change since then specifically prohibiting it. I just lost teh game (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really. There's a clear difference between a brief prank and an apparently permanent userpage. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

So does that mean if I vandalised a page for one day, then turned it back the next day, I'm no longer breaking the rules because it's a brief prank? I just lost teh game (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Only if you do it on April Fools' Day, and only if it's funny, and only if it's not too disruptive (one admin got temporally blocked for making big pranks affecting all pages on wikipedia) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The user's made some good edits, but also some iffy ones, which seems relevant in a discussion regarding borderline "for the lulz"-type behavior. I'm not comfortable with the redirect, but not comfortable prohibiting this sort of thing outright, either -- I'm very much reminded of the UI spoofing controversies we sometimes see with fake "new messages!" bars and such. Easy access to user talk is a concern I'd call important, though it's worth noting the user's signature links to their talk page. Might be worth discussing at Wikipedia talk:User page, if it hasn't been already. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should prohibit user or user talk pages from being redirects other than to pages within the user's own "namespace", or if the user has changed to a different account, then to the new account's "namespace".-gadfium 19:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

First removed the redirect, so I figure I should give my reasons. Basically, if a new/not-so-accustomed user came across this userpage redirecting to the mainsapce, they'd have a "wtf" moment. Heck, I had a brief "wtf" moment when I first clicked the userpage link, despite having edited for over a year. Redirect it to your talk page, if you must, but other redirects can easily get confusing IMO. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well. One admin suggested instead of a redirect, copying the content of the target page to my userpage. I'll drop this and do that instead if the other admins agree that this is acceptable? ((EDIT: That being said, you should still probably continue this discussion until you come up with a consensus, for future cases - also, if you do decide it's acceptable, let me know so I can change the page back)) I just lost teh game (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Banned for posting on Homeopathy

Apparently I have been banned from editing the Homeopathy article for no mistake of mine. Please explore and let me know my fault. Hallenrm (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You aren't banned, the note left by Scientizzle was merely to inform you the article is under probation. PhilKnight (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

We really need to come up with a standard template for notifying people about the probation that makes it clear that it's just a standard notice to all new editors. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

I left a note that hopefully clarifies the situation... — Scientizzle 20:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You could base it on {{uw-balkans}}. Stifle (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Dabiggestestitaliano and his merry band of socks

As I've already blocked Dabiggestestitaliano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) it might be vaguely ABF for me to delete Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DABIGGESTITALIANO2; can someone do the honours and take whatever steps need taking to clear out the sockfarm (note that the RFA was created by User:Dabiggestestitaliano3)? — iridescent 19:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Done two and deleted, can't see anything else obvious. Alex Muller 19:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Special:Prefixindex/The SRS

Resolved

User:The SRS has requested his/her subpages except his signature subpage and user page be deleted as requested here. Thank you. -- RyRy5 (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Left the pages that redirected to the userpage as well as the signature pages intact. User is free to request restoration of said pages at anytime. --Pilotguy contact tower 03:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will notify the user of this. If he says everything that was requested to be deleted, was deleted, I will resolve this. -- RyRy5 (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User:The SRS has stated here that there are more pages to be deleted, 3 to be exact. Please delete the 3 pages. Thanks. --RyRy5 (talk) 03:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll be marking this as resolved now. Regards, RyRy5 (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:WebbyTaranula44444

Been trying to add a warning to User talk:WebbyTaranula44444, but am given a message:

The page title that you have attempted to create has been included on the local title blacklist, which prevents it from being used due to abuse.

Did report this to AIV, but have a hunch that it'll be shot down. Posting here, hopefully for some sort of resolution. Yngvarr (c) 10:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably due to the repeating '4'. Admins can bypass the blacklist; what was the warning going to be about? RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ *** 11:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding deliberately false information, removing CSD tags, creating bogus articles. An admin added a warning, and as I suspect, the report was shot down. Yngvarr (c) 11:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Same problem above at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User.27s talkpage prohibited by local title blacklist. DuncanHill (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't we sync the title blacklist with the username blacklist and avoid this in the future? ➪HiDrNick! 15:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Because once the page is created by an admin, it can be edited freely (unless the regex uses the <noedit> flag, which I don't think any do), so its a minor inconvenience, but no reason to completely ban all such usernames. Mr.Z-man 19:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Why then ban the titles? It makes no sense at all to be inconsistent.--Tagishsimon (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it make sense to whitelist the User Talk space to get around this problem? Dave6 ^talk 23:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"ID clique" arbitration request

Seeing as it's a "hot topic", it should be AN'd. I've filed a request for arbitration about the behaviour of the supposed members of the clique, for both continued incivility and votestacking. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Help with closure

Resolved

 – AfD closed as Nom Withdrawn / no consensus to delete —Travis^talk 03:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Would an admin please consider closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zelezny‎? It's only been open for four days, but I think it's a clear "keep" resolution; and I'm getting tired of trying to explain to another user why his efforts to non-admin close it (without doing it properly) are out-of-order. Deor (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. Oh, guilty party here. My bad. Nomination withdrawn, it seemed the way to go, but Deor is looking for satisfaction in the Wiki-bully-the-newbie department, for which I'm a good target, having been blocked for a week for questioning the veracity of a source and threatened with permanent community ban should I ever do so again. I closed it, removed the tag, he said, no, I reverted, he reverted, I left it alone. Now Deor's panicked. Hopefully a whole bunch of admins can come by and gang up on me for this faux pas and everyone can have a little Wiki-bully fun. --Blechnic (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even mention your username, for Pete's sake, and I'm asking for help in achieving the resolution you want. How is this bullying? Deor (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my bad, I though you meant "be patient" and it will take care of itself without further ado. But that was for my behaviour, not yours. --Blechnic (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

And, clever, not mentioning my name, no one would have figured it out through the article history and come and ganged up on me. --Blechnic (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

PS I notified myself of this discussion, so there's no need for anyone else to notify me. And, I'm done with it, so everyone can have some free for all fun with me now. --Blechnic (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)In fairness, if the nom withdraws the afd, it doesn't really require an admin to close, although it's best to leave it to more experienced users, if in doubt leave it to an admin. And blechnic, comments like that don't really help.--Jac16888 (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible attack page?

Does this user page seem like an attack page? I got a second opinion from another admin before I posted here, and they agree that it is at least a possibility and is worth bringing up. It seems like it could be trouble, particularly with a picture of the person in question. I may be over-reacting, so it might be wise to get other opinions here before I take any action. Cheers, CP 05:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedily deleted as an attack page. WP:BLP applies everywhere, there's no such thing as a harmless rant against someone you know, and it doesn't seem like it was written in a self-depreciating manner. The user seems to be otherwise making good-faith contributions, though, so I'll just leave them a note letting them know what happened and alerting them to this thread. --jonny-mt 05:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Good to know I'm not completely off-base. Thanks for notifying the user - apologies for forgetting to do so myself. Cheers, CP 05:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for renaming user

Hello, I'm using the unified login system, and my name is "El Mexicano" in all other wikis. Could you please move my settings and user page from User:TheMexican2007 to this new account? Thank you. --El Mexicano (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're looking for WP:RENAME. --Wikiacc (¶) 19:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, the correct page is WP:USURP. --Wikiacc (¶) 20:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not possible to rename your account to the name you request on the English Wikipedia. There are two issues at the moment. Because you registered your preferred username for Single User Login (see Special:GlobalUsers), an account on the English Wikipedia was already created and needs usurping. Due to a current bug, accounts can not be renamed to a name already registered for SUL. So, if you want to rename your account, please do the following:

1. Go to m:SR/SUL and request the deletion of your preferred account as a SUL account. This removes your username from the list of SUL accounts.
2. Request an usurpation of your preferred username at Wikipedia:Usurpation
3. Repeat step 2 and 3 for all your accounts on other wikis where you have username conflicts or accounts that need to be renamed.
4. Once completed, merge your accounts again for SUL at Special:MergeAccount.

