Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is a messageboard for all administrators. Its chief purpose is to allow admins to ask each other for help and/or information, to communicate ideas, and for admin talk to happen.

However, any user of Wikipedia may post here. We're not an elite club, just normal editors with some additional technical means and responsibilities. Non-administrators are free to use it to talk to admins as a group. Please feel free to leave a message.

If you do, please sign and date all contributions, using the Wikipedia special form "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automagically. (The page archivers really need the time information.)

Please be aware that this isn't the place to bring disputes over content — we aren't referees. We have a dispute resolution procedure which we recommend you follow. If you bring content disputes here, we will advise you to take them elsewhere, such as mediation, requests for comment, or requests for arbitration.

To request specific assistance from an administrator, see Wikipedia:Requests for sysop attention. To request assistance from a specific administrator, see [[User Talk:Whoever]].

If there is another page which is a more natural location for the discussion of a particular point, please start the discussion there, and only put a short note of the issue, and a link to the relevant location, on this page. Put another way, to the extent possible, discussions are better off held somewhere else, and announced here. This will avoid spreading discussion of one topic over several pages (thereby making them harder to follow), and also reduce the rate of changes to this page. This last point is particularly important, as it makes this page easier for admins to watch; more admins will watch/monitor this page if the volume of postings is smaller.

Related pages:

• Meta-discussions about the board (what it's for, how to publicize it, etc) at Wikipedia_talk:Administrator's_noticeboard
• An index of "interesting" incidents in the Incident archives (i.e. ones where the discussion about an incident produced notable precedents, or other useful discussion of policy) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incident index

See also:

• Blocking policy
• Block user
• List of blocked IP addresses and usernames,

Tasks

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion help

Looks like this needs some cleaning up, too. Noel (talk) 20:00, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is really majorly backed up. I spent most of the day hacking away vaste swathes of material, and it's still totally overgrown. This page desperately needs some admin to take this on as their permanent bailiwick, and become its local beat cop. Alas, I just don't have the time. Do we have a volunteer? Noel (talk) 03:57, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I whack at it every time I play with wikipedia. It's gotten to the point that it's almost the only thing I do on wikipedia. Even so, I've been slacking lately, and spending time on my other hobbies. Every little bit anyone does helps. When (the rare times anyway) I finish with CfD, I start whacking at the categories marked for deletion (in the category) but not listed on CfD. (Essentially, if they are empty, they go. If not and they are not on CfD, the notice gets removed.) --ssd 05:01, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have spent a few hours deleting only the categories most obviously needing deletion, and there are still some left. However, I have not cleaned up the residue from the CfD page; some non-admin can do that as well as I can probably. Also, there are a large number of things that have been voted on, but no action taken (like moving articles to different categories). This should probably be done by bot by large category, and either person or bot for smaller ones. (This also could be done by a non-admin.) There is a bot, but I think it is on vacation. --ssd 08:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the bot is already working on a fairly large backlog of categories that need to be moved (from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/US vs U.S.), so it's just a matter of time before it all gets cleared up. --ssd 13:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've spent the last day or two cleaning it up so it's length is more tolerable now but there's still a fair number of categories from December to be dealt with. I've used my bot to help move pages on category renames. RedWolf 23:46, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Featured Picture Candidates in need of attention

Featured Picture Candidates needs someone familiar with the process to go over the nominations and do some promoting and archiving. Some of them are long overdue in getting a promotion. Mgm|^(talk) 10:20, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

I think we've caught up now. It doesn't need an admin, just a couple more editors willing to help. The instructions are at the bottom of the page. User:Solitude used to do a fair bit of this, but went on a WikiBreak just before Christmas, and User:Ed g2s was also away for a couple of days. That just left me, handling the promotions and managing the Picture of the day templates. With Wikipedia crawling, it took me nearly 3 hours to promote 3 pictures on Thursday. -- Solipsist 11:32, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deletion bugs

If you encounter an error - "Can't delete this article because it contains block-compressed revisions. This is a temporary situation which the developers are well aware of, and should be fixed within a month or two. Please mark the article for deletion and wait for a developer to fix our buggy software." - when trying to delete a page, replace its content with {{pending deletion}}, and protect it until the bug is fixed. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 01:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

General

Three revert rule

I ask here because I think it may be the best way of getting a quick feel for the consensus on a recent change. Recently the three revert rule was made enforceable. Now the case of a simple revert is easy to identify and most edits which are termed "reverts" fall into this category: a diff between two different versions of the text of a page or section shows that they are identical, with all intermediate changes reverted.

More recently I have noticed users deleting the added text of other users selectively. This is slightly more difficult to recognise because a diff between two versions isn't identical. What shows up however is that if two versions are compared, added text in intermediate changes is selectively deleted. So for instance in one example the first user made a cosmetic edit, correcting the spelling of a single word, and a second user made a more substantial edit in which text was added. A third user then came along and performed an edit to delete all of the added text of the second user while retaining the cosmetic edit of the first, and also tweaked the heading of a section. The effect was to remove the added text of the second user.

This becomes a question because the third user had very shortly before performed two reverts on the same page, and the third edit could be seen as an attempt to evade the three revert rule.

