Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 207.69.139.149 (talk) at 09:17, 22 September 2005 (→Iasson: User SPUI is offensive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Tasks

    The following backlogs require the attention of one or more editors.
    Transwiki to Wikibooks and Wiktionary

    Requested moves, Vandalism in progress, AfD cleanup, Copyright Problems and Requests for page protection

    Moved conversations

    A lot of conversations were moved during the purge. Please list their new homes here. Please keep this list as short as possible: most recent at top, and after a few days, remove their listings so that this section does not become burdensome. Try shooting for a magic number of eight.

    Remember! Shoot misplaced topics on sight: or at least, move them to the proper page.

    Announcements

    Sometimes there are conversations that admins should take a look here. Then, make an announcement here. No more than eight announcements here at a time, most recent up top. please don't reply to announcements. If your announcement makes nine, delete the oldest one, but be courteous (don't delete one that was just created an hour ago, maybe you should wait a little bit). Remember, there's always user talk pages.

    Template: 

    * '''[[Link to Subject Page]]''' - Short Summary (not more than a paragraph) ~~~~


    General

    New users log

    Take a look: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Newuserlog. --cesarb 22:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I think Special:Log/newusers is an excellent idea, but could we take it out of Recent changes? Zoe 23:22, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

    I don't see what's wrong with putting it there. All you have to do is make an option that allows for it to not be in there. By the way, # (User creation log); 19:22 . . Dysphenctional (Talk) (newusers: Created the user "Dysphenctional" (Talk; Contributions)) is a bit wordy, don't you think? — Ambush Commander(Talk) 23:25, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
    I would prefer it on recent changes, just in case a long term vandal shows up, so you can block right away. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I love it! Thank you devs. And I think having it on recent changes is a good idea; swat the baddies as they go by. (I suppose it could be visible to admins only, or toggled on/off; many options possible) Antandrus (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    That's awesome, but can we get block links right there too? Is that possible? - Taxman Talk 21:27, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
    Bah, all of my links have a block link :-) Lupin 21:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahhyes, I found your popups tool after I asked the above. I suppose that relives a developer from adding a block to the log. Not everyone is going to find that tool though. Anyway, thanks for working on it. I like it so far. - Taxman Talk 23:58, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

    I've created a monobook.js script that adds additional links to the Newusers log: User:Func/wpfunc/nupatrol.js, including a block link. Func( t, c, @, ) 16:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    The MilkMan situation

    See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive13#Willy has now got Milk

    The MilkMan promises to be nice. He claims that he is not Willy after all, and that he has seen the error of his ways. So I unblocked his last account MilkMan New And Improved (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (which didn't turn out to be uncontroversial, as might be expected), and hope that assuming good faith works. However, obviously we should keep an eye on him. If he vandalizes again, feel free to come down upon him like a ton of bricks, but that would probably only mean hunting his socks again, and I hope that everyone agrees we have better things to do. We can avoid that if he really wants to be a good editor. -- grm_wnr Esc 01:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: He has now chosen a less controversial name for himself, Milky Way (talk · contribs). Of course above caveats still apply. -- grm_wnr Esc 02:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    He basically made that same statement on User talk:MilkMan Has A New Route. And I basically reminded him of the famous quote, "Heav'n hath no rage like love to hatred turn'd, nor Hell a fury, like a woman scorn'd" Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    why do some people think the world must be so terribly interested in them? dab (ᛏ) 10:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm willing to assume good faith on in terms Milky Way turning over a new leaf, so on the assumption that he is being a good user we need to start dealing with all the people trying to impersonate him and sully his reputation even before he has a chance to build up a good reputation. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 01:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Kurdish people

    People are keeping on restoring baseless statistics. Can you interfere? --Cool Cat Talk 00:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I just interfered by adding a lot of references for these statistics. Could you on the other hand, stop deleting important information, just because they doesn't suite you personal PoV, Coolcat? -- Karl Meier 09:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats false not one mentions numbers you posted regarding at least europe. It is baseless and unsourced. --Cool Cat Talk 16:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Statistics should be discussed on the article's talk page. I have half the mind of zapping it there right now. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 00:12, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

    I agree but Karl Meier prefers senseless reverting and avoids all discussion. --Cool Cat Talk 02:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Listusers

