Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Possible "good hand" account of banned sockpuppeteer?

I believe User:K'Anpo is a "good hand" account of User:ECW500.

I came into contact with K'Anpo on Talk:WrestleCrap, where he unreverted my reversion of an ECW500 sock's post to the page, claiming the sock's point was valid. Fine, I figured, the sock did have a point. But then today I noticed that K'Anpo has been removing SSP tags from ECW500 socks. Repeatedly [1] [2] [3].

Because ECW500 is already known to take interest in the pages of his blocked socks, has already used User:CrueBall (contribs) as a good hand account, and because it seems odd to me that an account that only goes back to March 27, 2009 would take such an interest in a banned user, I'm bringing this to the community's attention. McJeff (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What is a "good hand" account? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:GHBH. hmwithτ 23:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Aha. I've never run across that terminology before. Good cop, bad cop thing, basically. That makes sense. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It is rather suspicious and I reverted the removal of the sockpuppet tags since the accounts in question were determined by CheckUser evidence and both the User:Hippies Little Brother and User:Nina Eve Slabber accounts were both protected for awhile over removal of the tags. The K'Anpo account has not been active for 8 days now, so blocking is probably not necessary. You are welcome to file a CheckUser request on the account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. It may have been a good idea to try and bring me into this discussion. I used to edit as an IP, and have previously reverted vandalism on Wrestlecrap and RD Reynolds. As far as reverting a sockpuppet's vandalism, the user above falsely accused some IP editor of "vandalism" and then reverted said IP's comment on a talk page where the IP complained about vandalism! User:McJeff then got the IP temporarily blocked and removed his comment from the talk page, and then went and removed the very vandalism that the IP was complaining about in the first place! I merely reinstated the comment on the discussion page, and assumed good faith on User:McJeff's part. As far as removing tags, well, in the cases of User:Bryan Alvarez and User:Youse can't see Me, we have been over this in excruciating detail before. I never REMOVED tags, these vandal-only accounts had ALREADY BEEN TAGGED on their discussion pages. I merely removed the second, redundant tags from the userpages. perhaps it would have been better to remove the discussion-page tags? Or maybe to just have ignored User:McJeff's ignorance? User:McJeff knows this very well, as I explained it to him before at least twice. As far as the other 2 users are concerned, yes I have removed some tags. I clicked on the "contributions" tag on their pages, and was surprised to see that although these people were obviously vandal-only accounts, none of their vandalism was in any way shape or form connected to RD Reynolds, Wrestlecrap, or Pebbles Cereal. Unless there's something that I'm completely ignorant of, it seemed the correct thing to do, as they appear to be wholly unrelated to User:ECW500. If one checks the "suspected sockpuppets" page, one now sees that User:Bryan Alvarez and user:Youse can't see Me are both now listed twice each, which I guess makes User:McJeff happy, but in no way convicts me of being anything other than a Wrestlecrap fan. K'Anpo (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Further, see the discussion pages and useraccount pages of these blocked sockpuppets. I explained there perfectly clearly what I did, and why, but now those explanations have been removed. If one checks Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_ECW500 one sees that both User:Bryan Alvarez and User talk:Bryan Alvarez are there as are both User:Youse can't see Me and User talk:Youse can't see Me, effectively adding up to four different sockpuppet accounts of user:ECW500. Perhaps someone else should remove the redundant tags, because after I did and explained why, those superfluous tags were readded, and my explanations removed. K'Anpo (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I can't help but notice that User:K'Anpo wasn't actually notified about this thread, and yet that after 8 days of inactivity, he found it instantaneously. Knowing that ECW500 stalks the contributions of people who fight his vandalism efforts, I see K'Anpo's abrupt appearance in this thread as yet another something suspicious about this user.

Also note this diff where K'Anpo, in a roundabout way, accuses me of being connected with the sock farms.

Requesting that someone other than myself file a Checkuser, as the last time I filed an ECW500 related checkuser it was declined as "no need". McJeff (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I do no always log in to post comments/edits, but I come here most days to READ and see changes etc. When I feel the need to edit something, or make discussion points only then do I log in. This was clearly such a need. Note that User:McJeff has been blocked TWICE before, once for removing points from discussion pages. I do not mind that when he has removed my comments from his discussion page, but clearly an administrator did mind as he blocked him for it! When he removed the IP's points from the Wrestlecrap discussion page, he went one further even accusing the IP of being a sockpuppet of ECW500. As noted above, and elsewhere, I removed the "sockpuppet" tags from the vandals User:Bryan Alvarez and User:Youse can't see Me pages, as THEY WERE ALREADY TAGGED AS SOCKPUPPETS OF ECW500 and I felt it was silly to tag the same vandalaccounts twice. That's it. As far as the other two, after checking their "contributions" I discovered that they had never vandalized RD Reynolds or Wrestlecrap. Apparently someone worked out that they ARE sockpuppets of ECW500, so it's my mistake and I apologize for that. However we need to understand someone trying to remove duplicate tags, and being genuinely ignorant on one hand, and on the other someone maliciously trying to brand others as socks using only half-truths. User:McJeff showed that I removed the tag from say User:Bryan Alvarez' one page, but never showed that I had already tagged him on his discussion page. Had he done so it would have been obvious that I was merely removing a duplicate tag, and NOT trying to "cover up" anything. Using my comments on his discussion page(in which I admittedly did go overboard being rather emotional at the time) as further "evidence" is equally strange. Also note that one of ECW500's banned socks is called User:Mcleff, and he is tagged on his discussion pageUser talk:Mcleff, and not his user page. If one views the Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_ECW500 one sees the first two vandals User:Bryan Alvarez and user:Youse can't see Me each still appear as two separate socks(totalling four)! All I was attempting to do was make them one sock each. If User:McJeff has problems with that, okay, but that doesn't make me a sock any more than it makes that IP, and it probably won't stop him removing people's innocent and valid comments from discussion pages. K'Anpo (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Further, the "sock of ECW500"'s "vandalism" was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWrestleCrap&diff=286469096&oldid=285908360. Just because User:McJeff claims that this IP is a sock of ECW500 does not make it so, any more than his claim that I am. This was even discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_68#WrestleCrap_article_filling_up_with_cruft.3F where I pointed out the same topic on Talk:WrestleCrap. In User:McJeff's eyes that makes both me and the IP who raised it in the first place "socks of ECW500"! One needs only to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMcJeff to see who the real disruptive editor is. K'Anpo (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

So, does lying about someone's block record count as "disruptive"?

Just for outside clarification, I've been blocked once in 4 and a half years on wikipedia - for forgetting about 3RR. That block was undone ahead of schedule.

Also, about "innocent" IP that K'Anpo is accusing me of having falsely reverted for vandalism was, in fact, blocked as a sock.

I hate dealing with these defamatory rants from other editors, as ignoring it makes you look bad and responding somehow always drags you down to their level. McJeff (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Er, the only defamatory ranting is coming from you. The IP was blocked as a sock, only because you hounded them and once again showed half-truths and facts, without stuff such as

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Floater320&diff=prev&oldid-286461060

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lacksjdasfd&diff=prev&oldid=287605323

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bananasgorilla&diff=prev&oldid=287605627

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ADementedSon%diff=prev&oldid=287794722

The IP was "blocked as a sockpuppet" because of the edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bryan_Alvarez&diff=prev&oldid=286600411

however someone has already made the edit(as the IP did explain) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk3ABryanAlvarez&diff=286600385&oldid=286485900 which User:McJeff "forgot" to mention when he reported the IP as a sock. The IP explained this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:41.245.171.28 It was AFTER this that User:McJeff deliberately deleted the IP comments on the Talk:WrestleCrap page, and I reverted the comments about the "WrestleCrap Radio Cruft".

As for myself, my edits include http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Youse_can't_see_Me&diff=prev&oldid=287073352 and I left explanations on the User:Bryan Alvarez and User:Youse can't see Me pages that the new tags were removed only because there were already sockpuppet tags on the User_talk:Bryan Alvarez and User_talk:Youse can't see Me pages!

As far as the other two were concerned this is pure ignorance on my part as I only checked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nina_Eve_Slabber and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hippies_Little_Brother and saw no vandalism of RD Reynolds, WrestleCrap or Pebbles Cereal. User:McJeff can twist facts, display only certain edits while deliberately ignoring others, and as we saw even get an innocent user blocked as a sockpuppet. He is also fond of removing comments from pages, which has already gotten him blocked. But why is he so interested in my edits? How was he even aware that I had made those?

