Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Centrx (talk | contribs) at 04:03, 19 August 2006 (→Vandals gaming blocks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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)

    Visual archive cue: 55


    Tasks

    The following backlogs require the attention of one or more editors.
    NPOV disputes, Images on Commons and Overpopulated categories

    CAT:NS

    CAT:NS among other other image cats are backlogged by five days. Should be directly link these cats from the speedy deletion page to speed things up? It seems lthat a great number of admins are not aware/intimidated by image deletions. Perhaps this is because Orphanbot does the tagging, so people don't touch them until they have to be deleted.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    T:DYK

    It's been 8 hours now since the last DYK update, and given the updating patterns prevalent in the last days, the next update won't come in the next 6 hours. There is a significant backlog in submitted DYKes, so I believe the DYKes should be refreshed as often as possible, which means every 6 hours. Currently, only one admin at a time takes care of that, and the admins that are interested in doing these tasks live in Canada and Australia, which means that they cannot possibly update DYK every 6 hours if they want to maintain a reasonable sleeping schedule :D

    So the result is that only two DYK updates per day take place, and the one that would fall in the middle of the day European time is missing. Thus, European Wikipedians end up seeing the same DYKes all day and the queue is building up! I was wondering whether other admins might be interested in updating DYKes, especially those from the European/African time zone. Moreover, perhaps the DYK queue size and the "time since last update" (with a notice that it is time to update the template) could appear in this fabulous backlog box as seen in this page?

    One last thing - what's with Wikipedia:Recent additions? The link on the main page in the DYK section (or more specifically, the link in the DYK template) leads there, but of recent DYKes are being archived in T:DYKT - so somebody who clicks the link to the abovementioned page sees neither recent additions nor a DYK archive.

    Sorry for bothering you, but I guess since this is on the main page, it is a fairly important issue. Regards, Bravada, talk - 15:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    General

    Ahrarara is Panairjdde

    User:Panairjdde has returned now in the form of User:Ahrarara. He or she is stalking every single article from my contribs list right now and deleting AD anywhere and everywhere. Please stop or warn him or her. Thanks. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He was blocked again, thanks, but note that he is currently wreaking havoc yet again with an edit warring anon, User:151.44.81.169, on the very same articles stalked from my July contribs, multiple 3RRs here ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Loath I am to do it, I have blocked the entire 151.44. range for an hour -- which affects not only the editor formerly known as Panairjdde (TEFKAP) but some 65,000-odd other people. However, he has been stalking or edit-warring not only with Codex Sinaiticus, but at leat 2 other editors. I'm gambling on the fact that the users of an Italian ISP aren't interested in editting an English Wikipedia, & as long as no one complains, we can repeat this until TEFKAP gives up. (He has also used the 151.47. range -- but let's wait until we see what kind of trouble I've caused before blocking that one also.) I won't protest if another Admin reverts the block. -- llywrch 23:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Very funny

    Very funny ok, you've had your laughs--AOL account 14:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jim Shapiro

    Jim Shapiro All debate now consolidated at WP:DRV, these discussion sin the linked document at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 31/Shapiro

    User:68.99.19.167

    User:68.99.19.167

    He's been blocked for a week (second block), but I think an indefinite block may be required; he's vandalized hundreds of articles relating to religion, often in fairly subtle ways (PoV inserts and content deletions and modifications, removing images, etc.), and I've only managed to revert a quarter of his edits so far. (Going down the list, I managed to revert everything [sometimes with difficulty, due to later edits] down to 03:21, 29 July 2006, although that still leaves scores and scores of edits which someone will need to revert. --Emufarmers(T/C) 03:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    we don't indef block IPs unless they're open proxies. Sasquatch t|c 17:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    New summary bot - detecting backlogs / requests

    I have recently created a bot-based summary to follow up on the RFA summary and AFD summary. This new function, which I have dubbed the Category Tracker, monitors a selection of administrative and editing related categories and identifies when they have an unusually high number of items in them compared to their long-term means, and hence are in need of some attention. The full tracking page covers a couple dozen different categories and gives statistics on their fluctuations. In addition, I also created a summary table (transcluded here) to give easy access to the most important or most backlogged categories.

    There is also a configuration page which can be used to adjust which categories are monitored, where they are displayed, and how often they are updated.

    I hope this proves useful. Dragons flight 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Keen! Good work. -- Infrogmation 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is lovely! Thanks. -- Natalya 20:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice work, now admins can now prioritize their tasks better.--Andeh 21:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Awesome work! --mboverload@ 00:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't appear to be counting many of the very large image speedy cats.--Peta 00:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It is a very nice summary, but the number of articles needing wikification is incorrect. There are 6,776 (sorted) articles in the category currently, but they are split up into subcategories by the month they were tagged, so only the ones that have not been sorted (123 at the moment) show up on the summary. Once the bot comes around, the 123 articles will be put in the August category. -- Kjkolb 09:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Obviously this is wonderful work... and therefor please do alot more. :]
    People have noted various issues above, but it would also be nice if this could incorporate AIV, RFI, RFAr, RFCU, all of the 'cleanup' categories, et cetera. What would really be nice would be some method of putting the data onto individual transcludable pages... so a person who wanted to keep an eye on just TfD, PER, and RFAr could transclude those three stats onto their user page... a possibly beneficial form of 'userbox' showing the topic, current backlog number, and color (red/yellow/green). Likewise a page could then be set up showing the status of all 'admin only' tasks. And if it could make toast too that'd be really grand. :]
    Seriously, excellent work and very useful as it is. --CBD 11:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I really like it, and have it on my talk page. Maybe it should be at the top of AN like RfA summary is at BN? Yanksox 11:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fantastic work, sincere thanks to Dragons flight for this great tool. I also think CBD's idea above about individual transcludable pages is excellent (not to mention the toast). If that could be done without too much effort well, brilliant. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Very nice. -- Миборовский 17:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Brilliant!!! I've been using it for the past 4 days. Well done Dragons flight! -- Samir धर्म 10:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    On the brokenness of AfD

    I know it's been said before, but AfD really does seem to be a remarkably bad way of dealing with controversial articles. I think it generally works fairly well in most cases but when we get a subject that attracts major controversy it seems to go off the rails. A case in point is the current AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (the third on this article!) which seems to be attracting POV-pushers from all over, from both sides. Some of the comments strongly suggest that vote-stacking by e-mail is going on. Many of the votes are plainly being driven by partisan POVs on the article, totally ignoring the notability criteria in favour of their own opinions on the subject matter. I've seen the same happen with other recent controversial AfDs, such as Turkish Kurdistan.