Regards, Neıl 龱 09:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Assistance required

I need to know the right procedure to deal with a situation. I made a report regarding an anonymous IP adress here [14] and i was told to file a report at sock-puppet for Admin. which i did here [15].

The user continues to make disruptive edits and removing references and i reported again at noticeboard/incidents and now i am asked to report for checkuser [16].

But as was observed here [17] "Unless there is a reason to assume these IPs are associated with an account" , how can i proceed without identifying the account. Meanwhile the IP is free to make disruptive edits. Can someone please guide me as to how to deal with this situation, as i am only being guided from one place to another without any concrete action.

Also if i revert "removal of referenced material" by the IP adress, would that make me liable for 3RR. Thank you. Mahaakaal (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment in the SSP report, which is that this just seems to be an anonymous editor on a dynamic IP who probably doesn't realize that they're jumping between addresses. While one solution to disruptive editing from dynamic IPs is a rangeblock, a quick calculation shows that a rangeblock covering all IPs listed would affect up to 524,288 IPs, so it's not exactly a solution.

As far as WP:3RR goes, you are okay if you are reverting blatant vandalism, BLP violations, copyright violations, etc. However, the edits from this user generally seem to be made good faith (if a bit misguided in their nature), and so I would say that 3RR does still apply. However, they are also bound by 3RR, and it is certainly possible to block a portion of the IPs rather than all of them--removing 90.192.59.194 from the rangeblock calculation yields 256 affected IPs, which is much more acceptable than the half a million figure cited above. Other options include page protection in the hopes of fostering discussion rather than edit warring, but this should only be considered in instances where their editing creates serious, ongoing disruptions. --jonny-mt 07:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What about this edit by him [18] and this [19]. Maybe you can warn him. He might stop as he did here after a warning [20]Mahaakaal (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

205.221.150.3 Permanent IP Block at Request?

Howdy Admins,

I have brought you here to get your opinion on IP 205.221.150.3, As part of an Abuse Report i contacted the schools technology manager, he wants us to permanently block his schools IP (or do so for extended periods such as 5 years) Please see the email below for confirmation.

I want your opinions on weather or not the IP should be blocked from editing permanently (or every 5 years) and weather or not it should be a soft or hard block. Prom3th3an (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Opinions

You can't indef block as opinions can change, but a long term block could be justified. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well if the guy has asked for it i think we can, if he wants the ban lifted he can always post in on the ip's usertalk or email wiki Prom3th3an (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I could live with 2 years or so; it's as good as permanant for our concerns. I think it might be a good idea to send the email to OTRS and put the notice on the page in case someone wants to follow up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree that some finite duration should be preferred. Provided the request is legit (it seems to be?), blocks have been made in similar circumstances before. Any objection to blocking, here? – Luna Santin (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks legit, an 18-24 month block would be appropriate in my mind, softblock obviously, as they want registered users to be able to edit, and vandal accounts are blocked swiftly. In my experience if the IP is blocked, high school vandals will not go to the trouble of creating an account to do mischief. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ *** 09:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Went ahead and implemented an 18-month block, as suggested. Informed the originally blocking admin, as well. If I misread consensus here and should have enabled account creation, let me know. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The technology admin at the school said in the email below "we could still have students and staff register if they want to take part in editing", ergo enabling account creation may be a good idea, although if the vandalism is persistent and prolific... hmmm. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ *** 10:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No need. It's a school; people could register at home and edit from there. —Dark ^talk 12:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Account creation should be left unblocked as Internet access at school does not translate into access at home. They may have after hours access in the school library and have a desire to edit. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 13:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• As long as Anon account rgister from that IP address is disabled I think that will be the best compromise. I'll check in that IP every 18months and AiV if neccessery. Prom3th3an (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, blocking AO without ACB effectively disables all autoblocks on that IP, which means that if you register an account, start vandalizing, and get blocked, you can register an other account until the account creation limit is reached. I'm not sure this is a great idea :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Email Proof

Brett,

Thanks for sending the log. After much thought, is it possible to permanently block our IP from editing wikipedia? If I understand correctly, we could still have students and staff register if they want to take part in editing? We have a wide variety of users and I think it would be beneficial to all involved if it was just blocked.

Thanks,

-Jeff Brock
Technology Director
Washington Community Schools

---

>>> "Brett Hillebrand" <bretthillebrandinternode.on.net> 5/27/2008 5:13 >>> PM >>> To Whom It May Concern:

I am a volunteer acting in an un-official capacity on behalf of the website Wikipedia, the largest free open edited encyclopaedia in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org <http://en.wikipedia.org/> )

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles.

I am emailing you to inform you that Wikipedia has constantly been vandalised from this IP address 205.221.150.3 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:205.221.150.3)

This IP address is registered to Washington Community Schools (That's why I'm emailing)

My motive for emailing you is in hope that you will discover who is behind this vandalism and to get he/she or they to cease and desist from vandalising Wikipedia again.

Please find the attached log of the vandalism, I hope this helps you discover who the perpetrator behind this vandalism is. All times in the log are UTC

If you require any further information please feel free to contact me.

Brett Hillebrand
Wikipedia Abuse Report Volunteer
Email: bretthillebrandinternode.on.net

Personal Attack by docku criticizing the editor not the edits.

Docku (talk · contribs) has started a discussion on Kevin James [talk page] accusing me of having an agenda because of prior editing on other articles, which is in violation of one of the basic aspects of WP:AGF. I removed the attack only to have it put back into the talk. I asked him politely to remove it [himself] but he has refused. Arzel (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the section.-Wafulz (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Arzel (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree. That may be certainly true. But If you have tried reading the kind of edits Arzel is trying to make to Kevin James article and then put my opinion in that context, you may have come up with a different decision. Arzel is trying to prevent adding well documented video evidence because he thinks it tarnishes kevin's image. While I do not support including anything which is defamatory and not true, what is wrong in adding info which are true. In this context, the support for Arzel is really short sighted. Docku (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is that you shouldn't accuse others of having an agenda., especially if they're trying to clean up a biography of a living person.-Wafulz (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

wow! interesting. Even if there is a clear evidence for one, i shouldnt, Isnt it?... Thanks for the insight.Docku (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If you really feel the article is becoming unbalanced, you can file a request for a third opinion.-Wafulz (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a note about what Docku is suggesting. note I was trying make sure that his article abides by WP:BLP guidelines and policies, while a couple of editors want to make sure that he is portrayed as poorly as possible. I've tried to remind editors that WP is not tabloid journalism, and as a result I get attacked for being biased. Arzel (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the pattern I pointed out is that he has extended the same support of trying to protect the following individuals and organisations, Bill O Reilly, Sean Hannity and FOX News Channel sometimes even unfairly. What does Kevin James whom Arzel is trying to protect now have in common with? Well everyone knows that. All that i did was raise this concern in the article's talk page? I am told by the administrator now that this is not a genuine concern. I am not going to raise this concern anywhere else since I dont have time.Docku (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull vandalis user

The anonymous user 69.138.91.92 has repeated put content into the lead of the Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull article. The content was discussed on the associated talk page and was determine to not be important enough. The user has repeatedly re-added it after it was removed by various users, and has made it clear that he will not stop. I would suggest that this user be blocked, or some other action be taken to stop him from going against otherwise unanimous talk page consent. ColdFusion650 (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested partial page protection, since his registered account is already blocked. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

current ip account being used is 71.175.247.168, also now blocked. And I see the article is now semi-protected for 2 weeks, which seems reasonable. No comment on the original inclusion. DGG (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Pages

