Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Alternative proposal

[moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Salted pages]

User:BWCNY

I do not know if this is where it belongs, however BWCNY has been causing minor problems lately, and any attempts to correct him usually result with a blanking of his own talk page. He was given two UWs the other day [1] one of which was for not properly citing his additions to various topics. He proceeded to blank the talk page and than instead of adding the citations or reverting the work, he tagged his work with the fact tag. Is this a violation of WP:NOR? He has added information without citing his work to numerous pages and before I revert the pages, I wanted to know if it was wrong. He than proceeded to include masked vulgarity on his User page. I do not know the proper method to proceed since Ive never seen anyone for lack of a better way of putting it, vandalize their own page as seen here User:BWCNY. Any assistance that can be provided would be greatly appreciated. Rob110178 21:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It would help if you posted page diffs for the specific edits, rather than a single link to an older version of the user's page history. Yes, the editor may blank warnings to his talk page. He's still been warned and that's viewable through the history file. It's bad wikiquette to blank all posts from one's talk page, but still permissible. You might try an article content WP:RFC on the article in question to establish consensus on the WP:NOR issue. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 22:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the WP:RFC is that there are so many of those types of articles, I do not know where to start. I'm going to try to give it a shot. The minor nature of these issues amongst other problems makes this situation challenging... Rob110178 23:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your initial post made this seem like a single article. Please provide the full story with page diffs. Durova^Charge! 18:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There was a good amount of pages involved. I went the RfC route and as a result, user has decided to stop editing for a while. We will see where it goes from here. Rob110178 00:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes a few fresh pairs of eyes resolves everything. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 02:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A RFCU has yielded two puppets that this user has run. What happens when an RFCU yields positive results? How does the puppeteer get addressed? Thanks Rob110178 01:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Proven socks of a banned sockmaster are subject to automatic banning and the sockmaster gets a fresh template on the user page to identify the activity. See User:JB196 and click the category link to his sockpuppets. User:AWilliamson is another good example. Durova^Charge! 16:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Roger the red

Roger the red (talk · contribs) (RTR) is a combative user who has violated several policies and guidelines. He was previously banned due to legal threats but has returned and is almost as combative as before.

RTR is the head of a very small film production company, the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company (AMBC), which is the main focus of his editing. In addition to writing about the AMBC and promoting it (some if it arguably legitimate), he's also questioned and removed the competings claims of another film company.(#) Many of RTR's edits have served to promote the legacy of his father and in several cases appeared intended to settle perceived mistreatment of him by others.(#) He's created or made edits to articles about himself(#), his family and friends, and his company, and has added links to them from many articles. In the course of his editing RTR has attacked the purported agendas of other editors and claimed harassment(#, [2]), made demands, and issued legal threats to other editors (#) (one of which resulted in the ban of an earlier account (#)). RTR has disrupted the articles of other studios in order to make points about the editing of his company's article.(#) He's added copyrighted text from other websites(#) and complained when they were identified.([3]) He's made extensive use of dispute resolution processes including requesting peer review, seeking mediation, emailing OTRS, getting an advocate, adding editing tags, and making contact with uninvolved editors(#)(#) In spite of all of his complaints and requests for help no other editors have supported his positions significantly (that I've noticed). That makes his efforts appear to violate WP:Wikilawyering. He's identified himself by name previously(#) but now claims to be a new, totally disinterested editor (#) despite an obvious continuity of behavior (#). By doing so he appears to be evading a block and abusing the alternate accounts privilege.

Because of the block evasion, the incivility and ongoing threats, the violations of WP:POINT and WP:COI, and other problems this editor has shown himself to be unable to edit in a neutral fashion or to respect our policies. I think that a community ban is called for. -Will Beback · † · 05:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support community ban based on the material at User:Will Beback/AMBC. This user is obviously not inclined to contribute to Wikipedia in any way, except for promotional purposes. As he's not commented here yet, I'm open to changing my mind in case of a persuasive rebuttal. Sandstein 07:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support community ban. Wherever he goes, whoever he deals with, the results have been the same. — Walloon 08:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I was completely unfamiliar with this user, so I read Will's page. It's pretty obvious that this user is a POV pusher with an agenda who is combative and stops at nothing to get his way. I agree with the ban, mostly on the grounds of POINT and WP:AUTO as well as major problems with conflict of interest. It might be ok if he had shown any ability to separate his responsibility to his company from his responsibility with being a neutral editor on Wikipedia but I see no evidence of it. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I haven't been following recent events, but have been involved in the Mutoscope and American Mutoscope and Biograph Company and regard this user as a self-promoter and POV-warrior of pitbull tenacity. I agree with Will Beback that he seems to be "unable to edit in a neutral fashion." Dpbsmith (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I've followed enough of this to agree with Will. It's time to close the door on this disruption. Durova^Charge! 22:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support I've just looked through the evidence page. Tyrenius 04:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Could one of the uninvolved admins please place the block? -Will Beback · † · 05:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Done.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Response

moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents -Will Beback · † · 07:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I apologize for the lengthy posting. I am a film fan/historian. I am from NYC and now live in Los Angeles. I am new to Wikipedia and thought it would be a good source to contribute pertinent information on film history and its companies. I thought it would be fun, and I was in for a great surprise and disappointment. I was to start from the beginning, which was Gaumont, Pathe, and American Mutoscope and Biograph Company. The third article mentioned and its discussions intrigued me and after looking at it further the article looked mauled at best. I then continued on the "Sprouts" which were the people involved and its history. by this I mean attempting to contribute to the information. By doing this triggered a controversy worse than the 1950's McCarthy hearings. Every little thing I did with this article was questioned and scrutinized. This can be seen by going to all talk pages on the subject. With time allowance, I then tried to study and learn about Wiki-Policies and protocol. I am thorough and attempted to follow this in good faith. However, I was constantly confronted by -Will Beback and a coalition that is and has been in contact with. I decided that along with my other contributions not to edit American Mutoscope and Biograph Company, this controversial article but to "Tag" this and attempt to bring in other neutral editors for their contribution which was according to Wiki-Policies.

Here comes the rub. I was accused by Will Beback of being a member of the new company mentioned in the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company article. I responded of course and even contacted an AMA advocate Tutmosis since I knew no one on Wikipedia. I even had no problem with removing the "Dispute" tag, but I wanted other contributing editors to come onboard.