    Can we get some user accounts deleted? Looking at just the first page of Special:Listusers isn't particularly pleasant right now. violet/riga (t) 09:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    yes, with all the throwaway vandal accounts, these start to clog up the database. I imagine that, likewise, all the indefinite blocks will affect performance. It would probably be safe to delete all indefinitely blocked accounts with less than 20 edits or so this would rid us of documents like [1]. dab (ᛏ) 10:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    it would be posible to create 50 accounts that fill the first page.Geni 15:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    For GFDL reasons, we can not legitimately delete any account that has made a contribution, even if they are subsequently permanently blocked. I would have no objection to deleting accounts that are old and have never been used. For the blocklist, recent inquires were made about whether the 4000+ entries are slowing down performance, and the conclusion was that checking this only amounts to a couple percent of present processing time per action, and so is not currently a good target for improving performance. Dragons flight 16:19, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
    What if their contributions are also deleted? If they just made a user page, it can be deleted; if they vandalized an article, can't it be deleted and then every revision but the vandalism and its reversion restored? ~~ N (t/c) 16:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    At a technical level, such contributions should probably be removed from the database, not just deleted, if the account that made them was also going to be deleted, so that the edits could not be restored. This is a technical capacity that only developers have currently. At a legal level it would be necessary to check (probably by hand) that there were absolutely no future versions of any article or talk page derived from any edit of the person in question. This means not only checking that the edits were reverted but also that no one later put any of that material back. I think that the legal morass would plainly outweight the benefits in all but the unproductive cases of vandalism (e.g. WoW). For someone like Willy who frequently does absolutely nothing of benefit, deleting his "contributions" and those accounts is probably okay in most cases, but it would also mean erasing most records of what he had done. I am inclined to believe that having a record of his actions is probably better than removing a few accounts from Special:Listusers. However, as above I have no object to removing accounts that have never been used at all. Dragons flight 16:58, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
    I am aware that it is not a trivial matter, but those accounts whose edits were all reverted, the edits can be safely removed from the database, and the account deleted, GFDL or no GFDL. That will need quite some churning, I imagine, but I imagine if we want to do it, such a db cleanup process could be running in the background, and slowly remove traces of those account that left no trace in article texts anyway. A better approach would be to not block vandal accounts, but block their IPs instead -- the vandals don't care if their throwaway accounts are blocked, so why burden the blocklist with those? For this, admins would need access to the IPs of logged-in vandals. This would also allow us to put temporary rangeblocks on the ISP on re-dialling logged-in vandals. dab (ᛏ) 11:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    What about account name squatting? — Ambush Commander(Talk) 00:10, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
    Perhaps the accounts could be renamed to something else though. -- Joolz 00:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD for 3 September seems messed up.

    Anyone know what's gone wrong on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 3. Maybe it's just me but there are scores through everything (including page controls). I don't get this on any other wikipedia page that I have tried. JeremyA (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's just you. It looks ok to me at the moment. -Splash 18:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, you're probably right because it looks fine to me now too. I think that maybe one of my AfD closures messed it up for some reason, because after I closed another one it was fixed. JeremyA (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Please help!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acharya_S

    Acharya S is subject to repeated harassment and threats from religious fanatics. Wikipedia is being used to disseminate personal information about the author. I doubt the creators of Wikipedia envisioned that it would be used in such a way. It is akin to publishing the whereabouts of Salmon Rushdie, or abortion doctors, then feigning innocence as to the implications.

    Please help!

    24.64.223.203 21:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    This sound like Tawana Brawley to anyone? How about some evidence? I hate to break it to anyone but there have been far more persuasive and damaging critics of Christianity than her tired and derivative stuff. You can find similar books claiming Christianity is a fraud or a rehash of other myths remaindered every day at Barnes & Noble. Even Pat Robertson can do more damage to Christianity in a single speech than you have in a lifetime. Find another hobby. alteripse 22:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to complain about the behaviour of the above admin Alteripse. He has not helped in resolving the issue, instead choosing to inflame it even more. It should be obvious that the author in question does not want her name published, otherwise she would not have published under a pen name. In addition, in one of the articles linked to on the page, she notes that her name was originally published without her permission.

    The author does not limit her subject matter to Christianity; she writes about religion in general, including Islam. It is a very controversial subject, and her privacy should be respected! She has received threatening emails along the lines of 'we know who you are' which link to the Wikipedia article in question. It's disgusting that Wikipedia would be used this way. When I point this out, his response is along the lines of a dismissive 'I don't believe you.'

    In addition, besides refusing to remove her name, (and in fact, inserting it back in after it was deleted... in bold no less!), the above admin Alteripse has acted (I believe) inappropriately in his (or her?) capacity as an admin in other ways. For instance, he replaced a list of the authors credentials:

    Acharya S was classically educated receiving an undergraduate degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, and received her Masters Degree from Franklin & Marshall College. She is a member of an institute for the study of Ancient Greek Civilization, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece. She has served as a trench master on archaeological excavations in Corinth, Greece, and Connecticut, USA, as well as a teacher's assistant on the island of Crete. Acharya S has traveled extensively around Europe, and speaks, reads and/or writes English, Greek, French, Spanish, Italian, German, and Portuguese.

    with:

    Acharya S is... an American critic of Christianity, and amateur "historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist, and archeologist".