Some of the discussions relating to my contributions have mentioned WikiShops. To fully understand what these are, could an admin give me a copy of

• User:Gp75motorsports/ChampionMart,
• User:Vintei/shop
• User:Vintei/shop/modes
• User:Runewiki777/shop

in my userspace. StewieGriffin! • Talk 14:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I will post all four here in the next few mins. When you're finished, let me know and I'll delete the page. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

LeviStrauss spam bot

LeviStrauss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) appears to be a spam bot of some sort. Has anyone seen this before? RFerreira (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

User is reported on WP:AIV. He'll be gone soon, hopefully. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Indefblocked by Mr.Z-man J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm more concerned if this is an ongoing problem or isolated incident. Thank you Zman for your help with this. RFerreira (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks to be an Xrummer spam bot again. β^{_{command 2}} 18:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with that case. Can you point me to more info? If it is, Levi's page should be tagged as such. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? It's a vandal who was around last year, he clicks on the random article link and pastes his remarks at the top. See his final contribs for more info. Please RBI. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, sorry for the n00B question... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Damn it. It's ClaimJumperPete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) back again. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

When was the famous Woodstock Music Festival?

Resolved

 – Wrong forum, message to be left for user. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Bhayes562 (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)bhayes562

Primerica Corporate Offices removing any crticism from Primerica article

Resolved

 – Content dispute, leave it at the talk page Sasquatch t|c 21:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

On the Primerica article, IP addressees and obvious sockpuppets belonging to Primerica are removing criticism calling it vandalism.

The IP address making the edits is 12.163.2.10

Look up the IP address at http://geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation and you'll see it originates from Duluth, GA, the same city that Primerica is headquartered out of.

Do a whois on that IP address (http://www.arin.net/whois/index.html) and you'll find:

AT&T WorldNet Services ATT (NET-12-0-0-0-1) PRIMERICA FINANCIAL SRVICES PRIMERIC159-2 (NET-12-163-2-0-1)

These are obviously not NPOV edits, can we get a moderator to step in here and prevent this abuse? Chesspieceface (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There is already talk going on at Talk:Primerica Financial Services. As stated by Will Bebak (and I agree with him on this) they are perfectly allowed to remove a sketchily referenced criticism section per Wikipedia policy. Conflict of interest has yet to be a major concern as they aren't exactly whitewashing stuff. Either way, this should be left on the talk page. Sasquatch t|c 21:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"In the news" reform trial period

Hi, I'd like to let you all about a trial period for Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates which is currently active. The goal is to ease the updating of new items. Please see Wikipedia talk:In the news 2.0#A modest proposal and Template talk:In the news#Change in ITN/c format for background. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Community ban discussion - Jovin Lambton

I'd like to propose a community ban of Jovin Lambton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). After going through his contributions, I found some quite significant pro-pedophilia POV pushing. In fact, a quick look through his mainspace constributions shows the majority are simply reverts of other users. In the Wikipedia space, his edits show large amounts of wikilawyering and attempt to turn the project into a battleground. Add to that using an IP to get other users sanctioned and I've come to the conclusion that the project is better off without his edits. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I support a community ban. He's certainly POV pushing, and he seems to only be working in inflame the situation here, on WP:PedMen, and other various places. hmwithτ 01:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? That is exactly the charge that I would aim at the other users on WP:PedMen. Can you please take a better look at who made the initial accusations in these arguments? J-Lambton ^T/_C 01:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want inflammatory, just look at PetraSchelm's behaviour on WP:PedMen. I have a right to defend myself against that kind of bile. J-Lambton ^T/_C 01:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, this isn't saying that anyone else is faultless. However, this specific section is currently discussing your actions. hmwithτ 01:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Very strong support. Ever thus to people who threaten me, however veiled and indirect. Googie man (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Very strong support Not here to build an encyclopedia; adds nothing to articles. Only here to troll, upset people, and cause conflict. Strong concerns that he uses socks. Cannot improve because he never takes responsibility for his actions--he is always the victim, and everything is someone else's fault. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I never threatened you. I instructed another user that encouraging you to edit is legally risky, as you accused another editor of being a pedophile. J-Lambton ^T/_C 01:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Jovin - I can assure you this isn't the only community sanction request I'll be making this week. There's some very questionable behaviour on these pages that needs to stop now. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes you did. You told me that if I keep up my behavior, I'm putting myself in legal and PERSONAL jeopard. If that's not a threat I don't know what is. In 4 years of editing Wikipedia, I certainly have never been discussed on an Administrator's noticeboard, nor have my edits alarmed independent watchdog groups who track Wikipedia edits. You threatened me - now deal with it. Googie man (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Googie - you accused another editor of being a pedophile. This may put you in legal or personal trouble (just an observation, based on the seriousness of the charge, not a threat from me). J-Lambton ^T/_C 01:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

How altruistic of you to be so concerned with my legal and personal welfare. I'm ready for you to stop worrying about my legal and personal welfare, OK? I simply asked a question and made a joke. If you or anyone else here asked me the same question, I wouldn't care, at all. Anyone can ask me any question, at any time. They can imply or come out and say that I'm a murderer, rapist, pedophile, genocidist, tax evador, all of the above, anything, *I don't care.* I'm none of those so why should I care? I'm a grown man, and I don't go to my attorney's office every time someone says something on Wikipedia I don't like. So my advice to people who get bent out of shape for me asking a question is to grow a thicker skin. Let's talk about you now Lambton. All the while you insist leaving messages on my talk page when I tell you to stop, you address me on Wikipedia when you say you're not interested in my ideas, and you threaten me. The day I'm discussed on the Admistrators Board, then let me have it with my bad behavior. Otherwise, I'll paraphrase your words - I'm not interested in you at all, The only thing that interests me is that you leave me, and the friends I've made here, alone. Now one thing I am very interested in is real life, and not wasting one more second of it on this incosequential drek. Googie man (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I have noted a decided lack of constructive contributions, and the user's tone to be generally argumentative rather than collaborative. Indeed, his counters are rarely relevant or even address a question directed at him. I have yet to witness a single instance of compromise. His edit records are exclusively restricted to articles relating to pedophilia and similar, and noticeboards to file complaints, with few exceptions. While it is fine to disagree with someone, one should at least have the decency to state why they disagree, not simply "No, you're wrong, I'm right." I cannot speak for this user's motivations, of which there could be many. But his actions serve to bolster a harmful platform whether he intends it or not. If that is enough for you, then it is enough for me.Legitimus (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I support all efforts to stop incivility and the promotion on tiny minority views on wikipedia. If a topic ban or ban is the best way to do this, then I back this. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am always involved in arguments because others have goaded me. I have a right to defend myself, and respond to attacks that others have made against me.

My counters are always directed towards defending myself, or asserting logic over lack of understanding. Can you provide evidence for your claims, please?

"No, you're wrong, I'm right." is not my language. I challenge you to find any evidence of this. This perception may come from exactly this kind of response - asking someone to back up an allegation. I am not here to be accused.

Why are you expressing support for a ban that you have shown absolutely no will to push through, after conversing civilly and sensibly with me in the past? J-Lambton ^T/_C 02:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You asked my opinion, so I gave it. While your more argumentative statements tended to be directed at specific users (who granted could be argumentative back), such statements are not helpful at all to constructive editing. Further, while users such as PetraSchelm were also being pushy, they at least had intellectual material and frankly the general consensus of medicine to support their stance. I think you fail to realize how harmful the platform you are supporting could be. I do not necessarily support an permanent block. If you were to give up editing these articles, that's fine. Take them out of your watchlist and resist temptation to read them. I did this myself for a week to see what it would be like, and it can be something of a relief.Legitimus (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. User:Jovin Lambton has caused significant ongoing disruption, with incivility and tendentious editing from the moment the account was created. It's been a single purpose account from the start, engaging in rudeness, sarcasm, baiting, trolling, edit warring, and inserting pro-pedophile fringe theories with undue weight in many articles; and as has been pointed out already, adding nothing of value to the text of any article. The disruption caused by Jovin Lambton has wasted many hours for many editors; created a generally unpleasant, contentious and unwelcoming atmosphere on every page he's edited; and shows no sign of improvement on the horizon.