I'd like to open the question up. Is this kind of edit covered by existing policy or practise? Does it qualify in this case as a third revert? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My opinion is that a revert which includes minor changes (such as spelling changes and capitalisation) is still a revert. The purpose of the 3RR is to prevent revert wars, and clearly spelling changes don't make much difference to most such wars. I think a warning might be a sufficient rebuff for a first offence.-gadfium (talk) 03:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would agree with this comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Me too. The advantage of having people decide rather than machines is we can see through attempts to works the system. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Mgm|^(talk) 11:36, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty clear in the discussion at Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement that reverts that also make other changes should count for the purposes of the three-revert rule. For example, see my vote on that page. It shouldn't matter whether the other changes mixed in with a revert are major or minor, it's still a revert. However, I have just checked back at Wikipedia talk:Three revert rule enforcement#Spirit vs. letter of the 3RR and Wikipedia talk:Three revert rule enforcement#Mixing reverts and significant edit, and things no longer seem as clear as I had remembered. I would support a clarification to the 3RR saying that a revert mixed with other changes is still a revert. —AlanBarrett 17:39, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think a revert mixed with changes is still a revert; if someone wants to make unrelated changes, they can certainly do so in a separate edit. And indeed, if someone were to do the revert change, and then make other unrelated changes, they would definitely be blocked under the 3RR. Most admins I have seen have been interpreting revert+edits as a revert. Jayjg 20:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the key word here is "unrelated" changes, because those are just cosmetic and an attempt to get around the rule. Substantive and/or responsive changes whether contiguous with the disputed text or not, as is appropriate to the article and issues involved, should not count as a revert. I propose also, that in the interest of community, mere deletion reverts be treated more critically, since unless the additions were vandalism, the assumption should be they are good faith contributions.--Silverback 04:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Users have used this exact excuse to get around the rule before; on the fourth revert, re-inserting a disputed paragraph, while making substantial edits to other sections. If they want to make their substantial edits to the other sections in good faith, they can certainly make them in a separate edit. Re-insertion of disputed text along with other major edits is bad faith. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If it is a related and substantive change, as in the case I have in mind, it wouldn't make sense to make the other major edit separately from the insertion, they would be somehow supportive of each other or make a connection that is responsive to stated objections, the opposite of bad faith.--Silverback 05:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's crystal clear to me that if we don't consider a "reversion+edits" as a reversion, to count toward the 3RR, we might as well ditch the 3RR rule - because otherwise everyone will make an edit as well, every time they do a revert, and will thereby avoid ever triggering the 3RR. Noel (talk) 04:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have raised this issue (that unless a revert+edit counts as a revert, the 3RR is a dead letter) at Wikipedia talk:Three revert rule#Edits and reversions; comment there would be welcome. Noel (talk) 23:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It will take judgement. Substantive and/or responsive changes (responsive to edit summary or talk page points). Minor changes, such as adding a wikilink that addresses issues raised can be substantive and responsive.--Silverback 04:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In most cases I've seen, it's just an attempt to get around the 3RR. I suppose it's possible in some cases that it's not, and admins should always attempt to exercise good judgement in all situations, of course. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On another note, we need a specific place to report 3RR violations (e.g. not on the talk pages of large numbers of individual sysops). If there were a particular page (Wikipedia:Excessive reversions in progress? Wikipedia:3RR violations?) then people could discuss (quickly) which users did or didn't violate the 3RR. Pakaran (ark a pan) 20:45, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where to report three revert rule violations

What is the best way to alert administrators to 3 revert rule violations? Now that blocking is policy, should they be brought here so admins can deal with them? Jayjg 01:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think so. Offenders often feel that the opposing side cherry-picks admins sympathetic to their cause. Violations are typically obvious enough that any admin should be able to block infringing parties, and posting them here would unify any revert-count disputes in one place without having them sprawl across user pages. Cool Hand Luke 01:28, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good for now. If it picks up to be too much traffic here, we can move it to a separate page. Noel (talk) 07:18, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is this where we report 3RR violations now? I tried to find a proper place for it (not wanting to block somebody over a dispute I am myself involved in). I ended up putting a note on WP:RFP (please see there). dab (ᛏ) 12:25, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe so; this place seems more appropriate IMO. Johnleemk | Talk 14:19, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WP:RFP probably isn't a good place, for several reasons. First, if a user violates the 3RR, the solution is to block them temporarily (repeated violations should be taken to ArbComm, who may ban them). Second, my sense is that policy was not to protect pages because of edit wars unless there's a really heated edit war among many parties, and two people warring doesn't meet that standard (and see the first point). Noel (talk) 18:06, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

no, you are quite right. I think we will need a special page where people can request such blocks (this page doesn't seem an obvious choice) dab (ᛏ) 21:19, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In line with User:Charm's point at WT:AN#Are people finding this useful? (which also resulted in the recent addition to header of this page), this sounds like a reasonable suggestion. Please propose a location for 3RR violation reports! Noel (talk) 16:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added a note to Wikipedia:Three-revert rule suggesting that violations be reported here. —AlanBarrett 17:00, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Handling 3RR violations

May I request that if someone deals with a 3RR violation reported in #Incidents, can they please drop us a short note here to say that they have done so? That way, others won't have to spend time looking at the case only to find out it has already been dealt with. Thanks! Noel (talk) 14:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Auto unblocking