With this has now sparked another attempt by this editor against me, now for "Block Evasion" (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Roger the red) in which I am again accused of being part of this new company claiming to be American Mutoscope and Biograph Company. I am also accused of being "Uncivil", "Disruptive", etc., in which I have not. As I mentioned earlier, I do not know anyone on Wikipedia since I am new, except my AMA advocate Tutmosis. this is even mentioned by administrator Will Beback using this as a "Weak" point. Will Beback is now resorting to uncalled for measures to block me as an editor rather than to civilly discuss the situation, or go through channels of Dispute Resolution, Mediation, or Arbitration which I would be completely agreeable. I also feel that the "Supporters" that he has are associates and know this administrator on a personal level. In all I feel he is using his administrative powers in an inappropriate way. Because of these actions, I want to make an open informal complaint over the behavior of Will Beback.
--Roger the red 03:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Invoking McCarthyism is not going to help your case any. The reason your editing attracted attention was because it gave all the impressions of what we call vanispamcruftisement - that is, edits which are vain and self-promotional. What possible motive would we have to drive away people who made many edits, unless they were problematic? Guy (Help!) 10:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Will did a good job here. I fully support his actions. If you want to come back, abide by the community decision and read up on site policies. Send a polite message to request reinstatement sometime around midyear and I'd be willing to reconsider...if it contains a respectful apology for the hassle you caused. Durova^Charge! 21:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

CyberAnth and WP:BLP

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#BLPs - CyberAnth strikes again. Apparently you guys suck... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

He's STILL at it? SirFozzie 11:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What here requires an admin's attention, other than your apparent beef with CyberAnth? Misrepresenting what he said to in an attempt to gain favor isn't nice, by the way. Frise 03:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line of this is that we do not need a special kind of adminship just for an individual who works with WP:BLP reports. That is the work that a regular editor can do. If they also have the mop, then they can assist in other ways along with working the BLP reports.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly a valid point, but coming here and putting words in CyberAnth's mouth when his communication on Jimbo's talk page was calm and polite isn't very nice, in my opinion. Frise 03:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If I required admin attention, I would have posted to WP:AN/I. Forgive me, but Cyberanth declaring an entirely new kind of administrator is needed because the current ones aren't doing their job properly seemed like something admins might want to know about. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Then I feel you should argue the merits of his proposal and please not attribute sentiments to him (admins suck) that he did not make. Frise 03:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"However, I can claim some knowledge of what some admins do not do based upon their visiting of pages prior my evaluating them - pages that contained content that they let stand in clear violation of WP:BLP." seens an implicit way of saying admins suck. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

CALM DOWN. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There's something funny about you showing up a full day after people stopped posting in this section only to tell them to calm down. :) Frise 09:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly administrators should unionise, then go on strike. Except we're not paid, nor are we given benefits. I suppose we could demand a dental plan...Mackensen (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

CyberAnth started up his own process: Wikipedia:BLP Admin. PTO 04:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

User wont accept dispute resolution decision?

Hi, we are having trouble with a disruptive editor at Unwinnable. The user seems to be playing a game of revert-war over the article - every single edit is reverted to his WP:OWN version. In an attempt to close the issue, we logged a case at WP:3O(third opinion) and the decision was in our favour (see Talk:Unwinnable#Third opinion), and we assumed this would be an end to the issue.

However, the disruptive editor returned today and started reverting the 3O implementation again. He has been blocked for WP:3RR once previously over this page, and whenever there are attempts to engage him on his talk page, all the warning templates are instantly removed. (see the history of User_talk:Prosfilaes). The user seems less concerned with the welfare of the article (he has now slapped an "OR" banner on the page in a fit of pique) and more concerned with "winning a battle" (the wikipedia-as-MMORPG mentality).

Its hard to know how to proceed in this situation as the dispute resolution has already been done, but the user won't accept the result. What now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.107.203.67 (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Without examining the user's conduct, which may indeed be disruptive, dispute resolution like that at WP:3O does not produce final decisions in the way you suggest. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

what is the point of 3O in that case? we though it was "2 users, a dispute, a decision. dispute resolved." - if it isnt, then why bother? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.27.232.72 (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

It's only an initial step in dispute resolution. 3O exists for minor disputes that could be solved quickly, without clogging up Wikipedia processes. IF 3O does not work, try the next tier in dispute resolution, namely the Mediation Cabal. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Given my experience with the original poster, I'm afraid that he won't discuss this issue with the Mediation Cabal, but I will try that.--Prosfilaes 20:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that if this complaint is legitimate and the poster can back up the claims against this user with appropriate page diffs and other evidence, then Wikipedia:Disruptive editing would be worth a read. If that editor is truly gaming the system and continues to do so then the community can intervene. For now, assume good faith and give the next dispute resolution step a try. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 21:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I admit that I have been stressed and inappropriately using reverts, and need to stop that behavior. However, this was not disruptive editing; this was being irritated by someone who engaged in a revert war with me, made the first post to the talk page "please use talkpage instead of revert-warring." after he had violated 3RR, ignored his 12h block by changing his IP, repeatedly attacking me on the talk page and filling my talk page with prefab templates instead of talking to me.--Prosfilaes 20:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Requesting review of my actions

Over at Kjárr, a budding edit war broke, so I protected m:the wrong version and left a note to that effect on the talk page.

Followed an email exchange with User:berig. I'd like to state first that email seeming unnecessary here doesn't put me in an extremely agreeable mood.

Thanks for protecting that Kjárr article and for showing that the referenced version of the article is the wrong version.

It is obvious that I was wrong in believing that it was the referenced information that should stay. FYI, Dusis was getting back at me for losing a discussion we had had on the Scandinavia article.

I am so insulted, that you will not see me around anymore.

I tried to stick to the fact in my answer:

"The wrong version" is a satirical page. I use it whenever I protect a page because when a page is protected, someone will inevitably be displeased.

I do not care for the content dispute or any previous relationship you might have had with this user. Revert or edit warring on any article instead of calmly debating the question on the talk page is, and will aways considered harmful to the encyclopedia. That was the reason why the "wrong version" was protected.

If you can't understand that such behavior is a problem and that we do have a dispute resolution process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution), go ahead and leave. I'm not going to run after you.

Obviously, I don't take very kindly to threaths to leave when the matter is at best a misunderstanding. At this point, Berig switched to french, and the next messages are translations.

If you'd taken the time to look at the article, you'd have understood that Dusis was changing cited information. In addition, your compatriot(I have no idea why that came up,as I had never came across Dusis before) didn't listen to my arguments, and in one edit he reverted, I had added information the importance of which he insisted on.

I don't create articles like these, on which I work hard, tobe treated like a troll. I hope you understand that.

Now saying that I wasn't annoyed would be a lie, but I still tried to correct the user assumptions:

Whether the content was orwas not cited does not matter to me. If editors cannot solve their disagreements via discussion, it is perfectly reasonable to impose a cool down period to the article itself, and as I just said, in such a dispute, one side is guaranteed to be in disagreementwith the results. That's why Wikipedia:Protection policy says:: "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version". In fact that(imposing a cool down period) is the administrators' duty. ("A temporary full-protection is used for enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an edit war.")

If my tone might have seemed condescending at one step or the oter, I am sorry for that. I normaly try toavoid personal involvement whenever a protection is necessary, and an email like that is not particularly constructive when it comes to theactual problem; that is, whwther or not reliable sources confirm or not that Kjárr is a representation of Caesar.