    When confronted with the above not-so-subtle attempt to smear the author, he says:

    "I am curious as to why you think calling her an amateur is a "smear" or is inaccurate. It means she doesn't work as a professional religious studies scholar or academic classicist. It changes the standards by which we judge an author's work. Why is that a smear?"

    Oh phuleease! That's not what my dictionary says...

    All this leads me to suspect that Alteripse is biased and has an axe to grind. However, that's not for me to decide. I am just writing to alert you to his behaviour. As it stands, he has agreed not to repost her name, for which I am thankful.

    Thank you for your attention.

    James, BC Canada


    24.64.223.203 20:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


    you have an odd dictionary. I'm an amateur admin (we all are).Geni 22:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You will have to make allowances: lots of words seem to mean something different to James than to the rest of us and he has a little trouble with accuracy. I did not replace the paragraph but moved it one paragraph further down because it was less important than the one he put it front of. alteripse 22:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Acharya S is not an 'amateur'. She is a professional. Consider her credentials. She is highly trained, and gets paid for researching and writing books. I realize you are amateurs; this is wikipedia after all. I just expected that efforts would be made to help protect the privacy of living authors who are routinely threatened by religious fanatics, from different denominations, due to the controversial nature of her work. BTW, I hear that Natalie Portmans privacy was protected here on Wikipedia. Please extend the same courtesy to this author!

    24.64.223.203 22:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


    I'm curious, if her name is publicly available, not something somebody dug up, what is wrong with having the name (in the current initialized form) in the article? As for Natalie Portman, her article DOES provide her real name. --Ragib 23:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


    I'm asking as a courtesy. Her name was originally published without her permission and against her wishes. She receives a steady stream of hate mail and threats due to the controversial nature of her work. While her name is disseminated on fringe Christian websites and message boards such as 'RisenJesus.com', I was hoping that the admins here would not allow Wikipedia to be used for that distasteful purpose.


    (Also, I understand that Natalie Portmans privacy was respected for some time, but I wasn't there.) 24.64.223.203 00:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Your requests are unreasonable. We can't "remove" information, because it's still stored in the page history. Thus, we'd have to delete it. However, the person in the article appears not to fit into deletion criteria: she seems to be notable, no one has nominated the article for deletion yet, so it would against the goals of Wikipedia to remove the article. Publishing a persons last name, books they have written, and a brief background of academic endeavours is not an unreasonable look into someone's life for any Encyclopedia article. And last and foremost of all, this belongs on the pertinent article's talk page. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 01:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Can admins delete words from edit summaries?

    Hi admins, I was just wondering if any of you can delete an edit summary, I mean in this one [2] (it might be an insignificant thing, but I'm really proud of this article :) and I don't like vandals :( Alensha 22:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Short answer, no. Long answer, no, because we don't have the technical capabilities to do it, and the developers (if they have the capabilities, which I'm not sure they do) are unwilling/unable to do it because edit summaries are supposed to be a permanent record and may be important in GFDL citations, etc. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:44, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks for the answer. Alensha 22:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    A partial solution is to delete the article, and then undelete all revisions other than the vandalised one (and perhaps the reversion of that vandalism). This will stop it showing in the page history, but it will still be visible at Special:Undelete. Angela. 22:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Please fix forked talk page

    For what seem to me transparently disruptive reasons, the rejected policy proposal WP:TOBY now has two forked talk pages. Although one claims to be a version of the other with images removed, this is in fact not the case; discussion has forked, with people replying on one page or the other.

    This state of affairs is disruptive.

    Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, J. Random User like me can't fix it with a couple of page moves, because of the (perfectly reasonable) restrictions on page moves. (I actually haven't tried, for fear of breaking it worse.) So it needs administrative attention.

    The current state of affairs is likely to lead to or worsen a dispute, since there currently is starting to be a bit of Bad Reverting Behavior on the proposal page itself, over whether the page is a {{proposal}} or a {{rejected}}. In order to resolve disputes we need to have a working talk page without anyone bozoing it up with "censorship".

    The idea of a "censored talk page" is contrary to Wikipedia policy anyway.

    So would some fair-minded administrator please move the "uncensored" page to Wikipedia talk:Toby and the "censored" one to something like Wikipedia talk:Toby/"Censored" Archive? Or something? Anything?