    I really do wonder if we should seek to restrict voting on controversial AfDs to administrators, who should be more likely to act on the basis of Wikipedia policies and criteria rather than voting as a proxy for blatant POV-pushing. If there's an unusually large number of votes on an article, as indicated by Dragons flight's useful AFD summary - perhaps a threshold of 40 or so - it's a good indicator that the subject is particularly controversial, particularly likely to attract partisan voters and particularly susceptible to being decided on POV rather than encyclopedic grounds. Perhaps when this threshold is reached it might be a good idea to impose cloture and initiate a vote among admins rather than prolong the agony on AfD? What do you guys think? -- ChrisO 17:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Giving admins more editorial authority is probably not the way to go; not only would it be immensely unpopular, but it also wouldn't necessarily be helpful -- admins can have idiosyncratic ideas about policy, too. We need to encourage closing admins to discount these "votes" that do not take our policies into account. Jkelly 17:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. What the analysis reveals is not a flaw in the AfD process, but a flaw in the application of policies, particularly it would seem WP:NPOV, though I am sure a closer inspection would reveal WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR to be equally ill attended. More rigorous standards need to be expected and imposed on what is permissable as argument. As often, it is the discarding of policies — which have been stated as non-negotiable — that results in brokenness. Tyrenius 17:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, on this particular occasion, the initial nomination appears to have been a clear violation of WP:DEL by a user who was recently blocked for abusing AfD. See my comments at WP:AN/I#Abuse of AfD?. Getting back to the topic, though, I'm sure you're right that it would be controversial to give admins more editorial authority. Jkelly is certainly right that even admins can have idiosyncratic views on policy (I note that at least one admin has given a blatantly POV reason for voting in the AfD I mentioned). However, wouldn't it be even more controversial for a closing admin to decide - by himself - which votes were valid and which weren't? Perhaps a middle way would be for a group or panel of admins to determine which votes were for valid policy reasons and which weren't. I agree that we need to enforce permissible arguments but we would need to ensure that a single admin's interpretation of policy wouldn't dictate the outcome. -- ChrisO 17:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It shouldn't be controversial to discount "votes" that do not take into account policy, but that doesn't mean it cannot be in particular instances. It may well be a good idea to encourage AfD closing admins to engage in some extra discussion about controversial cases. Jkelly 18:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Extra discussions from the closing admin would tie up our closing admins (there are precious few as it is as closing AfDs gets you hell from both sides) in needless, long, neverending pointless discussions.

    What we need to do is accept that our admins need greater discretion. That admins can close AfDs against the apparent consensus without being flayed alive for it. And that would mean close in either direction, and it would mean that we would need a rule about "not biting the closing admin" or the like. And, yes, it would mean that we would have to give a greater degree of latitude to admins like Tony Sidaway (no offence, Tony, you're just a convenient example :o), happy to close a debate with a caustic comment on how poor the quality of the debate was. Of course, in giving that discretion to our admins, we make it so that such caustic comments aren't required.

    But the face-off that currently exists between rampant inclusionists and rampant deletionists means that we would never get consensus on giving admins that latitude. And we would remain fair game for the parade of personal attacks, droning-on comments and public pillorying that even otherwise sensible editors subject a closing admin to for... closing something. Even when we close within consensus. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think deletion review already does give discretion to admins - at least, I've not noticed many recent overturnings of what I considered to be correct deletions (or keeps) as a result of considering the arguments and not just the numbers. I think we should be looking to ourselves as admins to show more boldness in closing discussions. Getting overturned at deletion review is not something to be worried about, as if you do get overturned the article gets undeleted or relisted and no harm is done. The only way to do harm via closing discussions is in not learning from overturns and repeatedly getting overturned for the same reason - and people who can't learn from mistakes often don't pass RfA. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, for this particular article, it was questionable behavior by several admins that forced the issue to arbitration. If the original dispute hadn't involved admins, a few short blocks would have resolved the issue. Because admins were involved, that wouldn't work, and the heavy machinery of Wikipedia arbitration had to be invoked. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid for the whole sad story. --John Nagle 19:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    CAT:CSD

    We could really use more administrators monitoring the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion queue. Thanks. theProject 20:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Actually, we could really use less users adding non-speedy or almost-but-not-quite speedies to the queue. I for one would like a nice "CSD-Ax: Pure Advertisement" criterion, as it seems that 90% of potential nominators think it already exists. And I'd also like the "DB-No reason given: see WP:CSD for a list of reasons" template to die, now, painfully. If people don't know the reason they want the article speedy deleted, then why are they asking me to guess for them? ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If 90% of potential nominators think it already exists, then it does; it just hasn't been written down yet. Tom Harrison Talk 02:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, there are plenty of cases where an article may not exactly fit one of the criteria, but is still clearly eligible for speedy deletion. Granted this template should be used sparingly, and only when the reason for deletion is overly obvious, but I think it is useful. --Hetar 19:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Giving no reasons is useless - it's saying "I think this should be deleted but I expect someone else to work it out why for me". People can give multiple reasons, of course - but remember that, if they have to argue for an article to be speedy deleted, then it isn't a speedy delete. And, if they nominate an article for deletion when it clear doesn't fit a criteria, they are asking the deleting admin to take on the risk. The admin has to justify the decision to the angry user. Tagging for PROD or AfD or clean-up and telling the user is harder work, but at least doing that doesn't just pass the responsibility down the line. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you do NP patrol, and I do. You quickly realise how much crap comes in. An increasing amount of it is spamverts - or bios of the 'he's a CEO of a two-bit company' . (This will increase with the growing fame of wikipedia). If everything that that doesn't technically meet the CSD was sent to prod (which the spamvertsier just unprods) or afd, we'd be overwhelmed. Sooner or later, we'll have to accept admin 'shoot on sight' policies, or further limit article creation. --Doc 20:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do NP patrol daily - and I'm also often the admin who sits alone for hours of each day clearing CAT:CSD. So, I agree with you: let's let admins shoot on sight. But, of course, the rules as they stand don't allow it. You must shoot-on-sight-and-answer-the-hate-mail.
    Breaking the CSD criteria helps nobody. Editors get used to speedying articles without giving reasons (making admins do the hard work). Admins get used to deleting what they like and then get brought up short when they make a mistake. What we need are better and more comprehensive CSD, not a license to delete-what-we-like-so-long-as-no-one-complains-too-loud.
    That latter option - which is what exists at the moment to a degree - confuses users and editors (and other admins) and muddies the water. Plus, we're busy not having a "CSD-A10: Spam" criterion because 90% of users think we already have it. Yet it is clearly listed at WP:CSD as a reason for not speedy deleting.
    No, I'm sorry, Doc - I respect you as an editor and I respect your experience... but I think your views on this are counterproductive, shall we say, when we could be channeling energy in to making CSD better rather than stomping all over it. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I modified {{db-reason}} to look like this [1], but Hetar reverted. I think putting a stronger request for reasons is a very good step in the right direction. An admin can still choose to act even without a reason, but the tagging users should be strongly encouraged to have one. Dragons flight 21:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hetar, you need to think beyond your use of this template. I'm sure you do use this template sparingly. The problem is, it is being used hundreds of times a day by other people, who are scattering all over articlespace so that admins cannot tell if it is being used abusively, cluelessly, or ignorantly. You have the space in db-reason to make an argument for deletion if you need to (but I repeat again - if you need to make an argument for deletion, then it ain't a speedy). I'm going to revert to Dragon's version and I'd rather you built on that than just reverted again. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleted pages to be merged