If Dusis is stalkingyou, I don't mind looking into that allegations (but I don't have the time right nowbecause I was at a friend's house without my usual browser and just looking my mail) I couldn't have know:I only saw an edit war, and acted on that specific situation. If that is not the first incident involvingyou two,maybe a Requestfor comment or one formediation are appropriate.

All thta was to no avail, however. Looks like we can add a French-Canadian Cabal to the List:

So, I wrote a lot of articles about nordic myths because few people are working on it(and are really interested in it).

As you can see on my user page, a few people have left signs of their appreciation of my work.

However, I feel like I'm at the end of the road

A French-Canadian gets angry at me for telling him we must respect information from reliable sources of Scandinavia. then he starts ruining information at Kjárr that I worked hard to source properly.

Then a French-Canadian admin protects the page in the version of the French-Canadian and tells me he wants to stop an edit war. That's the fastest protection I ever saw.

I can't see why I would continue writing articles whe stalkers are helped by compatriot admins like this.

I'm done with Wikipedia.

The entitlement almost made me laugh. I told him in my first message: I wouldn't run after him. SoI didn't answer. However, I'd still like to have others' opinion here. (I think the protection of Banjee was pretty rapid too, for the records.)Circeus 17:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you could have used different wording than "the wrong version" in the protection log; it's a fairly inappropriate place for satire, especially when it's highly unlikely that editors in the dispute will understand and/or find it amusing. As for the accusations of a cabal; I wouldn't worry about it. Some editors just don't get the point that not everyone is out to get them; it might be worth explaining one more time, simply, that the protection action is neutral, and until all editors involved can learn to see things from more than their own perspective, or at least withhold their editing until they can, the page will be protected. -- Renesis (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Everything looks perfect, neatly typed in triplicate, tied up in the regulation quantity of red tape. You followed the rules, and how could anyone possibly expect more than that? Your great work is bound to improve the encyclopedia. I'm minded to give you a barnstar. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The only information I'd add to the above is, that if someone deliberately changes cites, or verified information, to read deliberately incorrectly (as opposed to different emphasis or something thats a legitimate editorial issue) - for example they change a quote or a fact that the citation shows a different thing for -- then that may be held to be vandalism, not bona fide editing. Correcting obvious vandalism is outside 3RR and "wrong version", because one isn't aren't taking a stance in an edit war by doing so, you are fixing a vandalized quote. I know this since we had the same problem on Labrador Retriever a month ago -- reverting the vandalised quote was not considered preferential treatment of a version or 3RR violation, but repair of vandalism, which may be done whether the article is blocked or otherwise.

That said I would not reference "protecting the wrong article" again. Even if in jest or to make a point, people will (as you see) take it wrongly. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it was a bad idea. It certainly didn't raise any ire at Template talk:Philosophy navigation. Maybe I just don't do page protection enough. I agree about the modification of cited statements (I reverted a few such changes myself in other articles), but as I said, my "job" wasn't to get involved in a mostly scholarly dispute.Circeus 15:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

overlooked category renaming

Check out Category:Muslim Islamic scholars. It seems it was never recorded as needing bot attention, and it's been sitting there for five weeks unmoved. Category:CfD 2006-12 is now deleted and the bots have moved on. Same goes for Category:Shi'a Muslim Islamic scholars, Category:Shi'a Muslim scholars, Category:Sunni Muslim Islamic scholars, Category:Sunni Muslim scholars. — coelacan talk — 09:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If that happens post to WP:CFD/W with a link to the CfD and the bots will handle the rest Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Kinetoscope and blacklist

An anon IP has vandalized Kinetoscope, a featured article, by deleting an entire section of content. Unfortunately, I cannot revert this because the original text contains a citation link which is apparently now part of the blacklist. This link is a legitimate citation, present when the FAC was approved, yet its presence allows this article's vandalism to stand. Can someone please rectify the blacklist or at least exception this case so that the article can be properly reverted without the citation being removed? Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 11:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• The reference was not necessary; it was of the form of "at least one website has picked this up", within a paragraph that had a proper published reference. The site in question includes much unacknowledged scraped content and was spammed by its owner across four language Wikipedias. Guy (Help!) 17:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Nonadministrator's query: The reference to the site essentially served as a warning to readers about its unreliability. The intent and effect clearly serve the spirit of the blacklist. Not permissible?—DCGeist 20:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nathanrdotcom

The arbitration committee has endorsed the indefinite ban of Nathanrdotcom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The committee regrets that the rationale and evidence for this decision must be kept private to prevent injury to innocent third parties. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 12:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As the person who asked arbcom to take the case, I'd just like to express my thanks that this delicate matter has been dealt with efficiently and discretely. I've little idea about the evidence and issues, but handling this type of thing is exactly what arbcom is for. Case closed. Well done.--Doc^g 13:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, I echo that. I also praise Doc for filing the case swiftly and intelligently. El_C 19:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible mis-editing

By chance I had occasion to consult the ~paedia today regarding Buxton University. I noted that it was stated to be "accredited", in contrast to a Google search which recorded Wiki saying it was "unaccredited". Looking at History, I note that the change was made in recent (0/02/07, I think) edits by a red-texted user. Is it possible that, erroneously, its status has been altered ? -- Simon Cursitor 15:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That edit has since been reverted, because it removed much of the article as well as making the change. If you see information in Wikipedia that you know is incorrect, you are welcome to change it yourself, especially if you provide a source to demonstrate that you aren't vandalising (like the redlink user apparently was). --ais523 16:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you -- I do not work for the relevant authorities, so couldn't be certain what the accurate answer was, much less source it. And I am also aware that accreditation and statements about it are a sensitive (and litigatious) subject at present. Thank you for sorting this out. -- Simon Cursitor 08:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing backlog at WP:CFD

Categories for Discussion still has an 11 day backlog. It would be nice to see the backlog cleared or at least to see many of the non-controversial discussions closed. As pointed out previously, administrators may use the bots at WP:CFD/W to assist in deleting or renaming categories. (I would just like to see some of my two-weeks-old and three-weeks-old nominations closed, even if they are closed with no consensus or with rejections of my proposals.) Dr. Submillimeter 15:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I would help, but CFD is too complicated unless you're a black belt in Bot. I took a look at WP:CFD/W and my eyes glazed over. Proto::► 15:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps we can automate this? We could have a page WP:CFD/Clear that is protected so only admins can list categories there, and a bot would read it, say hourly, and depopulate the categories it finds there. >Radiant< 15:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, CFD/W already serves both renaming and clearing purposes I believe. The bots just run down the list and do whatever unless it says 'NO BOTS'. What Dr. Submillimeter is asking for is people to close discussions (part of which is adding to the CFDW page). I'd help (I used to do it a lot), but atm I just don't seem to have the time to sit down and burn through the discussions. Syrthiss 15:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• It does? Okay, in that case I've closed three days' worth of discussions. Bot away! >Radiant< 14:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleters needed

Feeling twitchy? Need to crush things under your thumb?