In User:McJeff's own words "...ECW500 is already known to take interest in the pages of his blocked socks..." yet who is the one who trolled the site and "found" this information? I have only discovered this after wasting much time reading the logs, yet User:McJeff seems very aware of the inner workings of User:ECW500's warped mind.

It is not unusual for innocent users to be "Tagged" or "branded" such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BongWarrior&oldid=293452084

So what have we learned? That User:McJeff a previously blocked user, who has already been warned for removing other poster's comments, has already gotten one IP blocked by only displaying selected facts, and in his mind that IP "must" be a sock. When I reverted that IP's legitimate comments, User:McJeff obviously developed a grudge, and now used half-truths and out and out lies to "brand" me as a sock too! K'Anpo (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Further, as to the IP note the date/time of his/her blocking and the duration....

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3A41.245.171.28

(note also that User:Mentifisto did not regard the IP as a sock http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk&3AWrestleCrap&diff=286843633&oldid=286839123 , after yet another of User:ECW500's socks, this one called User:Marycolemanfan (and see User_talk:Marycolemanfan , making a note that Marycolemanfan is tagged as a sock on the discussion page, and not the userpage) had vandalized the same page, and User:Mentifisto reverted it to the IP's version!)

Now during that period when the IP was BLOCKED as a sockpuppet as per User:McJeff half-truths and lies, User:ECW500 struck again under the moniker User:Huey the Wrestlecrap Ghoul, making destructive edits such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GaryColemanFan&diff=prev&oldid=287076846 Following this obvious vandalism consistent with User:ECW500, User:Huey the Wrestlecrap Ghoul was rightfully blocked as a sockpuppet of User:ECW500.

Some notable facts are that a)user:Huey the Wrestlecrap Ghoul vandalized User:GaryColemanFan's discussion page during the period when the IP that User:McJeff had accused of being a sockpuppet of ECW500 was blocked b)User:Huey the Wrestlecrap Ghoul is indeed a sockpuppet of User:ECW500 c)User:Huey the Wrestlecrap Ghoul (ie User:ECW500 for they are the same person) falsely accused User:GaryColemanFan, an editor who has spent much time both reverting ECW500's vandalism and also having his page vandalized by ECW500, of being a sock. That's right, User:GaryColemanFan was falsely accused of being a sockpuppet of User:ECW500 by User:ECW500 himself at a time when the IP could not possibly have been involved as he/she had been blocked temporarily thanks to the lies of User:McJeff!! K'Anpo (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that this topic is nearly "at the top" now, so I would just like to make a few more points... Having reread this discussion it struck me that User:McJeff made some startling comments on this very page, such as "ECW500 is already known to take interest in the pages of his blocked socks" and "Knowing that ECW500 stalks the contributions of people who fight his vandalism efforts". Well, I certainly didn't know that until User:McJeff pointed it out. He seems to be well aware of User:ECW500 's activities. And, as shown above, I AM one of the "people who fight his vandalism efforts". He also said that "K'Anpo, in a roundabout way, accuses me(meaning User:McJeff) of being connected with the sock farms". I never did any such thing. I merely stated that his making this accusation against ME being ECW500, after I'd already explained any prior misunderstandings, was a suspicious action. It was User:McJeff himself who volunteered the idea that there may be some connection between him and User:ECW500!

Furthermore, User:McJeff knew exactly how long it had been since I last edited. And how strange that he waited until I had been inactive for more than week before he presented this "evidence" of his (refuted above) on this page. Did he perhaps think that I might be on vacation or something, and would thus be unable to defend myself? We already know(as shown above with the IP editor, another person who fights the vandalism efforts of ECW500) that User:McJeff has already successfully gotten an innocent editor blocked for being a sockpuppet of User:ECW500, and that User:ECW500 continued his vandalism while this supposed "sockpuppet" was blocked! User:McJeff certainly did not think that I would find his attack on me, and when presented with counterevidence resorted to insults such as accusing me of "defamatory ranting" and claims that even replying to me is "dragging [him] down to my level". He never actually gives any real replies, besides boasting that he got an innocent editor blocked as a sockpuppet of ECW500. And User:McJeff certainly never thought that I would be so anal as to spend the better part of 2 hours reading through revision histories and logs connected with User:ECW500, making notes to present on this page!

As noted above, User:ECW500 has already falsely accused users, including User:Bongwarrior (an administrator no less!) of being a sockpuppet of User:ECW500. More interestingly, he accused User:GaryColemanFan of being a "good" sock of User:ECW500. Yet those are 2 of the most respected editors on Wikipedia, and both have tirelessly fought the vandalism of User:ECW500. Now User:McJeff accuses ME of being a "good hand sock" (which most people here didn't even know what that meant in a manner suspiciously similar to the way that User:ECW500 accused User:GaryColemanFan of the very same thing! We can thus see that both User:McJeff and User:ECW500 are in the habit of accusing people who revert User:ECW500's (and User:McJeff's as per my revision on the Talk:WrestleCrap page) vandalism of being sockpuppets and/or "good hand" sockpuppets of User:ECW500! We can see that User:McJeff has already succeeded once! We see that since I actually REPLIED to his accusations that he first made personal insults, let slip a few choice bits of information, and then disappeared! In fact earlier I did NOT accuse him in a roundabout way of anything. But now, as they say, "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims in the duckpond....." K'Anpo (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

stolen pictures, info requested

I saw a stolen picture and replaced it with another picture. Looking into it, that picture is stolen, too. Given that I saw 2 stolen picture of 3, the limited sample size does show a potentially serious theft problem in Wikipedia. How should Wikipedia deal with this? Please give advice below.

The article is on the main page so many people read it, including me. That also means that many people saw the stolen photo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A330-200F.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F-GZCP.jpg

When Wikipedia is full of stolen pictures, it makes Wikipedia look amateurish and a project of some kids who are just copying stuff. This is bad. User F203 (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved, I see a similar problem about 4-5 threads up where there is a mention of copyright violations. User F203 (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a number of processes in place to deal with copyright infringement. There is a process page for image issues at Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion that hopefully will help you determine how best to deal with these issues when you find them. If you are unsure, you can always take a matter to WP:MCQ. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)First, neither of the two images you pointed to were "stolen". They are used under a claim of fair use, regardless of whether or not the claim is justifiable. Second, if you feel a claim of fair use is not appropriate, please either tag the image using a template such as {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} or nominate it for deletion. If the claim is not appropriately justified within 1 week, the image will be deleted. --auburnpilot talk 15:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright infringement and theft are two totally different things. If you wish to properly enforce copyright laws, please learn something about them. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, actually copyright infringement can be synonymous with intellectual property theft. Durova^Charge! 18:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Which is a misnomer, since nothing is being stolen --NE2 18:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly it is: the value of the rights to the image. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't consider fair use to be intellectual property theft. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't steal something that the "owner" still has. Can you imagine going to the police station and telling them your TV was stolen, but it's still in your living room? It's insulting to compare unauthorized copying with actual theft. Stealing physical pictures makes you a thief, not making a copy, whether or not it falls under fair use. How would you like it if people started calling you a rapist for "raping the English language", by applying a word - theft - to a situation where it doesn't fit? --NE2 08:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You own a piece of land, your property. I notice that it's empty and no one's using it, so I go ahead and build a building on it. What's wrong with that? I haven't taken anything from you, have I, you still own the property? Well, yes, I've taken from you the right to do what you want with that property, and the right to build whatever kind of building you want, or none at all, if that's your choice, so I have definitely taken something from you. What I've taken is immaterial and noncoporeal, it's not an armchair or a backscratcher, but it exists nonetheless, and you no longer have it.

Similarly, when someone uses someone's else intellectual property without permission, they've taken away the ability to decide when and where that material can be used, and for what fee. Suppose that you're rabidly opposed to the Internet, you're an old fart and you've decided that nothing that you own is going to be on the web. Well, that's an absurd thing to decide, but it's nonetheless your decision to make, not anyone else's, so that when they place your image, your tune, your film, your short story, your essay on the Web, they've taken away your ability to control the way your owned material is used, your right to decide who makes copies of it - the copyright.