    Some redirects were recently deleted that had histories that weren't merged into the (former) targets. In order to fix this, should I post to Wikipedia:Deletion review or Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves? Ardric47 18:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone? Ardric47 21:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Report on lengthy litigation

    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun was just closed. Briefly

    • Minun is banned 12 months
    • Minun is not allowed to use accounts for block circunventing
    • Minun is placed on personal attack and revert parole, and probation.

    -- Drini 02:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've applied the 1 year block. --pgk(talk) 11:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Requests for investigation

    Wikipedia:Requests for investigation

    The area for reporting complex vandalism appears underused, undermanned, and looks like reports there could just as easily be left at WP:ANI. How would it sound to remove the complex vandalism reporting area and simply refer people to ANI for complex vandalism? Cowman109Talk 03:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    AN/I is way too cluttered as is now, since people forget it's a noticeboard and use it as a discussionboard. Splitting good. -- Drini 05:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well unless I'm mistaken, an administrator hasn't responded to the complex vandalism reports area in a month... Cowman109Talk 05:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I did raise this here a while back, and no-one replied. Basically I think RFI serves a useful purpose and is worth keeping, but only if more admins pay attention to it. I helped set up RFI in its current form, and since then I've been the only admin to do a significant amount of dealing with reports to it for long periods of time (I've been completely away for last two weeks and on semi-wikibreak before that, hence the lack of action on that page for the last month). It would really help if more admins could watchlist RFI and deal with reports there; I'd be happy to assist anyone if they need help with that (ask me on my talk page, or the RFI talk page). On the other hand if admins continue to ignore reports on that page there isn't much point having it (I certainly can't keep up with it on my own all the time). Petros471 10:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Undo move

    In order to conform with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Academic titles, I moved Dr. Robert Young to Robert Young (naturopath). Would it be possible for an admin to undo that move, so I could tag Dr. Robert Young with {{db-repost}}? (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Robert Young)? Thanks! -Medtopic 06:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Criterion G4 allows speedy deletion of already deleted content no matter where it is in wikipedia. I've therefore added a speedy deletion tag to Robert Young (naturopath) explaining the situation. Graham talk 11:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't forget to tag the redirect as well. Geogre 17:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please, please, please help...

    (Just to clarify, this is me)

    Okay, this is going to be very long and complicated; not only that, but I am typing this without the internet and will have to copy and paste add links and such later. So please forgive and fragmentation you might see and bear with me: The problem is with this page. The page is, simply put, a vote that will show the general thoughts on letting anons edit. I, as an anons advocate, hover around the page and try and keep it fair. I do not own the page, but the person who made it has not been editing often, and I haven’t been able to ask permission of them to keep the peace. My opinion is that Wikipedia would not exist were it not for the anons. User:Hildanknight’s opinion is that you should be required to register. He follows the page even more than I, which is saying something. He has gone to the point of commenting on almost every single vote to allow anon editing, sometimes adding ‘no comment’ when he can’t think of anything to say. Needless to say, I was upset. So I tried to handle it nicely. I left a comment [2] on his talk page that simply said anons are Wikipedians to. It was at this point he decided to retire, then un-retire. For months I kept going back to that page, checking to see if he’d reply, but he did not. It was only after my internet connection had been cut and restored that I discoverd he had replied, needlessly harsh, I might add[3]. I added my reply [4], then waited. I was surprised to find that instead of reply on his talk page, as he normally does, he edited my userpage, stating that it was time to register, and I would soon know why he hated anons[5]. I then added a new message on his talk page [6], saying that I would stand for anons no matter what the cause. I then came up with an idea, inspired by his comment-I would keep track of the IP’s I had to use on AOL. Growing excited with the thought, I [7] told him of it. Yes, it was mean. I was angry. He reverted it. [8], calling me an 'annonomous vandal'.Now, the reason he doesn’t like IPs is that Singapore, as a whole, has one single IP address. I can see the problem, but that’s no reason to abuse me. After my idea popped up on his talk page, my userpage suddenly was vandalized [9] by the Singapore IP. Coincidence? I don’t think so.The edit was reverted [10] by Mr. Lefty. I thanked him, and moments later discovered that my talk page had been vandalized-again, by the Singapore IP. [11]I knew it was him. There is no question about it. Angry, I left him a message. [12]. Yes, I used a bad edit summary, but I was (and am) really peeved. He, of course, reverted me. [13], calling me a troll. As if that wasn't enough, he contacted an admin, and had him block me! [14] And then decided he wanted his talk page protected to I couldn't protest! [15] He told the admin that blocked me he deserved a barnstar, and requested my good IP be blocked! I have 2,500 constructive edits on that IP! Oh, was I mad. Before his page got protected, I blew up. [16]. The admin who was considering semi-protected promptly reverted and protected the page. [17]. So he thanked the admin and again requested my good IP be blocked. [18]. And to top it all off, one of his pals came along and told him I'm a moron and he should ignore me. [19]

    That was confusing, was it not? Now, am I in the right in assuming that his page should not be protected and he should recieve a warning for his behavior? I'm not saying what I did was great, heck, I insulted him. But he got off free. I got blocked. Can somebody help here? --172.191.63.212 07:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    To tell the truth, I really could care less anymore. 69.145.123.171 Hello! Sunday, August 13, 2006, 08:33 (UTC)

    Conrad Devonshire

    Conrad Devonshire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    My former username was "Conrad Devonshire", but I have since changed it to Edmonde Dantes. This user may have created this account to imposter me, though as I officially retired last night, I'm not sure whether or not this name is acceptable. Even if it technically is, I recommend that this user create a new account because its block log shows the blocks I received as "Conrad Devonshire".--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 13:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, could an administrator please protect User:Edmonde Dantes?--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 13:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can confirm that Conrad changed his name to Edmonde Dantes via WP:CHU (although I haven't looked up the diff). The current account should be blocked as an imposter. Thatcher131 (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    CopyrightedFreeUse template abuse