PRODs, Orphaned fair use and Images with unknown source are all at all-time highs and could use some rabid deletionism.

Dragons flight 17:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• OR it could use a few admins willing to take the time to actually consider these rather than just deleting them to make the problem go away... Remember DePROD will clear out the backlog too.--Isotope23 19:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That works too, though cursory inspection suggests there are large numbers of things where deletion makes sense. Dragons flight 20:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed, I know your original post was tongue and cheek...--Isotope23 20:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
      • <snicker> So laugh already! ;-) </snicker> --Kim Bruning 14:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Article with some serious allegations needing extra eyes

I came across James E. Sabow through a mention on Jimbo's talk page, but I'm on deadline and haven't the time to do anything about it - it definitely needs some extra eyes, though. It's unsourced and makes some pretty serious allegations regarding a coverup of the article subject's murder, so it might be worth taking a look at. The article creator, User:JPatrickBedell, linked to it from Jimbo's page saying "Perhaps the case of James Sabow will be a test case for the wikijustice that will prevail in a world that has Wikipedia.org." Tony Fox (arf!) 18:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Additional: a quick bit of poking around indicates there are some sources for this piece, but it still looks pretty iffy at present. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Slashed to one sentence stub. Actual notability needs checking as well. Moreschi ^Deletion! 18:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

TfD vacation

I don't want to sound WP:OWN-ish here, but since I'm nearly the only admin who looks at WP:TFD, and I've been busy at school lately, there's a huge backlog. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 19:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll pitch in. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured user pages

Hi, please comment here. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 19:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

jennifer aniston work in film Derailed

The general concensus source would be the large critic's website called Rotten Tomatoes. This website includes all the respected, major movie critics citing their publications. In your career section, discussing the movie Derailed, Jennifer Aniston did not receive "much praise" for... "doing it well" from the greater majority. The reviews of her performance were scathing by almost all (90%+) the professional critics; largely stating she was miss cast and out of her element and ability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalist2 (talk • contribs)

Uh... huh?--Isotope23 20:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is this here? Shouldn't it be on the article's talk page? Acalamari 22:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Blockreview GeorgeDevers

• GeorgeDevers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - see George devers (deleted) Attackpage linked to account name. Agathoclea 20:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:SSP

There is a severe backlog here. Attention requested. --Ideogram 22:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Durova/Community enforced mediation

This proposal would create a new experimental option in dispute resolution. Advance reviews have been favorable so I'm opening this up to general feedback. Please reply at the proposal's talk page so the discussion is focused in one place. Durova^Charge! 23:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Similar vandalism from a variety of IPs

Don't know if there is anything in it but the following IPs have made similar edits: User:74.224.96.160, User:72.152.77.246 and User:68.217.72.65AlanD 23:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

User Olivierd's sub-page on his sockpuppetry case

I'd like an admin to take a look at this page and tell me whether such a thing is appropriate for Wikipedia. Since I'm named on the page, I'd rather refrain from any comment so that I can't be accused of trying to sway an admin. Thanks for your attention.--Ramdrake 00:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding IP users

I was just wondering (there is probably a page out there that'll tell me, I know... sorry) why Wikipedia allows edits from those without a username? Surely a large percentage of vandalism would dissapear if only registered users could edit pages. Registering isn't a labourious task but it is enough of a task to weed out those who vandalise on a whim... Those who are more hard-core can easily be blocked and investigated for sock puppetry. I'm just wondering as I've been spotting (due to having contributed in the talk pages of, reverted vandalism on random pages searches of or have contributed to the pages of several articles and therefore have them on my watchlist) a fair bit of vandalism recently and it is nearly always IPs doing it.

Is there a good reason for continuing to allow IP edits? AlanD 00:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The argument is that many positive edits are made by IP users, who might be experts in the field but may not feel the need or want to take the time to register. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 01:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a Perennial Proposal. In addition to the point made by Chris Griswold, the more cynical among us can single out edits made by IPs for closer screening. If IP editing were disabled, then thousands or millions of dummy, single-edit, vandalism-only accounts would spring up. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I take your points but still feel, personally, it would in the long term lead to less vandalism in general. However it isn't my call and you folk clean up far more vandalism than I.

Thank you for replying so quickly. AlanD 02:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Can an admin help this user?

See here and here. I think he wants to delete his userpage and talkpage completely. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 02:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

m:Right to vanish. He needs to go about requesting a username change, then changing all references to his previous username on every page that he's signed. User talk deletion isn't a usual step to take though, unless there's some dire need for it; some users have been known to abuse the right to vanish to "clean the slate" in regards to their user talk, and it cuts apart discussions and such. I'm not comfortable with it myself, though I can't speak for others. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If he is sure he wants to leave Wikipedia for awhile, I will be glad to facilitate (and if he is not sure he wanted to leave Wikipedia for awhile, he's about thisclose to someone proposing a community ban anyway). This user unfortunately does not appear to be suited for this project at this time. Given that this is a minor editing under his real name (not just disclosing it once on a userpage, but actually signing with the name), and that his checkered record here will come back to haunt him years from now when someone on a college admissions committee or something does a Google search, I think allowing a vanishing would definitely be in order, with the understanding that he is to allow an appropriate period of time (I suggest three months minimum) before returning under a new username, which would be confided to a trusted admin or two, before quietly starting over. Newyorkbrad 03:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Per an e-mail received from a third party, this editor has requested that his userpage and talkpage be deleted as he no longer feels comfortable editing here under this account. Under all the circumstances, this request appears to be in good faith and I am satisfied it should be granted. I will perform the deletion and get back to the user strongly suggesting that he take some time off before considering returning with another username. If anyone has any concerns about this, please e-mail. Newyorkbrad 04:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope you see ASAP! Can you delete the archives too? User_talk:Asher Heimermann/Archives/2006/A, User_talk:Asher_Heimermann/Archives/2006/B, User_talk:Asher_Heimermann/Archives/2007/A. Mr. Asher Heimermann 05:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Brad. I adopted Asher a while back, though have had very little success in even managing to communicate with him, never mind guide him towards an acceptable editing style. Most of my interaction with his has been to attempt to persuade him that listing his email address and/or telephone number is a very bad idea and that he should consider editing under a pseudonym. I fully endorse him disappearing, but would ask that he be counseled to seek advice from an experienced user if and when he chooses to join us again. Mind you, even if he doesn't I suspect he will come to our attention before too long. Rockpocket 07:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi; yes, I remember that, and I'm sorry this didn't work out better for everyone. As I noted above, someone needs to counsel him for the future, and keep an eye out. Do you think you established his confidence such that you're the one to do it? Newyorkbrad 12:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Proposal: BLP Admins