Now, it just so happens that under American law, copyrights are not eternal, they exist for only a limited amount of time (a time period that's gotten longer and longer, thanks to the efforts and money of Disney and their friends), and they are not absolute, there are exceptions to the rights that you control, and one exception is the "fair use" doctrine which says that for certain purposes and certain kinds of use, it's OK to make use of a limited amount of copyrighted material without violating the copyright owner's rights, so there is no "theft" involved. But, if I instead totally usurp your rights by making use of your intellectual property beyond these exceptions, perhaps even make money by doing it, I've reduced the value of your copyright, and have, in effect, taken away from you not only your control of the material, but also the ability to make money from it - and that is, indeed, theft. The fact that you can't report it to your local police station is completely irrelevant -- they won't take complaints about insider trading either, because both are civil matters and not criminal ones. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And, BTW, the imaginative and figurative extension of concrete words to more ethereal uses has been going on for a long time, probably since the invention of language, so complaining about it is pretty much pissing into the wind. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You're making an absurd argument that taking away any right is theft. If I go door to door in a development that bans soliciting, am I stealing time from others? If I jaywalk, am I stealing the road? If I argue on AN, am I stealing bandwidth and disk space? If so, I'm a thief, and proud of it. But others may not be so happy to be called thieves, and you may want to avoid doing so in case you happen to violate BLP by calling someone identifiable a thief.

By the way, how many legs does a horse have? --NE2 11:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unable to stop myself, I have to note that the US Supreme Court would seem to support that copyright infringement is not theft in Dowling v. United States (1985), and yet the US federal government nevertheless adopts the term in the NET Act. This hair can be evenly divided. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a pretty silly place to discuss this, so let's agree to disagree and not steal any more AN space or rape any more horses er...whatever. --NE2 12:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not just Disney that pushed for or benefited from Intellectual property rights. It's also poor working artist schlubs like myself. Taking an image that I spent 100 or 200 hrs making, reproducing, and profiting from it is part of my liveliood. If you took those images, did the same thing to them, and thereby took my customers, potential new customers I'll never now meet, etc., it is under intellectual property rights laws, theft. Just because you can make cheap or free copies of stuff doesn't give you the legal right to. And just because I still retain the original, doesn't mean something hasn't been stolen from me.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What Disney pushed for what the extension of the period of rights well past the point where an individual would benefit from them - but a corporation would. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue (remove this message once resolved)

In less than one hour Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the Next update if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo}} to the top of the page and save the page
4. When the next queue is good to go remove this entire message from the board

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKadminBot (talk) DYKadminBot is operated by Ameliorate! ^(talk)

Xeno changing block settings

Can we get some feedback in regards to this? This is a direct spin-off from the horrific BLP abuses on Catherine Crier, that are so bad that Thatcher indefinitely semi protected the talk page, and Deskana the article fully indefinitely (which cannot be undone without Oversight approval). Apparently, Grawp has taken to abusing this BLP wildly. Go look at it's edit histories for all the hidden revisions. I asked Thatcher here about the situation, and minutes later got a Grawped here. Its a known fact now that Joker is Grawp, and that Grawp has been taking after the Crier article. To the point where I guess even the Crier reps may know about Grawp now, whose real identity is known.

I blocked the IP as a likely open proxy per every reasonable common sense duck test you can imagine--it's a known fact that Grawp breathes open proxies on trojanned and zombied Windows boxes and who knows what else, which is why he's unstoppable. I discussed this with Xeno here and apparently I didn't hit save fast enough (it was still open in a tab on my firefox) to unlock the editing of the talk page, so he shortened the block expressly against my written request that he get consensus. I never ask for my admin actions to not be undone, and go out of my way to say "Do what you need with them," so

1. I'm a bit miffed that he didn't do this, and I ask for both admin actions to be reviewed
2. I'm furious that I know now we've only been doing waste of time 24-31 hour blocks on these hordes of BLP-abusing proxies

If we block them 3-5 years--it's not abusive to IPs. They can ask for an unblock any time. rootology/equality 20:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP didn't make any BLP-violating edits, so 3-5 years seems entirely abusive to me. I checked for a proxy and found none. Seems like a standard 4chan-style distributed attack. The IP will be onto someone else shortly - it probably already is. If the target articles are locked down, what more can the IPs do but ask admins why they are so serious? –xeno^talk 20:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

But, if Root is right, you appear to have undone first and discussed after. That would be wheelwarring. Perhaps better to say why this isn't wheelwarring? ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 20:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I discussed first and then implemented a compromise when he terminated the discussion on his last word. Further, his words weren't matching his actions (an issue I see now has been attributed to tabbed browsing, this could have been resolved with further discussion, but alas). –xeno^talk 20:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what is going on since apparently all the actual edits have been oversighted into the void, but in general 4chan style attacks that involve repetitive behavior can often be good targets for the abuse filter. Dragons flight (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to pen a filter but by the time I had it sorted, they were on to something else =] –xeno^talk 18:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't operate on the basis of blocking every innocent IP until they request unblocking (and as of a few minutes after they are used they are likely to be innocent users). Long term blocks on short term IPs are not effective or helpful to anyone. Not every IP which clicks on the links Grawp posts on /b/ is Grawp or an open proxy - it's far more commonly a board invasion. These IPs are extremely unlikely to be used by the same users again, so long blocks are simply not appropriate. See WP:IPB for more information on block lengths for IP addresses. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This sums up succinctly my thoughts on the matter. Our default position is to block IPs for a reasonable amount of time appropriate to the offense, incrementally increasing the length as they re-offend. Not to jump immediately to a multi-year block on the back of a single juvenile vandalism to an admin's talk page. –xeno^talk 20:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't appropriate to block an IP for years at a time. And the "zomg BLP" scare tactics being employed here aren't particularly appropriate either. Please stop, Rootology. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Folks here have it right. The IPs that make the Grawp-ish attacks are just following instructions on the 4chan website to click a link provided by grawp and then click save. It is rare that any of them will actually be Grawp or open proxies. Block for 24 hours and submit to WP:OPP for checking if you want to be sure. And it is usually good to semi-protect whatever page is being attacked by the /b/tards for around 24 hours. (Although, with the amount of traffic on /b/, 3 hours is probably enough.) As for the rest, just follow the standard Grawp response, revert, block and ignore. Thatcher 13:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• It is also worth noting that janitors on /b/ give invasion threads and the like short shrift, and will often delete an active thread if it involves invading another site. Don't even bother blocking - just hunt for open proxies amongst the IPs (not likely since 4chan bans OPs as well) and semi the affected pages indefinitely unless there's a very compelling reason not to. Also, in re Grawp's RL identity being known - not so. Grawp is an ED collective; I'd wager pennies to pineapples that J.D.H. has nothing at all to do with its most recent actions, especially given that Grawp has taken to harassing him as well. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 01:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Need technical fixup of Death.jpg and Death (DC Comics).jpg

Resolved

The histories of File:Death.jpg and File:Death (DC Comics).jpg need to be merged and File:Death.jpg deleted so commons:File:Death.jpg shows through. As it stands now, Death has a file and Death (DC Comics) has the image. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Pages cannot be moved in filespace. I'll have to just copy the data, and cut-and-paste the history into a subpage. -- Avi (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems now that the Commons is obscuring the old file. Ouch. Anyone have a way to get around this? -- Avi (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You got me. Maybe it's time to get a coder involved? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've manually uploaded the old file. Hopefully everything is ok now.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It is, and the commons version of File:Death.jpg is now showing through. I've tagged this as resolved. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Before I go to CheckUser, is there any point if I do...?