    {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}

    I was cleaning out the {{nosource}} category and noticed that many of its images are tagged with the abovementioned. I suspect that there may be actually a further widespread abuse of the tag out there, is this potential problem being mass-worked on? - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 17:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    When I come across the images in the Random Image search, i'll help clean some out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a very problematic set of images. Many images so tagged have been done on the assumption that something published somewhere is automatically free for any use. It is difficult to "mass work on"; the mechanism for deleting sourced ones if there is uncertainty is either Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images or Wikipedia:Copyright problems. A more efficient approach if one wants to do a a few hundred at a time is to simply remove the template from any image that doesn't give such a license at the source, and tag the image with {{nld}}. If one does that, however, many of the images will wind up with a spurious fair use template on them. Jkelly 17:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I also encountered a bunch of images with the norightsreserved tag. (and were definitely not free images) A fair use template at least is more realistic concerning those images. Garion96 (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The template, if I understand correctly, was to avoid the possible legal issue that it may be impossible for someone to release something to public domain, even if they wanted to. Thus, its to signify that it is not in the public domain, but close. With that said, copyright tag(any copyright tag) abuse is massive. {{GFDL-self}} and {{PD-self}} are abused like crazy (they don't have to provide a source then if they claim to have made it themselves). If you look at WP:PUI, you'll see whole groups of images people have put up because a person uploaded two dozen images from a website and tagged them all as PD-self or something. With that said, please make sure you visit WP:PUI occasionally to delete the images that have sat there for 14 days and are clearly bad. Kevin_b_er 04:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Willy on Wheels again, persistent vandal?

    A user, User:B&W Anime Fan appears to be an intractable vandal, having vandalized userpages [20] (I have since reverted his perverted edits) and other pages before. Recently, however, he seems to have favored (or is) the style of the longtime vandal Willy on Wheels, adding this image(a trademark of Willy on Wheels) to his own talk page, and leaving messages such as Eeeeeeeeeeeeverybody shake your body do the Wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilly. He hasn't yet begun leaving these messages on pages other than my userpage yet, and does currently have a 24-hour block currently applied to him, but I think this case merits some investigation. I'd really appreciate it if some administrators could help me out. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 19:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

    Probably yet another copycat. I'd just keep an eye on him. Deco 19:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's getting worse. As of this edit, he stated: POW! I just punched kungming in the face. (My username, of course is Kungming2) - this is getting really serious and I'm afraid B&W Anime Fan will continue to relentlessly vandalize my userpages after his 24-hour block expires. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 19:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Panic not. He is claiming to be WoW. That means, when his block expires and if he vandalises again, he will simply be blocked forever immediately. Ignore him, go back to productive editing and be happy to know that he has blown through all the WP:AGF and chances he will get. If he attacks you again without provocation, he'll be gone. But let's let him jump off that cliff, rather than pushing him off it. There's a nicer, warmer, justicy-feel when they do that. Happy editing! ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much, Deco, Redvers - administrator Goldom blocked him indefinitely for the various reasons, and esp. for further posting nonsense on his talk page. That's what I find so great about Wikipedia - it's such a supportive community! –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 20:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick

    Heads up, the case was just closed. Basically

    with other provisions in case of reincidences. Check Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick for the details. -- Drini 22:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Cyde indef blocked Nathanrdotcom

    This is a discussion which has been archived. Please do not post anything more to it. Best, Mackensen (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Odd Glitch at Portal:Current events

    I'm not sure if any admins know what's responsible for this, but there is a strange glitch that has begun to occur on the Portal:Current events/July 2006 and Portal:Current events/August 2006 pages. As you can see, as long as the glitch is there, beginning at the July 10 and August 10 sections, the edit, watch, and history links have become corrupted, thereby corrupting the entire page. I know this didn't occur last month and so I'm curious if any changes have been made that could have caused this. Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The page making this line is:Portal:Current events/DateHeader2, perhaps a syntax error. This should not require a sysop to fix. — xaosflux Talk 01:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's it. That page hasn't been updated in over a month (and, for what it's worth, I was the one who created it). Also, the August 10 section looks perfectly fine at Portal:Current events and at Portal:Current events/2006 August 10. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    When I changed the header to only have the edit link [21] it fixed the page, I've reverted it back, but that does seems to point to the potential problem. There may also be an unmatched </div>. — xaosflux Talk 02:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the help (although I'm quite certain it's a glitch). Perhaps just leaving the edit link would suffice for now. -- tariqabjotu 13:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed; it's out of admin's hands. The bug has been reported elsewhere too and it looks like they're on their way to fixing it. -- tariqabjotu 13:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I probably need to be blocked, as I'm about to violate WP:3RR and not care

    I am currently engaging in a sort of undesirable "edit war" that I don't intend to be any sort of war, except the 3RR rule should have kicked in long ago, and nothing is happening in response to the 3RR report. Another editor systematically deletes all the content I add, with no explanation, or covertly in combination with another edit. The material has been deleted six times so far - the first four deletes in a matter of a few hours.

    I left a report at the 3RR noticeboard two days ago, and it has been unacknowledged. I guess the 3RR rule is either arbitrary, or doesn't matter, or no one cares. I don't believe I have a WP:POINT to make, other than that the WP:3RR rule doesn't mean squat if it's impossible to get it enforced. In the meantime I'm going to keep on reverting (though I expect I'll do so slowly, as all the reverting is such a waste a time) and I will probably deserve a 3RR block as well. Someone, please let me know when the 3RR rule will continue to be enforced, so I will know when to stop breaking it. Thanks Reswobslc 03:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is nothing more than a rant. You don't provide any information about the conflict itself or where it is. --mboverload@ 03:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is Temple (Mormonism)--66.143.167.203 03:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is indeed a rant. It's probably a silly one at that, and definitely a hasty one, because I normally take the time to provide good links. The contributor I'm complaining about is seemly also doing good article edits elsewhere, and a block is now belated and possibly counterproductive. I needed to get some frustration out, and this was a non-destructive way to do it. All the information about "where the conflict is" is on the 3RR notice board (diff after diff and then I stopped posting additional diffs since nobody's listening anyway... section here. I haven't been blocked for 3RR either yet, so I guess I shouldn't complain. Reswobslc 04:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You yourself say "The contributor I'm complaining about is seemly also doing good article edits elsewhere"; so maybe just maybe it is not that no one cares but that those who care believe you are both good wikipedians who will wise up without outside help to better uses of your time than reverting each other. WAS 4.250 20:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are edit warring because you feel emotional about the subject, the best thing is to leave the article for a while and work on something else. Remember: Wikipedia needs you and there are many other articles to be started! (You could also try the random article button and improve whatever article comes first). Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 21:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unreferenced articles