Is this still broken? I've been unblocking expired blocks each day since shortly after the move to Wikimedia 1.4, but today it looks like someone has done a very thorough job just before I got there, or the blocks are being auto removed on expiry again. There's nothing in the block log to indicate someone's done it manually.-gadfium 01:03, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Silsor removed the item from this page with the edit summary stating that the bug was fixed, so I assume it is (and there was much rejoicing). --fvw* 01:10, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

It appears have been fixed.Geni 01:11, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that bug and the one which caused the expiry time not to appear have both been fixed. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 12:22, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problems

There seems to be a lot of images slowly being listed for copyright issues, with no prior warning on articles' talk pages which they pertain to. As such, it seems several articles have missing images and it's very difficult to track why they were removed. See Star Trek and Outpost (computer game) as examples. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:48, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Part of this, at least, may be related to the continued glitch of image pages too often not displaying what links there. Perhaps until the glitch is resolved, known pages an image appears in be listed on the image page when adding a Wikipedia:Copyright problems or Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images notice. -- Infrogmation 20:56, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Incidents

Problematic image uploads

GeneralPatton (a fellow admin, by the way) has the annoying/disturbing habit of uploading images without providing sources, and sometimes w/o license tag. Especially troubling is his use of {{fairuse}} without providing image sources. He has so far not responded to numerous requests to supply this information. (See User talk:GeneralPatton, there are currently four requests for image sources and/or tags, and there are more in his archives.) Does anybody have an idea how to get GP to supply this info short of opening an RfC? I can't believe it's that difficult to get him to properly cite his sources (or provide proper attribution for images), given that he self-identifies as a member of Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards... :-( Lupo 14:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lupo, I've replied to you a number of times. If you notice, those un-taged images were uploaded in April of last year. GeneralPatton 13:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But you have, as far as I can see, never provided a single source for an image, even when explicitly asked to do so. Image sources are just as important as tags, as I have tried to explain on your talk page. Lupo 13:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, for instance, here I have, [1], the overall majority of photos I upload are of World War II or earlier, and the overwhelming majority of it comes from public domain archives, i.e. US National Archives, Archives of the Imperial War Museum and the Bundesarchiv. Who precisely took the photo is in most cases lost to history. GeneralPatton 19:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is obvious. But then you just state where you got them from. With URL (of the page showing the image, not just a top-level URL for these archives), please. Or ISBN and page number, if scanned from a book. Otherwise, these images risk ending up on WP:PUI sooner or later because nobody can verify the license claims. That would be a shame: you do upload useful images. Besides, your argument doesn't apply to the Shuttle Buran images. And I was not talking about images on the Commons—I have no idea what you do over there. I was talking about images uploaded to this (the English) Wikipedia. Posting the link above (which is for an image on the commons) is thus a bit besides the point. Lupo 19:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Shuttle Buran images are from the former Soviet Union, obviously official photographs, the question of intellectual property was in large unregulated in SU. The whole issue of copyright in today’s Russia is still in a mess, there you have streets filled with CD’s DVD’s, books are published and translated without any fees. Just who owns those photos is really debatable since the legal infrastructure is lacking. Same can be said of the WW2 photos, German propaganda ministry had hundreds of photographers taking pictures on all fronts, publishing them in a variety of magazines and even on postcards and calendars without providing the photographer. Of course, situation was different for someone like Heinrich Hoffman and even Hitler who got massive royalties for use of their “material” and in Hitler’s case, even his likeness was deemed as his “copyright”. As far as I know most of the Hoffman material is now in PD since he was tried as a war profiteer and his assets i believ siezed. GeneralPatton 00:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dear GeneralPatton, I am not disputing the license of these images. We've talked about that before, and you know that I even think that the German WWII images are mostly PD (if published before 1954), and I am aware of the issue of copyrights in Russia. I'm just asking you for the umpteenth time to supply the sources (where you got these images from) in the interest of verifiability, and to comply with international copyright law. Lupo 07:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please, can somebody else pipe in here, I don't know how else to express myself—I don't seem to get the point across. Lupo 07:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

GeneralPatton, it is very simple: we like to know as much as possible about the sources of all images, not only for licencing reasons, but also for reasons of encyclopedicity. An image without a reference to a source is unencyclopedic, and should be removed on this ground, never mind the copyright laws. So please at least state where you found the image, if you don't have any additional information. dab (ᛏ) 19:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I understand, I'll try from now on. However, is "scanned from a period postcard" a legitimate source? GeneralPatton 03:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

well, if you have access to the actual postcard, there will be some iformation on the back, such as photographer, printer and year. Would be nice to include that. dab (ᛏ) 08:10, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Proprietary games