I'm surprised not to see this mentioned here already. CyberAnth is proposing that a special class of admins be created to enforce WP:BLP. The proposal can be found here: Wikipedia:BLP Admin. Present admins may wish to contribute to the discussion... WJBscribe 04:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been speedy closed. Someone (with some clout) needs to have a good talk with CyberAnth.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This has to be one of the most infuriating disputes that I have come across. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 04:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oi. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Who has the clout, Ryulong? Frise 09:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I (snarkily) note that the first of the two requirements would prevent the creator of the BLP Admin proposal from achieving this exalted status. Proto::► 09:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is snarky, and it's inappropriate. It's a good policy idea or not (I lean toward not) no matter who proposes it. If it's not a good idea, that will be clear without arguing ad hominem. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Probably best not to comment on the author in this venue, go to the proposal's talk, comment on the proposal there. Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 16:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Caution, Don Murphy "Stooges" might attack

Here are some of his fans at it. I have a screenshot if it gets taken down when they notice this post (which they likely will), if you want screenshots contact me by using the e-mail function at my user page. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 04:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they haven't noticed that Wikipedia is vaguely used to dealing with vandalism... Good to know where it is coming from, if it does show up, though. -- Natalya 15:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation removal

I rewrote the Stochastic oscillator article, could someone clean it when they get a chance. THanks Mrdthree 07:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The rewrite is here. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Shared/group accounts

The normal Wikipedia jargon for this has slipped my mind; I'm referring to accounts used by a group of people. My understanding was that these weren't allowed, but the policy (which I can't find) might be weaker than that, and it might just be deprecated. Could someone advise me? I've come across a self-declared example at User:Sikh-history, and was wondering what I should do, if anything. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Role accounts? Anyway, they are definitely not allowed. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

According to User talk:Sikh-history this account is now used by only one person. He needs to update his user page. --Ideogram 11:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I read that page twice and still didn't see that. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Here. --Ideogram 13:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I see he replied to my question and I asked him to rewrite. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOCK. Approved role accounts are exceedingly rare. Durova^Charge! 16:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all (of course it's "role account"; why couldn't I remember that?) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets backlog - down to under one month

Just wanted to note that the oldest case on WP:SSP is down to less than one month. That is still horrible (cases should be decided in 10 days), but is a lot better than over two months which is what it was when Robdurbar posted the call for help on January 12.

Great thanks should go to the indefatigable User:MER-C, and User:Akhilleus, who, despite not being admins, have been helping out a great deal by closing what cases they can (when all users are already blocked for other reasons anyway), patching the somewhat baroque Wiki syntax on the page, moving cases to archives, advising people who have questions, and so forth. By the way, the only reason I'm not nominating both for WP:RFA is that the former had a fairly recent one, and the latter refused my nomination. They're good folks - a big hand, please.

Meanwhile, if any other admins want to help out closing a few, we would all appreciate it. Otherwise for the last month I've been basically the sole admin closing cases for this page, and it's not as if I'm more qualified than anyone else - I had barely even heard of the page before the call for help came. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work, and that of your non-admin compatriats! Applause is certainly deserved. :) I (and hopefully others!) will look into some of the remaining cases, and hopefully can aid you in your extensive efforts to clear up the rest of the backlog. -- Natalya 17:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

DontStayIn

Can someone put the text of this article into my userspace please. I'll clean it up and try to show it's notability then add it back to the mainspace. As the website in question has an alexa rank of 8,817 it's most probably a big enough site for an article. Thanks. exolon 17:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, will do so now, but don't just put it back in the mainspace, please - provide the new article to Wikipedia:Deletion review, so it's formally protected from re-deletion. Proto::► 18:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure DRV is appropiate - this was speedied, not put through an AFD so I'm minded to be bold and chuck it back into the mainspace. If someone still doesn't think it meets the criteria, we can go through WP:AFD to establish community consensus. exolon 22:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Question on deletion and protection from recreation of Colleen Shipman

I just deleted the Colleen Shipman article and prevented it from being recreated because it violated Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons(she is the non-public crime victim in the Lisa Nowak case). While I agree with others that the article's subject is also not notable, the fact that this was a violation of BIO made the deletion urgent (IMHO).

One editor, though, questioned this decision and I said I'd bring it to the attention of other admins. As the BIO page says, "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Because of that, I do not see a reason to unprotect the page. Other thoughts? Did I go too far? --Alabamaboy 19:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, after I explained the situation to the editor and said I'd bring it up here, Benjiwolf, he/she cited me for vandalism.[4] Still, we've worked that out (at least, it appears we have). Anyway, I've invited the editor to make his/her case here.--Alabamaboy 19:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

well as it came in on my computer he deleted with no good explanation...colleen shipman surely should have a page if lisa nowak can...its lisa that will be sueing yall for lible...i put up colleens college and job at nasa...Benjiwolf 19:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I should note that I immediately explained the situation to the editors involved in the case. Second, Lisa is a public figure--an astronaut now accused of felony-level crimes--while Colleen is a non-public crime victim.--Alabamaboy 20:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Alabamaboy did explain the deletion to you. I support the deletion. At the moment Shipman is non-notable and putting up personal information about here is a violation of her privacy. There needs to be a strong public interest case to violate the privacy of a non-public living person and I just don't see it. Benjiwolf, please read WP:BLP which is Wikipedia policy.

All that being said, I'm not so sure about the protection from recreation. Depending on what happens in the next few days I could see Shipman becoming article-worthy. Personally I'd have left the article unprotected unless it kept being recreated. As I said though, the deletion was within policy, the correct thing to do and most definitely not vandalism. Gwernol 20:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also support removing the protection from recreation if the subject becomes more article worthy AND well-referenced information that doesn't violate WP:BLP can be added. For now, though, I thought that was the best way to keep a flood of WP:BLP-violating info from filling the article (as Lisa Nowak shows, articles about this case are attracting a ton of attention). Best,--Alabamaboy 20:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly live with that. Gwernol 20:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

well after alabama boy explained himself i promptly put up a message on his page noting that he now had a better explanation...yet his intitial instantaneous move was without much explanation at all and i felt highly insufficient for such a drastic move on a public figure in the space program that is involved in a major news story...i was going to remove the stop sign i gave him myself yet my computer time expired right when this all was going on last night and i have had to wait for access again till this morning here in switzerland...i was however going to leave a minor warning about too quick a deletion that wasnt initially properly justified, yet done in good faith...anyways...(please read my note on the colleen shipman talk page)...i agree completely that colleen is a crime-victim...yet i put up that she is a public figure...and very very high profile right now...if someone had stalked some other person in the public domain that wouldnt have us remove their page...to have some basic facts about her such as her college and exact position in the space program are worthwhile...the space program is by its very nature a high profile highly public civilian enterprise (even tho the military & navy is naturally heavily involved)...this information all exists in the public domain now thru various news sources...why not wikipedia???...if we merely restate what is in other reliable news sources there should be absolutely no problem...to keep colleen somehow blocked and a mystery is somehow strange...she is the third figure in this story...i agree speculation about her should be instantly removed from her page...and as to lible...i see it more a problem for lisas page...i think someone should keep a rough eye on lisas page to ensure it doesnt get too out of hand and in the realm of speculation...only info from reliable news souces and no sensationalism (and even some of the reliable news sources are going to play it sensational to get readers and listeners)...Benjiwolf 11:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Template marked as listed on TFD, but not listed?