User:Jovin Lambton has caused so much trouble and so much waste of editing hours, that he inspired me to start collecting diffs of his behavior to send to ArbCom, since they have requested that pedophilia-related editing problems be directed to them privately. However, now that this discussion is already in process, that information is directly relevant, so I have posted it in a new section:

• disruption and incivility diffs list on the pedophile topic mentorship page.

Maybe all those diffs aren't even needed. Clear illustration of User:Jovin Lambton's methods can be found right here in his comments in this report. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Lambton is one of the very few editors willing to risk their reputation by countering POV in paedophilia articles, and his continued participation is vital. PetraSchelm and SqueakBox, probably the most active editors on these topics, both supported a revision of Pro-paedophile activism stating that pro-paed activists wish to legalize child porn "in order to deliberately humiliate publicly the children they sexually abuse for the rest of the child's life."[21] [22] Let's not give these people more proportional power, please. I'll comment more extensively later but now I have to go. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In after non-arbcom member bans Jovin because...: "Contact Arbcom for further appeals / information." --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This topic is one that is particularly sensitive, and subject to longstanding established special policy. Those who appear to be advocating pedophilia are subject to immediate and indefinite blocking by administrators. Arbcom is the direct route for appeals of these blocks.

I don't particularly want to be seen as supporting Squeakbox' behavior of late, but having gone back and looked at hundreds of Jovin Lambton edits over the last few months, back to the accounts' creation, it clearly is a problem. The edits go beyond merely attempting to find NPOV on the articles, though they are playing it smart and have found discrete issues and specific edits by others which were were unreasonably biased the other direction. Other editors have successfully pushed back against extremism in anti-pedophilia editing here without appearing themselves to be supporting it. My independent and uninvolved review of the edit history finds apparent advocacy. With apparent advocacy, both in specific edits and in a consistent overall pattern, and a focus only on that one topic for several months now, the special rules apply. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. There's been plenty of heat on both sides of the ongoing pedophilia brawl. Jovin's behavior must be considered in the context of constant inflammation from others. Given his willingness to depart from this terrain completely, I don't think a ban would be the best option right now. If the combative demeanor continues we can reevaluate later, but I suspect it will change for the better if he and the other WP:PAW editors are isolated. Disclosure -- I found my way here through an email from Jovin. I don't blame him for (hopefully) minor canvassing given the circumstances, but I thought I ought to mention it. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I oppose this process, nobody should have a community ban on this subject without specific arbcom sanction. Ryan's comments to propose further bans would be even worse and the policing of this subject needs to be left to the arbcom, we can each and all of us address them. I propose we delete the mentorship page for the same reason. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This seems sensible in the sense it would take the 'grudges against SqueakBox' factor out of things. John Nevard (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose to any process or discussion that does not take in account the whole situation and all involved editors. I'm seeing a lot of incivility on this group of users -hostility, harassment, disruptive editing etc. pro-pedophilia POV pushing damages wikipedia, and so does a spanish-inquisition-POV pushing. I agree however that this case requires urgent attention, as both sides are damaging wikipedia and probably keeping other neutral editors away from contributing Iunaw 18:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I find language like "spanish-inquisition-POV pushing" to be such absurd and insulting hyperbole directed at the people who have been working hard to improve and neutralize some articles with zero support that it doesn't even merit a response-- all I'll say is that it's distressing for the sake of Wikipedia and the neutrality of the PAW articles that anyone could possibly even think that; it bears no resemblance to the reality of the articles or how they've been edited. For example, for this first time in its history, Wikipedia now has a halfway decent article on child pornography. (The prior version had to be salted because it contained a search term for child porn). It's gone from this [23] to this: [24]. The wiki article on pro-pedophile activism, which gets 14,000 page views a month and has had a history as magnet for pedophile activists and a totally disputed tag for more than a year, recently went from this [25] to this: [26]. A great deal of work went into improving these articles, and the motive was to upgrade both their quality and neutrality (not that those can really be totally separated). What I personally experienced while doing a lot of this work was constant harassment from someone who contributed absolutely nothing + more than 20 sockpuppet/trolls, and that any attempt to get help with a disruptive editor and socks was met with knee-jerk accusations of, well, if you are complaining, therefore you are an anti-pedophile activist, a purveyor of moral panic, a hysteric, the spanish inquisition--no insult too absurd. And nobody even bothers to look at the articles. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have never said that these users (including you) do not do improve wikipedia in any way, but what i'm actually seeing is a dynamic of good/bad-edit-bundle-packs of say 50% good job, 40% extreme POV pushing, warring, hostility and disruption and 10% forum shopping and wikidrama- from extremely biased editors on both sides. I understand it is frustrating to deal with a endless sock-puppets army, but that is no excuse and does not address my concerns in any way. Iunaw 22:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

? You haven't addressed my concerns in any way; and your percentages are pure fiction. 1) What to do when a group of editors are improving articles, and one is not 2) what to do when complaints about a disruptive/nonproductive editor (and a sock army) are met with knee-jerk accusations towards the productive editors/just being ignored until the situation blows up. This is only tangentially about pedophilia (but the fact that it is tangentially about pedophilia meant no one wanted to touch it with their eleven foot pole, as Travis said). And no one has been home at the mentorship page or the PAW project (both of those should be MfD'd--they give the illusion that pedophilia-related issues are dealt with in a special ghetto, but they are not). The way things are now, any of the banned pro-pedophile editors know they can reincarnate, merrily troll and disrupt, and just scream "anti-pedophile hysteria! I'm being persecuted!" for behavior that would see them quickly blocked in any other topic, and most people will say nothing because they don't want to be involved at all, and the ones who do speak up will implausibly agree that "the spanish inquisiton" is on, for no reason that makes any sense to me. (Could you explain why you said that?) -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are only fiction, an estimate of the bundle contents. And just to give an obvious example, i would call this a spanish-inquisition-POV/censoring. Do you think that this photo(public domain, U.S. federal government work) is child-porn? And the Virgin Killer cover that sparked a moral panic recently, and that is present on a lot of websites? And this image, made by a photographer and available from the United States Library of Congress's Prints and Photographs Division,removed from two articles, giving on one of them the misleading edit summary "fix"? I see a coordinated POV-pushing by both teams. I'll be happy to discuss all this in detail, but this is not the appropriate place. Iunaw 01:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I get it--I see from your userpage that you are "anti-censorship," and hence you interpret Squeakbox's objection to the photos in the now merged Nudity and Children article as the "Spanish Inquisition." While I don't agree with him that those pics were porn, your response is pretty silly hyperbole. None of those pictures were deleted, either. So I guess that makes Squeakbox a pretty powerless Inquisitor. :-) (And that has absolutely nothing to do with the recent upgrades to PAW articles in general, Jovin Lambton, sockpuppet trolling--nothing). -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm it was just an example of an editing pattern and it's not just objection to a photo/content and a discussion about it, it's actually removing systematically content from articles, edit-warring, trying to game the system, failure to get the point, disruption.. But as i said, i'm waiting for a discussion at the appropriate venue, as i'm seeing that other editors have similar concerns and the AN in not the right place. Iunaw 21:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't find that any of those accusations hold up--first of all, the Nudity and Children article was Afd'd for being well, really bad and full of OR. When it was merged into Nudity, all the pics that were in the article were merged too.( I notice that someone else moved the pic that I thought didn't illustrate its topic to a more appropriate place after the merge: [27]) . And Jack-A-Roe, Squeakbox, I-nobody moved any of those pictures after they were merged into the "Children and nudity" section of the Nudity article. The three of us barely touched that article at all after the merge, (I don't even have it watchlisted, Jack did some minor clean-up, I don't see a Squeak edit) because the merge was such as hassle, in spite of the AfD being closed as merge, and general agreement that it was so bad and so full of OR that very little of the content should be merged. I wouldn't go so far as to make accusations that the editors who were involved in resisting the post-AfD merge were "edit warring, trying to game the system, failing to get the point, and disrupting," but I did have to post on AN/I "Very weird post AfD merge" before it was finally merged; because it did appear that there were editors who weren't happy with the AfD result and didn't want to enact consensus or have it enacted. -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Support ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Fret no more