This category was listed on Categories for deletion. However, I don't know any process to reverse the votes or change it from not being deleted. There is only one problem attempting to empty the category... the suggested move to Category:Computer and video games by company is an incorrect suggestion, and whether or not placing these articles Category:Computer and video games would be considered as disruptive. A few of the articles reference to companies which are now defunct. Although they can be placed into categories that appropriately fit their company, I am uncertain whether that should be the clear solution in this case. Some of the game articles listed in the category have existing companies which have categories, but a lot of them don't seem to. Would it be just best to remove the category from the articles if they already have categories? -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:29, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the category can be safely removed from all articles. Most are already in a game related category. User:Anárion/sig 14:58, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have looked at the articles in this category several times over the past two days and at a crossroads as to how to deal with it. A lot of the games seemed to be developed by one company and distributed by another. I really don't think we need to be adding a whole bunch of new subcats to Category:Computer and video games by company just for relatively minor companies. I'd prefer to just remove the category from all the articles and be done with it. Most of the games are categorized upside down and inside out it seems enough already. Categorization overkill seems to be rampant in some areas. Categorization is great but only to a certain point. RedWolf 23:57, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

I opposed deleting this category for all of the above reasons. I did NOT propose making new categories in Category:Computer and video games by company, but to move articles into subcategories of that category where appropriate and remove them from Category:Proprietary games. Actually, I found that with many articles, this had already been done, leaving proprietary largely redundant. While doing this, I found that many companies have software by X categories, but the company's article is not linked to it! This is a mess. (but I digress) I have removed the proprietary tag from all articles that already have a name-brand or series related category. The rest (~30) need to be examined by a gaming expert and adjusted as appropriate. --ssd 06:02, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Arminius

A minor problem I'm hoping someone can lend a hand with.

• At 13:48, Dec 31, 2004, Arminius deleted User talk:Arminius with comment time to go.
• At 03:23, Jan 13, 2005, Wolfman asked for the undeletion of User talk:Arminius, at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion#User talk:Arminius.
• At 04:14, Jan 13, 2005, I restored the history of User talk:Arminius and left this message on it:

  Hi Arminus,

  Your own pages aren't actually candidates for speedy, believe it or not, so I undeleted your page history per the request on VfU. However, number 7 of the "Other pages" category on CSD is "User and talk pages on request of the user, where there is no significant abuse, and no administrative need to retain the page. A redirect (to the user's new name, or to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians) should be created to avoid red links and confusion."

  So if you want the page deleted again, let me (or any other admin) know. —Ben Brockert (42) 04:23, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

• At 11:20, Jan 13, 2005, Arminius deleted User talk:Arminius with no comment.
• At 03:29, Jan 14, 2005, I restored User talk:Arminius with no comment.
• At 12:15, Jan 14, 2005, Arminius deleted User talk:Arminius with no comment.

Wikipedia:User page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages? is explicit that an admin should not delete their own pages. It for the same reason we shouldn't block ourselves or protect our own pages. There was apparently an arbitration case against Arminius, which is why Wolfman wanted the history kept. I have no reason to get into a history war with an admin I know nothing about; the only reason I'm involved is because I watch VfU. If he had done as I asked, I would support the deletion of his talk page, but his actions make me wary, and I wonder if it would be best if the page history was kept. Please review the linked pages, and opine. —Ben Brockert (42) 07:10, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

I have undeleted the page and left a message for Arminius, asking him to tag it for someone else to delete. SWAdair | Talk 08:00, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I actually tend to agree with Arminius on the interpretation that admins can delete their own pages, however if there was community consensus to undelete them, they should be undeleted. --fvw* 18:03, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

Policy states that user pages cannot be speedied upon objection. I have objected. From Wikipedia:User page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages?: "If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user and user talk page." (emphasis added) Wolfman 20:40, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yup, that's fine by me, I just don't quite agree with the "admins can't delete their own pages" interpretation. In this case, it's definately up to the community instead of unilateral actions. --fvw* 05:06, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

• If there is indeed an arbitration case ongoing against Arminius as suggested above, his talk page should be retained for administrative purposes. Mgm|^(talk) 19:22, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

The arbitration case was closed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Arminius with the comment "as long as Arminius realizes that future misconduct would be dealt with far more severely (as a second offense, so to speak)". An important part of the evidence in that case refered to discussions on the talk page. While the case is closed, there is no good reason to delete the evidentiary history. I seriously doubt any non-admin would be allowed to do so. There is even less reason to allow an admin to delete such history since the case concerned abuse of admin privileges. Note that it's the deletion of history that I object to, not the deletion of page content. Wolfman 01:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, technically a pre-emptive objection is not itself enough to prevent deletion of a user page requested by the user. That would allow any grudge holder to effectively permanently deny another user a common right simply by objecting and never rescinding the objection. Any decision of that nature should be made by community consensus. Normally (barring evidence of policy violations) a user page may be deleted and the objection handled after, along the lines of Objection, automatic undeletion, VfD. Wolfman is correct, though, in pointing out that this talk page contains evidence of policy violations. That in itself is a show-stopper. If this were a regular user, I would advocate deleting the history (available for undeletion if another case is brought before the next database purge) since the evidence relates to a closed case and since the user's conduct during the case was exemplary. I cannot so advocate in this case, however, since the history involves alleged abuse of admin privileges. If no cases are brought against him within six months of the close of the last one, I would advocate allowing the deletion of the history. For the moment, since deletion, objection, and undeletion have taken place, the next step is VfD. SWAdair | Talk 07:19, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Slander