The Repeat Vandal template shows up as being listed at Templates for Deletion on it's main page, but doesn't actually appear to be listed. [5]. TheQuandry 20:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's right here. Picaroon 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Damn, beat me to it. I found it by checking the nominator's edits around the time he edited {{Repeat vandal}}. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That's how I did it. The reason the tfd link didn't work is that "vandal" was capitalized. I uncapitalized it. Picaroon 20:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A-ha! Thanks! TheQuandry 21:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

User:NorrisMcDonald editing Norris McDonald

Norris McDonald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is being edited by NorrisMcDonald (talk · contribs). This appears to be a direct violation of WP:AUTO, and I would offer it up for deletion because of that, but I do believe that the individual is notable enough. What should be done about this? I have reverted his edits already. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Been dealt with.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

RFA passed at 69%?

Hi, I'm not here for long, but I noticed that Ryulong passed RFA at 69%, which is hardly "consensus": and unheard of for 'crat's "75% and lower is questionable" ness. Why was this RFA passed? -- Chris is me _{(u/c/t) 22:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)}

This was discussed extensively at the time, a couple of weeks ago. You can find some of the discussion on the talkpage of his RfA and more in the archives of the RfA page itself. Newyorkbrad 22:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A) This isn't a matter for adminsitrators to handle as this is something for the community, not for administrators, B) It's already been discussed to hell and back at the RFA talk page, and C) He hasn't done anything wrong (yet). So let's not get this started again, please :) Cowman109^Talk 22:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Old, old news. --Cyde Weys 22:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Chris, I suggest you ask this question at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and not here. --bainer (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just was strolling by and was too buzy/lazy to do anything. Sorry to waste your guy's time. -- Chris is me _{(u/c/t) 05:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)}

Civility, thy name ain't Calton

I was working with AMIB on something last night (shocking, I know) and [[User:Calton] PM'd with a kind of argumentative message on my talk page. This would go on for hours of back and forth argumentative PMs from Calton...with me finally asking, twice, "Did you PM me just to argue?". He stopped with the PMs.

Today, User:Rspeer PM'd on User:Calton's talk page "I can't help but notice the many other users objecting to your caustic style of conversation. You really, really need to be more civil." only to have User:Calton respond with "You really really need to mind your own business", among other things. Other users and admins, I guess, have asked User:Calton to just chill out and he just gets more and more rude and argumentative. If an admin would please tell User:Calton to step back, take a deep breath, and relax for Pete's sake. - SVRTVDude 23:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

After posting the above, I recieved this from User:Calton..."Nice little stunt you pulled at WP:AN, but if you're looking for some edge in intimidating me, it's not going to work.". I think that proves my point, as nothing I said above was intimidating in the least. - SVRTVDude 00:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, please take anything further about this to WP:RFC/USER if there is more than one person who has attempted to resolve the dispute and is willing to endorse it. If not, work out some way of avoiding each other. Either way, nothing here requires admin tools. Jkelly

I have taken it there, not sure if I did it right (someone want to make sure for me....noobie moment), I will leave this thread open so everyone has a chance to comment and the board's process can run it's course. - SVRTVDude 00:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The problems has progress WAY beyond a civility problem. Am trying my damnedest to stay away from User:Calton but he continues to make attempts at picking a fight. Told him politely to just step away from the computer, watch some TV and come back in the morning only to be met with unnecessary anger. This is way beyond a civility problem (and in my opinion) may possilbe require an admin. Post remains on WP:RFC/USER - SVRTVDude 02:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The problems has progress WAY beyond a civility problem. Am trying my damnedest to stay away from User:Calton but he continues to make attempts at picking a fight. This is utter nonsense: User:Orangemonster2k1 keeps leaving annoying messages on my Talk page and I'm picking a fight? I've told him to stop doing that, and this latest thread is his response: pretty much a naked attempt to not only pick a fight, but enlist others in helping him pick a fight.

Told him politely to just step away from the computer, watch some TV and come back in the morning only to be met with unnecessary anger. No, necessary annoyance at your presumption. If you are "trying [your] damnedest to stay away", try actually staying away: stop pestering me on my Talk page and stop disrupting this page in your attempt to escalate your pestering. This is NOT what this page is for, and this is my last word on the subject. --Calton | Talk 02:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I am going to respond to this and leave it at that...Calton, you PM'd me, you continued to PM me, and I like to respond to people's comments (good or bad) in a timely fashion...so I wasn't pestering you, I was answering your comments. I am not trying to annoy you, if you think I am, then I am sorry...but that is not what I am doing. I am just returning your comments....call that annoying if you want.

My point here, which you have missed completely and showed perfectly, is that you are completely uncivil in your posts. I have not, except for my last comment, be in anyway uncivil or impolite. I have actually tried to explain myself, my point, and move on to no avail. This has gone on for hours tonight and hours last night over something you were not involved in. The KXGN schedule is done and over with, it is not up and I will leave it at that. That is my last on this subject. Sheesh. - SVRTVDude 03:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I believe that Calton has done more than enough to merit a block for personal attacks. I should not be the one to apply that block, however, so I ask another admin to review his recent interactions with other users, such as User talk:Orangemonster2k1, User talk:Mangojuice, User talk:JLaTondre, and the grand compendium of them all, User talk:Calton. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Calton, although I usually agree with what you are saying, I have to admit I think you should be more careful in saying it. --Ideogram 08:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Calton

Is there anyone you can muzzle Calton? Admin User:Firsfron has asked Calton to leave me alone and me to leave him alone...I have....but in the past 20mins, I have gotten 4 PMs on my talk page. I have had to defend myself against a "stalking" claim on Firsfron's talk page....this is getting out of hand. Please muzzle Calton. - SVRTVDude 08:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Interested parties may wish to examine Orangemonster2k1/SVRTVDude's last several contributions before opining. Note especially the two pointless article reversions (hmm, "stalking", perhaps?). Note the content of the messages I left (one being a correction to a previous message). Note the inability to take a hint. Note the falsity of the claim about him supposedly leaving me alone. Yeah, this is a childish waste of time, so this is my last word here. --Calton | Talk 08:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, an addendum: looks like Orangemonster2k1/SVRTVDude made even more pointless article reversions several hours ago, so it's worse than I thought (look at around 0200 UTC). --Calton | Talk 08:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The RfC on Calton's conduct is now active; further comments should go there. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I want to apologize for the admins and other editors who are having to take time out of more pressing matters to deal with this. I have tried many times to end this situation on a good note to no avail. I am not that hard to get along with...hell even AMIB and I are talking and working together and we all know how bad that got couple weeks ago. Again, my apologizes to the admins and other editors dealing with situation...I honestly tried. Anyone got a Tylenol? - SVRTVDude 10:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Cautionary note

Just saying that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tech.co.uk seems to be SPA heaven. Take this into account when closing; I believe those who have commented there so far are employees of the company ... although I have no proof. Bother.

