Wiki How:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive131

The UPN Vandal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be back (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 that I've blocked so far). Most are in the 172.x.x.x range, and add large amounts of questionable, uncited text to articles (usually film/television articles). I've been blocking on sight for a year, is that an appropriate amount of time? · AndonicO ^Hail! 12:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it would seem to me that if he's going through that big a range (mostly 172.128.0.0-172.191.255.255), then the IP addresses are highly dynamic - and shouldn't be blocked for any significant length of time. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Does one month sound okay? · AndonicO ^Hail! 14:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If there is clearly several edits from any given IP at one time, I would block for a few hours, more than that would be unlikely to do any good. If there is no such pattern, it's unclear that any block will stop him - a range block is out of the question. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The major range is 172.128.0.0/10 and the range belongs to American Online. Blocking that range will block most of AOL. These are likely dial-up dynamic IPs and any single IP block more than a few hours is pointless. He just logs out, reconnects and continues as if nothing has happened. If people could report and block immediately we could limit the damage but he is still getting the full 4 warnings before the blocks. I block on sight without bothering with any pointless warnings - I wish others would too. I have been going over some of the targets and there is a lot of uncaught and un-reversed corruption. I have also semi-protected some of the most common targets. I propose we block the range for anon only, account creation allowed for about a month. I don't want to do that myself for this large a range without consensus. --NrDg 18:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Another thought, reporting this abuse to AOL might result in his AOL account being blocked but I doubt AOL would do anything. Also kind of pointless as he will just create another AOL account and continue. He also uses AT&T and UUNET. I think all we can realistically do is block immediately and rollback everything before the damage gets hidden by subsequent edits.--NrDg 18:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

After vandalizing Wikipedia pages and my userpage, User talk:99.235.43.93 is on his third block, this time for a week. Despite being warned about removing notices from talk pages, he continues to do so, and he also adds strange notices to his talk page like "Starbucks has bad coffee". Now he is resorting to personal attacks on his talk page, and after denying that he did any vandalism, now is saying that I deserved it when he vandalized my userpage. Because of the complex edits he makes to templates, it is obvious that he is actually an experienced user. Maybe we can file for Checkuser? Another IP address, User talk:24.36.9.241, which is also been associated with vandalism on the same pages at the same time, is now also making personal attacks on User talk:99.235.43.93. The IP address User talk:24.36.9.241 is most likely a friend that User talk:99.235.43.93 recruited to help him out with the vandalism, and make the personal attakcs. Please extend block for both users and protect talk pages. Thank you. (If you have to respond to me for anything, please do so on my talk page. Thanks!) DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 19:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The quickest way of getting vandals blocked is WP:AIV, so you should use that option in the future. I checked the logs, and 99.235.43.93 is blocked for a week and 24.36.9.241 is not blocked. The only reason I can see why there is no block on the latter is that the ip provider is highly dynamic (so it says on the ip talkpage), and the one edit made today was 15+ hours before your comments above, the ip is likely re-assigned so a block would possibly effect someone who isn't a vandal (or, at least, not the one who did that edit.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

They're marked as dynamic, but both seem to have been used exclusively by single users since 29 Feb or so, at least. Converted the block on 99.235.43.93 (talk · contribs) to a hard block on that basis (and the mention of experience). 24.36.9.241 (talk · contribs) is apparently a factor in the situation, but hasn't done much, so I'm more inclined to wait and see on that count. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

24.36.9.241 (talk · contribs) was reported [1] to AIV today, however I declined to block [2] because while this edit was perhaps incivil, at 16 hours old, it was way to stale for an AIV report. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much this has been sent around, but posting here to make sure admins are aware...a recent change to the API (last one in the list) now allows the contributions of an entire IP range to be checked, which should be useful in estimating the collateral damage of a range block. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Can this be done via special:contributions? —Random832 19:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe so. It's meant to use the API method of looking up user contribs, but using ucuserprefix in place of the old ucuser. You can set the number of contribs to list (always lists from most recent) by adding &uclimit=<number>. I assume that might not make any sense (I had to play with it to figure it out), but here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=usercontribs&uclimit=500&ucuserprefix=71.87 that lists the last 500 contributions from the entire 71.87.0.0/16 range. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Splarka has written a pretty interesting user script related to this: User:Splarka/contribsrange.js. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The listing here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive130#MfD_Backlog was never resolved, there remain discussions from the 16th and 17th of last month that need closing.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on it. нмŵוτнτ 20:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The MfD backlog has been cleared. нмŵוτнτ 21:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks!--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to steal Doug's thunder, but we've also got a backlog going back to the 17th over at WP:RM if anyone can help out. Thanks. :) JPG-GR (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This one really ought to be on the list [3]. Polly (Parrot) 21:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done, but I don't know whether to allow it on the userpage that links to it. I've added the article, but not the userpage —αlεx•mullεr 21:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – warned

User:Jakezing called me "fucking idiot" just because my edit gave him edit conflict notice. Here is his edit - [4]. I demand reaction. --Avala (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning re civility left for User:Jakezing. However, "demand" isn't a great word to use either. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. 'S what I get for taking too long typing. :p – Luna Santin (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. p.s. it might be my English but demand for me is just a bit stronger word for ask when I try to emphasize the importance of reaction. Thanks again. --Avala (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem there, I realised you didn't mean it like that, after all in French, "demander" is pretty much the same as "request", if I remember correctly. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in English a demand is more of an order to do something then a request. Prodego ^talk 00:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I intended to move U.S. Army and CIA interrogation manuals but moved the talk page instead. I can fix this using redirects. Or should the move be reversed first? Sorry for my mistake.Ultramarine (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it (after a lot of faffing around and moving it to the wrong title twice. Viridae^Talk 22:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! But I see no move button on the main article page? Ultramarine (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been move protected since July. Corvus cornix_talk 23:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Closed by Luna Santin —αlεx•mullεr 00:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The RFCN for User:Justjihad has been running for a long time now, far longer than the usual 5 days, and no comments are being added anymore. Could an admin versed in the username policy pop over and close the discussion? Is he back? (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Closed the discussion as defaulting to allow the username; discovered Doc had blocked the account in the meantime (see User talk:Doc glasgow#Well, this is awkward). Since my close was focusing on the username alone, and his reply makes it clear that he took behavior into account as well, that may not be a conflict. Noting it here in case there's any further feedback on that. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As you noted on the RFC, Luna, I think context is important here. I have no problem giving the benefit of the doubt to a quality editor in a borderline username case. In this case, the offense was relatively minor (and certainly explicable by a more level-headed user), but he insisted on being tendentious, immature, and insulting (this [5] lovely diff speaks volumes). At the risk of sounding cynical, I concur with Doc as to this editor's lack of potential. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 04:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Authority (talk · contribs) keeps making this edit to Rich Fields, which breaks links and is against the Manual of Style. I've reverted it a few times, and left a message on his talk page, but he hasn't replied to me, and indeed made the edit again after I left the message. What should I do about this? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've given a {{uw-mos2}} warning. There's not much else to do then to revert and ignore. — Edokter • Talk • 02:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi if you believe you were reported maliciously (as in you didnt break the rules, they know you didnt either but still report you) can you bring a claim against an editor? Realist2 (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a court of law and there's no such thing as a "claim" in the sense you used it (one can "claim" that an event occured, but not "bring a claim" in the sense of starting proceedings with the intent to be awarded damages [wikidollars? ha!]). Have you tried discussing it with the person on their user talk page first? That is generally the first stept to resolving a dispute. See also WP:DR. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that we blank or delete the userpages for all indef blocked users? Some are trolls or whatever, and shouldn't be worth even a mention, but some are different. Some users have been around for years, and for one unfortunate reason or another, are unable to productively work with the rest of the community (for a lack of better words). These users often have a great deal of valuable contributions, and at one time where considered users in good standing. Blocking is not punishment, and blanking or deleting a userpage is not some way to embarrass or ridicule those who are blocked.