You will not see me editing WP:PAW articles again. I've decided that fighting anti-pedophile bias and hysteria and displaying any knowledge of the pro-pedophile movement is dangerous and likely to be misunderstood, in light of others' support of anti-pedophile hysteria.

I will continue to defend myself here, and welcome others to defend me against those who cannot properly read WP:NPOV, clinical and critical literature on CSA related topics or my contributions history.

This account has been an utter disaster for me. I have been accused of pedophilia and of being multiple puppeteer by unrepentant POV warrior, hysteric and sock-puppeteer, SqueakBox - who'se latest CU puts beyond doubt that he owns one of the accounts he is using to poison me - creating it during a ban of his, long ago.

I have been harassed, had my IP shown around for all to see by PetraSchelm, a provocative, manipulative anti-pedophile POV pusher who falsely accuses others of incivility frequently, yet on far less occasions than she actually engages in it herself.

I have seen the ludicrous arguments of editors such as Jack-A-Roe who use civility to hide blindness to other perspectives, bias that reaches as far as absolute adherence to only one medical-pathological model of phenomena related to children, sexuality, trauma and pedophiles. This user actually believes that we need a source to describe arguments espoused by pro-pedophile activists as "perspectives", "opinions" or whatnot. Enough said.

I see articles on any number of these subjects descending into prejudicial, ethnocentric, tabloid bullshit under the protected pedophile-obsessive condemnation of advocacy editors who would rather forget that WP:NPOV ever existed. What good is there in doing this? In a year's time when any semblance of neutrality has been pushed out of WP:PAW, we should go about comparing some of these articles to any mainstream encyclopedia of sexuality, sociology or medicine. And with that grand revelation, we will know exactly why we were wrong in banning endless users - some of them not even preoccupied with WP:PAW articles - who were brave enough to enforce an editing pattern, that in its opposition to moral-bias, could be seen as being radical - even a display of advocacy. J-Lambton ^T/_C 03:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, let's hold on a second: the latest checkuser request on SqueakBox (talk · contribs) does not put it "beyond doubt" that he is utilising secondary accounts for abusive purposes. The currently pending checkuser request (it has evidently yet to be handled on requests for checkuser) has not yet received a response, and all previous checks came up negative. I'd suggest that you revoke and/or rephrase that section of your statement: it is somewhat inaccurate, and casts an unfair light on that editor. We go by "innocent until proven guilty" on here, if you please; not vica versa.

Anthøny 08:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Further to my Case

That the majority (but by no means all) of my edits go against the tone of certain others does not make them POV pushing. An extremely disruptive core of editors has taken to making disgusting accusations towards others, betraying an unhealthy bias that is shown in their editing (SqueakBox on Child Porn and Pro-pedophile activism, PetraSchelm's crazy argument about Ethical Models on the latter's talk page are just a couple of examples). In this environment, the push towards a more neutral article naturally consists of NPOV edits and sources/adjustments that the editor may not actually value as opinions. That is certainly the case with myself, and I urge all other users to check my contributions before coming to a conclusion.

Thus my behaviour would only be suspect, if the articles and general tone of editing were neutral in the first place. But analysis reveals that both are often ridden with hysteria, bias and misinformation.

The accusation of attempting to turn the project into a battleground is extremely biased on the part of Ryan Postlethwaite. I challenge him to provide diffs that clearly show that I have started arguments. I have been extremely thorough and vociferous in defending some of the most awful and incredible accusations and goading aimed towards myself, but I have always urged other editors not to fight with one another. J-Lambton ^T/_C 00:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan is incorrect, when he says that a majority of my article edits are reverts. Editors will also have to assess the content of the reverts. In my opinion, they are all valid - mainly NPOV or consensus type edits. J-Lambton ^T/_C 00:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Accusation of Socking

Here

This is also false - based upon my failure to log on at the start of sessions. Before any link between myself and the IPs was publicly suggested, I disowned one IP by telling editors (on its talk page) to ignore me, as I was failing to log on. With the other IP (which I thought was the other as well), I simply overwrote my mistaken edit. I did not want to reveal my IP on pedophile articles, so I made my admission subtle, but by no means untraceable. If I was socking, this would have been self defeating and suicidal behaviour. Not to mention that I didn't reset my IP - something that is possible with my ISP (again, suicidal, unrealistic). J-Lambton ^T/_C 00:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What we should be focusing on: PetraSchelm

This user was told by Swatjester that she would be indef blocked if she continued in her disrespectful and disruptive behaviour. The admin concerned disappeared from the scene, Schelm escalated her behaviour with a series of unfounded attacks in all kinds of fora - including the contrivance of legal threats from normal discourse, and she still remains unblocked.

Another user, SqueakBox, known for accusing other editors of harbouring pro-pedophile agandas and pedophilic fantasies is getting away with murder right now - with what appears to be an almost certain sockpuppet:

Requests for checkuser/Case/SqueakBox J-Lambton ^T/_C 01:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This thread isn't about these users, but don't worry, I'll be proposing sanctions for others later this week. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Per prior enforcement policy and precedent, I have blocked Jovin Lambton. There seem to be no non-pedophilia related edits in some time, and there are a number of edits which move beyond NPOV into at least noticable if not strident activism.

This is enthusiastically not support for edits or actions of Squeakbox, PetraSchelm, or others of late - I suggest other administrators review those.

While I am sympathetic to the complex issues involved with maintaining NPOV on pedophilia related articles in the face of strident anti-child-abuse editors, the situation as a whole picture paints a picture of another subtle POV pusher not a neutral editor. Wikipedia has a recurring problem with pedophile activists attempting to slant these articles. They are most specifically not welcome and subject to ban on credible detection as such.

I filed a brief incident note with Arbcom via email. Per prior precedent, appeals should go to Arbcom. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

George, this seems like a poor move to me. You've blocked an editor for a narrowly-defined behavior pattern immediately after he pledged to stop editing in the "problem areas" entirely. Doing so in the midst of a very young community discussion seems especially unbefitting.