    I was hoping to get more comments about what to do about articles with the template {{unreferenced}}, since the category that it put articles into, Category:Articles lacking sources, has been deleted. This makes it very difficult to work on fixing unreferenced articles, since the only way to see which articles have the template is to click on "what links here". People tend to work on topics that they are interested or have knowledge in. Using what links here makes that difficult, especially since there are now 16,650 articles (1.28% of all articles) with the template. I suggest that the template put articles in a category again and that a project be started to work on articles without references. Failing that, I suggest that the template be removed from any article it is on by a robot, since without a category and an organized project, there is unlikely to be any significant work done on fixing unreferenced articles, let alone keeping the number of articles it is on from getting higher. Please give your opinion here. Thanks, Kjkolb 06:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That seems an odd deletion indeed, since the Whatlinkshere feature doesn't allow alphabetical browsing of the category. This should probably go to DRV. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus for deletion was not clear since in the CfD discussion there were equally good arguments for keeping the category. I just started the DRV process on this. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 14. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please look at my revert job on Horseshoes

    I happened to notice a couple of nonsense vandalism edits of the Horseshoes article. Being bold, I decided to try to revert it myself. Could someone please check to make sure I did it correctly. I added the {{subst:test-n|PageName}} template to the two users' Talk pages, User_talk:Cucci04 and User_talk:Mapleleafedge. Was there anything else I should have done? Thanks. JanesDaddy 21:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Everything looks good. You can do it yourself by comparing your version and the version you attempted to revert to by selecting the two version and clicking the "Compare selected versions" button on the history page. -- Natalya 23:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Possible problem with User:MarshBot

    See diff].

    Haven't looked into its contribs to see if this happened elsewhere, but I can't block it anyway (I'm not an admin). --SB_Johnny | talk 00:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I found a couple more like that in just the first page of contributions, so I've blocked it and left User:W.marsh a note. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks! --SB_Johnny | talk 01:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be taken care of now, and I've manually fixed all the edits (I think). I got stuck behind an autoblock or I'd have responded here sooner... --W.marsh 01:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "Vandal army" wiki

    Regarding this: editthis.info/the_alternative_universe, linked from the user page of User:VandalKiller666: is this a Wikipedia vandal recruiting site set up by the "Bobby Boulders" vandal? It might be worthwhile contacting the whois contact for editthis.info, who appears to be Rob Kohr of http://www.robkohr.com/

    Note: Searching for "ISV vandalism" finds the following: http://www.solvalou.com/messages_view.php?mid=1118, User_talk:Bobby_the_Godbuilder, User_talk:Gorgeous_George, and http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilisateur:207.200.116.6 : see here for the diff. Unsurprisingly, the editor who made that edit came from an AOL proxy. -- The Anome 00:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    editthis.info is registered to Robert Kohr. Yanksox 01:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "editthis.info/the_alternative_universe" added to spam blacklist. Naconkantari 02:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Gnetwerker removing archives

    Gnetwerker (talk · contribs) has moved his talk page to a subpage, thereby removing links to his archives. In doing so he is concealing previous discussions about ArbCom rulings involving him and warnings against personal attacks and revealing other users' personal information. I have a previous history with this user and do not want to get in another blow up, so would someone else be able to take a look at this? Paul Cyr 02:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not quite sure I understand. User_talk:Gnetwerker/hist seems to just be a list to his archives. Is this information not archived, or am I missing something? Cowman109Talk 04:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, the page you linked to does not exist. Nevermind, it was speedied then undeleted. In anycase, that page is not linked to anywhere on the main talk page. Without knowing the specific page name (or looking through the main talk page history) there is no way to find that page. Paul Cyr 01:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Profanity and Offensive Remarks by Teknosoul02

    In response to a factual statement: "Rutgers is a virtually unknown school to people living in California, and probably has a similar reputation to UCR - this is consistent with the similar peer assessment score"

    Teknosoul wrote: Lisren dips*it, you don't know what you're talking about. DON'T YOU EVER INSULT MY ALMA MATER. THIS HAS GONE TOO FAR, A$$HOLE. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUniversity_of_California%2C_Riverside&diff=69715747&oldid=69715486

    ..."you don't know what the f*ck you are talking about" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUniversity_of_California%2C_Riverside&diff=69716249&oldid=69715862

    ..."And i don't give a s*it if you think Rutgers sucks b/c it's ranking is "low" in the US News Rankings"...and he goes n to insult US News and World Report as "fradulent" because his alma mater was not ranked high. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUniversity_of_California%2C_Riverside&diff=69720613&oldid=69716758

    I personally found his remarks very offensive. While Teknosoul02 has repeatedly made uncivil and inappropriate comments in the past, I think he has gone too far this time. Thank you for your attention. UCRGrad 03:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I found UCRGrad's statement to be remarkably offensive as it does nothing but disparage my alma mater. However, in the interest of civility, I have deleted those remarks. I said those out of complete anger and emotion. I was completely out of control and I apologize for using such profane statements. However, I also ask UCRGrad to apologize for insulting Rutgers. I worked hard to get a good education there and he has no right to denigrate a school that helped me to achieve my goals in life. Thank you. Teknosoul02 03:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the first time Teknosoul02 has violated WP policies and insulted and disparaged his editor peers. His remarks were obscene beyond what I believe can be repaired with a mere apology, especially one that is conditional (that I apologize for making a true statement). UCRGrad 03:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You KNOW you did not make a true statement. All you did was make swipes towards Rutgers, that's all you did. However, b/c I admit that my temper got the better of me, I have deleted those offensive remarks (to the best of my knowledge). Teknosoul02 03:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've given warnings to both of these people on their talk pages. Hopefully, they'll now stop it. On initial viewing, neither has been completely "clean". Apologies on both sides would go a long way towards improving my patience, but at the very least I'd like to see this behaviour discontinue. Metamagician3000 03:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Metmagician3000, if you don't mind me asking, what exactly have I done that you object to? I've re-read the talk page and I could not find any profanity or obscenities on my part. thanks UCRGrad 05:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll reply on your talk page. However, the main thing is that the "discussion" between the two of you has stopped for now. I have no wish to have it continue here. Metamagician3000 08:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard vs. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

    Is there a good reason to have both Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. They both seem to have the same types of notices. Nobody really seems to be able to figure out which one to use. --John Nagle 03:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ideally AN would be used for (relatively infrequent) messages we really truly wanted "all" (for some value of "all") admins to see, and AN/I would be for the kind of stuff that currently appears there (and here): active crises or issues in need of attention. The only thing that would actually make that happen would be for someone to aggressively start moving messages around, probably. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    AN generally is quieter (most of the time). Thatcher131 (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I figured AN was for things you wanted to notify admins of, like when I blocked an IP for 24 months. ANI is for people to notify admins of *that need action*, rather than simply "this is a heads up". --Golbez 04:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think that's how it works. -- Drini 17:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard is for threads like these. ~ PseudoSudo 04:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Linkspam