People seem to have confused the reasons behind blanking/deleting userpages, in that those reasons don't apply to every situation of an indef block. It's very unfortunate that whatever situation came to an indef block, but allowing that to taint that user's entire history on Wikipedia isn't right. We don't delete userpages for users that are no longer active, and that's how we should treat these users. Unless they're a troll or a vandal, or the content of the userpage is related to why they were blocked, leave it alone. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Simple vandals and trolls who only make half-dozen edits? Delete. Established contributors with decent, notable edits who unfortunately are indefinitely blocked should stay, especially when they relate to sockpuppetry, as that further documentation could be useful down the track. This is of course excepting rare circumstances where either right to vanish or real-life names are involved. Daniel (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too, Daniel summed it up well and....I agreed with Ned...(gosh I've gone all dizzy....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: Is there a specific incident we're referring to here? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, User:EliasAlucard. It was blanked and the indef template applied, Carcharoth removed the temp category, Tourskin posted a note to the userpage, Boodlesthecat removed it, Tourskin posted it again, IronDuke removed it... Ned restored the page, I blanked it again saying why I thought it was done, and Ned restored it, and Valtoras removed it again. Avruch ^T 14:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree mostly with Ned. As part of SSP it's mandatory to post the sock notice on the userpage (and these shouldn't be deleted). Only when userpages contain promotional material; contain only indef-block notices or otherwise vandal notices should they be deleted. Rudget. 14:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Any user or usertalk page with a non-trivial history should not be deleted. It's only really the throwaway vandal-only accounts and usernameblocks where it's appropriate. The pages can be blanked or replaced on occasions, but should not be deleted. I think we are talking here about replacing the page with a banned template? That is quite consistent with policy. The other way to deal with it is to subst the indefblock template to remove the temp category. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah we're talking about blanking. Carcharoth removed the temporary page category already, using some new magic word I think. Avruch ^T 14:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a magic word. I used "category=" which avoids all categories called by templates with the right coding unless you specify them manually. This template also has a "historical" parameter that can be used. Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) For the record: I'm the one who blanked User talk:EliasAlucard's talk page - it contained very offensive racial attacks, including in the unblock requests he had posted. I'd be all in favor of not deleting them (I'd rather that record was left alone), but I don't think the contents should be restored to plain view. — Coren ^(talk) 15:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno. Keeping the talk page up makes it quite clear why he's banned. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The history serves that purpose adequately (especially when combined with the block message), IMO. I don't see any reasons to leave the bile in plain view. *shrug*, I don't feel strongly about it either way, though. — Coren ^(talk) 20:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you could argue either way. Hiding it by blanking will pique the curiosity of some. I only scanned through the bottom half and it seemed more silly than anything else. Leaving it there highlights the problem and leaves no doubt to any who pass by why he was indefblocked. OTOH it may serve as some form of graffitti, so maybe that is a reason for blanking the invective...interesting. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The talk page blanking was fine, because of the racial remarks. My concern was more to do with the userpage itself, which didn't seem to have a similar issue. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• I re-blanked it until--and unless--there is consensus here to let the content stay up. Bellwether ^B_C 06:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see the point to leaving his user page up, and from what I've seen, it's standard to blank it, then leave a box indicating an indef ban. I see no reason to make an exception for this person, and I would ask that Ned Scott get a clear consensus before altering the page again. IronDuke 23:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no consensus to blank it in the first place, and this is nothing more than a content dispute at this point. Do we need to do a little history lesson here? This practice was for trolls and vandals, not users who at one time were editors in good standing, but unfortunately are no longer able to work with the community. To help clarify this I started this thread, which has other users agreeing with the logic. On the other hand we have users saying "we blank because that's what someone else did". That's not a very convincing argument to reblank. -- Ned Scott 18:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you know there was no consensus to blank it was not discussed when people decided a ban was appropriate? For the record I don't see the problem with the blanking why is this such a big issue? If you think this should not be blanked then get a consensus but edit warring is not the way to go. David D. (Talk) 18:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If it was not discussed then that is even more proof that there is no consensus. Asking that I find consensus to unblank is ass-backwards and totally not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. So far, in this discussion, the arguments to unblank are far stronger than the ones to blank, which consist entirely of "we did it for other users" rather than having any explanation. After 24 hours I will restore the userpage, per consensus, unless anyone beats me to it. -- Ned Scott 19:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. An edit was made to add the template and blank the user page. It is not unprecedented, so no big deal. You are now edit warring to revert that edit, which is a big deal. If you're so worried about it get a communitiy consensus that backs up your idea, but do not edit war with several other editors. This is exactly the wrong way to try and achieve your goal. David D. (Talk) 21:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverting users who don't have a valid rationale for blanking is rather logical. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