Tempdude (talk · contribs) and Tom harryson (talk · contribs) are obviously the same person. The thing is, Tempdude began his Wikipedia career by changing the sockpuppet tag on various blocked accounts to claim that they are sockpuppets of Amorrow (talk · contribs). Based on that alone, it's clear that they are someone who knows ancient Wikipedia history and have come here with some sort of agenda. Is there any point in trying to go to Checkuser to see if it can be determined who they might be, or would that just be rejected as fishing? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Since both accounts are now indef blocked, a checkuser will not be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, I'm aware of that, but there's obviously an agenda here. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but a checkuser would only be carried out if there is strong evidence to suggest there are further socks. Icestorm815 • Talk 20:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

@Who then was a gentleman?, If you're just idly curious which troll this was, then no, don't bother. Half of the long-term trolls are the same people as the other half anyway. Or maybe all of the LTA cases are actually just one person. Who cares. No one is (or should be) keeping track. Wknight94 ^talk 21:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If he's got a sock farm going on, it might be good to know about, would it not? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Both accounts were created a few minutes before attacking. Checkuser would have been no use even beforehand, let alone now. There's no sock farm. Just get some short-term semi-protection in place and be done with it. Wknight94 ^talk 21:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Created by which IP and which useragent? Checkuser would be invaluable in making sure there aren't more lurking under the hood. //roux   21:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for being vague, but if those accounts are what I think they are, someone else has already checked them. If they're not, then they don't need checking. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 22:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no sock farm.. And you know that how? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Move it along, people! Both accounts belong to a banned user and were CU'ed more than two hours ago. If you want to get a quick check, go to WP:SPI or contact a CheckUser instead of posting here. End of discussion. Thanks, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That's what I wanted to know. What wikidrama was there? All I wanted was a civil response. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Both "sides" here are reasonable positions. There is often very little to gain from checking simple vandals; if they really have sleepers, they can be blocked when they start vandalizing. However, sometimes there are things that can be learned. Any editor should feel free to contact a checkuser or make a report in the "Quick Requests" section of WP:SPI, and the checkusers will decide whether it is worth their time to look it up. Thatcher 01:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested redirect concerning protected article

Resolved

I had asked about this prior, and the reason I had asked it is because the article I wanted re-directed was a protected one and so I couldn't edit it myself

I want http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mobile,_Alabama_mayoral_election,_2009&action=edit&redlink=1 redirected to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Municipal_Elections,_2009

My work in progress article on the same subject.--Genovese12345 (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that's the correct title? It doesn't appear to be (or ever have been) protected. – Toon^(talk) 00:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• When I try to redirect I get this response

The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism. If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:

Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by e-mail. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do. If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genovese12345 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok, blacklisted for some odd reason. I've created the redirect. – Toon^(talk) 01:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Another question

Resolved

Is there anyway to block a user from looking at your contributions sections, say, if you think a user is specifically going through all your contributions for whatever reason and you don't want them to do so?--Genovese12345 (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No. — Aitias // discussion 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, please consider posting such questions not here but rather on the WP:HELPDESK. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 01:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, by the sounds of it you should read (particularly the second paragraph of) this section of policy. It has some useful information. – Toon^(talk) 01:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old

How often does the above category get dealt with? I do a lot of other image work and I'd be willing to work on it, but unfortunately, I'm not an admin.--Rockfang (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Holy carp, that's a backlog! This may need a task force or a commission or an ad hoc committee. I'll pitch in, but this needs dozens of admins. KrakatoaKatie 22:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

On my way! :) Seriously though, all of the image deletion backlogs are getting way too big. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculously huge. I just did about 25. These are really laborious deletions because some have multiple versions which have to go, and to cleanup your have to go back to the image, edit and remove the template and save.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I will get on this as well. Mfield (Oi!) 23:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Just so that you know you can remove the template in one click after deleting an image by using FileScripts. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just found that and the other image related scripts, thanks. Mfield (Oi!) 00:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope to improve that so that it also helps with the actual deletion, but that will take a bit more time; I just added that functionality in ~10 minutes. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for working on this. Like I stated above, I do a lot of image work and I'm willing to help out, but unfortunately, I'm not an admin. :) Rockfang (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Docu's signature violates WP:SIGNATURE

(edit conflict with David's archiving) I'm marking this as archived (perhaps boldly, but hear me out, please). AN isn't an appropriate forum to try to burn an editor at the stake and it nearly never works to adjust behavior of a very longtime contributor. We have a large number of appropriate forums to discuss editor behavior on a broader scale, including WP:RFC/U (which coincidentally is how the last thread regarding this signature issue was resolved when it was brought up on this board previously).

If there are issues with Docu's conduct broadly, please use an appropriate forum. A makeshift one here really isn't helpful or appropriate. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This user's signature violates WP:SIGNATURE. The user's signature has no links to his user page or user talk page, and also does not have date/timestamps. Example: [4]

Per Wikipedia:Signatures#Internal_links: It is common practice to include a link to one or more of your user page, user talk page, and contributions page. At least one of those pages must be linked from your signature to allow other editors simple access to your talk page and contributions log. (emphasis added, note "must")

I asked User:Docu about this on his talk page on 2 June 2009 [5]. The threaded discussion can be seen here [6]. User:Docu did not respond to my request to please add a link to his userpage and/or talk page in his signature.

Another user, Jayron32 (talk · contribs), again raised the issue with User:Docu, in a post to his talk page on 3 June 2009 [7]. LibStar (talk · contribs) also echoed this request [8]. User:Docu did not respond to this, and instead blanked his talk page [9].

I put this up here for the community to discuss - it seems highly inappropriate for an admin's signature to blatantly violate WP:SIGNATURE as User:Docu's does.

Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Screw it, I'm sick of these threads. Before anyone says the lack of a proper signature isn't a problem, it undoubtedly IS a problem if so many people are complaining about it. And it will continue to be a problem until it is changed (and this endless cycle of complaints about it will continue) Lack of a link to the user or talk pages and lack of a time stamp is downright inconvenient for everyone who wishes to contact him, and given that he is an admin, it should be relatively easy for all users, not just experienced ones, to find his talk page without having to navigae there the hard way. He has never given any explanation whatsoever for the lack of a link and timestamp - and honestly a suitable explanation hasn't been apparent to anyone commenting on the issue before. One pigheaded admin shouldn't be the source of so many issues over something so bloody trivial. We wouldn't tolerate that from any non-admin. Either he changes it or he is blocked until it is changed. Simple answer. Viridae^Talk 09:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds reasonable, actually. He also ignored a request from me to change it. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 09:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
    • He has ignored countless requests to change it. Viridae^Talk 09:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to the previous AN discussion on the subject. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 09:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support the above proposal by Viridae (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, this is a genuine problem. It seems that there have been several complaints about it, and no explanation from Docu why he does not bring his signature into compliance with accepted standards. This baffles me, because I know him as a good editor and administrator. If we obtain consensus here that he should make his signature standards-compliant, I'm ready to act on it should he choose not to.  Sandstein  09:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support a block until Docu complies with set standards on signatures. seicer | talk | contribs 12:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly there's some excess free time around here so I'll take this opportunity to advertise Wikipedia:Alleviate negative unsourced statements. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Quite. Those who are playing the "no explanation" card should take note that this explanation was given five and one half years ago. It's understandable that someone might get to the point of ignoring repeated requests for the same explanation, over and over again, after five years. Please find something better to do with your time than harrassing someone, and threatening to harrass xem with administrator tools no less, for "not explaining" something that xe has already explained, long since.

  And if you don't understand the practice that some people employ of archiving user talk pages to the page history, Docu has a five-year-old explanation of that, too. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

@Uncle G: Are you aware of ? ... — Aitias // discussion 18:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am not sure that a block is mandated at this point. It may be, I have not decided myself on how we as a community should deal with this. However, I think he is clearly being disruptive. It is quite important to note that he DOES occasionally use the proper signature (with a link and timestamp) in situations where he is more likely to be publicly noticed. If you check his contribs list, and look at his postings to ANI, he tends to sign his posts. On article talk pages and user talk pages, he does not. Also, it looks clear that the signature is not autotyped by the "four tildes" method, but hand typed, as he occasionally makes typos when adding it. See [10]. Thus, he DOES have a valid signature, and is willing to use it, but only in cases where he anticipates getting a lot of flack, such as at ANI. If its not as public a place as ANI, he can't seem to be bothered to hit the four tildes. Which seems rather odd to me, since four tildes takes less keystrokes than hand-typing "User:Docu" which is what he appears to be doing. That only further adds to my feeling that he is intentionally making it more difficult for people to contact him or chronologize his comments. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe he commented somewhere that he has a nonstandard keyboard, and the tilde is difficult to produce. –xeno^talk 13:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • And from xyr point of view, you are harrassing xem over something that xe explained, and gave good reason for, five and a half years ago, without looking for that explanation first. Uncle G (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, no, not a good reason, actually. Even if he can't easily type tildes, there is a shortcut section below the edit box. One click on the four tildes there inserts four tildes into the edit box. (And what's with the "xyr" and "xe"? Is this xome xort of xlang that one needs to use to be politically xorrect nowadays?)  Sandstein  13:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
      • It's some kind of gender-neutral pronoun that has been floated about for some time now (wikt:xe). –xeno^talk 13:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, and per [11], it appears that Docu uses a Swiss German keyboard layout, as I do. The tilde is indeed produced with [AltGr]-[^], and the [^] key is just to the left of the [Backspace] key. I've never had any trouble signing my posts using tildes typed like that, as I am doing now:  Sandstein  13:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Why doesn't he just use -- User:Docu, which looks exactly the same? hmwithτ 13:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The explanation for that was given five and a half years ago. Uncle G (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
    • This isn't a good answer. He can just press the button. hmwithτ 14:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for the abuse filter --NE2 13:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There is an "insert 4 tildes" link on every edit page. I hope he doesnt have a non-standard wikipedia. Livewireo (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I was about to give him a pass, per Uncle G's explanation, but thankfully I edit-conflicted with Livewireo above, who reminded me that its not 4 keystrokes, its one mouse click to sign a post. I don't think its unreasonable given the ease with which he could sign correctly that he be asked to do so. At the very least, I do highly recommend that he have the forsight to understand that people are going to find something out-of-place, and post a notice of some sort on his talk page to stop this sort of nonsense from blowing up as it has this time. But seriously, click the little signature button. It would save all of us from some grief --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If he doesn't like to use a mouse, maybe someone can write a script that gives him a "sign post" button that's easy to tab to? --NE2 14:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(multi-e/c, slow to post, sorry) Users could be forgiven for not knowing that an explanation was provided five and a half years ago. I'm very interested to hear that Docu has a nonstandard keyboard and that it is "difficult" to use the tilde key. I hope that none of the other keys are difficult to use, but perhaps after five and a half years a new keyboard is in order? Alternatively, Docu could use their mouse to click on the signature button above the edit window - unless they also have a nonstandard mouse.