    Thanks much. --FOo 23:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    If anything, do it the other way around, because the censored page has more (and more recent) discussion. Also, if one page is "transparently disruptive", it's the uncensored one; I don't want useless images of syphilitic genitals staring me in the face while I debate a policy. ~~ N (t/c) 00:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't give a damn, honestly, just as long as there is one (1) -- eine, un, odin, uno -- talk page. Not two. --FOo 01:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the harm in having two, seeing as the uncensored one hasn't gotten any edits in days. ~~ N (t/c) 22:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Page Modification

    Please see my comments about the modifiation of protected Template:Welcome at Template talk:Welcome. Only you(administrators reading) can address my problem. Even if you don't agree with the change, at least explain why. Don't leave me hanging. Superm401 | Talk 03:31, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

    This has been addressed. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sam999

    Looks like User:Sam999 is back as User:RememberOctober29. Vandalising pages with the same Apple employment racism allegations. AlistairMcMillan 19:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been blocked. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Uriah923 SEO block

    Hi, I've blocked this user from editing, and I am quite sure he is going to complain loudly. I believe I was very justified in making the block based on the user's continued and very clear history of SEO and linkspamming. It is clear his only intention is to get as many links to Omni Nerd as possible, in fact promotion is one of his roles at that site. Please read through User:Uriah923/OmniNerd (the bottom is pretty easy to start with and follow the user's contributions. I very clearly warned the user that I would block him if he kept up spreading his links all over, and that is exactly what he did [3] [4] [5] [6], for the most part on userpages of editors less likely to be familiar with our linkspam policies. So, if someone doesn't like that I did the blocking, go ahead and unblock but only if you've reviewed the situation and are prepared to block him yourself. I also reverted the linkspam from those four edits, which in hindsight wasn't the best idea, so I'll fix that in a minute, but still remove the link. - Taxman Talk 17:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    To add a bit more, I was the one that unblocked this user when Dmcdevit blocked him for similar behaviour. Since then the very clear consensus emerged against the user's actions and I left a very clear warning on the user's page. Based on that I feel involvement in the situation was not a big enough problem to avoid making the block. - Taxman Talk 17:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry Taxman, anyone familiar with the preceding events and discussions knows that Uriah was pretty much just a role account, and deserved to be blocked on that score anyway. If the consensus on the ON discussion page was any indicator, you have the general support of the editors who were involved. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to add a comment to express the consent from this non-admin's point of view that Uriah definitely needed to be banned. The promise on his talk page that the bans will get longer and longer until they are permanent must be carried out unless he spontaneously decides to edit Wikipedia for purposes of creating an encyclopedia rather than adding links. Uriah doesn't respect Wikipedia policies at all, so complaints from him or anyone else that Taxman was too "involved" with the situation to ban him are laughable or uninformed, and certainly disingenuous coming from Uriah. Taxman's "involvement" has been only that of an admin enforcing Wikipedia policies. We need quicker and swifter action like this against linkspammers. Jdavidb 20:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Avengers (comics)

    This is so lame that I hesitate to mention it. But here's a basic history. Avengers_fan (talk · contribs) created the New Avengers article, which is based on a comic that is a continuation of the old Avengers book. I proposed that it be merged with Avengers (comics), and despite vocal opposition from him, the consensus was that the articles should be merged, and it was done. In the process, a large portion of the writing in New Avengers was removed, because it was already summarized in Avengers (comics) in a paragraph or two which, as far as I'm concerned, retains all the essential information.

    Now, Avengers_fan (talk · contribs) is insisting on reinserting his expanded edits, even though I and another editor have broken down his edits and explained why they should be condensed, are redundant, etc. Tempers are fraying because of this, but there's no 3RR because the edits are being inserted and revered about one every 24-48 hours or so. My question is: how do we deal with this? And can someone else objective have a look at it and offer an opinion on this? The Talk:Avengers (comics) page contains the arguments that have been going on. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone please weigh in on this or suggest a course of action? I don't want to take any admin action myself because I'm one of those involved, but having to revert this guy's edits every 12 hours or so is getting ridiculous. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    policy vote

    Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Blatant copyvio material. If you saw the backlog on WP:CP you would have to admit that we need this.Geni 11:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    New speedy deletion criterion

    A reminder: Jimbo recently set a new speedy deletion criterion:

    Images in category "Images with unknown source" or "Images with unknown copyright status" which have been on the site for more than 7 days, regardless of when uploaded. [7]

    So he is asking us to go ahead and clear out those cats as soon as possible. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I was under the impression that the more important perogative was to delete them to alleviate Wikipedia's potential exposure to legal problems? --HappyCamper 02:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    no need to mess up articles if it can be avoided though.
    Plus the fewer annoyed users you need to explain the action to the more images you can get deleted. :) If anyone needs someone to go discuss the matter with an irate user whos pet images have been deleted, please drop me a line on my talk page or on IRC. --Gmaxwell 03:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any semi-automated way to get a list of images in the suspect category that are orphaned? Nandesuka 16:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like a nice generated list with all the orphan images in those categories. That would be fun. In the meantime, there's Special:Unusedimages, and I have a generated list of orphan images by user at User:TheCoffee/Orphan_images. Coffee 16:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Images that would now fall under the new CSD criteria but which are currently listed at WP:PUI or WP:IFD should be left to complete under those processes. It would seem only fair to the uploaders in these case since they would have been previously notified and given their last chance to provide source/copyright info. Otherwise, I'm in full agreement with the new CSD criteria. RedWolf 18:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JarlaxleArtemis indefinitely banned

    JarlaxleArtemis has been banned indefinitely. If he emails you asking to be unbanned, do not allow him. Look at User:Linuxbeak/Admin_stuff/JarlaxleArtemis for more information.

    Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 03:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Indopedia

    I don't know if this article is even notable, but I had added it to give recognition to that website. Is it legally able to do what it is doing? Does anyone know about this - which even the former deletion edits did not show me that anyone was aware. Please look at their homepage [8] here. Tell me of anything going on on my talk page please, Molotov (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    You haven't explained what illegal thing you think that site may be doing. They're largely a wikipedia mirror; they don't properly comply with the GFDL, but they're no worse than many of those listed in Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. They don't seem to be abusing the wikipedia trademark (in that they're not claiming to be wikipedia). Wikipedia has no monopoly on the -pedia suffix. The article, however, makes no assertion of why it's a notable website, so it's quite likely someone will nominate it for deletion. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Indopedia is a particulary bad mirror in that they they aren't really compliant and their "About" page is the same as ours with a find and replace on "Wikipedia," resulting in botched statements like "Indopedia was founded by Jimmy Wales and is a trademark of Wikimedia". However, this was brought up to Angela and I think the legal mailing list and it doesn't seem to be a big priority, at least not that website in particular. As to the article, there was a Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Indopedia where it was deleted. While it is different content, would this be speedyable? Dmcdevit·t 22:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    GordonWatts

    I usually ignore all this crap but the early closure and the page protection of this nomination smack of censorship. Wikipedia's purpose is to create a trusted encyclopedia, with these Wikipedia namespace pages mostly only existing to provide structure to the wiki and some order to the chaotic creation process. However, despite disagreeing strongly with Gordon on his pet issue - i.e. Terry Shiavo's guardian (her husband) should make decisions on her behalf and if the parents had any proof they should have brought it before the judge ruling on whether he could remain guardian instead of pulling all the political shenanigans etc - his nomination deserved to run the normal time - and the comments on it (as well as ending it early) show that idealogy is an important deciding factor for some. Now I don't have time to know all the things he did - but the early closure and protection speak volumes about some within wikipedia's desire to control debate. I find it completely unwiki. Back to editing anonymously-Abeo 20:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    It is standard on RFA to prematurely close discussions which have overwhelming oppose votes. --cesarb 21:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, there's no point in wasting time on nominations when it's very clear that there will be no consensus for adminship. Tuf-Kat 21:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with Cesar and Tuf-Kat. Holding a nomination open, when the overwhelming majority votes to oppose, has no useful effect on the community, and only serves to spread poison and ill-will. I fully support early close of these affairs. When there's a huge negative pile-on it only hurts us. Antandrus (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that ending the debate early is the standard - and I hadn't followed or voted because I assumed it would end quickly. However, he seems to want to hear the criticism - hopefully to be influenced by it. And doesn't seem to be phased by the vitriolic nature of some of it - a better man than me. If one purpose is to protect the nominee, and the nominee vehmenently opposes it, I see no reason to force it closed with a page protect - let it run its course - and let Gordon waste his time responding - I doubt many of those opposed would bother to read his stuff - then it will whimper out of existence. I see no logical reason for not letting him use the page to respond to the accusations, and ending it early just makes everything more suspect and supports the cabel accusations - when it is 4/100 it will be clear that there are not untapped masses waiting to support his adminship. And if socks gather - those will be easily discovered.
    In other words what purpose does it serve to not just let it run its course? Whose time does it waste? Abeo 21:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting from the RfA page: Nominations that will clearly fail may be removed earlier to prevent discussions that generate ill will. Paul August ☎ 21:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's pretty clear that continuing with a request for adminship is not going to succeed at this point. Hm. An RfC seems to be the proper forum for general criticism—perhaps an informal one similar to the one Bmicomp has set up? I don't know. But it has ceased to be a viable request for adminship, and if Gordon just wants a community forum for criticism, he can set one up somewhere else. RfA is not the place for general discussion of a user's editing behavior or philosophical debate. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    (Quoting selected statements from above -and commenting)