According to you they don't have a valid rationale. Personally, i see no reason for a banned indef-blocked user to have a trophy user page, what is the argument against blanking it? And how does a user get a tainted history by having a blanked user page as opposed to a prominent "Indef BannedBlocked" template? The blanked page seem to be the least of such a users problems. I have no problem with the talk page being left if you wish to do that. David D. (Talk) 06:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Indefblocked, not indefbanned. What is your opinion on such pages being deleted? Deletion seems to me to be an extra signal on top of everything else, saying "go away and never come back". Where is the option for reform and return given in this "delete" and "temporary pages" languge? The point about indefinite blocking as opposed to an actual formal banning process (and yes, I know about the "if no-one is prepared to unblock they are de facto banned" clause, but opinions change with time), is that it can be appealed at any time and lifted or reduced. In that case, those who had a history of good contributions, who do something wrong that earns an indefinite block, and who then apologise and/or reform, shouldn't have to go through an extra, unnecessary step of asking for their pages to be undeleted. Deletion of throwaway account pages should be routine. Deletion of the user pages of those who are part of the history of the project, shouldn't be routine. Carcharoth (talk) 07:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake, i mean indefblocked. I don't think the user page should be deleted, i don't think I ever mentioned it should be deleted. And the current edit war is not over whether it should be deleted. I think blanking the user page is acceptable, that is what Ned disagrees with and is reverting. David D. (Talk) 08:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The only rationale given so far is that "we did it for someone else". Userpages aren't trophies. The idea that they could be used as such comes from vandals and trolls, not from users who were formally editors in good standing. Your own assertions on this thread are a prime example of people losing sight of why we did something in the first place: it was for trolls and vandals, it wasn't for every situation. -- Ned Scott 07:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by editor in good standing. This user has been editing in a similar way for a long time. The only reason he was in good standing was because AGF was extended for a long time. This is an example of the last straw that finally breaks the camel's back. So technically he was in good standing, but he was rapidly building his history that led to the indefblock. This is not some sudden explosion of undesirable activity that led to community action. If that were the case I could understand your argument. David D. (Talk) 08:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The instructions on Template:Indefblockeduser do point people to a "historical" parameter that can be used, but I fear many admins don't bother to use this when putting the template on the pages of established contributors that get blocked. One way to address this is to make the "historical" option the default, and to make "delete" the option that has to be typed or pasted in. Carcharoth (talk) 12:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is so that long term trolls don't have trophy pages... I can think of one user who's username started with T that has a circus for a talk page after being blanked and was advertising it on his blog. That was eventually deleted, good. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so it would make sense to force people to think about whether user pages of indef blocked users should be deleted or not, and then add a "delete" parameter accordingly. It would be a simple change in the template coding, but the problem is actually drawing this to the attention of the people that use the indefblocked template. Carcharoth (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

While I'm also making an argument over blanking, in the very least I completely agree with Carcharoth's comments here regarding full deletion. -- Ned Scott 07:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Final email from school. This is sorted —αlεx•mullεr 15:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Darkbirds fom hungary. Check this IP, please: 208.20.123.28. He is wrote to huwiki:

Will kill everyone in my school then myself. Because you guys don't speak English I can tell you. So haha to you fucktarts..watch the news and see what happens. 208.20.123.28 (vita) 2008. március 5., 16:19 (CET) ([6],[7])

I see on enwiki this page: [8], the anon from Charles H. McCann Technical High School. Mybe just a joke, but many "school-massacres" in the news. Sorry for my very bad english. Darkbirds (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed the principal and assistant principal with a link to the post and an explanation of what's apparently going on. I'll let everyone know if they reply. Alternatively, if somebody wants to do something more direct like phoning, they're more than welcome [9] —αlεx•mullεr 16:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

They've replied to my email, so they're aware of the situation. We're in touch —αlεx•mullεr 18:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Great! What did he answer? Darkbirds (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He wanted to know whether there was any way to track who posted the message from in their school, and I told him to probably get in touch with their IT or computing department or technicians. And since there's been nothing in the news, I assume it was all fine —αlεx•mullεr 23:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Patmar15 keeps constantly screwing around with the Template:Destroy All Humans! and I keep telling him not to or I'll report him but he ignores me and keeps meesing with the template. He also used rude language on my talk page and followed me to the Destroy All Humans! Big Willy Unleashed page and undid one of my edits. He either needs to be blocked or something. --Naruto134 00:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You told him in what I possibly consider the rudest way possible, telling him he has no right to "screw" with the template. So he wants to reorganize it by when the DAH games take place (1950s, 1970s)? Link him to WP:WAF and tell him that we organize by real-world content, that is by order of games, instead of telling him to screw off. [10] And blanking his message [11] and ending the conversation is actually a very good way to facilitate communication in ensuring that his feelings are hurt even more and that he feels like he's being even more ignored. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of it, but

Dunnijc (talk & contribs) made this edit (diff to The Chaser's War on Everything.

I noted his talk page with a nonsense message (history).

Then a few minutes later from Paul Brennan (talk & contribs) made a message (diff) on my talk page saying I put a message in the wrong place.

User Paul brennan has not made an edit in 9 months and other than that time has not made an edit in 1 year and a half.

I'm not sure where to put this notice either, so any future reference would be nice too. It may also be a minor problem and if so, I'm sorry.  SpecialWindler talk  10:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My gut instinct is this is a coincidence, the users have very different styles. Much more likely is that Paul Brennan didn't log in, and got a message you left for another user at a dynamic IP, possibly a message you left a long time ago, then logged in before leaving a message for you. That's happened to me before a couple of times. A short message on his page explaining this, and saying you didn't intend any warnings for him should be all that's needed. --barneca (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou.  SpecialWindler talk  11:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a request that the IP ranges found here User:David Shankbone/76.72 be blocked. The first IP range has been engaged in libel on Wikipedia against me, and I supply the diffs that show that. Additionally, they continue to edit-war, disrupt and troll the project as it deals with me and my work. Since this has been going on for a few weeks, and since the activity is illegal, I'm asking for a project-wide ban on the first IP range. The second IP range is an accomplice (they at times edit simultaneously) who engages in edit-warring, but not the crime of libel as the first IP range has. The things they are writing are illegal, I will be filing an abuse report with Bell Atlantic, and I have already contacted an attorney to look into criminal prosecution for smearing my reputation, the evidence of which is more than provided on User:David Shankbone/76.72. We will first see what Bell Atlantic can do in terms of providing help in finding out who is behind the libel. --David Shankbone 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And the evidence, IP ranges, etc. I supplied are by no means exhaustive. --David Shankbone 22:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you possibly in violation of WP:NLT here? *Dan T.* (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. I will let other editors decide after looking at the evidence, but regardless it's time to say enough. --David Shankbone 22:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

David - relax, lay off the legalisms, and the admins handle it.