Apologies if I seem short on patience and goodwill in this post; it's because I took the time to review Docu's talk page history - a task made much harder considering that Docu doesn't archive their talk page, but instead blanks it with the comment "move old talk to page history" (see for example the "archiving" of this somewhat bizarre conversation). Here is an abbreviated list - I didn't catch all the comments, I only listed new sections, not other users adding their own concerns, and I only went back 1,000 edits:-

• Gary King - Jul 2008 [12]
• Quiddity - Sep 2008 [13]
• Adambro - Sep 2008 [14] and a polite follow-up [15]
• Tbsdy lives - Sep 2008 [16] (follow-up, couldn't find the original)
• JzG - Sep 2008 [17]
• TenOfAllTrades - Oct 2008 [18]
• Reedy - Apr 2009 [19]
• Stifle - May 2009 [20]
• TreasuryTag - May 2009 [21]
• Hipocrite - May 2009 [22]
• Cirt - Jun 2009 [23]

The lack of proper signature, the non-user-friendly talk page blanking, and the stubborn refusal to answer simple questions from an editor in good standing (see "bizarre" diff above) add up to a very unhelpful administrator. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

WTF? hmwithτ 14:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If he prefers not to use his mouse to click on the 'sign post' button, I bet that a polite request at either the Help Desk or the Computing Reference Desk would turn up scads of people who could help him remap the tilde to a more convenient key on his keyboard. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to block him, get consensus to change WP:SIG into a policy, and prescribe a penalty for violating it. Otherwise, this has been discussed to death. Don't we have more important things to be doing besides rehashing this? Oppose block. --Kbdank71 14:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• I too have gone to Docu's talk page to ask him to include a link, but stopped when I saw how many times he had been asked. As I noted on Hipocrite's talk page, Docu has been asked dozens of times. Clearly a fair amount of people find his signature to be problematic, and it's troublesome that he is unwilling to make such a minor adjustment. --auburnpilot talk 14:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

In answer to one of the unanswered questions in the thread Sheffield Steel highlighted, Docu became an admin in Dec 2003, with a vote of 6/0/0 (7/0/0 if you count the nom) --Dweller (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Viridae (talk · contribs)'s proposal. This isn't AN-drama mongering (ok, not just drama mongering), the number of people who have asked Docu shows that it is innately disruptive. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Docu's been here for a long time, to the days where a few people could say "ok, looks cool enough" RfA's were the norm, as linked above. It may be tough to break long, bad habits like this, but it really is quite annoying to interact with someone without a valid sig. Tarc (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Viridae's proposal. Docu's lack of a signature manages to inconvenience other editors wherever he goes. Wikipedia is a group project, where you should not deliberately be unhelpful to other editors, and mastering a modern keyboard is not difficult. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's sort of like the one guy at work who drinks the last cup of coffee without ever making a fresh pot, or who cuts into the queue at the photocopier. They're behaviours and activities which make things slightly easier for the person who does them, but which also tend to slightly inconvenience everyone else in the workplace. It's not something that gets an employee fired, but it creates bad feelings all around.

Wikipedia doesn't seem to handle this class of problem well. We generally feel – with some justification – that social norms shouldn't have to be codified. It shouldn't be necessary to raise an RfC over this, or threaten blocks, or write new policy, or escalate all the way up to ArbCom. Everyone involved feels silly, because after all, it's such a little thing. (Has anyone ever been in a workplace where management issued a memo reminding people to make fresh coffee and not cut in line at the photocopier? Wouldn't everyone involved both look and feel like children?)

This doesn't need a {policy} or {guideline}. A substantial number of editors have been asking for a long period of time for one editor to modify his behaviour such that it conforms to accepted practice. The change will represent a trivially-minor inconvenience (which most editors already put up with without difficulty), and will have the long-term benefit of making things a little bit easier for every other editor. It's what Miss Manners – or any good utilitarian – would do. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Lack of sig is an irritation, but I'm actually more bothered by the poor, I might say willfully obstructive interaction, as highlighted in that not just bizarre but unpleasant thread. --Dweller (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah.. the sig is a relatively small thing, but what bothers me is that this indicates an attitude that is fundamentally incompatible with a collaborative project like Wikipedia. If he's willing to annoy other people for no good reason with the sig, what other, more harmful things, will he tend to do? The cluebat seems excessive, but in light of the failure of other means of persuasion, what's left? Does Wikipedia tolerate editors who behave this way, or not? Friday (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Dweller's point above (particularly about the bizarre discussion), and also with TenofAllTrades' coffee-pot analogy even further up. If Docu isn't going to start behaving co-operatively, in a way conducive to "building" a collaborative encyclopedia, then he has no place here. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 15:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• I note in the user's most recent post he used a signature with a link and a timestamp. Is it possible he's taken on board Jayron's latest urging to use a signature and this is much ado about nothing? –xeno^talk 15:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at his contribs, he seems to link his sig when commenting on AN and AN/I. --auburnpilot talk 15:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Add me to the list of users who've requested Docu to change his signature in the past, and to those who are now supporting an enforced change. This is ridiculous and clearly disruptive. There's no good reason for anyone to have an entirely unlinked and undated signature. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • And I would also like to see this as a precedent for giving at least that part of WP:SIG more teeth. There are other users with similarly disruptive ways of signing who are similarly immune to requests to change their signatures. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I do not think that the refusal to use ~~~~ is a reason for a block. If someone finds the lack of a link to the talk page annoying, they do not have to communicate with such a user. If Docu wants other users to ignore him, it is a Docu's problem. However as an administrator Docu has so far done nothing wrong, and I do not have a WP:CRYSTAL ball to predict what Docu may do in the future. Ruslik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruslik0 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the problem is that other users may have good reasons to communicate with him, for instance if they ask an explanation about an administrator action he made, and they can't easily do so because of the lack of a link. The ArbCom has repeatedly held, most recently at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Administrator communications, that "administrators are particularly expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them when needed". Docu's lack of a signature inhibits such communication.  Sandstein  16:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Add me to the list of those who did not ask him to use a proper signature because it was clear there would be no constructive response. I fully agree with TenOfAllTrades' analysis. To add something new to this discussion:
  • This response is inconsistent with the inconvenient key combination explanation.
  • I think we can really expect a user who is confronted with this question about once a month to at least put an explanation on their user page or talk page. Without being asked to do so, actually. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Viridae (talk · contribs)'s proposal. I wouldn't be as bothered if this wasn't an admin, but admins must lead by example on Wikipedia. his avoidance and vague excuses for not doing it are not in the spirit of WP cooperation and project. LibStar (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I would want to wait and see Docu's side before anyone starts posting up any blocks. Livewireo (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment It is essential for average users to be able to easily contact any administrator, including Docu. His reluctance to use a timestamped and linked signature now that it is easy to do so (e.g. click on the icon) seems POINTy to me. If there is opposition to a block over this issue, perhaps an involuntary re-submission to RFA is more appropriate. Let the community decide whether Docu's significant contributions outweight his accessibility as an administrator. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