    I can't find any evidence that any of the people you quote have at any time edited wikipedia.Geni 00:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    "I can't find any evidence that any of the people you quote have at any time edited wikipedia." Are you talking to me, Geni? The quotes appear in the paragraphs immediately above my post. Do you not see them? I boldfaced the excerpts and put quote marks around them -just like I did your quote. Look at the top where it says: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts|GordonWatts and then scroll down to see who I quoted and what I had to say.
    PS: I tried to post this last night, but Wiki was down.--GordonWatts 10:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    J.O.K.E. I'm pretty sure whoever wrote the gosple of of john never edited wikipedia. Dto Thomas Paine (Ths is wikipedia. You have no "rights"). The people who make the descission that a vote should end eary (basicaly buracrats and admins) belong to a group large enough to make sure that anyone who they don't want as admin doesn't become one (well unless jimbo or the comitte intervens). Your RF was going to fail (at an absolute minium you would have needed 68 support votes). Complaints about it being removed atchive nothing other than provideing cover for someone who really did want to abbuse the system by removeing one (and for that the cabul thanks you). Your Editcountitis bit is odd since your data shows that people with far less edits than rejected candidates can get through (to mess up your claim even further I had only 1200 edits). The raw number of admins thing ignores the role that non admins can play in looking after pages. FWIW Jimbo can pretty much do what he likes. Live with it or try and get elected to the comitte.Geni 12:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    'J.O.K.E.' OK, I missed that -I must have been too logical, like Mr. Spock, lol. "Your Editcountitis bit is odd since your data shows that people with far less edits than rejected candidates can get through..." You miss the point about how I have only edited 200 or so pages, and have about 11.7 edits per page; That is what I mean: People criticize an editor if he or she has "concentrated" on a few pages, but that does not make one a bad editor: 200 is still quite a large number, even if it is not as much as some people have edited (some people have edited around a thousand pages -wow -get a life people!)--GordonWatts 13:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to avoid commenting on this whole sordid affair, but I can't let this pass. Get a life? You're doing yourself no favors here. android79 13:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    "Get a life? You're doing yourself no favors here."I am actually quite busy cleaning my room, looking for a job, but also trying to help people get straight on some lingering Wikipedia abuses; No, Wikipedia is not evil, but it have major problems, but I think my advice to them "super-editors" (get a life) is good advice for me too; Thx for weighing in; I hope to take your advice.--GordonWatts 14:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Doing the stuff admins powers are useful in helping in will as a matter of course mean that you edit a large number of pages rather than sticking around on a relitivly small number. We hve no use for more paper admins.Geni 14:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just hope that no court judges what is a felony and what isn't based on what the Bible says. — JIP | Talk 12:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • — JIP, I was directing my commentary about the Bible to the original poster, because he believes in the Bible like me; You don't have to believe like we do, but I think it would be good --even for the judges, because the way this World is getting evil, maybe they need to make some changes, and "Thous shalt not kill, tell lies, commit adultury, cheat, or otherwise be bad," would probably help this evil, crime-ridden world.--GordonWatts 13:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I did not notice you were directing your comments to a fellow believer. I mistook them to apply generally. "Thou shalt not kill, tell lies, commit adultery, cheat, or otherwise be bad" are all good ideas and I wish judges would hold them as ideals. However, this is because they're good ideas on their own right, not because they're in the Bible. "It's in the Bible" should never be used as a blanket statement in verifying or proving anything. — JIP | Talk 13:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • No big deal, — JIP, and you're right: It's correct because it's correct, not because it's in the Bible. But that old book does have a good track record for having good advice in many cases, even if some of it's hard to understand in modern culture. Thanks again for your feedback; You all have a good one.--GordonWatts 14:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Imitation of user on Expansion theory

    Someone, who has been engaging on a single-handed revert war, has imitated my username on Expansion theory. In particular there are four reversions: [10], [11] [12] [13], by somone who has a user name that appears identical to mine, but who is not in fact me. Clicking on the imitator's talk and user page lead to an empty talk and user page, yet I can't tell the difference between our usernames. Salsb 12:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    That's User:SaIsb, with a capital I (eye) as the third letter. You are User:Salsb, with a small l (ell) as the third letter. I will temporarily block him for now, other admins might investigate whether he should be blocked permanently for impersonation. — JIP | Talk 12:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Imitating another username with the intention to impersonate is clearly prohibited by the username policy. I have blocked indefinitely. Carbonite | Talk 12:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked him for 24 hours 4 minutes after you blocked him indefinitely, because I had not yet seen your comment. Is there any harm in this? — JIP | Talk 12:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably not. I'm not 100% sure about the way blocks interact with each other (especially with MediaWiki 1.5), but I believe the first block takes precedent. If this isn't the case, any admin can reblock should they see the fake account editing again. Carbonite | Talk 13:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless this has been fixed very recently (say the last month), then it is a quirk of blocking that the shortest block takes precedence. Hence it is necessary to clear the short block before adding an infinite block. I have now done this for this case. Dragons flight 14:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the {{impostor}} template and protected the user page. Not even that creative an impostor – he didn't even bother to copy your user page text! android79 13:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks everyone! Salsb 15:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the following additional impostor accounts:

    Note that the last one fits the following pattern:

    Any idea which user(s) recently interacted with any/all of them? There may be a bigger pattern here; watch out for further activity. --MarkSweep✍ 14:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    A partial pattern appears to be that the people impersonated have all edited Talk:Expansion theory, except Phroziac (talk · contribs). Because Phroziac was targetted, I suspect this could be a disguised Marmot incident.--Tony SidawayTalk 14:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    While we're on the subject, I noticed I am a potential target for impersonation myself. So I thought, since I'm an admin, why don't I create the obvious impersonator user myself, then log in to my real account, and immediately block the fake impersonator indefinitely? AFAIK you cannot create a user with the same name as an already existing one, even if it's been blocked indefinitely. — JIP | Talk 09:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Why woild you need to block it? If you have a sleeper account, nobody can create it, so you should be OK with a good password. I only ask because I also have a lowercase l (ell) in my username, too. Filiocht | Talk 10:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as new user patrol is concerned, any accounts that are not supposed to be used (whether created by impostors or to prevent impostors) should be blocked so that they don't show up as suspicious accounts on anyone's radar. Better yet, don't create any doppelganger accounts: it's unlikely that you'll cover all the bases (with Unicode, there are just way too many options), and it just creates more work for everyone. Impostors are usually quickly spotted and blocked, so there's no reason for any preemptive strikes, IMHO. --MarkSweep✍ 18:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Doppelganger accounts. --cesarb 19:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    image deletion

    Per an exchange at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#User_talk:Zscout370.23Photos, the new image deletion policy is seriously annoying at least some users. One such user has proposed what I think is a great solution to the image copyright problem that may help avoid more hard feelings about it. Can we please make sure users are warned before deleting images they've contributed? And if an aggrieved user lashes out at you can you please respond in a sympathetic manner? Copyright violations are serious business, and we need to fix it, but let's try very hard to fix it in a way that is least annoying to our many, many, many good users. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    There are 12,000 images in one of those cats and uncounted many thousands in the other. Giving out messages is wildly unfeasible. As it is we have to check the images history to see that it was tagge >7days ago and then remove it from the article and then delete it, and give a delete summary for why. Adding more to the process is just too much. -Splashtalk 03:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal is to sort them by user, and deal with them user-by-user rather than as a massive clump of unsorted images. user:Beland is quite adept at making lists of things - I've asked if he can do this. The request is to pause a bit to let this proposal play out. If we can achieve the goal (eliminate unsourced images) without alienating more users, I think it's worth a little inconvenience on our part in the interim. We may even be able to create lists sorted by user, showing the date of the user's last contribution. I'm unwilling to say "wildly unfeasible" until we've thought about it a bit. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think users should necessarily be notified, but these images should be deleted manually, I've already found and tagged a number of PD images (and reuploaded 1 that was deleted). For maximum awareness this project should be announced on the header of recent changes, maybe that will also get some people who know they have uploaded unsourced images to go back and check and tag.--nixie 04:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't do the grouping by user, but meta:DynamicPageList might be a better way to sweep. See, for a non-working example, User:Bovlb/no source which would display no-source images by last edit, oldest first, displaying the date they were added to the category. Bovlb 07:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    This sounds like a perfect use of a bot for me. Bot gets list of images, sorts by user, gives user a notice, and a few days later checks and if necessary deletes the image. -- Chris 73 Talk 10:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea. Two suggested tweaks: 1) bot checks uploaders contribs - if user hasn't edited in a long time, there's no point in warning them, and deletion can proceed immediately. 2) it's probably better for the bot to generate an "images to be deleted today" list (perhaps divvied up into handy blocks, so labour can be efficiently divided), as people might be squeamish about such an extensive deletion bot. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The deletions should not be done by a bot. Firstly, the images have to removed from articles, and I wonder if we have bot that is capable of searching the code reliably for a particular image and removing it without causing carnage. Secondly, just occasionally, there is some sort of info in/around the image that does indicate its license status (or likely status) and we wouldn't want to discard those. -Splashtalk 14:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted sample lists, linked from the above-mentioned Village Pump page. I also agree that user notification (but not irreversable image deletion) would be a good job for a bot. The upload form could also be better designed to prevent this sort of problem. Really, the thing to ask most people is whether or not they 1.) took the picture or made the drawing themselves, 2.) downloaded it from the web, or 3.) got it from an offline source. If 1, then we can presume GFDL based on a click-through license, unless they specify something different. If 2, we can ask for the URL, and then someone can find the copyright holder's original license, or at least e-mail their webmaster. If 3, we can ask for the name of the copyright holder, and whether or not the uploader has personal knowledge that the copyright holder has declared that the image may be used by anyone, for any purpose, without fee or restriction. I really don't think just tagging an image "CC" or "PD" or "GFDL" really gives enough information, especially if there's a dispute. I think due diligence would include at least trying to gather some evidence that the claimed license is correct, or having some way to verify that. There's absolutely no guarantee that the uploader will be around a month or a year or even a day from now to answer questions. -- Beland 05:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    To notify folks about this, how about if rather than a talk page message we include a note in one of the "trim" messages displayed with a user's watchlist (e.g. MediaWiki:Watchlistsub) or something similar to the "please donate" messages? Something like "NOTICE: Any images that do not have verifiable source and copyright information will be deleted on <date>. Please make sure this information is provided for any images you've uploaded. See <somewhere> for details about this." Where <date> is perhaps October 1 and <somewhere> is a page including at least a link to the upload log for the user. Seems like either of these would be noticed by pretty much anyone still actively editing. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is a great idea. We could edit MediaWiki:Watchlistsub or MediaWiki:Watchdetails. Coffee 16:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the text I'm thinking about adding to MediaWiki:Watchdetails:
    NOTICE: All images that do not have verifiable source and copyright information are being irreversibly deleted in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Please make sure this information is provided for any images you've uploaded (images you've uploaded can be found using this log - enter your username in the "User:" box). Also see Wikipedia's image use policy.
    Any suggestions (in particular, anyone know how to get the current username so the upload log link can be the log for the individual user)? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Heads-up