Checkuser shows that range is pretty active, so blocking the whole /16 block is probably not a good idea. When I have more time later tonight, I'll do the back of the envelope calculations to find the minimum CIDR to block. Raul654 (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I will heed your advice. --David Shankbone 22:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime the campaign continues, see diff. . .R. Baley (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How is a content disagreement over image inclusion an illegal smear? *Dan T.* (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh the content disagreement is just one tiny related matter. . .there's the smears + the content removal. Two prongs on the same fork. R. Baley (talk) 00:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The image removals aren't illegal smears; they are edit-wars against multiple editors, completely rejecting consensus. R. Baley is right - there are several prongs to this person's hate: First, illegal smears; Second, edit wars against consensus; Third, multi-forum disruption. I thought the evidence page fleshed that out clearly. --David Shankbone 01:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remove or strike the legal threats/rhetoric. Viridae^Talk 01:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Stating someone has done something illegal, calling a spade a spade, is not the same as threatening to take action against them, which is a legal threat. I have struck out the legal threat, but if you would like to play with the wording to hide what is clear then you are welcome to do so, but I feel I have already complied with policy. --David Shankbone 01:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Our policies on legal threats are designed to apply to interaction between good-faith users. In the past, the community has held discussion on potential legal action against banned vandals and trolls. See this discussion about Willy on Wheels (scroll down to where it says " Willy on Wheels legal action?"), and this discussion about The Communism Vandal which also discussed the potential of taking legal action. *** Crotalus *** 16:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The minimum CIDR to block all the currently listed IPs in the 76.72 is /17. Raul654 (talk) 16:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, a large block. But it may be that a brief exemplary block will suffice to show that we mean business and we can, should we choose, stop this festival of stupid. It is a large range to block to stop one abuser, but they are pretty determined. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think a brief block is a good first step, although I think Guy has been on the money in his observations. This person clearly shows some sort of obsession disorder that I think will prove any brief block futile, but I don't like the idea of blocking such a huge range for a long time. Does anyone know how they are tag-teaming with the other IP range? I have alerted Verizon/Bell Atlantic; I've always been curious how that system works. This would not be a big deal if we didn't have good-faith editors on the talk page questioning the legitimacy of this IP's harassment, which is what makes it defamatory. If nobody was listening and taking up the IP's arguments (say, by researching over-exposed, over-photoshopped PR shots of people to say 'Wow, they look nothing like these other photos'). --David Shankbone 18:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As I point out on my Talk page, the IP's obsession has been self-defeating, since when this IP started trolling in February he doubled the traffic to 800 hits a day on Lucas' article. So if the goal was to get people to not learn and think about Michael Lucas, they clearly have failed; if the goal is to say he has views that some people may find distasteful or even offensive, I don't think that comes as a surprise for anyone when they find out his career. --David Shankbone 18:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(trolling removed) Tony Fox (arf!) 23:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that the comment above was posted by the harasser in question. It's a shame if David's "retirement" was hastened by admins' technical inability to block this person.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit harsh. The anon is only one of many who have been in dispute with David, and David has in the past been somewhat abrasive in his dealings with people who don't like his pictures. Range blocking is never done lightly, and WP:RBI can be applied uncontroversially to this particular anon, so the contribution of one obsessive idiot is not IMO that much of a big deal in the overall scheme of things. David's certainly shown himself more than capable of holding his own before now. Guy (Help!) 08:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

More people should take breaks from wikipedia. It is emotionally healthy. When it is right for David to unretire, he will. Meanwhile, I'm sure we all wish him well. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The harassment continues, even after David's latest retirement. I'm going to request protection.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected his userpage. Woody (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We really do need some sort of rangeblock here, or this IP is quite obviously going to keep it up. Playing whack-a-mole is going to get tiring after a while. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the ANI thread that was discussing a ban on the IP vandal? I can't find it on the board or in the archives. The IP has been posting absurd claims such as this. Enough is enough. Let's choose a nickname for this person and file it under long term vandalism. Suggest Gay pornography vandal. Durova^Charge! 00:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to the thread here. I'm going to let someone else bring it back up (not sure if it should be a sub section here or brought back to ANI). R. Baley (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The ban discussion is unanimous, but nobody closed it before it got bot-archived. Would an uninvolved administrator please review R. Baley's link and make this formal? Durova^Charge! 01:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

User was already blocked, but I added a notice, and put 'em on the list. Considering that David Shankbone seems to believe I'm his sworn enemy, I think this troll got the most favorable review he could ask for. This behavior is simply intolerable. Cool Hand Luke 01:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Luke. R. Baley (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The IP came back and vandalized the section again a bit ago. While that specific address is now blocked for a bit... Is there any interest in blocking the ranges? Seen as too severe? Possibly acceptable? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Keep in mind, these are big ranges we're talking about, we don't do /16-ish blocks for giggles. If it's felt to be appropriate I'll do one, but I want input first. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Support a rangeblock if possible. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 12:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to measure how great non-vandal traffic has historically been within that range?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If s/he edits again, I would support a soft range block on anons only for about 2 hours. Maybe repeat as needed? No guarantee a /16 will work though. . .seems like when I ran the range calculator on the IPs used a few days ago, it came back with a /12. . . R. Baley (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I did a couple /20 range blocks that seemed to slow things down a bit. If it makes the banned user have to reboot the modem three or four times to find an unblocked range, it's probably worth it.71.127.224.0/2072.68.112.0/20 —Wknight94 (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It does appear to have worked, and with minimal collateral damage, thanks Wknight. R. Baley (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

See John McCain lobbyist controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Vicky Iseman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (latter at WP:DRV). The lobbyist controversy article is absolutely crammed with weasel phrases, half the headings are alleged this and alleged that, but I don't know enough about US politics at the moment to begin to pick it apart. As far as I can tell, the story itself is essentially a fabrication used to attack McCain, but that might be as unreliable as everything else printed about politics during an election campaign. Whatever, I'd encourage any admins with a solid understanding of policy (and firm resolve) to pass by these articles and work on them, because to me an an outsider in anytign to do with US politics the former looks like a hatchet job and the latter like a coatrack (and I'm a card-carrying liberal at that). Guy (Help!) 12:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLPUNDEL it. Will ^(talk) 12:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This story was reported in the New York Times, who have insisted that their (unnamed) sources are true. Whether this incident is notable or not is disputable, but it is definitely not just an attack piece. - Revolving Bugbear 12:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that redirect got changed - I mean, get rid of the article. It's violated BLP since day one. I've redirected for the same reason. We can't have allegations in an article. Will ^(talk) 12:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, WP:BLPUNDEL (which, it should probably be noted, at least in passing, is not infrequently misused as editors misunderstand the Bdj RfAr and, more significantly, BLP and the community's construction thereof [the ArbCom, after all, does not make policy, and its interpretations can be overruled when the community undertakes to construe policy in a contrary fashion]) provides that an article summarily deleted per BLP should not be restored in the absence of a consensus for restoration. Here, we had a discussion, and the community, having considered all relevant issues, determined the article to be consistent with BLP. The consensus of insular discussions—which are presumed, open as they are, to reflect the judgments of the community about policy—is not to be overturned except where that consensus is plainly contrary to policy (which reflects generally a consensus of the community writ large), and here there is no plain error, and we need go no further down the road of the substitution of the application of policy of some group of editors, acting as individuals and without reference to a centralized, consensus-basedd discussion, for the deliberative application of policy by the community. Joe 18:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Many Wikipedians may not be aware that the New York Times' own Public Editor or ombudsman, Clark Hoyt, has severely criticised the Executive Editor, Bill Keller, for running the story: "The newspaper found itself in the uncomfortable position of being the story as much as publishing the story in large part because, although it raised one of the most toxic subjects in politics - sex - it offered readers no proof that McCain and (Vicki) Iseman had a romance...The article was notable for what it did not say. It did not say what convinced the (McCain) advisers that there was a romance. It did not make clear what Mr McCain was admitting when he acknowledged behaving inappropriately - an affair or just an association with a lobbyist that could look bad."[12]. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nail in the coffin, much? Will ^(talk) 13:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