actually, agree with the above, the bar is now much much higher to be an admin. see his selection for adminship. [24]. LibStar (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support viradae's proposal. I have also asked him multiple times about the signature, and he has been rude and evasive on the question. He seems to be getting involved in discussions on talk and project pages more, which is why people are noticing (the bulk of his activity is gnomish). The lack of a date stamp is what i find most annoying. The real problem is he's a legacy admin from a time when standards were much lower, though the solution to that problem would involve major changes to admin tenure which are unlikely at the moment.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Not only does it not link anywhere, but not using timestamps interferes with archiving. hmwithτ 17:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Are we seriously talking about blocking Docu here? This is a user who has been an admin for nearly six years, and we are talking about blocking because he doesn't sign his posts in the way we like? Now, I agree it's a pain, I agree Docu should sign his posts properly for all the reasons outlined in this thread. I can't, however, believe that it is seriously worth blocking a respected, long-time contributor over it. We have dispute resolution methods other than Special:BlockIP. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 17:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Typing a tilde on a Swiss German keyboard with AltGr+^ is neither difficult nor inconvenient. If all of de-wiki manage a AltGr++, and all of fr-wiki manage a AltGr+2, I'd think that Docu could, too – if he just wanted to. It is a nuisance, it has been brought up often enough, and it's unacceptable for an admin. Amalthea 17:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• It is patently absurd to discuss blocking a very longstanding and productive user over something so petty as a refusal to adopt a standard signature. Is it irritating, annoying, obnoxious, or the like? Sure. But come on - block the guy over it? Patently absurd. If the community has other issues with Docu and/or his use of the admin bit, deal with them accordingly. The Wikipedia community has far better things to do with its time than play this tired tune over and over. It's a freaking signature. Shereth 18:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I think this discussion has moved beyond just the signature. There are other issues, ones that deal w/ his tools specifically. hmwithτ 18:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • I don't think it is absurd. Several users have pointed out why it's important for the signature to be linked and dated, and he's been given alternatives (such as making the sig appear unlinked, but still clickable). Users have been blocked for disruptive signatures in the past. This user has ignored repeated requests and clear community consensus on the matter. That should be sufficient in itself, without even considering the separate issues. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Docu's signature is disruptive only in that it is inconvenient - it does not hinder users from editing articles. The only argument that it is actually disrupting the normal functioning of Wikipedia is the argument that it creates issues with archiving bots. Last I checked, making life difficult for a bot was not a blockable offense. I'd love to see Docu use a standard signature as much as the next person, but threatening a block over the issue seems to me an act of making a mountain out of a molehill. Docu's contributions to the project as a whole far outweigh the damage done by his unconventional signature; his continued contributions are a net positive to the project. Blocking him for the sake of getting rid of an "annoying" signature would come at the cost of losing his many and great contributions, a net negative for the project, and essentially cutting off our own nose to spite our face. I honestly cannot believe anyone is taking this proposal seriously. Shereth 18:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not the only problem, as others have noted. Four ~ signatures also include a date and time stamp, the absense of which is extremely disruptive to talk page discussions. This is partly the reason why we have an {{unsigned}} template. Besides all this, WP:SIG is clear on the matter: your signature must at minimum include a link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

After considering, I would not support a block at this time. However, per below, I think that a formal RFC to cover the spectrum of antisocial behaviors committed by Docu needs to be started. I have felt for a while that the signature issue was a non-starter, but something needs to be done about the pattern of rude behavior that seems evident in his interactions with other users. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Tangental to WP:SIG issue above; start an RfC or take to ANI if there is a pressing issue, but this is starting to fall outside AN scope. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Much greater issues with User:Docu than the signature bit

To respond to Ruslik0 (talk · contribs) from above. He actually has done things which are unbecoming of an admin, and some of them are directly related to his admin powers, while others are simply about a repeated pattern of rude behavior which makes it difficult to deal with him as an admin. The question we should be asking ourselves is would he pass an RFA today with all of the following problems:

1. The signature issue (noted ad infinitum here)
2. comments like this (thanks to hmwith for pointing this out above) which are part of a continued pattern of refusal to answer reasonable questions. He either dodges questions, ignores them all together, or as above, acts rude and unbecoming. There is an exchange on my talk page where I tried (in vain) to mediate a dispute between him and another editor. He blatantly refuses to acknowledge any comment or point which does not support his position, even when such points are shown to be valid. If I saw this pattern of interpersonal exchange in a person standing for an RFA, I would not support them.
3. He has been found, by consensus, to have misused his admin powers in an impartial manner, and where he had an interest, and where he had been told before the same thing. See WP:ANI#User:Docu and AFD closes against consensus where he was shown to have closed a series of AFD discussions in a suspicious and partial manner.

I have tried to work with this user, and have stretched the limits of my ability to assume good faith, but based on what I have observed recently with him, and with other evidence presented here and elsewhere, it does not appear that he has the support of the community insofar as being an admin is concerned. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support above Totally agree with above assessment, at first I honestly thought Docu was a new user with his vague responses and refusal to say whether or not he is an admin (which I have asked why he doesn't show it on his user page - no direct response to this). there's this vague exchange as well [25] the bar is now much much higher to be an admin. see his selection for adminship. [26]. LibStar (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I should note that I have no problem with admins who remain admins through changing standards so long as their behavior continues to be up to the expectations of an admin. As of now, his behavior is not up to the standards. If he had passed RFA 2 months ago, and had sudden started acting this way, I would still feel that his suitibility to continue to be an admin is questionable. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, the key question here is his behaviour consistent with adminship. I believe Wikipedia:ADMIN#Administrator_conduct is not being met. LibStar (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The sig doesn't bother me. It's easy enough to get the time or talk page of the user by clicking the history tab so I'm not sure what the fuss is about. However, the obfuscational (is that a word?) conversation linked above definitely needs explanation. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• The reason the signature bothers me is that I frequently access Wikipedia from my BlackBerry. The format of the page is slightly different when viewed on such a device, and having to scroll up to a search bar and type in his user name or scroll to the bottom of the page, click the history, find his user name, and click on the link is beyond what should be required to access somebody's talk page. A simple link solves this. --auburnpilot talk 16:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Fair enough. But he doesn't sound particularly tech savvy so perhaps this should be explained to him. I'm really curious about the exchange above which doesn't look healthy at all - unless there are mitigating factors that we're unaware off. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing a good deal of his talk page history a few weeks ago I would have arrived at the opposite conclusion, that he is pretty savvy about these things. Drawn Some (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• It's only "easy" to get the timestamp when it's the last edit in the history. For longer/complex pages or reviewing back in history, it can be very difficult to figure out which exact diff is the one you're looking for. Franamax (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I don't like his signature but he's been using it for six years and I don't think he should be hassled over it. I told him that a couple of weeks ago: [27]. Should he sign "properly"? Yes. Should he be forced to or punished for not doing so? No. I am much more concerned about his refusal to answer questions about being an administrator because I had a similar situation to LibStar's just before that interaction. I understand that it is just another set of tools and that a case could be made for it being essentially irrelevant but I believe when asked directly it should be answered without hesitation. I would like to see all administrators be included in a category of administrators or have some other uniform identification that is apparent without checking status. His status was particularly difficult to check because the record-keeping wasn't the same back then. As far as the archiving of his talk page, he clearly marks when he is saving it in the edit summary and he made the point many years ago that it was already archived in the history and there is something to be said for that. Yes, the bar for being administrator is much higher now than it was six years ago but that is essentially irrelevant until there is some procedure where all admins have to go up for confirmation every year or two which is what I would support. The people who have been around for a while are very important for institutional memory. Six years is a long time in terms of Wikipedia. Drawn Some (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That he's been using the same way of signing for 6 years doesn't suggest community tolerance or support, only that he's been ignoring multiple requests to change it. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Not a category, but Special:ListUsers/sysop works. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

  Or just add the following to your monobook: importScript("User:Animum/usergroups.js"); //[[User:Animum/usergroups.js]]