    All of Jedistud's edits consist of adding links to www.achieve360points.com to Xbox game articles. I've cleaned up the August 5 ones that weren't already done, but there is a whole slew of August 15 ones. Any auto-reverting admin make sure to check for ones that have had edits since (I've seen links left behind, in that situation).--Drat (Talk) 11:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    2nd Bundesliga article

    Can an administrator deal with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Fußball-Bundesliga 2006/07? It's been up a few days now and it's really annoying seeing the notice on the main page. Kingjeff 16:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    By "main page" do you mean Main Page? Because looking at Special:Whatlinkshere it doesn't seem to be linked from there. It certainly could be speedy closed without contest as it's a 'technical nomination' and no-one is arguing for deletion, I'm just wondering what the reason is. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, I've closed it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I was talking about the main article page. Kingjeff 17:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin Barnstar

    Moved to Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals

    —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-15 21:41Z

    A Barnstar!
    The da Vinci Barnstar
    {{{1}}}



    The da Vinci Barnstar may be awarded to anyone who has enhanced Wikipedia through their technical work (programming and tools, bot building, admin or sysop work, link repair, Mediawiki developers, etc.)

    Beligerant User Blanking his talk page

    I have tried to help by setting an archive page up for him per a passing comment he made on an article talk page but anything typed on his talk page is removed. I left a message on WP:OWN and that blanking a talk page is generally frowned on unless you are archiving it. I stopped short of the the 3 Revert rule and decided to come here instead to have this sorted out. I didn't care for the message...STOP EDITING MY PAGE YOU SOCIALIST NAZI PIGS!!!! when I was trying to help...or add the section about vandalism. Talk page is located here. User talk:Dwain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bschott (talk • contribs)

    WP:EGG

    What do you think?--EggplantWP:EGG 18:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Incorrect APA Citation

    On the citation page for articles, the APA format is incorrect. There should be no period after the URL. The period is only there for non electronic sources, so as to not confuse the period as part of the URL. 69.87.155.91 23:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the information, but for further reference, you should only post messages here that require administrative intervention. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Turns out it does, according to SoccerCore11. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is the message left on my talk page:
    I sent this in as a bug, but I was told right away that it was not a bug, rather I should talk to an admin about getting it fixed. robchur@gmail.com forwarded me the link to the admin board, where I reposted it. If you would like to see the bug post, check http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7024
    I guess this is a bug that needs administrative attention. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Rob accidentally put MediaWiki:Cite-text rather than MediaWiki:Cite_text on the bugzilla page, of which the latter is the actual pagename. I put an {{editprotected}} request on that talk page too.. Kevin_b_er 04:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspicious user

    Quill E. Coyote (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) signed up 5 days ago and has made 20 edits so far but is already quoting WP policy, participating in RfAs and AfDs and using wikipedia lingo like "wikify". Seems very suspicious to me. Could have been an anon user who just signed up after a while editing under an IP but I am not sure. ViridaeTalk 04:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has made a couple of comments (and an Oppose vote) on my RfA, apparently connecting me to some conspiracy with User:Isopropyl to violate the 3RR (as though I can monitor all edits at once). The user's edits to the Slashdot article and fishy quoting of policy have me concerned. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a small chance this is just an experienced anon who finally decided to login? Anyway, I wish the toolserver was replicating enwiki, so someone could run a query to show which users have edited most of the same pages. --Interiot 04:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Experienced, yes, but not in a very positive way. Consider what the user was doing to the Slashdot article. He/she was repeatedly removing something referring to the reason behind the site's name, saying that the only source for that information was the site itself, so it failed WP:OR and WP:RS. Considering that the creators of the website are probably the best and only authority on the website's name, it sounds like complete rubbish. Add in the strange reasoning behind his opposition in my RfA (I am applying for administrator and therefore I must know and deal with everything that's happening on the Wikipedia at all times), and you have pretty good reason for suspicion. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'm not bitter about the oppose; my e-esteem is doing just fine. I just dislike this uncivil conduct and apparent attempts at provocation. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reminds me of an editor that was blocked around the time this user started editing. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-16 06:17Z

    Sigh, Quill E. Coyote is now repeatedly unstriking a Support vote in my RfA that was added by a banned user (sockpuppet). This banned user seems to have used said support vote in order to illicit my help in a dispute they were having. Coyote also added a test template to my userpage because of my restriking of that support vote. Can someone external please deal with this person? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked Quill E. Coyote for 24 hours for a personal attack for the time being. Tyrenius 20:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin needed for speedy keep

    Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of basic management topics --Nexus Seven 07:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    In actuality, I think that article can be speedy deleted. I'm tempted to do it. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though I don't fully agree with the speedy keep guideline (especially the first point), it does serve to illustrate some cases where a speedy keep is appropriate. I don't think this AfD necessarily qualifies for a speedy keep. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: User IP 61.68.101.25

    I am a member of the RCP who has been reverting edits by this IP. They have vandalised 2 articles, Laminate and Trachea, adding some extremely rude & offensive stuff to the pages, please see the edit history on Laminate for an example. I have skipped the test templates, since this user is obviously blatantly vandalising, not testing, and have gone straight to the {{blatantvandal}} template on the user's talk page. Could the admins please keep an eye on this one, since its on my watchlist, but I am not always on. Thanks Thor Malmjursson 10:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional info: - Please add the ip 220.239.93.166 to this as well, they are vandalising same articles as the previous IP. Thor Malmjursson 10:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the kind of stuff that you would want to post on WP:AIV, I'm keeping an eye on these users, though. You can always skip test1 and dip to test2 or test3 if it's severe. I'm looking through their vandalism, and it's pretty average stuff (stupid vandalism). I'm going to warn them and block if they continue. Yanksox 11:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SOCK violation?

    User:Dwain has been actively editing from 2 accounts: User:Dwain [22] & User:Pitchka [23]. User:Pitchka redirects to User:Dwain and you can see his reasoning for using 2 accounts here, but I don't think his reason meets the definition for acceptable use of 2 accounts under WP:SOCK. I didn't take this to SOCK reporting because the user is not engaging in any abusive use of these 2 counts, but it should probably be suggested to him that he pick one account and edit from that one, while the other is locked. He could use the userpage of whichever account is active to link back to the history of the other account if he wants "credit" for his earlier work. I'd suggest this to him myself, but as can be seen from the AfD link above (as well as the message left here earlier by User:Bschott, it is reasonable to assume that my suggestion would not be welcomed coming from me...--Isotope23 13:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SOCK has indeed been recently changed (I think mainly from a blacklist of disallowed uses to a whitelist of allowed uses). (Also, I personally disagree with the change on the basis that listing all the legit uses is impossible.) Dwain doesn't say any reason why he is still editing from his old account, though, I'd keep suggesting he use one account. —AySz88\^-^ 14:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "pitchka" is an offensive term for "vagina" in Slavic languages. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-16 17:06Z