First, it's Clark Hoyt's job to criticise NYT editors. But second, I didn't say that the NYT article meant it was true, just that it meant it was more than a wiki-fabrication. - Revolving Bugbear 13:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Guy's point is that the Times may not be a reliable source in this instance. Mackensen (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, um, no, of course The Times is a reliable source. That its reporting in this issue has been criticized is not in question. But the fact is, The Times reported it, has not retracted it and continues to stand behind its reporting. The Times is not a trash tabloid - it is the very farthest thing from that, in fact. It's essentially the newspaper of record for the United States. FCYTravis (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually all that misses the point - whether or not the Times is right does not change the fact that this is a clear case of WP:BLP1E. But there is still a huge problem with weasellery and other such naughtiness. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP1E? I missed the part where that applies to a major political question surrounding an American presidential candidate and undisputed public figure. When BLP1E is being used to erase mention and discussion of a still-smoldering political controversy that has gained wide attention and will surely continue to be an issue into the general election campaign, it's being misused. We BLP1E articles on <insert random Interwebs meme here>, not on national political scandals. I forked this article out of the Vicki Iseman biography specifically to prevent her biography from becoming a coatrack article about the scandal/controversy/whatever. FCYTravis (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E is a good justification for redirecting Vicki Iseman, but it doesn't apply to John McCain lobbyist controversy. In fact, the latter kind of article is precisely what we're supposed to do. We are supposed to have an article on the event, so we don't have to pretend that our description of the event is actually a "biography" of one of the participants. Whether or not the scandal has any substance in the opinions of various commentators here or elsewhere, the fact remains that it was published in major newspapers that are considered reliable sources in almost every other context, and the reporting itself was further discussed in secondary sources. That's more than enough basis for a valid Wikipedia article on the controversy. *** Crotalus *** 00:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that. WP:BLP1E is a problem with the Iseman article, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:V (no sources other than one newspaper reporter) and WP:WEASEL are, I think, issues in the controversy article. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not one newspaper reporter, four (Jim Rutenberg, Marilyn W. Thompson, David D. Kirkpatrick, and Stephen Labaton), plus two other people credited for help, all of whom work for America's "newspaper of record", and whose story, according to reports, was heavily vetted and sat on for months. No disrespect, Guy, but weasel-wording cuts both ways, and your making it sound as if this is the work of one hack journalist with some implied axe to grind is not on. --Calton | Talk 14:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just how it looks to an outsider with no real interest in US politics. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the article yet, but the story itself is not limited to the New York Times. The Washington Post, Newsweek and many other major mainstream news outlets have confirmed part or all of the story. One of McCain's top lieutenants for many years, John Weaver, is publicly on the record confirming part of the story. I'll go take a look, but there is not a problem with reliable sources being available here. The key point is, the NYT never said they had an affair, just that staff was worried about it enough to tell her to stay away. The real core of the allegation is closeness to lobbyists. Msalt (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Neutralhomer, the user has repeatedly been creating sock puppets for block evasion. I think we should upgrade to a community ban. Jehochman ^Talk 15:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support.LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support for now. May change if evidence is presented the other way, which seems unlikely at this time. Rudget. 16:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 16:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Exit stage Left (or Right). --Hu12 (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - nothing controversial here. Hu12 put it quite fittingly.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• I am adding them to Wikipedia:List of banned users. Any administrator is welcome to remove them from the list and post a rationale here if they disagree. Jehochman ^Talk 17:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• User is banned, user evades ban, community washes hands of user. SOP. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• (First I should note that I have engaged Neutralhomer by e-mail in the past - I, however, intentionally do not disclose such information because, as I recall, I did not get permission from him to do so.) I would prefer that Neutralhomer not be banned. It is clear to me that he desires to help improve Wikipedia - unfortunately, it seems, inadvertent disruption follows. Has anyone considered first trying to contact Neutralhomer, then (if he wants to come back under one account and agrees to the following) (1) limiting him to one account and (2) doing a twinkle/popups/etc. ban? His and JPG-GR's interactions tend to be problematic, but I'm not certain if restrictions would be possible or productive, seeing as how they often work in the same areas of the encyclopedia. Perhaps we could think of something more creative than a ban? Thanks for your consideration, Iamunknown 20:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm all for assuming good faith and could've agreed with this after the first time he created a new account to evade a block. But, then he created another account to evade the block - and has a third one "waiting in the wings." JPG-GR (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Creating socks, and using them while blocked on the main account, is not "inadvertent disruption". Being blunt, having NH community banned also solves the JPG-GR interaction problem. Harsh position? Perhaps, but it is only NH's actions that have lead to it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I disagree with you on your last point - I don't think that only NH's actions have lead to it - and I don't think that a community ban is the only option. As long as Wikipedia is a relatively open project (with exception given to banned and blocked editors), I would prefer (in general) that we not ban editors who can constructively edit articles. That said, we seem to agree that there is a problem here (I just tend to mince my words). Hence my call for options more creative than a community ban. --Iamunknown 23:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
      • How about leaving the editor banned and then, if they have not engaged in further socking for a reasonable period of time, they can request to be unbanned. Jehochman ^Talk 23:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Um... the proposed community ban is in response to NH socking (persistently) while blocked - I don't see any cause other than the editors own actions in that matter. Okay, Jehochman's suggestion is the only alternative; banned - in being indef blocked while no sysop will unblock. Through the use of appeals and the provision of abiding by the communities sanction in not creating/operating of socks NH may be allowed to resume editing at some future date. I would support that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
        • We may be talking about different events. I am considering the ban of Neutralhomer in the context of NH's past history and interactions with other users (including some not named here). In my opinion, some of the previous blocks on his accounts were neither fair nor justified in terms of preventing disruption. A ban usually follows a series of blocks - if others held my same opinion (I don't necessarily expect them to), then the conclusion that a ban is (currently) unjustified might be reasonable. Hence my opinion that events and actions external to NH have lead to this ban - not just NH's actions. --Iamunknown 23:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I think I see what you're saying - you believe that the original reason for NH's month-long block is invalid. That can certainly be up for discussion, but his persistent use of socks instead of arguing for his unblock or taking a month off isn't. Whatever past infractions he's had, he's engaged in sockpuppetry actively twice (Flatsky, Tehunknown) with an additional account seemingly ready-to-go. JPG-GR (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Used up his chances. Sorry. ~ Riana ⁂ 23:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse community ban--reluctantly, but firmly. We had shared interests in TV history, and most of my interactions with him were positive. But the fact that he used a sleeper account TWICE after being blocked decided it for me. Blueboy96 22:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I also slapped a block on one of his former accounts, Orangemonster2k1 (talk · contribs), to prevent it from being used as a sleeper. Blueboy96 22:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I was directed to Wcfirm (talk · contribs) who has been relentlessly promoting his (her?) site for actor Channing Tatum. Wcfirm has made over 200 mainspace edits over the last year and almost all of them are to Channing Tatum. My first impulse was to get the blocks started but he is now claiming that his site is "official" despite being a blogspot.com site. Even if it is the actor's official site, the situation still seems very fishy. Warnings have been given over the last year - usually triggering long responses - but no blocks have been levied.