Cheers, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Time-limited protection

As far as I'm aware the ability for administrators to protect pages for a specified amount of time is a relatively new thing, but it seems to be getting used quite a lot. I've just noticed a problem with it, though, which doesn't really seem to have been addressed.

1. Administrator protects a page for, say, a week because of vandalism
2. Administrator applies {{sprotected}} to the page
3. Protection expires a week later and nobody notices, {{sprotected}} remains in place
4. Potentially useful edits are not made because anonymous users think they can't edit the page. Alternatively, anonymous users vandalise the page and confuse everyone who doesn't understand time-limited protection.

If this has been discussed before, then forgive me – Qxz 00:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; I was wondering the same thing after going back to remove {{tprotected}} on several articles, only finding that someone else had already removed them in each case. Maybe an option that can enable some kind of automatic (i.e. built into MediaWiki) template on time protected protections? In other words, a new MediaWiki:Timeprotectnotice page, or something to the effect, would be created, and the message would be displayed on time protected articles when it is still protected. A checkbox would enable admins to turn off the notification template, when necessary. This seems like the best solution here. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, there already is one, but it only comes up when you edit. I think it's a bit big to be displayed when you're viewing an article, though – Qxz 02:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• A possible solution would be to ask the devs to e.g. automatically display MediaWiki:PageIsProtected at the top of every protected page. >Radiant< 13:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Something in the interim that might help is simply using a different template for timed protection. Even if visually identical, it would allow people to scan through to remove them as needed. Bitnine 14:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Another solution would be for some bot to automatically remove the template once the page is unprotected (it would also help when some users add protection templates thinking adding a template is enough to protect the page). --cesarb 14:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Actually that's easy. Have a bot remove all protection templates, daily. Since the bot doesn't have admin rights, it will fail to remove the template from pages that actually are protected. >Radiant< 14:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• But it would be able to remove templates from semi-protected pages, correct? And move protected pages. I suggested this type of bot awhile ago, but it didn't seem like there were any takers. -- tariqabjotu 15:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Cyrus Farivar

Reposted from WP:DRV:

A notification, rather than a request, but I'm not sure where else to put it. I am undeleting Cyrus Farivar as per Jimbo's previous endorsement of exactly this act: "Even if VfD _did_ produce a consensus that this article should be deleted, then VfD is broken and should be ignored." [6]. User:Jaranda expressed concern that this was not brought to DRV, so I figured I should leave notice here (and also on WP:AN before restoring it again. I will not continue to restore at this point, but I will bring the issue through proper dispute resolution channels should it continue to be an issue.

I am not asking for or opening a full review because, well, it's unnecessary and beside the point. DRV is a process through which we review deletions, but it is not the sole way in which they are reviewed. This is something that there is a definitive ruling on - journalists with the publication record of Cyrus Farivar are notable. Small segments of the community may create pages that proport to establish other criteria for notability, and AfDs can fail to attract the attention of anything but the mindset that currently dominates the page, but none of this changes the basic fact that a notability guideline of that extremity has been actively rejected from the very top, and the act of unilaterally restoring this article has explicitly been sanctioned.

This ought not only terminate the debate, but also serve as a rather sobering warning about the sad state of so-called policy on Wikipedia, whereby it clearly does not provide useful guidance on our actual best practice. Phil Sandifer 01:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I converted this to a full deletion review. I see adequate reason to doubt that Jimbo would stand by that statement today. The reason: WP:BLP and the incidents that led to its creation. GRBerry 02:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That was then. This is now. It's been more than a year and half since Jimbo said that. Times have changed, and his answer to that same question may have changed. Nishkid64 03:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Double redirect for Template:Test4a

Template:Test4a is currently a double redirect, which cases problems for folks like me that haven't switched to the newfangled warnings...Since it's a protected template, I'm powerless to fix it myself. It probably should redirect to Template:Uw-delete4. Thanks, Scientizzle 01:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed already. Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent actions of my own

In trying to deal with the backlog at CAT:CSD last night, I came upon several I3 deletions. After these deletions, I was confronted by Krome007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who had uploaded a picture of Harry Colquhoun. In the process of making sure there wasn't a red link on the article, I rolled back the edits, removing very little, yet Krome007 felt I was wrong and I said that anyone can edit on Wikipedia. This was met with the response, "OK so anyone can edit but I thought the idea was to edit with factual information you monkey nut" (emphasis mine). I responded saying that the image did not have the correct tag or copyrights, suggested that if the image were in the public domain that Mr. Colquhoun email permissions, and that he not be incivil with me. He responded and finished his statement by calling me a "self righteous fool." I blocked him indef, after which he sent me an abusive e-mail about my block.

He posted an {{unblock}} request in which he personally attacked me. I was discussing the block with Shreshth91 privately, and he came to the conclusion that the block was too harsh, and I had a change of heart. Shreshth91 unblocked and then reblocked for 4 days, and I unblocked and stated that I was putting him on probation for 96 hours. During this whole time, I had put Harry Colquhoun up for AFD. He contacted me (and others) about his comments at the AFD discussion, and when I saw it, I viewed this response. I blocked for five days due to the probation I had placed on him, notified him, and left. Checking on my contribs, again, I saw he had editted the page, and continued to personally attack me. I privately sought advice on what to do, and it was a general agreement that his incivility was uncalled for. After more attacks on me, I rolled back his edits and protected his talk page for the duration for the block. I know that this will not be the end of his interactions, but I am here requesting that these actions be reviewed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have just received another e-mail from this individual

User:JPG-GR

Right I am reporting you for getting a friend of yours to suggest the page gets deleted for your own personnal reason. This guy is your mate who runs a power rangers site. I am going to suggest that you be stripped of your admin status. http://www.grnrngr.com/

Laters

• I can assure anyone who is contacted by this individual that I did not contact JPG-GR about anything concerning the AFD, other than this very e-mail.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely related, but someone mentioned relishxxx.com yesterday in one of the spam channels. I can't recall whether it was someone spamming links or whether it was spammy articles, but there's something dodgy going on with Krome007. I've no problems with your block. Oh, if a meta admin spots this post, chuck relishxxx.com on the meta blacklist, ta. -- Heligoland 04:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have received another e-mail. The text can be seen here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Next time anything like this happens, get another admin involved the moment the personal attacks against you start. That always makes it cleaner. (When someone's attacking me, it's hard to think objectively and fairly. I imagine you're similar.) No comment about the actual blocks. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I know that now. I have also unprotected his talk page so he can stop venting at me in e-mails. There's no use in him e-mailing me, as I do not need to supply him with my e-mail address.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Don't worry about it, this sort of thing happens all the time, and most of the time when admins get yelled at it's because they've done the right thing. Just a question for everyone in general - why are admins required (well, not required, but encouraged) to release their email addresses? It just encourages this thing to happen; unblock requests can surely go to the unblock mailing list instead, and private conversation can be done via IRC. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The e-mail address thing is as follows: If I reply to his e-mails, he can see my e-mail address. I don't like using the E-mail function, only in emergencies. And frankly, I've already dealt with someone who had knowledge of my e-mail address after I blocked her and suffered for it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Make a yahoo or hotmail account. Use it as a throwaway account for correspondance with people you don't want to give your real email to. --BigDT 05:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I use g-mail. I just don't need someone to know it (cause I might accidentally use my personal e-mail due to how I have Outlook set up)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. This is why I have Thunderbird set up to handle seperate email logins...that's frightening. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 11:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