    Eteled

    The very first edit of Eteled (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was to nominate an AFD discussion page for deletion. Further edits have included vandalizing userboxes, nominating Te Atairangikaahu for deletion the day that she died, and random vandalism. There does not appear to be a single useful edit in the contributions history. The username is, of course, "delete" spelled backwards. I suspect that this account was created to make a point of some kind, rather than to make any actual contributions to the encyclopaedia. Uncle G 15:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    AFD templates

    There's been discussion on the AFD talk page about reducing the size of closed discussions on the daily log page by removing the discussion section and just leaving a summary of the result. The suggestion met with a fairly negative reaction due to the fact that it was seen as more work for the admins in an already tedious process. I've had a play around with the template and think I've got a solution that would mostly involve less work while achieving the desired effect. I wondered if any regular AFD closers would take a look and give their opinion on these possible replacements to the AFD top and bottom templates. The discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#voodoo. Cheers, Yomanganitalk 16:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet

    This arbitration case is closed. The full decision is at the link above.

    For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 16:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I might be dense... (UFO Article)

    There is a dispute going on over at Talk:UFO about a proposed move. I'm beginning to think the move request was in bad faith. Could someone review whats going on and tell me if A. I'm right or B. I'm an idiot.?

    The user basically wants to move UFO to Alien Spacecraft because they believe the UFO article only deals with Alien Spacecraft. The fact that Aliens are not even mentioned for the first quarter of the page hasn't deterred this user one bit. :( ---J.S (t|c) 22:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There are 6 votes for "delete" Vs. nil. There's nothing to worry about. Don't forget to assume good faith. Good luck. -- Szvest 22:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;[reply]
    Ugg... looks like he slapped the rewrite tag on the page and is demanding all mentions of aliens be removed from the page. ---J.S (t|c) 23:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppet vandal

    Brandnewuser (talk · contribs) is making changes to signatures on an enormous number of talk pages: [for example]. Apparently a puppet of "wonderfool", whom I am not familiar with. --SB_Johnny | talk 23:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    See User talk:Brandnewuser#Editing sigs?. Thanks for bringing that to light, whatever it is. Luna Santin 00:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, lemme know if you figure out whatever it is :) (I didn't want to ask on the talk, as it looks like a wikistalker, and I don't need one of those). --SB_Johnny | talk 01:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall

    We need more eyes and comments at Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Transwiki problems...

    Wasn't sure where to ask this, so I asked it here. I won't go into the whole thing again, but I need admin help to get the contrib histories from a few now-deleted articles so I can copy it over to wikibooks. SB_Johnny | talk 02:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Benzmit - false picture info

    This user has added dozens of pictures with seemingly false licence/copyright info - he seems to claim that all is his work when it clearly isn't - is there some bot or suchlike that can sweep and delete his multiple entries - I ahve removed some manually but it takes ages Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 07:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, Closed AFDs

    I misread the section on non-administrators closing AFD discussions and marked a few discussions as closed with a "DELETE" result, I see now that non-admins are only supposed to do that for "KEEP" or "RENAME" outcomes, sorry about that. I'll avoid doing it in the future. RainbowCrane 07:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No problem. I've reviewed the delete-closed AfDs and have deleted the relevant articles. Please continue to help with the obvious keeps; we appreciate it. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 07:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Notability of guitars

    Admins with more knowledge and time than I have at the moment may be interested to have a look at ESP Guitars and go through the list of guitar models in the article. Most of the articles linked (50+) are one-line substubs with an infobox. My guess is that most of those should be outright deleted, but if there are some truly notable models then these could be merged in a single article. Regards -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    question about new media wiki block software

    Is it possible to block account creation from an AOL range, but still allow IP edits? Everytime an AOL creates a stupid name just to bait a username block, it winds up creating collateral damage for AOL IPs, rather than the other way around. can this be avoided?--152.163.100.200 16:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Erm I'm not sure how you get from that question about some "un-official policy", to it being a point about not having to unblock autoblocks. Autoblocks serve a useful purpose, since unfortunately there are a few idiots in this world who seek merely to make an annoyance of themselves. --pgk(talk) 21:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a similar, yet 100% unrelated note, is the autoblock feature, now used in dozens of templates, such as {{Userblocked}}, capable of handling this many frequent hits without using up server resources? I notice that it's been lagging a lot lately, probably from severe over use--172.129.113.165 23:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The lagging is due to the hundreds of thousands of people acessing the site right now. No particular page should be hit worse than that others to my knowledge with the current implementation. Sasquatch t|c 03:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well according to the stats I have it is barely in the top 50 of page hits on the toolserver for August and has transferred around 25mb of data, that's pretty trivial. I can't imagine that the page is that popular as if only has an appeal to a narrow audience when compared to something like the edit counter. Regarding lag, it isn't (and by the looks currently never will be) totally up to date, it should generally be within 5 minutes. --pgk(talk) 06:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Immortal Black Metal band.

    Someone has decided to temper and include certain facts and Jokes about the band on thier page, calling them satanist, ect.

    I imagine you mean Immortal (band)? Yes, that spoof photo that makes them look like constipated badgers is really a terrible joke. I'm shocked, shocked. Middenface 18:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I reverted today's edit saying that the drummer would be replaced by a goat. If there's anything else that isn't true, feel free to remove it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Creator of a speedy delete canadate removed tag

    User:Funsand, created a page with the same name as his username. Another wikipedian added a speedy delete template and he removed it when told not to. "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself.". I readded it, and he deleted it agian. -- Selmo 19:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Friday whacked it already. :) Syrthiss 19:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Avoid personal remarks, eh? Oooooh, nevermind *blush* Friday (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You did that and still had time to delete the page? Syrthiss 19:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Multiple user accounts

    I came across these when doing CFD: Acacix (talk · contribs) and Acaciz (talk · contribs)

    They have virtually identical userpages. Looking at the contribs, it seems that one account was only used in March. Any ideas on what to do with them? --Kbdank71 20:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    They haven't done anything wrong - they appear to simply be harmless sockpuppets. Unless the user is using the sockpuppet abusively, there's no real reason to do anything. They seem to have been inactive for a few months anyway. Cowman109Talk 20:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I figured as much, just wanted to make sure. Thanks. --Kbdank71 21:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Public Tendering

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Public_Tendering Request for deletion review. The tally does not appear to be a consensus. Votes changed and the majority seems to be a tie if the comments are read carefully. A merger was also suggested as a way of avoiding censorship of interesting and important information.--Wiki The Humble Woo 23:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not to be one of those admins who says snarky things, but WP:DRV is that a way. Syrthiss 23:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Renaming of RfD