Opinions? I have not yet notified Wcfirm about this as I wanted to get some feedback first. There is a pending entry at WP:AN3 but nothing at WP:COIN. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I filed the WP:3RR report on this user after trying to get them to discuss their edits on one of the talk pages first. As you can tell from their talk page (and the Channing Tatum talk page), they feel that their site is "official" and as such, doesn't have to follow any wikipedia rules. They said their site is the only official source for information on the actor, and thus trumps wikipedia.

Maybe not a malicious vandal, but someone who is definitely edit warring and owning this article. Redrocket (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it looks like a one purpose account Special:Contributions/Wcfirm just set up to edit this article. This is not what Wikipedia is about. If the user has been explained and warned about this enough times, maybe it is time to block them from editing this article. They will still be able to edit other articles, and may learn to understand about Wikipedia. Igor Berger (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The violations of WIkipedia:Conflict of interest are blatant. But an admin who was so inclined could probably just block based on the the 3RR report. The 3RR is relevant to this discussion because Wcfirm is edit-warring to restore a clearly inappropriate promotional paragraph about this very web site. Note that the date of the 3RR warning in the report is not before the last revert, but there is a previous warning about 3RR dated 2 February still visible in the editor's User talk. EdJohnston (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him for one week. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 06:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with this. It is probably an SPA and is inserting material that is, at the very least, not NPOV. I am trying to explain to him on his talk page why this is wrong, but it may not be easy. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, nightwatch folks!  :) I've initiated WP:COIN#User:Wcfirm and Channing Tatum as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Wcfirm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Laquishe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

MaxSem, half an hour after you blocked Wcfirm, another single-purpose account (Laquishe) began editing. Is its purpose the same? — Athaenara ✉ 21:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wcfirm created Laquishe (talk · contribs) - sleeper sock. It's been indefblocked and Wcfirm's block has been doubled. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI I have reduced the protection on this page to semi-protection. It had been protected for three days. Can folks please make a special effort to keep an eye on this and don't hesitate to re-protect if needed. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. I exchanged emails with him last night, he's not having a good week, and it would be best if we could at least try not to let people make it any worse. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Woah. Let's watch the article for BLP vios and edit warring, BECAUSE THESE THINGS ARE BAD ON ANY BIO. And let those who know Jimmy sympathise with him. But let's try to avoid doing, or appearing to do, one because of the other. That simply feeds the trolls.--Doc^g 10:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, Doc, you'll know from past experience I hope that this is precisely what I aim to do with any WP:BLP. Shit happens, but Wikipedia is not here to make the most of it. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• • What Doc said. I could have made it clearer. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmmm. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have a disproportionate number of edits to the Wales article, and those on Sanger, Overstock and so on - according to Abercrombie, the only properly neutral way of describing Sanger is as co-founder, for example, and he reverts any attempt to restate it in more nuanced ways, and has been edit-warring over the same at the Wales article. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I note that one of his blocks was for edits to Rogers Cadenhead who - guess what? - spotted the heinous crime of Wales making a small edit to his biography. The more I look at Abercrombie's contribs the more I think he's here on an axe-grinding mission. Guy (Help!) 18:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree about Bramlet Abercrombie. I had a run in with him when I tried to change the wording somewhere — I forget which article it was on, but possibly Larry Sanger — to discussing their "role in founding" Wikipedia, rather than getting into the founder/co-founder issue. He was implacably opposed to any wording that was neutral between the positions, and reverted any change, so I had to give up. Judging from the intensity of his involvement in that particular issue over numerous articles, it does look as though there might be a personal aspect to it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made the most edits to the Larry Sanger article and have been blocked after editing the Larry Sanger article. I got blocked after NPOVing the article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy, if you have an issue with a long-standing user, it's good form to first talk to him directly before talking about him in a forum like this. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin vandalized the Larry Sanger article. http:https://www.how.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Larry_Sanger&diff=next&oldid=185966264

I discussed the vandalism edit on the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Larry_Sanger/Archive_2#Vandalism

I hope SlimVirgin will be more careful in the future and read the reliable references first. QuackGuru (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism is a very very strong word. The edit in question was not, by any stretch of the imagination, vandalism. At all. So I suggest you withdraw this unprovoked personal attack. Additionally, the good faith, good edit in question was on 22 January, so I'm at a loss as to why you would bring it up now. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 22:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

After speedily deleting the page Aidanbigballs, I looked at the history to welcome and/or warn the creator of the page, and saw that the creator was User:Aidanbigballs. I was prepared to block as an inappropriate username, but then saw that the user has been around and making edits (albeit mostly inappropriate ones) for over a year. Am I alone in finding the name inappropriate, or has this just never been spotted before? faithless (^speak) 10:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The only criteria at WP:UN this would fall under is "Offensive usernames make harmonious editing difficult or impossible.". I guess it depends on how much we consider "Big Balls" to be offensive. with <50 edits perhaps asking the account to consider abandoning this name and chosing another may be an initial approach? Pedro :  Chat  10:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering we're dealing with a 12-year old kid (see this diff), it could be a hell of a lot worse. I'm not offended in the least, but I'm not as sensitive as some. I say just leave it be unless the user is especially disruptive. Caknuck (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:UAA is the proper place for bringing user names to our attention, not this page. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are reported (in this case for allegedly breaching 3rr) if it hasnt been delt with, is their a time frame where by it becomes stale or invalid etc? Realist2 (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Created the above template. It's a bit like {{userlinks}}, but lists the links relevant to user rights.