    As I just posted on the Village Pump, there's a journalist doing a story about Wikipedia, and is inviting Wikipedians to help edit part of his story (and I would encourage everyone to take a look).

    Which means we should probably expect a steady influx of vandalism—so this is a heads-up to admins to be on the lookout for vandalism on Wikipedia:Improve this article about Wikipedia of both the obvious and sneaky varieties. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Cheese Dreams sockpuppet?

    I've received notification (via a private email) that 132.241.245.49) looks suspiciously like a sockpuppet of banned user CheeseDreams (to the point where the IP is even signing as 'CD'). Could someone look into this? →Raul654 23:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    California State University? Not all comments signed CD I don't know.Geni 23:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:RM

    There is now a three week backlog of requests at WP:RM. I've not been around to do the process much, and it seems that nobody else has either. violet/riga (t) 09:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Anittas

    I wasn't going to bring this up here (or anywhere), but it might be worth forewarning people. I corrected some edits made by Anittas (talk · contribs), and copy-edited an article that (it turned out) he though that he owned (Battle of Vaslui). He reacted extremely aggressively and insultingly ([14]), and reverted my edits wholesale([15]). So far, so depressingly familiar. He's also gone on to try to enlist other editors and admins against my appalling behaviour in editing his articles (e.g., [16]),with little success, and then went in for a bit of stalking, leaving messages full of hysterical vitriol against me for editors with whom I was in disagreement (e.g., [17], etc. He's been trawling through edit histories, trying to find anyone with whom I've been in disagreement (mostly banned vandals such as Enviroknot (talk · contribs) and his sockpuppets), and leaving messages on their Talk pages trying to enlist their help against me. A number of editors have tried to reason with him, but to no avail. At the moment he's just a nuisance, even mildly amusing, but it might escalate, so I'm explaining here in advance. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Where I come from being called a "nihilistic snob" is quite a compliment and his confusion over your rouge admin status bordered on vaudevillian... Or is it vaude-villain? FeloniousMonk 23:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey FM, was rouge deliberate? ):- Moriori 23:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's a pun on Mel and a few others having been labled "rogue admins" some time ago by an editor with a history of misspellings. It's evolved into a running joke with it's own award... see my talk page for an example. FeloniousMonk 00:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Sollog

    Could someone remind me, is sollog banned or not? --fvw* 01:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    If you're referring to User:Sollog Fan, he's pretty blatently a troll/impostor of User:Sollogfan. --Carnildo 03:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked him indefinitely. --MarkSweep✍ 04:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. --fvw* 04:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I think anybody who has relations to sollog is banned for vandalising Wikipedia... not sure if it's written anywhere but that's my general impression. Sasquatcht|c 04:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be a bit too radical, but I certainly don't see any problems with considering sollog and those who can reasonably be assumed to be sollog banned, which in effect is pretty close to that. --fvw* 04:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Iasson

    Iasson (talk · contribs), who is under a constantly reset 1-year block (currently set to expire on 20 September 2006), created a couple of obvious sockpuppets (one admitted (Hermodike (talk · contribs)) and the other obvious (Demodike (talk · contribs)). As per his usual practice, he used the user names as the passwords, so I have taken the liberty of changing the passwords. If this action was inappropriate, please let me know. And if the person behind either name or an administrator wants the new password, I will gladly send it along if they send me an e-mail. --Calton | Talk 07:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    User SPUI

    I personally find User:SPUI talk page offensive. Can anything be done? 207.69.139.149 09:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=23740027"