TfD backlog

Down to four noms, but each is complicated. Thanks to those who helped. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :) I will say that hopefully the admins who helped will keep up on it. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Surferboy092

This user has been disruptive to the Wikipedia community, with an obvious attempt at vandalizing the project. He vandalized a section on the Orange County, California page, and other school related articles. He was warned in November, but did not cease to destruct pages. I think it is appropriate to place him under a ban.

If the user vandalizes again, an indef block as vandalism only might be warranted. As is now, the user only has four contributions in the past four months. Not exactly a pattern of disruption, but thatnks for the heads up. I'll watch. Teke ^(talk) 05:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been blocked (a month) in the Spanish Wikipedia for a page I maintain in the English Wikipedia

User got blocked on es:, is complaining here. This is not our jurisdiction, and we can't take any admin action there.

We don't accept other wikis coming here disputing our blocks, we can't meddle on other wikis. Since this is not admin related, since no admin action can follow, I'm moving the huge thread to User talk:Drini/randroide Those interested in the debate can continue there.

I repeat, this is about an affair on other wiki, no action from this wiki's admin is being requested, therefore I'm moving it to a proper place.

The page User:Drini/randroide is a commentary on the page that got him blocked on es:, so people that can't read spanish can know what's it about. -- Drini 20:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss es: admin actions. I did not DELETE content as you FALSELY claim. I moved it, and provided links to it. Stop lying. -- Drini 21:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Warning when viewing user js pages

Apologies if this has been explained before, but I'm curious as to the purpose of the notice that now appears on all user .js pages:

If you have been directed here because of a note on your talk page, please be very certain you know the user who left it for you. If not, the code may contain malicious content, which can compromise your account and lead to your being blocked. If you are unsure about whether the code is safe, you can ask at the help desk.

Only the user themselves and administrators can edit a user's own .js pages, so (assuming administrators are trusted not to mess with them) there shouldn't be any risk of malicious content being run in that way. As far as I'm aware, you can't "execute" the code on someone else's .js page without copying or including it in your own, and just viewing a .js page doesn't execute the code on it, so what is the risk exactly? Thanks – Qxz 12:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, a vandal went around and welcomed users notifying them (incorrectly) that they'd been blocked and the only way to appeal to this block was to copy malicious code into the .js files. Cbrown1023 talk 12:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

And people fell for that? Meh... same people who open .exe email attachments from people they don't know, I guess. I suppose that is a bit of a problem – Qxz 12:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, this a total noob question....but, what is a .js page? - SVRTVDude 12:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Every user has a special page in their userspace to which they can add JavaScript code, which will execute when they view Wikipedia pages; allowing all sorts of helpful scripts to be written to help with editing, browsing and so on. See for example Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. Your page is here – as you don't know what it is yet, it's presumably empty. :) There's also another one for CSS, which you can edit in order to change the appearence of the interface – fonts and colours, for example. These changes are only visible to you, the appearence of the site for everyone also depends on one of these pages, but it can only be edited by administrators – Qxz 12:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I understand. Thanks :) - SVRTVDude 12:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Use Of Thumbtacks In Professional Wrestling

Is there any way that someone could give an early close to this afd? With 15 users or so commenting, only 2 have voted to keep the article, and the rest want to merge relevant info into other articles then delete, so consensus has been reached. It's just a mess with too much arguing. Booshakla 14:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus looks to me to be drifting away from delete, with the keep and merge votes. I'm hesitant to WP:SNOW it. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd let it run course... an early close will pretty much guarentee someone is going to complain it was deleted/kept out of process.--Isotope23 19:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Time

I'm an admin in school with nothing to do next period, so 90 minutes to do absolutely nothing. What are some administrative tasks few people do that I can occupy my time with once I run out of movies? Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets has been badly backlogged for a month. Not an easy or pleasant task, but it can consume as much time as you can give it today. GRBerry 15:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Judgement calls aren't really my thing, but I can head off and do some obvious ones. Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've heard that CAT:CSD has an ass-trocious backlog. ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 20:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

How to change a user name

I am an administrator on the Zazaki Wikipedia. I need to change a user name, but I don't really know how to do it? Can anybody help me do it, or do I have the ability to change a user name as an administrator? Best, --Daraheni 16:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to change your username on the English Wikipedia, you'll need to go to Wikipedia:Changing username and make a request. Administrators do not have the power to change usernames here; that is up to the Bureaucrats. It will not, however, affect your username at the Zazaki Wikipedia. -- Natalya 16:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to do this at Meta-wiki. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RfP#User_rename_requests Thatcher131 16:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This account

This account was recently created by an editor in order to edit a rather embarassing page. Is this all right or are communal accounts prohibited? I took several special measures in order to prevent someone just stealing this account and running with it.

Your input would be appreciated.

Thanks, Squeamish Editor 20:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine if someone went out of the way to create their own account for this, not to have one massive collection (after all this would be equivalent of having an IP address but with benefits of an account). This is a potential fork for banned users to edit. I'm going to block it for now until we figure something out. Yanksox 20:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

An account with a posted password is just a very, very bad idea all around. Per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Segregation and security, you can make a separate account for editing embarassing pages, but don't encourage other people to use it. They can make their own. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Although Yanksox's block of the role account was anon-only, Flameviper (talk · contribs) is claiming on his talkpage that he is incurring collateral damage from the block. Make of this what you will. Newyorkbrad 20:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that anon-only and ACB only apply to IP blocks and are ignored in username blocks. So this is probably a garden variety autoblock. Thatcher131 20:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock lifted. It's a mindspring IP, so may be dynamic. Thatcher131 20:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Role accounts are not allowed on the English Wikipedia. A role account is one that more than a single person is editing with. They are forbidden because they do not allow us to know who is contributing when the account makes an edit, so it breaks the terms of the GFDL which all text is licensed under on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Role account. Thanks, Gwernol 20:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the role account blocked. "This is a communal accont. This means that anyone who wants to use it can." No-brainer. Whoever created it (a) probably knows better, and (b) needs to stop messing around; Wikipedia isn't a role-playing game. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)