Userrights are messy since there are two logs.

• Locally appointed rights like rollback and the giving over sysop, are in one log,
• Steward/meta appointed rights such as the giving of checkuser and removal of sysop, are in a completely different log.

Hence the normal (ie, local or crats) rights log may suggest someone has a right, that in fact they dont. Example:

• Jimbo Wales (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)
• Archtransit (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Can someone familiar with template-space figure where it needs to go, what categories or pages it needs adding to or linking, and where it would be useful in the wiki, if any?

Best,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't answer your question, but wow, I'm surprised this template wasn't created sooner. Good job. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 22:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Already on my user page. Ronnotel (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Created Template:Userrights/doc, added the appropriate cat and included it on Template:Signatures .--Hu12 (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Would another administrator be willing to take a look at User talk:Fiesta bowl? I've been trying to explain his block to him and he's just resorting to personal attacks. As I was to original blocking admin, I don't think it would be best if I took any further action. Thanks. Icestorm815 • Talk 22:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You have been exceedingly polite in accepting and responding to a user who has resorted to blatantly abusive personal attacks. I've protected the talk page. FCYTravis (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FCYTravis. Your commentary on the talkpage was civil and way more patient than I would've been. I recommend blocking indef, including the obvious socks. They (and I mean that in its plurality) are not here to build an encyclopedia, but in fact, to push their own point of view. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Not an admin, but totally agree with Travis/Keeper. Holy cow, we don't need users like that involved in the project. Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I say block indef too. Tiptoety ^talk 22:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. I also feel that an indef block is the sad, but necessary action. I'll place the notice on his talk page. Icestorm815 • Talk 22:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Admins! Can someone please merge the histories of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Homeschooling and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Homeschooling/Archive 1? I archived it by moving the page instead of copy & pasting it as I should have. They need to be merged so that the history of the talk page can be found all on the page it was posted on. (If you need to respond to me for anything, please leave me a message on my talk page.) Thanks, admins! DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 00:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't needed. Moving a page is a legitimate but uncommon method of archiving. It's been done at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, for example. If you really want the histories merged it can be done but there is no pressing need. Graham87 01:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, can you go ahead and merge them anyway? DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 01:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, done. Graham87 02:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that I have a message again regarding this user, but eventually a contact to the network provider will be needed. I'm not an expert of networks, but is Deutsche Telekom AG, which has address in the 87.160.0.0 - 87.186.159.255 and 79.192.0.0 - 79.244.191.255, like AOL, as that every user from this provider runs on a different IP address each time he logs in? However, it seems that the user is using uniquely the 79.211.xxx.xxx range which gives me the impression that he is using multiple computers Eventually we will have to contact the provider at [email protected] for a complaint. since the issue has been on-going since November 20. Note, I won't be responding any replies for most of the next three days as I will be away for the weekend. --JForget 03:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The AutoWikiBrowser "check" page says to leave a message here if "the list contains entries that are over 24 hours old," which it does...Could someone have a look at that, please?

Thanks! --Wikiscient (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Processing now. MBisanz ^talk 06:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Two users processed. Defering on Wikiscient (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email) for more experienced admin review. MBisanz ^talk 06:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi.
I don't mean to be too overly enthusiastic here (and I apologize if it seems like I am), but I have been on the AutoWikiBrowser Approval/Check Page for > 24 hours now:
any word yet on my status?
(And if the verdict is for some reason "negative" – any advice on what I need to do in order to make it "positive"...?)
Thanks!   —Wikiscient— 04:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I know, I tried to fix the backlog, but I just felt you were just on the edge of the mainspace number (502) and I noticed an edit warning (might've been old) on usertalk, so I'd prefer someone whose been an admin longer than a month take a look. Certainly should not be interpreted as a rejection to anyone looking into it. MBisanz ^talk 06:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but thank you for your prompt response anyway! And thanks, too, for taking the time to look into it and for having replied again just now.

(BTW, for the record: that "edit warning" was clearly a "false positive" -- I have left the relevant "diff" link up on my talk page in order to make sure that was clear. And anyway, I think the record should show that very few of my edits seem to get "reverted" quickly, justifiably, or for long).

But, okay, yes, sure, it's true: I'm a n00b!

(Nevertheless... well, I don't know. But: I am sincere, conscientious, neutral/balanced, etc., and very motivated to help out (in a general way/in various ways) right now. And: I do have >500 mainspace edits, which seemed to be the most important "prerequisite"...)

Thanks again, though, MBisanz – I'll look forward, then, to hearing from one or more of your "old-timer" colleagues! ;)

  —Wikiscient— 06:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

See Mack Dryden, an article I created tonight. I've coded the image correctly as thumb, to the right, at 150px but it's not showing. The only way it shows is if I code it as a frame (ie: Image:Name.png|frame|right|caption) or with no coding (ie: Image:Name.png). So apparently thumb isn't working right. Anyone know what's up? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I got your image to show up by setting it to 180px, which is the original size of the image. I've had this problem before, where I can't get an image to scale properly, but I have no idea what causes it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had seen the original 180px size works. I just didn't want to use it because it's too big. I've never had this problem before where an image didn't scale down by using a px size smaller than its original size, so it's right odd. Anyway, thanks for trying. :] - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 06:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If the image is yours, why not re-upload it at the size you want to present it at? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I just tried doing that at Commons, where I uploaded it and now it's not even showing at all. So I changed it to jpg and uploaded it and it's still not showing. I think there's some server issues going on somewhere.. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 06:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe try uploading it here, to see if that makes a difference? (Incidentally, I fooled around with it on a test page and had the same difficulty you did.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't so much administrative stuff as it is general scut work (though some amount of page deletion and undeletion will probably become necessary), but - I thought I would mention User:Random832/WantedCats here. There are a total of 26,684 to deal with, so it's going to be a while - whenever you feel like doing some mind-numbingly boring work, drop by —Random832 16:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to ask what I am sure is a really stupid question, but taking :