Please deal with the slanderous remarks posted by User:Trey Stone on one of his userpages. (He has more sockpuppets than Lir, such as User:Master Sockpuppet and User:Raghead-in-Chief-- just a couple out of the dozens that I remember.) The comments break every possible civility policy. Comments similar to the following should also be removed [2] Thank you. 172 04:44, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Does this really require administrator involvment? Why not move this to Wikipedia:Requests for comment? As I read the Wikipedia:Blocking policy, it doesn't cover incivility or rudeness. -- Netoholic @ 05:08, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

It does cover purposeful disruption. If he continues being disruptive, a block is in order. But, at this stage, you're right, a block is premature. 172 05:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't cover this case, even if you feel "disrupted". Anyway, those two sockpuppets you point out have only two edits each, and if that Trey Stone diff above is the worst he's done, he still is quite a way off from a block. I think it balances out the "disruption" you caused when you removed his comment from that Talk page. -- Netoholic @ 05:21, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

(This section was removed, but I restored it in case there were any other opinions on the reported incident, and so normal archiving can occur in time.) -- Netoholic @ 06:25, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

He's an immature prat to be sure, but an RfC would be more appropriate. Wasn't he dragged to arbcom yet, for his sockpuppetry? Mackensen (talk) 06:56, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Please note that 172 asked for us to deal with Trey's actions, nowhere did he ask for a block. I vaguely remember witnessing a dispute between the two at some article, but I can't remember the name. I agree that it should be an RFC request. Mgm|^(talk) 19:26, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

GNAA Staos

During the slashdotting of the Enemy Territory article today, User:GNAA Staos moved it to "CLIT COMMANDER". I first blocked the account indefinitely, but since there are some legitimate contributions in the past and some GNAA members have been known to treat Wikipedia as a reference work rather than a spittoon I have unblocked and left a warning. If anyone would like to implement a block that's fine with me, I feel like I left it hanging. silsor 09:48, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

My advise is to watch the account, but don't block. Not all GNAA members vandalise Wikipedia (incredibly enough). - Ta bu shi da yu 05:08, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This one did. silsor 06:18, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

In that case, block. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Scott Peterson

Uh, hasn't Scott Peterson been blocked yet? I can't find him in the block log. Here are his latest edits, none of them that recent:
User talk:Stormwolf, (WHY ARE YOU SUCH A GAY NIGGER?!?!)
User talk:Fwv (WHY ARE YOU AND STORMWOLF AND HOARY AND RICK AND EVERY OTHER MOTHER FUCKER WRITING MEAN ASS SHIT ABOUT ME ON ALL THE KICK ASS FORUMS?!!?! YOU ARE A FUCKING FAGF AND GOD FUCKING HATES YOU.. GOD DAMN GO)
User talk:Adam Bishop (htr5thI HAVE A HARD ON FOR WAR)
--Bishonen | Talk 20:48, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)P.S. Those aren't the posts, btw, they're just the edit summaries. Click on the links to get to the meat.--Bishonen | Talk 21:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blocked as troll/impersonation/personal attack account. Anyone seriously object? - David Gerard 22:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Object??? Endorse, heartily. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:36, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

That guy seemed to have left on his own accord, so I didn't block him, but I do not object to this :) Adam Bishop 06:33, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lir?

65.103.53.243 looks like it might be Lir. Could a dev check whether this is correct and if so, block and reset the ban? --fvw* 23:19, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

It appears to be his cable - he's posted as himself from it before. Blocked for 1 month, as per practice for banned users' cable/DSL IPs - David Gerard 01:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought. That means his ban resets though; What's the appropriate place to note this? Vogel has a counter on his user page, but that might not be appropriate as Lir actually used his user page himself. --fvw* 01:56, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

I see no reason not to use the user page. Just doing it now - David Gerard 02:11, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Troll patterns

The GNAA troll and User:Scott Peterson both followed a pattern of starting with some proper edits and then going batshit. One to watch for - David Gerard 02:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He has been blocked (Both by you and me). Thue | talk 10:23, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Page Protection

Can someone please page protect Dean Scream while it is being discussed. Ollieplatt 06:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ever heard of WP:RFP? dab (ᛏ) 07:39, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ollieplatt

I have blocked Olliplatt for 24 hours for violating the 3RR rule on several pages, even though he has been warned, and for edit warring and making POV edits all over the place. He also deleted the ifd header from Image:Deanheil.jpg without discussion RickK 06:50, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Neutrality^talk 07:11, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, too. Davenbelle 07:13, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I believe he is also User:Billclinton (And, of course, User:Libertas); there are others I suspect. Davenbelle 07:16, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Technical evidence found by Tim Starling confirms that Libertas has multiple sockpuppet accounts. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Libertas/Proposed decision#Sockpuppets 2. Neutrality^talk 07:19, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at Ultramarine? I'm pretty sure that this user is Libertas. I'd eat crow if it were confirmed that he was not. 172 07:22, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We'll check. Sometimes these things aren't picked up (there are time limits and such). I'll ask Tim or another developer to check. Neutrality^talk 07:24, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Is there a specific spot for asking developers questions like that? —Ben Brockert (42) 07:51, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Nope - they're largely busy working on the system (both adding new bits and, of late, putting gaffa tape and string around the bits steam is blasting from) - sockpuppetwatch is a low priority, so ask very nicely ;-) - David Gerard 08:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. To be fair, I retract my comments somewhat. I still strongly suspect a connection, but I'm not totally certain. This user just proved somewhat reasonable in accepting an encyclopedic rewrite of his POV additions. But then again Libertas has his reasonable moments too, such as when he accepted by reworking of Soviet Union. 172 08:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If records are still available, you might take a look at User:Antiwar and User:JackStack as well. RadicalSubversiv E 08:35, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also Zulitz, who is usually a fairly reasonable editor, but who made a comment on my talk page pretending to be Antiwar ([3]). RadicalSubversiv E 09:41, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much for blocking this disruptive user; don't be surprised, however, if he looks for retribution when he's unblocked (he frivolously listed one of my images on IFD and then WP:CP after I blocked him). [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 13:10, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Those following this delightful saga may be interested in taking a look at Students for a Democratic Society, where Ollieplatt is now insisting upon the inclusion of dubious information about LSD, backed up by irrelevant citations. I'd open an article content RFC, but that seems kind of useless at this point. RadicalSubversiv E 09:45, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everyking