Yeah, I understand that there are ways of checking, but you can't expect new users to be able to figure stuff like those methods out. Put yourself in the shoes of your average user. Drawn Some (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Some admins might not want to "present" as an admin because it might cause people to act differently towards them, when they should not. Admins are just editors with a few extra buttons. –xeno^talk 17:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I can understand that but when an ordinary user asks if they are an admin, as in my case in the context of what I thought was non admin closure, there was no response to my question instead a series of vague questions in response. Admins should identify themselves when necessary not pretend not to be one when asked. LibStar (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that. And like he pointed out to me, you shouldn't trust someone telling you that they are an admin anyway. BTW, I tried the monobook thing but futzed it up. Anyone can feel free to fix it for me if possible. Drawn Some (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support an involuntary re-RFA (if that's possible). I have no trust in him as an admin, based on his interactions with me and other users and his recent actions at AFD and his general refusal to abide by community standards that multiple editors have complained about. Is there any editor here who would complain if he signed properly? No. Are there many editors that are vexed that he refuses to comply with a simple, courteous community standard? Yes. Is this indicative of an overall attitude that degrades confidence in his collegiality and judgement? Yes.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

  No such thing. –xeno^talk 16:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Pity. There should be. I suppose the best course is a block until he promises to change his ways on the sig, at least.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment the sequence of events here [28] following a very clear outcome in this deletion review shows a genuine attempt to circumvent DRV processes. I am particulary concerned that an admin tried to do this and not respect DRV. LibStar (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Administrator communications, administrators are expected to respond to comments, criticisms and other matters promptly and civilly, especially in regards to administrative actions and to justify where and when needed. Docu has refused to do that time and time again, simply "archiving" by wiping the slate clean on his talk page. That is unacceptable, and going on a vague, incorrect response five years ago about his handicapped keyboard is not enough. Given that Docu has come up time and time again on subjects that exceed the bound of his signature issues, especially in regards to his improper and biased AFD closures, he should either be subject to reconfirmation as administrator, or voluntary de-sysop himself lest he wants this process dragged out that could very well end at a RFC. seicer | talk | contribs 17:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• This discussion makes me want to bring up WP:EQUALITY (even though I don't fully agree with it). Just because he's been doing this for a long time and has been an editor forever does not mean that he can get away with acting and communicating the way he does. He is rude and condescending to other editors, and it looks bad for Wikipedia as a whole. As someone mentioned above, if this was a new admin, less people would be letting it slide. hmwithτ 17:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I would support a desysop of this user—xe has made constructive contributions as a user, but the lack of communication and civility cannot be tolerated in an administrator. I would be neutral about blocking the user, leaning toward a weak support. Dendodge _T\^C 17:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I can't help ignoring WP:AGF & wonder if the original complaint about Docu's signature was due to friction between him & other users -- which now is being discussed directly about removing his Admin bit. I personally don't have a problem with how he signs his posts (I don't want a repeat of the last WikiDrama over people's signatures), & if he is dis-sysopted, I believe how he signs his posts is no longer a big deal to the vast majority of Wikipedians. What I'd like to see is that either this discussion about his fitness as an Admin is moved to an RfC, or the thread "User:Docu's signature violates WP:SIGNATURE" closed before this thread grows much longer. -- llywrch (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More personal attacks + edit warring

Dear Administrators,

I have earlier reported User:Interestedinfairness for a personal attack on myself (diff here), which resulted in that user being warned. However, he has done it again, this time to User:ThuranX, by calling him "childish" (diff here). Furthermore, if you look at the history of the Kosovo article (which is, by the way, on probation), you'll see User:Interestedinfairness deleting whole chunks of referenced text that don't suit his POV pushing. Several users have accused him of POV pushing and have warned him many times to stop doing what he is doing, on his talk page. However, the POV pushing is continuing and he is turning the Kosovo discussion into a "who Kosovo really belongs to" discussion. I propose that some action be taken, as he was already warned too many times and it's not working.

All the best,

--Cinéma C 18:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing Einstein Page

I would like to clean up the Einstein page by starting with the "External Links" section. There are some dead links there and other I think may be unnecessary and a violation of Wiki policy on EL. I believe this page can only be edited by registered editors. How can I register? Bigweeboy (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection blocks users that are not autoconfirmed from editing. That means your account needs to be at least 4 days old and you need to have 10 or more edits to anything. You have already made one by asking this question, so see if there are any other pages that interest you that you can help and you should be good to go! Livewireo (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Unprotected, has been almost a year, let's give unprotection a try. –xeno^talk 18:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Looking at your contributions and the age of your account, you should be able to edit semi-protected articles Livewireo (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all. I have made some edits to the EL section and the changes seem to have taken hold. Bigweeboy (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Your Vandalism

Why are you(NJGW) vandalizing the 'Race and Intelligence' page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.250.35 (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

NJGW (talk · contribs) isn't an admin. Plus, you should contact them on their talk page about their edits. – Toon^(talk) 22:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion folks. 86.42.250.35 (talk · contribs) wants to know why I'm telling them they are at 3rr for removing the same bit of info from an article 3 times. Please enjoy the rest of your evening. NJGW (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, directed to IP) Also, please review the Wikipedia definition of vandalism. You are making accusations with no merit. Tan | 39 23:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's one with merit: That statement of scientific research should be sourced to something that is a little better than a web-log whose unidentifiable author is known solely by the pseudonym "Mo", and whose reputation for fact checking and accuracy thus cannot be determined. I observe that the editor without an account has actually made this point twice ("poor quality citation" "Wikipedia should not cite blogs"). Instead of doing nothing more than treating this as vandalism, edit warring back and forth over the content, and then issuing warnings, I suggest treating it as the quite valid challenge to the reliability of the source cited that it is, and addressing the underlying, and explicitly stated, problem by finding and citing a reliable source. That will stop the editor without an account far more satisfactorily than 3RR will. And it will improve the encyclopaedia, to boot. Uncle G (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Uncle G. here. While the IP editor is mistaken that a user should be an admin to issue warnings (they don't; anyone can) the IP editor here has a valid challenge; and as noted in places such as WP:V, and I quote "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." As the article in question is one that is likely to generate a LOT of tension over specific information, and should be scrupulously referenced to avoid the appearance of impropriety, the standard for referencing should be very high. I would support the removal of poorly sourced information at that article until such time as a valid source could be added to support it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Somebody, anybody, please buy Uncle G a Guinness and put it on my tab. Hear, hear! --64.85.222.248 (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the anon was removing information typically tagged or fixed per wp:PRESERVE, as well as referred to easily verifiable objective facts as political bias. These edits were singularly aimed at removing any evidence of controversy from the hypothesis that race governs intelligence, leading me to believe that this person is a highly POV anon. The article in question, BTW, needs a total rewrite from a sociologist. If I ever get a free month I'll do it myself (though I'm no sociologist). NJGW (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me reitate Uncle G's point. If you don't want the information removed, find a reliable source. Blogs are not generally reliable, especial for an article such as this. Go to the library, find a book, and cite it. The neat thing about that is that the problem goes away when you do that, with two benefits: a) no one gets blocked and b) the article gets better. Its a win-win! If preserving the poorly sourced information is a problem, then copy it to the talk page, and keep it out of the article, but preserved at the talk page, until such time as the information can be properly referenced. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Harassment/edit warring

72.66.109.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has continuously removed content or reverted to his own favored version of the articles he has edited, and harasses editors who don't agree with his POV. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

That is totally untrue. I have started the section titled Juggalo on the WP:BLPN noticeboard. Please read the Juggalo talk page, my extensive edit summaries and also the BLP noticeboard. I have really and truly tried to talk this out with Ibarnoff but he continues to edit war and ignore the opinions of other editors. I have had a pretty constructive conversation with both Martin and Metropolitan90 (from the BLP board) about why I think the Juggalo page has a BLP issue. All I am trying to do is follow wikipedia policy the best I know how, but Ibaranoff is completely harassing me. Please suggest something, maybe some form of mediation. Thank you. 72.66.109.24 (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• You can find my comments on this issue at WP:BLPN, primarily at this diff. Based on what I have seen so far, I do not believe that Ibaranoff24's accusation of harassment and edit warring by 72.66.109.24 is justified. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Per WP:V and especially WP:BLP, when an editor has made a good-faith challenge to potentially libelous matierial, or other material which may violate the BLP policy, the material should be removed until the dispute is resolved. BLPs are a serious issue, and we can leave some nugget of info out of an article until we are sure that the the nugget is factual and adequetly sourced, then so be it. We aren't in a rush here. Lets get it right rather than get it NOW. Otherwise, since this thread appears to be an extension of an existing thread in another location, we shouldn't split up threads. Let us allow the WP:BLPN thread to play itself out here and not divide the issues up among different forums. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    • It is clear that this individual is not editing in good faith. He has repeatedly reverted any edit that he disagrees with, insults other editors and tells them that they make "zero sense", removes content from talk pages, and claims that he has support that doesn't exist. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