    Redirects for Deletion has recently been renamed Redirects for Discussion, apparently in keeping with the same change being made to CfD. Unfortunately, that doesn't make sense. Since category moves and renames are nominated on CfD the broader "Discussion" is appropriate. This is not the case with RfD. Anything aside from a deletion can and should be discussed on the redirect's talk page and/or enacted by a suitably bold editor. RfD only concerns whether or not a redirect should be deleted, regardless of what happens to the redirect afterwards. This new name could potentially gum up RfD with fuzzy redirect "discussions" that belong on talk pages. I have brought this up on the RfD talk page, the Village Pump, and the talk page of the admin who made the change, and have heard no reason it should stay. Seeking an admin to change it back. --Nscheffey(T/C) 01:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Double jeopardy? (Note: as of now the issues below are resolved)

    Despite his having been blocked yesterday relative to a report filed against me Deuterium (talk · contribs) has again filed the same twice reviewed report with hopes that an inexperienced administrator will block me. Would someone take action against this editor's bad faith demonstrations? Thanks. (→Netscott) 01:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been resolved. (→Netscott) 03:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bliss ninny

    Can somebody help me? I deleted this article as nonsense, but then I found out that only the last edit was vandalistic nonsense. I undeleted all of the previous versions, but the article says there is no history. What did I do wrong? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah. Never mind, it was a cache issue. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zmanm407

    I'm concerned about Zmanm407 (talk · contribs). A quick look at his talk page, I think, makes it clear the cause of my worry. Despite several editors attempting to talk to him about his image use, he seems to have made only minor corrections to his modus operandi and OrphanBot continues to notify him about images he's uploaded. He also has not written one word to another editor that I can tell, be it on his talk page, our talk pages, or article/image talk pages. Not even a single edit summary, as far as I can see.

    It's not that I want to see him blocked or anything. It'd just be nice if he acknowledged the presence of other editors beyond token attempts to modify his behavior, and started actually following procedure for fair-use images (that is, providing a fair use rationale so OrphanBot stops bugging him).

    Any ideas how we can get through to him? Powers T 13:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Email? ForestH2 t/c

    Zeq banned from Wikipedia for one week

    Motion to ban Zeq for a week for creating an attack article regarding User:Homeontherange (article has been deleted) diff will be available to Arbitration Committee members. Fred Bauder 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Enacted (6-0) at 13:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

    For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 13:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Clock Crew

    Copyvio - to history or not to history

    I have now read in one place that we leave copyvio history in place unless the copyright holder requests that we remove it, and in another place that I should delete the article and restore the non-copyvio history. Which is correct? --Aguerriero (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The latter. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    confirmed copyvios should always be removed. Although I guess an article with 5000 revisions... makes not easy to remove it ;) -- Drini 21:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack

    On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stockholm#Stockholm_is_not_the_biggest_in_Nordic and on my talk page with fake accusing.

    This (User:Magore) seems to have a very immature way to discuss on. The user has also fake accused me, on my talk page. --Comanche cph 22:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Since I seem to engage in personal attacks, I would like to add a couple of comments, along with a few questions. First of all, I have not called this user a 14-year old. I pointed out that discussing things with him is a bit like arguing with a 14-year old, since he refuses to accept that we build Wikipedia on a foundation of facts, and not personal views, opinions or assumptions. (Arguments presented by me and other editors, along with undisputable facts was obviously not good enough, as they conflicted with this users view on things.) I also asked this user to refrain from editing certain pages if he couldn't bring himself to understand or accept why we don't put opinions before facts. (That is what all this is about, essentially.) Now, I have a couple of questions. What fake accusations are we talking about here? What fake charges or accusations have I brought up? /M.O (u) (t) 22:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be a really silly argument. If your that mad Magore, you can take it to arbitration but really it seems as though Magore has a point. No, he doesn't have a very immature way to talk on and I agree with Magore; if you haven't settled a dispute you need to stop editing the pages. Both of you, I should say. Let other editors take care of it. I'm going to post this on both of your talkpages. ForestH2 t/c 03:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Coordinated Vandalism at Rutgers University

    A series of editors have been targetting the alma mater section of the Rutgers University article (now protected), violating the three revert rule, altering information that is cited with information that is uncited and unverifiable, and interrupting wikipedia to make a point (albeit a feminist/political correctness agenda). The edit history at Rutgers University shows that the page has altered the official, cited lyrics of the alma mater, to those inserting words that are not official, as shown by citation, and practically every other site on the web discussing the lyrics of the alma mater... and while not vulgar, these parenthetical insertions are annoying and disingenuously perpetuating an inaccuracy.

    The following individual users have been warned repeatedly of their conduct and have continued over the past few days in this conduct with blatant disregard for warnings or referring them to Wikipedia policies governing their conduct. Blocking their accounts from editing, along with their IPs, may be the only recourse to prevent such defiant insubordination.

    I further suspect that these individual user accounts may be a coordinated sockpuppet effort, and request a CheckUser to be conducted on their accounts. ExplorerCDT 23:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You'll need to file the request for checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. There are instructions on how to do it on that page. -- Vary | Talk 00:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am moving this to RFCU.Voice-of-All 00:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    200.121.200.200

    User 200.121.200.200 has been removing tags and thereby in essence vandalizing the following 2 pages: Wrestling Spirit, Extreme Warfare. In doing so, they've also violated 3RR. For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/200.121.200.200 . Please take appropriate action. Thank you.JB196 02:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You've both violated 3RR, and good. It'd be nice if you two could stop the reverting, and come to some sort of agreement, please. Otherwise, you both may be blocked. Also, don't call edits made in good faith vandalism, because they're not. Let's just be nice, mmkay? --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 03:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandals gaming blocks

    An important warning about a vandal getting his IP unblocked to continue creating abusive accounts. Accounts User:Scareslamfist and User:Sakura Avalon both have no actual contributions, and both were repeatedly able to get an IP unblocked that created dozens of vandalizing and bad-username accounts. Sometimes these accounts would even vandalize or attack the "nice" accounts, perhaps in an attempt to make it look legit. The vandal accounts would be blocked, then either of these two accounts would post an {{unblock}} request saying they were the victim of collateral damage from an IP autoblock. An admin would come along and unblock them, and the cycle would continue; the IP would invariably be autoblocked again for creating vandal accounts and a couple hours later, sometimes even minutes, they would post another unblock request; again they would be unblocked, etc. These are just the couple accounts that I know about.

    This happened several times for each; unblocking administrators seriously need to look more carefully at such unblock requests. These user's "contributions" were just User talk edits, mostly to their own pages, and one even had some screed about being a reformed vandal. There is no reason to remove an autoblock when the user that purports to be adversely affected is not going to do anything related to the encyclopedia anyway. This should not be happening. —Centrx→talk • 04:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=70531869"