I blocked Everyking for 24 hours for violating the 3RR rule on Pieces of Me, but since he's an Admin, he continues to edit. What can we do about this? RickK 07:15, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Put it in the Arbitration complaint. Neutrality^talk 07:17, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

such things should not happen. Admins have to abide by the rules. Seriously. If this sort of thing becomes common, we'll need clear de-sysopping guidelines soon. dab (ᛏ) 07:41, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If he has been blocked and continues to edit, then we will need to consider filing an RFC on him under the admin section. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:00, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the arbitration case trumps an RFC, doesn't it? I agree with dab that we need a Rf(de-)A policy. —Ben Brockert (42) 08:05, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

It would take evidence of specific abuse of admin powers in the arbitration case for the arbcom to act. In past cases, admins have been asked to reapply at WP:RFA - David Gerard 23:18, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be in line with his belief that "I have a 5,000 page watchlist to tend to; the project can't afford to have me blocked for so long." silsor 08:03, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

of course, WP needs its addicts. But an admin cannot go around violating the 3RR, much less ignore being blocked (I suppose it's technically feasible to make blocks of admins effective. It would just be sad to admit such an implementation is even necessary). You would think a 5000 page watchlist should leave no time for edit wars... I'm not saying "de-admin Everyking", mind you, I have not looked at the details. But in case he insists the rules don't apply to him, well, he can also tend his watchlist without admin powers. dab (ᛏ) 08:23, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