To date there has been no real arbitration proceeding; arbitrator actions in these matters have not really been committee operations, but individual ones. There's quite an extensive history involving questionable blocks, unanswered emails and so forth. Referring back to Fred's very old statement as inviolable "precedent" does not seem wise given past experiences. I suggest you reconsider both the hasty block and your statement regarding ArbCom. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Given its sensitive nature, having ArbCom handle things quietly is the opposite of hasty. What do you hope to achieve by blowing things up publicly? --Calton | Talk 07:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Note an unblock here would not have to go through arbcom; just because George says it does, does not make it so. Terrible block, strongly recommend unblocking. Neıl 龱 07:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What concerns me is that if this editor wishes to return, even respecting the self-imposed topic ban and editing elsewhere, he is still technically in defiance of a block - it seems a little pointless to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relata refero (talk • contribs) 08:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the status quo for editors who are perceived to edit in a fashion that promotes pedophilia. They are blocked and told to contact the arbitration committee if they wish to appeal their block.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Neil, what is unclear about this series of diffs indicating the Arbcom has asserted full jurisdiction over conflicts related to this field [28], [29], [30], [31]? MBisanz ^talk 08:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova, in particular "Responsibility" and "Prior approval", may be of interest. From my understanding of prior events, only pro-pedophilia-related blocks enacted by current and former members of the Arbitration Committee were given the status of only being reversable after discussion privately on arbcom-l. I may be wrong, but I somehow doubt they'd want to delegate the authority to block without public discussion to simply any administrator. Remember that the context of the blocks made where Fred made this statement was that there was previous discussion on arbcom-l before the block happened (to the best of my knowledge). Daniel (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

On a more general note, considering that --

• there have been no formal ArbCom proceedings regarding these matters, only individual promulgations from editors who were members of the committee, and
• the arbitrators making these promulgations are for the most part long gone from the committee, and
• past experiences have shown that the process advanced by these promulgations plainly didn't work out as intended, and
• our banning policy has always maintained that ArbCom-sanctioned bans are to follow from arbitration requests (as opposed to informal decisions from arbitrators), and the arbitration policy creates no exceptions to this

-- I think it is reasonable to resume standard procedure unless the current committee clearly and formally tells us otherwise. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 08:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If Lambton stops editing in the "problem areas", where is he going to edit? I don't think the MinGW Developers Studio pages can really do with his kind of help. Personally, I think if this issue has to be discussed publicly in order to get the pedophilia articles the extra committed attention they deserve from editors without a fringe point of view on the subject, the Wikipedia community would prefer that any reporting took the form of 'for the past four years, pedophiles have successfully disrupted the Wikipedia articles on their crimes... parents should remember that Wikipedia can be...' than 'pedophiles continue to disrupt the Wikipedia articles on their crimes...Wikipedia is known for being a haven for...'. John Nevard (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The only people who say that anymore are the extremist critics of Wikipedia. The mainstream media has moved on from this, as recent non-scandal scandals clearly demonstrate. The public is tired of fear and nobody gives a damn as long as they follow our rules. Blocks are not punitive or done in response to fear mongering. Daniel has it right, there is no justification for an indef block here based on poorly made Arbcom statements. --Dragon695 (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason pedophilia advocates are not allowed to disrupt Wikipedia is because of the particularly offensive nature of their article destruction as seen by the general public. You have read Jimbo's comments on the kiddie-fiddler userbox debacle, haven't you? John Nevard (talk) 02:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as there is some confusion, let me quote Mr. Bauder on behalf of the Arbcom

Please direct all communication regarding blocking of pedophilia advocates directly to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org Fred Bauder 12:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC) for the Arbitration Committee.

I see that as a statement by a member of the arbcom, acting on behalf of the arbcom, telling all people that any communications related to blocks of pedophilia advocates should be sent to the arbcom. In the past, such as with NSLE and JoshuaZ, the arbcom has acted without formal public proceedings and has never indicated that past arbcoms should be given less wait merely due to the retirement of their members. MBisanz ^talk 08:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to delve this deep into the lawyerificness, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova was more recent. It stated that unless the person was undertaking an "official task as authorised by the Arbitration Committee", that they "must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their actions in a timely manner", and "[i]f a user feels that they cannot justify their actions in public, they are obliged to refrain from that action altogether or to bring the matter before the Arbitration Committee". The Durova case was both more recent and a case where a majority of arbitrators publically approved of the principle I quoted above. The Committee is not bound by its own decisions, and can repeal them by a contradicting decision (as they did in Durova), especially when this is contradicting a statement made by one arbitrator in a specific dispute, which wasn't alluding to establishing itself as a general principle (unlike "Responsibility" in Durova, which was passed as a "priniple"). Daniel (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am going to be brief here, for once. Firstly, I'm not convinced that this block is necessary, and indeed, it seems rather penal to me. Blocks should be preventative. Secondly, an unblock request would not, under normal circumstances, be handled by the Arbitration Committee (there's a finding in the Durova case, which may be relevant). Anthøny 09:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This is all a bit silly. You are treating pedophilia as if it's any other controversy, like US politics or pseudoscience. You'll get nowhere trying to debate the policy of of something that does not exist in writing anyway. The purpose of the many past instances in which appeals of bans of this type—by arbitrators or non-arbitrators—have been directed to the arbitration mailing list is identical here. All the public drama here and inane arguing over who is allowed to do what when is exactly what appeals ArbCom avoid, and exactly when we need to avoid it, for sensitive topics like pedophilia. Let's all direct any reasonable appeals we have to ArbCom's mailing list (arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org) and close and archive this thread, before ArbCom does it for us. Dmcdevit·t 13:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. It may not be a controversy, but we do have an obligation to not insert feelings into these articles, even if they are mainstream feelings. Our articles should be factual and accurate, with no appeals to emotion. No, the community has a right to have a discussion about this in the open, since some editors have been shopping for a block. Supression of discussion because of panic is not good for wikipedia. --Dragon695 (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And neither is dismissing others' arguments as "panic" when they are no such thing. If you can't tell the difference between appealing to emotion and recognizing the sensitivity of issues regarding pedophilia and treating it with the propriety it deserves, then I am not sure you are likely to help. Dmcdevit·t 14:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Calling it a sensitive issue that cannot be discussed in the open is the definition of a moral panic. All I want to see is that he receives the exact same treatment as any other "problem" editor. Policy should be applied without regard to one's status as a sinner or saint. The editor made a good-faith promise to avoid problematic articles. This is about fairness and discussions in private does not invoke the idea of fairness. How do we know you are giving him a fair hearing? How do we know you are even considering it at all? Only transparency can make sure that you are giving sound decisions based on policy and not your personal feelings. I'm with Carnildo and others who say that we cannot discriminate based on what someone's personal life situation is. --Dragon695 (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. And transparency is needed for another reason that I shouldn't even have to bring up. Anywhere where there is a lack of transparency, there is always the chance, however small, that bad things happen because of that lack of transparency - the exact opposite of what people expect to see happen. Stop and think for a moment about what I am implying here, and look at what has happened elsewhere in the past, and where the unforeseen problems sometimes come from. The only way to guard against that is complete transparency. Speaking more generally, there is both a "content" problem here and "social networking" problem. Wikipedia can only realistically deal with the former, but shouldn't enable the latter by keeping things in secret and saying "everything is under control". Wikipedia can never be entirely (or even partially) safer than anywhere else on the internet and people (of whatever age) editing Wikipedia pseudononymously shouldn't think it is safe. Carcharoth (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"I have blocked Jovin Lambton. There seem to be no non-pedophilia related edits in some time, and there are a number of edits which move beyond NPOV into at least noticable if not strident activism." - This is your reasoning? "I reckon that mabye some of his edits could reflect a particular personal bias, but I'm not actually going to give any specific examples of edits that have violated policy. So I'm going to unilaterally block him, and I'm not going to go through ARBCOM."? Now I realise that ARBCOM likes to make disappear any editor remotely associated with promoting NPOV on any WP:PAW article, but this administrator did not even bother to hand it to them so that they could pretend to review it fairly. Unbelievable. Gonelegit (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be somewhat confused. Of course I handed it to Arbcom. They received a notification email immediately after the block and prior to my posting here. This process is what Arbcom has indicated they want followed, and what I and other administrators have done in the past. They have asked that if experienced administrators spot clear examples of such behavior, we are to act preventively, and hand the ball to them for review and appeals. That's exactly what happened. The specific established process for this particular topic is different than other abuse matters and types. It is sensitive enough to require special handling. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"It is sensitive enough to require special handling." Exactly. Well done Georgewilliamherbert. It took the creation of a new policy to get editors here to start treating living humans beings like living human beings and not some building that they could treat with cold unemotional indifference to pain and harm. I would hope the community has learned its lesson and we will not be forced to again make the obvious into a written policy. Sensitive claims requires sensitive treatment. "Do no harm", while not our only concern is indeed an important concern. We must not be indifferent to the harm an article can cause that lightly dismisses potential significant psychological or physical damage. It is better to err on one side of this NPOV than the other side. "Better safe than sorry" the old expression goes. What is encyclopedic and known for sure we must present clearly and without censorship, including certain images that SqueakBox and I differ on; but when it comes to disputed claims that can cause significant harm if we get it wrong, we must err on the safe side. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that the results of the Arbcom discussions and any appeals are made known. If there is silence, how are we supposed to know that the whole matter was not just ignored? No need to say what was discussed, just that discussion did take place. Given other silences, it is difficult to distinguish between silences due to inaction, overload, or lack of communication. Keeping channels of communication open is still the key to any organisation that deals with appeals and blocks and bans, and letting people know when such communications will, of necessity, be limited or kept brief and to the point (as opposed to nothing being recorded anywhere). Carcharoth (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom never made a case decision to block pedophiles on sight. Rather, it was Fred Bauder who made the statement, based on an arbcom case about a pro-pedophile userbox. Jimbo supported it, and other arbs went along with it, all swept under the radar. -- Ned Scott 23:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, WAS, this seems impertinent given Lambton's statements above. Lambton can't do harm to articles that he's stopped editing. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 07:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose no matter how repulsive we might think it is, trying to ban a user because of their personal beliefs (which is what I believe this comes down to) is wrong. Arbcom does not have, nor has it ever had, the authority to ban editors like this, nor do they have the right to demand that we can't talk about it on the wiki. All editors take note, if Arbcom or Jimbo feels that associating with you makes them look bad, they will ban you, even if you've never done anything wrong legally or on Wikipedia. I challenged Arbcom six months ago about a user (who not only was far tamer than the editor in question today, but was even given as an example of a good editor by multiple Wikipedians in good standing) this was Fred Bauder's responce:

  It's more a public relations thing. Hosting him damages Wikipedia reputation.
  
  Fred

  The community needs to be aware of this, and to take back the power to decide these matters for themselves. It's certainly not cool to violate the Foundation's No discrimination policy. Someone prod me when this discussion is actually about the user's activities, rather than what they personally believe. -- Ned Scott 23:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This aint just about POV pushing. I've stated here my reason for thinking we're better off without Jovin - there's more to this. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • You are being far more fair about this, Ryan, by focusing on his actions rather than his personal beliefs, and I thank you for it. Consider my oppose and above rant to be directed more at the general discussion here and in the past. -- Ned Scott 23:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom Decisions

Since it is apparent that Arbcom has usurped this, I think it only fair that Arbcom make an official statement on the outcome and the exact rationale for an indef block as opposed to a topic-ban. The perception is that you ignore any appeals and so these editors are disappeared from Wikipedia. If other TE editors only get topic bans, as per the remedies in the 9/11 et al., I see no reason why similar remedies cannot apply here. There is no policy page that states we must indef block based on what we think about their personal life. What we do have is policy that allows us to topic ban those who are perceived to be TE editors. Blocks are not punitive, no matter how vile we find the personal behavior of the individual. Again, if it is good enough for 9/11, an issue I would say is 10x more sensitive and emotional, then it should be good enough for these editors. --Dragon695 (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that last week Arbcom/Jimbo overturned a block done by myself and another admin following an individual who sockpuppeted their own RFA that had three different admins decline the unblock and eventually protect the page. The arbcom/Jimbo did this apparently after discussing the the matter in private and deciding to give the individual one final chance. So they certainly do not ignore appeals. MBisanz ^talk 19:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

They have ignored several appeals related to this matter. -- Ned Scott 23:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If they have not responded to you if you emailed them after the block, then "not responded" does not equal "ignored". Please consider that this is a sensitive topic and that, even if you make your concerns known to them, they may not involve you in any following discussions.

I have not received any followup from Arbcom since I issued the block. I take this to be that A) they're busy and/or B) it's a sensitive topic they talk about internally and not externally (which we already know). I doubt very much that they're ignoring the notification or anyone's appeals. Please AGF - the Arbcom members take their jobs seriously, and are entirely willing to overturn administrator mistakes if they find them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

George, I'm comfortable assuming good faith; I even assume that Jovin is acting in good faith, however misguided his actions may appear. However, if every email I've sent to ArbCom about this sort of situation has met with no meaningful response, if none of these user blocks based on perceived beliefs have ever been reversed by ArbCom, and if we're not even allowed to discuss the problem openly, then the assumption of good faith is sorely tested, if not completely overcome by evidence to the contrary. When all I see or hear is silence, then that silence is all I can judge these actions by.

It really looks to me like we've decided to sanction editors based on their disreputable beliefs rather than their conduct as editors. Much as I disagree with Jovin's beliefs referenced here (If accurately ascribed), I'd rather edit with him than with other of the editors (and admins) collaborating on this topic area. When we start judging editors by our perception of their motivations, we set a dangerous precedent. When we do so via a Star Chamber proceeding, we cement that precedent in place without ever supporting it with facts. --SSBohio 03:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am usually pretty proud of my ability to go through a discussion and synthesise developments and facts, but here, my brain is really returning a mush of "there are no useful facts here", and tl;dr. I think it may be useful to throw all of this over to a subpage, and start over, this time with our sensible hats on, and with the guiding hands of a few experienced administrators (clearly, that wasn't a resource available when the thread was new and didn't have the 'publicity' it currently has).

You have hit the nail on the head. I have yet to see any specific instances of edits made by the user that violate policy severely enough to provoke administrative attention. What I have seen is a whole lot of mutual masturbation and users throwing around bullshit words like "incivility", in thier attempts to have an editor disappeared because he disrupts thier attempts to wantonly violate WP:NPOV. Sadly, they seem to have been successful. 219.73.78.161 (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on doing this? Anthøny 16:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea. I don't know how to do it except as a cut & paste, and I hesitate to do that. While we decide, here are the user's contributions, including their most recent diffs, sorted by article:

Edit count for Edit count for User:Jovin Lambton, 14:28, Thursday 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: Copying this will copy its wikimarkup, not the text itself.