I no longer assume good faith from Ibaranoff. He has been edit warring, harassing me on my talk page, ignoring other editors and been pretty uncivil in general. It looks like I do have some support and to be quite honest, a lot of your arguments really don't make any sense. If you would have just talked this out instead of continuously reinserting BLP violation material, we could have had this hashed out a week ago. 72.66.109.24 (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This editor clearly does not understand Wikipedia's policies, repeatedly removes content, harasses other editors, and makes false accusations that are directly contradicted by the fact that he himself is behaving in this manner, not the editors he accuses. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

I would like to point out that the IP editor has been editing the talk page comments of other editors, which is against policy. Until It Sleeps 19:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

calling a cucumber

could someone calm and sensible please review, and maybe close this discussion (a deletion review on departed arb. sam's bio). Thanks :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

ah go on... someone's got to. (aren't I demanding...) Privatemusings (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

request

I'd like someone to take a look at this discussion: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 25#The Money Masters documentary.
cordially, Nunamiut (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Just did. Now what? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying it needs to be closed? hmwithτ 16:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

help - page formatting messed up

I added to [[29]] but the formatting is messed up and the bots are faster than me in editing. Fixing help would be appreciated. Iqinn (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The report is fixed and I've commented on the same. TNXMan 13:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

File:The Pillars 02.jpg

Resolved

I would move this into article namespace but I can't. I can't remember if you guys can or not but if you can and want to that's fine. I was inclined to suggest deletion, but last time I tried to get an article in the wrong namespace deleted, MfD sent me to AfD and AfD sent me to MfD. So you guys deal with it. Gurch (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The one image/article looked like G11 to me, and the other image was clearly a copyright violation (I guess it's reasonable to believe the uploader works for them, but without confirmation...). So yeah, nuked. He's also been inactive over a year, so I'm going to assume this is the is the end of it and marking it resolved. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive, edit-warring editor

In early July 2007, User:Peterdjones did his first beer article edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trappist_beer&diff=142217813&oldid=135505666 The information he added was generally inaccurate and seemed to reflect the POV of Beer Advocate or another beer fan website. He edit-warred with knowledgable editors (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trappist_beer&diff=146165701&oldid=146159214) and by 21 August 2007, he was gone. All the articles that he had inaccurately written and protected with edit-warring had to be rewritten.

A few weeks ago (25 May), he returned. The edit-warring is back: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quadrupel&action=history Plus endless and pointless discussions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quadrupel#Links

His lack of knowledge about Dutch/Belgian beer is enough of a problem. His edit-warring and pointless discussions prevent editors from working since we need to spend time undoing the damage he caused and trying to explain to him why he is wrong.

I have reverted many of his edits because I: a. hoped/expected he would soon go away, as he had before, and b. it was quicker than having to go through his history to collect diffs to file this notice. Please ban him from the beer article so that we can improve instead of defending the status quo. Mikebe (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As an independant third party, I have to say that Mikebe is as much to blame as Peterdjones. Pay no attention to this post.Beakerboy (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Two points Beakerboy. One is that you haven't provided any diffs to back up that assertion. Two is that in posting here, Mikebe is also inviting scrutiny of his actions in regards to this dispute. Administrators will look at all actions by all editors when formulating a response. Suggesting they ignore this post is ill-considered. Exxolon (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What I thought I was doing is making some small and uncontentious amendments to some articles. It seems to have blown up into a huge battle that I don't really have the time to take part it. I find it odd that I can amend the article reality without comment, as I recently did, but the minutiae of Belgian beer have to be argued out exhaustively. If anyone wishes to pursue this

matter (and I can't think why they should) further, I can provide examples of mikebe making misleading edit summaries and getting facts wrong. 1Z (talk)

Peterdjones, you don't help yourself when you refactor the comments of others to remove a diff (see here) at the same time as stating your case. I have reinserted it, you should note I spotted this and am not even involved in your dispute. Mine's a Leffe Tripel ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Extra eyes on a touchy BLP DRV, please

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 27#David Boothroyd

This needs more input. rootology (C)(T) 15:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I closed it. It was 2 weeks old, and the discussion was going in circles. It has been quite long enough. There was no widespread support for changing the current situation, so the article will remain deleted. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    • • I endorse Jayron32's closure of the DRV. There is no evidence the article would have been kept at AfD, and the arguments for relisting it were not convincing. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
        • You do realize that a deletion can be out of process and contested as such even if it will likely be deleted at AFD? DRV is not about arguments whether an article should be kept or deleted but whether the deletion that happened was within policy. Regards SoWhy 20:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Yes, but I believe this is a proper application of WP:IAR as going through the process for process' sake is not necessarily a good thing. As the article has been deleted, and it is extremely unlikely that the article would be kept if the AfD was reopened, I see no reason to reopen it and undelete the article just to close it as delete and delete the article again in a few days. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    • A convenient way to circumvent the need for a majority at AFD. 14 people objected to the out of process action, compared to 16 people carrying on the AFD behind closed doors. MickMacNee (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: 97.86.82.130

The Technology director has requested that their ip be blocked. I know that blocks are not to be used as punishment, but the IT Director has requested we do so. The E-mail is a follows:

Andrew, I don't know why anyone should be editing anything on the Wikipedia page from our school. My advice would be for you to go ahead and block our IP address from the editing options for the Wikipedia. It is not possible for me to determine who has done the editing at this time. To my knowledge there is no need for anyone here to be editing. Please feel free to contact me if you have further problems or questions. Thanks,

Cathy Zoulek Technology Director Shelby Public Schools

The talkpage can be found Here, along with the e-mail I sent.

Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 15:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP is already blocked for nearly as long as it has been assigned, so in the absence of a crystal ball there's probably not much to be done here. If it's still assigned to the school after the block expires and the vandalism continues then it will be quickly blocked again. Thank you for taking an interest in stopping the vandalism but I tend to find these emails to school admins generally unhelpful to both the schools and Wikipedia. It's much better for everyone to simply block them if they're vandalising. Complaining about vandalism from schools is like complaining about rain coming in through an open window. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Have them email OTRS. Nakon 23:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Cat Mandu#Cat Mandu

Should this cat have his own article, as he was once joint leader of a political party? Or am I just being overly hopeful? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Original article. Redirect seems fine, but was he lolnotable? rootology (C)(T) 18:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

A joke political party nominated a cat as its leader, and you want a seperate article on the cat. Really? What more needs be said about the cat than what is already noted in the article on its owner? Does the amount of text occupied by the cat in the article necessitate that the information needs to be spun off into its own article? I mean, seriously, why?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a joke party, they actually had some legitimate political viewpoints. And yes the cat fulfils the criteria for WP:N, there are RS on in the article plus there's no shortage of paper round here. I think the original article should be restored. In fact I'm tempted to do it mmyself. --WebHamster 18:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I LOL'd!  – ukexpat (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We do have an existing article on Pigasus, for comparison. So long as we don't pretend that these animals had actual political positions, I don't see a problem. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I long for the day we see an NPOV-citing edit war that we must "respect the party's view per NPOV" that "the right honourable feline" was indeed the councillor from Kittyshire. rootology (C)(T) 19:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's about time a decent pussy was sat on the front benches. --WebHamster 19:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem with an IP editor

Hi,

**Advance apologies for all the diffs, just trying to provide enough evidence. But if you look at the relevant parts of the talk page and the article history it'll be clear**

I am here to ask for admin assistance with 68.111.167.64 (talk). The editor is causing myself and User:Aboutmovies a lot of problems with edits to Intel Corporation. The IP editor is very keen to include a speculative comment without sourcing that is OR. I came to the page after a request for a third opinion (Taking the case). I gave that opinion, and then reinforced it which disagreed with the editor's opinion and they then tried to create an ArbCom case that has been refused and yet still the editor makes their non-consensus changes which I revert, and then ask them to stop at their talk page. The editor doubted my neutrality in the ArbCom case creation and is now assuming bad faith in Aboutmovies, here.

I have tried to welcome this editor and suggest paths to help. Instead I am ignored and the editor carries on regardless. To me this is a clear case of an editor unable to accept that both policy and consensus is against the edit. I don't know if the answer is page protection, a block, or someone telling me I'm being unreasonable, but I'd like to sort this out please as I am tired!

I will notify both the IP editor and Aboutmovies once this is posted.

Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)