His statement: "the project can't afford to have me blocked for so long." is rather worrying. I have opposed the RFC on Everyking, feeling that the problem was one that could be solved by normal editing (that is proving true on Autobiography, the Ashlee Simpson album). But this incident gives me concern that he feels enabled to make unilateral decisions because of his perception that his continued functioning as an editor is a paramount consideration for the welfare of the Wikipedia project. No one editor is that essential. He's apparently on his way to becoming a rogue administrator. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:13, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Tony. I'm only familiar with the Ashlee Simpsons dispute in passing, not involved, but in my opinion it pales next to Everyking's behavior re the block. A rogue admin would be a serious threat to WP's integrity. Forgive me if I sound incredulous here, but aren't there any measures available for dealing with admins? Khanartist 09:26, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
  • well, if an admin went on a vandal spree, he could be emergency-de-adminned by a bureaucrat. Did ek actually say "the project can't afford to have me blocked for so long." (diff?), or is this a paraphrase? Obviously, nobody is that essential to the project. Some people are more important to it than others, of course, but as long as the foundation persists, and remains in possession of servers and bandwith, WP will continue to prosper. dab (ᛏ) 09:50, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • See Talk:Autobiography (album)/Archive3. A text search for "project" should bring it up. I'd provide a diff but I would defy any human being to dig through the quagmire that is that talk page's history without losing their sanity. →Reene^✎ 10:20, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • As the comment is nicely timestamped, it was a matter of some 30 seconds to locate the diff: [4]. Lupo 10:24, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • You're right, of course. I didn't even think about timestamps. I'll have to keep this in mind for the future if I ever need to dig up a comment in a talk page again. →Reene^✎ 02:24, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. So it appears that he was specifically referring to a 24-hour block for 3RR violation, the possibility of which had been raised owing to his propensity for near-3RR editing. I believe that it was later that he boasted about his ability to perform four reverts in twenty-four hours and one minute with impunity (this kind of margin-testing is a practice that I think is so wildly provocative as to merit a blocking in itself; then again I think the 3RR is far too lenient in the first place.) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this is hardly the behaviour we're looking for in an admin, and I imagine he would have some trouble passing RFA at this moment. dab (ᛏ) 13:48, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think someone on the mailing list pointed out that all or most of the entries in the edit list attributed to Everyking since he was blocked are due to his use of the admin rollback feature (which is not blocked). It was also stated that his use of the feature seemed to be sensible. In the light of this, I withdraw my speculation that he may be turning rogue and apologise to Everyking. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:58, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have unblocked Everyking. His original 24 hrs block is up as of now. He did not revert Pieces of Me a 5th time as was stated in the second block comment. It seems the issue of using rollback on unrelated articles while blocked needs a policy clarification. I'm quite of the mind that this is actually a good way for an admin to atone for whatever it was that got him/her blocked in the first place - as long, of course, as it is only used to rollback simple vandalism and not anything even remotely related to the blocking issue (or that requires talk page edits). But others are of the opinion that no edits should be allowed - whether using rollback or otherwise - so this needs discussing -- sannse (talk) 01:16, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify - Silsor actually unblocked shortly before me, for the same reasons -- sannse (talk) 01:32, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where the best place to discuss it would be, but I, for one, believe admins who are blocked should have the same edit rights as normal users who are blocked, i.e. none, not even rolling back edits. I understand the reasons that admins retain the ability to block and unblock (see WP:BP), but I do not agree that they should be given special editing privileges. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 01:39, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blocked admins should lose the ability to rollback, since this is a loophole in page editing blocks. silsor 01:49, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't violate the 3RR, except according to an extremely liberal interpretation of the 3RR that counts as a revert any change to the text that matches an old version and not a newer version. So basically: other user deletes half the article. I restore that half. That goes on three times. Then, since I'm mindful of the rule, I just restore part of one paragraph, a small portion of my preferred version. And Rick blocks me. And then, since I'm blocked, the only way I can continue to contribute for 24 hours is to do RC patrol for vandalism using rollback. And Rick, apparently, has a problem with that. Well, I don't know what to say. Everyking 07:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's not an 'extremely liberal interpretation', that's an entirely valid interpretation - people gaming the 3RR have been (quite justifiably IMO) nailed on that one plenty before. Adding a fragmentary paragraph doesn't make it not a reversion, either - David Gerard 08:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not a revert. It's a partial restoration of content. We should probably add something saying that the 3RR is not limited to just reverts; an admin can decide pretty much anything is a revert, depending on his or her interpretation. And I think Rick ought to apologize to me for extending my block while accusing me of reverting a fifth time when I hadn't even touched the article since his initial block. It almost appears he's throwing accusations around just to make me look bad. Everyking 08:34, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with David on this. "Other user deletes half the article. I restore that half" is unequivocally a description of one instance of a revert. You may want to make excuses for that revert, and it may be for the ebst of reasons, but it's still a revert. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:06, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have no intentions of apologizing. You might check not only this page, but the RfA against you and the mailing list, and you'll see that everybody agrees that your behavior is unacceptable. You might want to consider apologizing, yourself. RickK 08:40, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can't help it if some folks don't like me. Such is life. But I did not violate policy, and I think I deserve an apology for being blocked, and an additional apology for having my block extended for no reason. I think that would be a good gesture of civility on your part. An atmosphere of threats and harshness doesn't do any good for anybody. Everyking 09:21, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For those who are wondering what all this discussion is about, this is the edit that was made right before Everyking's THINGIE (since it is apparently not a revert), and this is the THINGIE which led to him being blocked for 3RR violation. Make up your own minds and give this topic a rest, please. silsor 09:36, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

"Partial restoration of content"—that's what you were looking for. Well, I don't know. Earlier people were suggesting I should be desysoped just for rolling back some blatant vandalism. If you were in my position—blocked despite following policy; block extended on an obviously false charge; threatened with desysoping for fighting vandalism—do you think you might be a little bit angry or offended? Do you think you might want an apology? Everyking 10:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ek, you seem to have a rather private interpretation of '3RR' and 'vandalism'. Vandals usually don't argue their edits on talk pages. And 'partial restorations' count as reverts, too, you may want to re-read the policy. Now, I'm not saying you acted in bad faith. You need accept that the same rules apply to you as to everybody else, especially as an admin, even if you don't like it when somebody cuts some of your text from an article. Also, a block is a block. If it had been clearly an inappropriate block, somebody would have unblocked you. You are free to start a complaint against Rick, but as an admin, you need to have the good grace to bear a block without exploiting you privileges. dab (ᛏ) 10:53, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They weren't arguing their points. They were just blanking articles and writing profanity and such. Who disagrees with me that that is vandalism? Everyking 11:22, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The statement that those whose edits you have been reverting on various articles related to Ashlee Simpson "weren't arguing their points. They were just blanking articles and writing profanity and such" is a false and disgraceful statement. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:06, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My statement had nothing to do with Ashlee Simpson articles. Please stop with your pretenses of outrage. It is very irritating. Everyking 12:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Possible runaway Bot user:Pearle

What is going on here? This seems to be a bot that is listing categories for deletion, without justifying it on WP:CFD. He seems like a troll. Has whoever got approval to work this? What's going on? Dunc|☺ 09:44, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked it till he explains what's going on. RickK 09:52, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've no opinion on whether the behavior exceeded what the Bot was authorized to do; however, what it was doing is adding the CfD tag to categories that had earlier been nominated for deletion but to which the nominator neglected to add the CfD tag. Seems to be a reasonable use of the bot to do such a tedious task. older≠wiser 15:23, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Beland operates Pearle to do some of the grunt work at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. This work is invaluable. I've never known Beland to operate Pearle for CfD work without a mandate from CfD. I don't know if adding CfD tags is specifically one of the things that Pearle is authorized to do, but if not, it should be added to the approved list; it's a logical extension of what Pearle usually does. The interstate highway categories are listed at CfD. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Interstate_highways_in_Alabama (and_the_other_49_states.) (it would be prohibitively difficult to assign tags to all 50 categories manually). Sportsperson/sportspeople categories involve an old discussion. Film categories are listed under the entry for Category:Films_by_country (we're talking about a mass renaming of categories to bring them to some kind of consistent standard, the kind of work for which a bot is absolutely essential as long as categories cannot be moved).