Article namespace: 150

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 1

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1

Removals: 2

XfD deletion-related tagging: 1

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 9

Unrecognised edit summary: 109

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 20

No edit summary: 7

Talk namespace: 276

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1

Unrecognised edit summary: 16

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 252

No edit summary: 7

User talk namespace: 88

Unrecognised edit summary: 7

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 71

No edit summary: 10

Wikipedia namespace: 129

XfD deletion-related tagging: 1

Deletion-related edit summaries: 1

Unrecognised edit summary: 4

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 120

No edit summary: 3

Wikipedia talk namespace: 13

Unrecognised edit summary: 2

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 11

Image talk namespace: 1

No edit summary: 1

Total: 657

Contribution breakdown for User:Jovin Lambton

• Talk:Pro-pedophile activism: [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]... (138 edit(s))
• Talk:Child sexual abuse: [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]... (65 edit(s))
• Talk:Pedophilia: [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]... (43 edit(s))
• Pro-pedophile activism: [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71]... (42 edit(s))
• Wikipedia:Pedophile topic mentorship: [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81]... (40 edit(s))
• User talk:AnotherSolipsist: [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91]... (32 edit(s))
• Pedophilia: [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101]... (28 edit(s))
• Child sexual abuse: [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111]... (23 edit(s))
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard subpages: [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121]... (20 edit(s))
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion subpages: [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131]... (19 edit(s))
• User talk:Swatjester: [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141]... (18 edit(s))
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser subpages: [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151]... (18 edit(s))
• Talk:Child pornography: [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161]... (18 edit(s))
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171]... (14 edit(s))
• Wikipedia:Fringe theories subpages: [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181]... (12 edit(s))
• Child pornography: [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] [190] [191] (10 edit(s))
• Anti-pedophile activism: [192] [193] [194] [195] [196] [197] [198] [199] [200] (9 edit(s))
• User talk:PetraSchelm: [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] (8 edit(s))
• User talk:Googie man: [209] [210] [211] [212] [213] [214] [215] (7 edit(s))
• Talk:Pederasty: [216] [217] [218] [219] [220] [221] [222] (7 edit(s))
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch: [223] [224] [225] [226] [227] [228] (6 edit(s))
• Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard: [229] [230] [231] [232] [233] (5 edit(s))
• Pederasty: [234] [235] [236] [237] [238] (5 edit(s))
• Others in namespace User talk: [239] [240] [241] [242] [243] [244] [245] [246] [247] [248]... (23 edit(s))
• Others in namespace Wikipedia: [249] [250] [251] [252] [253] [254] (6 edit(s))
• Others in namespace (main): [255] [256] [257] [258] [259] [260] [261] [262] [263] [264]... (33 edit(s))
• Others in namespace Talk: [265] [266] [267] [268] [269] (5 edit(s))

Presented to inform the discussion with facts. --SSBohio 19:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Community ban for Jvolkblum (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – Rudget (Help?) 10:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

After the eigth SSP case and countless requests for checkuser to determine sockpuppets, we have found out that after the original blocking of Jvolkblum, he has gone on to create more than 35 sockpuppets, all of which have been confirmed by similar editing patterns, similar creation times and the rest (most of them) by checkuser. He is continually disrupting pages about various places in New York (mainly New Rochelle) and is starting to become a problem whilst waiting for results to be confirmed that they are still continuing to remove or insert whatever they like. I've been involved and researched near-most of the SSP cases, and the effect on those who are reporting the users is showing. With 39 confirmed socks and a continual use of proxies to get around blocks on account creation, a ban would help if we could revert these users edit on sight. Rudget (Help?) 15:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are the relevant links to the cases:

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (2nd)
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (3rd)
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (4th)
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (5th)
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (6th)
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (7th)
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (8th)
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum

With a history like that it's almost pointless asking for a community ban to be formally confirmed - but whatever, 'support' and all that. naerii - talk 15:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just go ahead and do it. MastCell ^Talk 15:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. I'm somewhat familiar with this SSP case (I've been contacted by some of the socks), and I see no reason for holding back on a ban. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I've seen prolific sockfarms before, but this is right up there on the top. Agree with Naerii that something like this hardly needs to be formally approved, but yeah, Support. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Total support ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• It seems there is sufficient consensus for a ban, so I will now go on to place the template on the userpage and note the motion in the block log. Rudget (Help?) 10:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Got a sock, looking for a drawer

[270] Hm? Ring any bells? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Spotchecking random edits...I don't see any that are wrong (other than missing a parameter on the template). Is it possible that this isn't someone here to disrupt, but just wants to mess around with gnomework apart from their main account? --Onorem♠Dil 01:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Nakon 02:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(EC with nakon above) Well, except that all they are doing is creating userpages for blocked users, many of which have been blocked for weeks or months, with the indefblock tag... Which adds them to the "temporary userpage" category, which means, guess what, is a deletion category. All he is doing is creating work for admins by creating userpages with a template that asks for them to be deleted. Its exactly like creating new articles with nothing but db- templates. Plus, I found another of his socks. User:Gnomewiki. Plus, I have seen this guy before. I just can't place him now. Its more than just a feeling. I know the face, but I can't place the name, if you know what I mean... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just asking. I'd forgotten about the temp user category. --Onorem♠Dil 02:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... you might wish to take a look at this regarding Gnomewiki - he was blocked indef but since had the block lifted per AGF. Oh well, I'd rather be mistaken in applying AGF than be mistaken by not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Easy for you to say, you're already an admin. :)--Relata refero (disp.) 21:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Constellation Brands Redux

A couple weeks ago I reported to WP:AN a lingering problem on the Constellation Brands article (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive146#Bizarre slow-speed revert war at Constellation Brands. A person with no apparent understanding of wiki markup language is repeatedly deleting some relevant sourced content and adding a whole bunch of, well, stuff that seems to relate to legal claims against the company.

Each time the editor creates a new account - not exactly sockpuppetry, but odd. So far we have:

1. crazybeer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[271]
2. Newsupdates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[272]
3. Newsreports (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[273]
4. Webbchecker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[274]
5. Omanras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[275]
6. Americanchick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[276],
7. Kingstorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[277]
8. Wikitester01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[278][279]
9. Wikitester02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[280][281]
10. Wikitester03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[282]
11. Winebrand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[283][284][285]

The same editor has also used IP addresses, which I think include:

1. 207.218.231.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)[286]
2. 217.20.127.248 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)[287]
3. 125.215.81.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)[288]
4. 202.76.189.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)[289]
5. 124.219.0.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)[290]

Locked out by page semi-protection the user is now adding the entire previous version of the article to the talk page three times in the past hour. I left a warning[291], which the editor has read and responded with "all edits are accurate, reliable sourced, constructive and of crtical importance to readers.!!!!!!!)"[292]

Page protection won't work - they're now attacking the talk page. Account deletion / blocking is fine for a cleanup but it won't stop the editor from continuing to create new accounts. Will the editor listen to an explanation? Help!!!! Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest a checkuser on the whole mess and short semi-protection on the talk page as well. It's been done before and I'd only put it for a short period (there aren't any useful IP addresses there but I'd put a note for them to use {{helpme}} or message me if they want to talk). I'm heading to sleep right now but if nobody else does anything, message me and I'll get to it in the morning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I also commented that, practically speaking, constantly changing usernames and IP addresses is a surefire way to get yourself ignored. It makes more sense to pick a single individual account and have a sensible discussion on it. Of course, this is assuming rationality on the other side. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and semi'd the talk page and deleted Talk:Constellation Brands/Comments‎. I'm willing to dole out any blocks for new accounts. Let's see how he responds (here or there). seicer | talk | contribs 15:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that Winebrand seems to be the only registered account that has edited in the last couple of days. He has made some responses on his own Talk page. Seicer has taken the proper actions, in my view. There is no immediate need for a checkuser, due to the lack of editing by the older accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a wise solution. Now the editor, if they have something to say about Constellation Brands, will have to either use a stable account to post to the talk page, or else bring the matter up at the help desk or some other page - meaning they will have to engage earnestly and meaningfully in a discussion, which is just what we want. Better to give them the option and encouragement to be sincere editors than to simply get rid of them. Thanks. Wikidemo (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

TTN and his buddies

User:TTN has made some edits that led to a revert war at List of extraterrestrials in Dragon Ball. See the history. User:Sesshomaru has enforced the changes with reverts, and is enlisting help with this. Here TTN explains that someone else will have to do the reverting for him. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 06:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Some pretty rough talk page discussion here. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Before someone thinks of eagerly pushing the block button or running to arbcom, he may also want to read up on one of the many merge discussions at the various character lists and e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Dragon Ball, which have been going on since at least January. To ultimately merge the lists (which TTN obviously can't and won't perform himself per his restriction), they have to be decruftified first. Quite a few established editors have already expressed their support for trimming. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(dedent) Swing and a miss. Nothing wrong here. --Lemmey talk 08:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Needs further review, per a couple of sections above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)