• Category:Wikipedian_cellists-2 (37 members)

as an example, since the category's been deleted, you want someone to help out by going and removing the category tag from the 37 members' pages, then deleting it off your list? _{The public face of GB}^T/C 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• • if someone compiles a list of deleted cats that need emptied I can have BCBot empty them, or if they need moved into a new category I can do that also. β^_command 17:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hold off on the instruments user categories for now, I asked on WT:UCFD and there's some reorganization taking place (and they're mostly populated by templates anyway). In general, for deleted ones it depends on the reason for the deletion - the problem is that the _vast_ majority of categories in the list have only one page in them, and were created by mistake or are part of some kind of structured system and need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis - the plus side, though, is that there being only one page means there's only one page to edit usually. I'll go through and figure out what needs to be done for the high-population categories though. —Random832 18:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• • It would be useful to run a spell-checker or capitalisation normaliser over the list to catch the ones that are mis-spellings or mis-capitalisations of existing categories. Can someone do that and confirm that they have done that (to avoid others doing the same thing). There should also be an easy way of detecting which ones are due to deleted categories as opposed to never-created categories. Someone should do that and confirm they have done that. And user categories could be separated out as well. Lots of ways to make this easier, but let's not all duplicate our efforts. Carcharoth (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If I'd thought to do it, I would have asked in the query - I'll see if I can't get it run again with more information (presence of deletion, last delete reason - name of page for single-member categories maybe - can you think of anything else?) —Random832 18:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• You should check the deletion log for each of these before creation. In the case of the instrument categories, I have restored many of them, as they were originally deleted as empty, so recreation is fine. For others, however, the category has been deleted at WP:UCFD and users simply re-added themselves to the category. These categories should not be re-created. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note that there are a few categories that should not be removed from the user pages either due to drama that has historically (or, in the case of Category:Rouge admins, recently) surrounded them. A lot of the categories are probably ones that have been renamed or merged and one or two pages didn't get fixed, though. —Random832 15:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 6#Encyclopedia Dramatica. Just for once the requester is not a troll! Let's be thankful for small mercies. Expect the usual puppet theatre, though. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In other news, England have won the World Cup and Family Guy is actually funny. Will ^(talk) 21:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And, according to Gurch, who I miss since he left, water is wet. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

{{fact}} Guy (Help!) 16:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

♫ And the liiife ♫ is just fine... ♫ Can we also DRV Peppers and GNAA and Brandt just to keep the atmosphere cheerful and fascinating? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Code Lyoko 2 was deleted per AfD but its creator has restored it and continually removes the repost template. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone should suggest to Karaku that the material be worked on in userspace. However, I would support a block for the continuous incivility and personal attacks in those series of edit summaries after being warned previously. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 01:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll go drop a message. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 01:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand why Karaku has not been indef blocked. Multiple people have tried to very politely coach him about which policies he has run afoul of, but his response is to ignore them at best, and often to call them "fucking ignorant." He has not shown the slightest iota of willingness to understand his mistakes, and in fact quite the contrary, has called core policies like 3RR "the most pointless rule on Wikipedia."

Another user has offered to wiki-adopt Karaku. If he declines, he should be indef-blocked. This is not a difficult decision. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am requesting an admin look at the edit history of the AFD Citizens of the Several States [13]

Apparently there is some confusion here because an edit I made to the AFD at 05:28, 7 March 2008 seems to have vanished at the edit from another user at 05:47, 7 March 2008. As you can see the diff says no content was deleted, but the actual content of the article was in fact deleted. User Zsero has commented on my talk Talk:Torchwoodwho page being very uncivil saying "If you're puzzled by something, you've got a brain, use it." and asserting that there is no technical foolery going on that might have accidentally removed my content. Since no editor involved seems to want to assist me in figuring out what the problem is I am asking for an admin to look into the situation.

This is related to a VERY heated AFD proceeding which is an offshoot of a RfC proceeding, to which I was no party. I am afraid that it has the potential to escalate into a much larger dispute that I don't want to be a part of. Can someone please help defuse this before name-calling and edit-warring become the norm of this situation. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. Torchwoodwho, I strongly suggest a break of a few hours. Go for a walk, clear your head, and then come back to it. There is nothing wrong with the system. If the diff says no content was deleted, then no content was deleted. You've made a silly mistake, and gone off on a tear accusing people of vandalism and all sorts of things, and now you're reduced to blaming mysterious bugs in the Wiki system that have eaten your homework.

The evidence you need to work out where you went wrong is all there, right in front of your eyes. You've got a brain, use it. It is not my job to explain to you exactly how you made this mistake; I have demonstrated that you have made one, and it's up to you to work out how. In the meantime, all I ask is that you stop flinging accusations of vandalism that you cannot support. -- Zsero (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• I fail to see how if you know something I don't how it serves to keep it hidden in some kind of strange cryptice puzzle. I find this, along with the consitant use of telling me to use my brain, to be the height of uncivil behavior and I don't understand how it benefits the community as a whole.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Having checked the diffs, I can see no irregularities. Gettingitdone duplicated the entire AfD here and later Zsero removed all duplicate content here. — Edokter • Talk • 11:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Kingpin Intelligence (talk · contribs) seems to be playing some sort of weird page-move shenanigans, altering Template:Template sandbox and moving it to Kingpin Intelligence. I'd move the template page back (as I did the talk page), but 84.150.154.34 (talk · contribs) has edited Template:Template sandbox since the move, so I can't. Can an admin step in here? --Calton | Talk 10:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that it matters. It's not as if the history of the sandbox is worth keeping. I've restored Template:Template sandbox to its starting position, and let people play with it. As for Kingpin Intelligence, it's been blanked now, so it can surely be prodded. -- Zsero (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Although I can't help in sorting it out (am on my public account), it strikes me that if you look at the history logs of Template:Template sandbox you'll see it's been moved twice before. The last time, back in August 2007, was by User:Rickrai - have a look at their other contributions and you'll see a theme developing... _{The public face of GB}^T/C 10:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I hadn't a clue -- all right, I had a suspicion -- what Template:Template sandbox is for, but I thought it better to safe than to be sorry, especially since there was an obviously active Talk page attached, and figured I should notify somebody. --Calton | Talk 11:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless it's deleted under policy, there's no reason that any page history should be inaccessible to non-admins. To this end, and after much toing and froing, I've put all the history of Template:Template sandbox in one place. (Hey: I did create Wikipedia:Historical archive/Sandbox ...). Graham87 13:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking over Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-12 9/11 conspiracy theories for a bit of light relief - funny stuff. Apparently we should rename the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories because the name implies that the theories might not be true. Oh dearie me, we wouldn't want that would we? Guy (Help!) 10:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And shouldn't Evolution redirect to the theory of evolution? Discuss.--Doc^g 10:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I particularly liked the "formal warning" you got, Guy, for having the temerity to suggest that some conspiracy theorists may not always edit with a complete respect for NPOV. How dare you!? ;o) ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 10:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

lawl Jtrainor (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL Bearian (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to post here to poke fun at people? I actually agree that describing something as a conspiracy theory (a term with a great deal of stigma attached to it) implies it isn't true and therefore violates NPOV. Everyking (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a conspiracy of Wikipedia wanting to take over the world? Jimbo The World Leader..:) Igor Berger (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Anon vandal striking again from multiple IP addresses. The page was just unprotected a while ago. Corvus cornix_talk 00:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 12 hours. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)