In any case, I am certain that these edits were made entirely in good faith. -Aranel ("Sarah") 16:10, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

hm, but it seems the bot added the template to hundreds of categories that were not on CfD at all? looks like it was running wild, somehow. dab (ᛏ) 16:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any specific examples where the bot added the template to a category that was not on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion? I didn't check everything, but all that I did notice was in fact listed there (perhaps not a heading, but as a group such as Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Interstate_highways_in_Alabama (and_the_other_49_states). older≠wiser 17:16, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

It's probably worth pointing out that you will find categories that are not specifically listed at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. When an entire tree is listed, often just the top-level categories will be explicitly mentioned. (This is not ideal but is a result of not having the ability to simply move categories. No one wants to enter a list of fifty or sixty categories at CfD.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 18:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

what about Category:Welsh sportspeople and Category:Polish films people complained about on the bot's talkpage? Do I understand correctly that if I listed Category:Fundamental on CfD, I would turn Pearle loose, making it add the cfd-template to each and every category on WP? It would seem some safeguards are required, then... dab (ᛏ) 18:51, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See the entries for Category:Sportspeople_by_country and Category:Films_by_country. And no, listing Category:Fundamental would not cause all subcategories to be listed—first, the listing would have to specify that all subcategories were included, and second, Beland would have to tell Pearle to assign CfD tags. It's not automatic, it rarely happens at all, and it is only done when all of the subcategories are included in the request for deletion (or, more likely, renaming).

I'm not quite sure why this is such a big deal. Pearle is marking categories with "CfD" because they should have already had CfD tags. It's basically the same as when I added the tag to Category:Social justice, which was listed for deletion but not tagged. The only difference is that the categories are not explicitly listed at CfD because there are far too many of them for this to be practical. -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Aranel. This isn't a problem. Andre (talk) 19:26, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, why is it a problem that we are warning people that a category has been listed (perhaps via an enclosing category) on CfD? If people have problems with the people doing work on Cfd (like deciding to delete a category too early), take it up with the people - for 93% of these recent CfD bot complaints, the bot was doing exactly what it was told to. Noel (talk) 19:38, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

well, it should be unblocked, then. I suppose the remedy to the misunderstandings will be as simple as making the edit summary more illuminating, such as "adding cfd template, because this category was listed on wp:cfd" or similar. dab (ᛏ) 21:26, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One final little irony: Pearle's owner applied on December 1, at Wikipedia talk:Bots#Pearle Wisebot, for permission to add the placing of {CfD} tags to its list of authorized tasks, and nobody ever complained, so in fact it is authorized to be doing that (as the bot rules currently stand). Noel (talk) 22:20, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Amerime

What exactly is the situation with the Amerime article? Litefantastic claims that it keeps on getting recreated on the talk page, some anon says 'e would send it back to VfD if logged in, and a couple of other admins have touched it since it was recreated in any case. - RedWordSmith 00:57, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

It had VFD consensus to delete, and is thus a speedy candidate. However, attempting to delete it produces an internal error. Perhaps it should remain listed here as "pending deletion" as soon as the bug is fixed. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 01:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

At the suggestion of a developer, I have blanked the article, added {{pending deletion}} (see above), and protected it until the bug gets fixed. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 01:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What are "block-compressed revisions"? Has anybody reported this bug? RickK 05:47, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

It's not a bug. It's a glitch :-) Old revisions (I think all those prior to December 2004) have been compressed in the database to save space. As a side effect, this makes deletion of revisions before Dec 2004—and hence articles created before that—impossible for the time being. A future software release will contain the fix that allows deletion of compressed revisions, and then such articles can be deleted. Lupo 07:44, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anon IP breaking 3RR rule

The anon IP 24.15.188.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) broke the 3RR rule at Albert Einstein. Can someone please block.

PS, this smells very much like our old friend User:Plautus satire

-- Curps 02:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello, anybody home? -- Curps 02:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

blocked for 24 hoursGeni 02:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As did I, four minutes later. There should really be some sort of notification so double-blocks don't happen. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 02:40, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What effect does double blocking have anyway?Geni 02:43, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

None, as far as I know. I think the first block is the one that takes effect. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:16, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This anon IP may actually be User:Punarbhava - see this edit: [5]. User:Punarbhava was apparently a recreation of User:Khranus, who was hard-banned in Nov. 2003. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:16, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

VfD Vandalism

User:Adroyt has vandalized the above VfD twice. Khanartist 03:13, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Adroyt is a troll (came onto IRC for a while today and tried to troll along with a GNAA member) but can you provide links to where that VfD was actually vandalised? silsor 03:20, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Here Khanartist 03:23, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Has vandalized several articles today. Since he was last warned, he seems to have stopped, but if he repeats the vandalism, he needs blocking. RickK 05:43, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Protecting Administrator User pages

moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). dab (ᛏ) 08:41, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)