Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive116

In furtherance of Jimbo's efforts to decrease drama, I present here a comment by User:Moulton placed on another site:

Removed

WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

While the sentiments expressed are perhaps admirable, I'm not sure how you expect to accomplish a decrease in wikidrama by reproducing something posted to that particular "another site" (well, at least you didn't link to it). I am disappointed, though, that you left out the wonderful bit of alliteration "..." —Random832 17:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Trying to get the drama out of human interaction is like trying to get stink out of a turd.

1 != 2

17:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's all froth. While a minority "wiki-war" (what a nice phrase) a vast (peaceful) army in the background is quietly getting on with building the encyclopedia. Some articles are casualties in the wiki-wars, but many more articles survive than die, and they can all be ressurected at some point. Though some are honey-pots, forever attracting drama and zombifying onwards towards the hypothetical end scenario. Carcharoth (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC) There, some nice random rambling metaphorical philosophy to wash down the (actually rather insightful) post above.

edit conflict I've replaced it to a diff link of when you posted it, partially to reduce the effort that would be needed if (as I cynically suppose is likely to happen) it is determined it should be oversighted, and partially because you've given no indication of permission from User:Moulton. —Random832 17:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a question: Does his GFDL permission lapse if he is blocked indef? --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 17:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the GFDL's grant of permissions is explicitly perpetual (and says nothing about Wikipedia's blocking policy in any case). — Gavia immer (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, but WAS 4.250 is not the author of the piece, and Moulton did not post it to Wikipedia. —Random832 18:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 18:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we have no reason to believe we can repost that text, though perhaps a link to the original would be informative.

1 != 2

18:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec × ∞)Ah. Yes, I spaced out on Moulton not being the poster. So, I guess the answer is "maybe, maybe not". Glad I could clear that up. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The original, however, is posted to a thread which also contains posts that can be interpreted as attacks on users.—Random832 18:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We already have an article on this: six phases of any big project. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• [[WP::-)]]
• [[WP::LBT]]
• [[WP::P]]

These need deleting. These pages exist, brackets won't show up and it shows up on the list of all articles as something that has text on it (3rd and 4th lines). —

Talk to a developer. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WP::P&action=delete fails. —Random832 17:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm contacting someone to deal with it. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 17:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved to WP:WP::-), WP:WP::LBT and WP:WP::P. Do with them as you will. -- Tim Starling (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. These were to

WP:FUN, respectively. Someone will have to find and clean up inbound links manually; whatlinkshere does not work with broken titles. —Random832

18:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I deleted an inbound link to [[WP:]] today (=

WP:SHORTCUTS), since it was no longer working. I wonder if the database could still have the list of pages containing these links. -- lucasbfr ^talk

21:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User repeatedly vandalizes the article with unverified, original research and POV material. User appears to be the subject of the article. I've asked user to remove things they consider untrue, but instead user insists on a flatter piece for the article. User also appears to be using sock puppets, and has made threats and personal insults towards me, as well as challenging me to a fight. --Mista-X (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed an article at

Since there is attention being given to this (US House of Representatives) IP and its contributions, and since it's 5:00 here and I need to leave for a while, I thought it prudent to note the issue here. Please move this comment to the correct noticeboard, if it does not belong here. Thanks! ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 22:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that information produced by a federal government employee and/or released by the federal government is considered public domain and exempt from copyright protection. Pages of members of Congres edited by known Congressional IP addresses (particularly if they can be linked to that members staff) need a CoI tag.

^Talk

23:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The article has already been tagged, so I will add the above notice to the talk page describing the conflict of interest. Thanks, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Page moved

Can someone move

• Done. BLACKKITE 00:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "Swing of the Quad Cities" is the oddest team name I've ever come across.
    Chick Bowen
    04:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a long backlog on AfD right now going back to December 4. See

I've got some time, I'll see what I can do to help. Resolute 02:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Down to 170, we've made a dent at least. It was 230+ when I started working on it. Mr.Z-man 05:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

*collapses* - down to ~150. Mr.Z-man 07:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Unclogged. - auburnpilot talk 02:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• The delete-a-page dialog shows two entries with typing boxes: "Reason for deletion" and "Other/additional reason". As "Other/additional reason" is often full of a copy of the start of the page's text, it would be useful if two more alternatives were added to "Reason for deletion": "To allow incoming move" and "Temporarily for history-merge or history-split". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Or, you could just delete the auto-inserted text, which is what I do. I'm actually not a fan of the existing deletion page, as the summary comes before the dropdown when I tab through them... very frustrating. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – WR troll Will ^(talk) 10:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A federal law was signed on January 5, 2006 by President Bush. Section 113 of the "Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act" states that when you harass someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language:

"Whoever ... utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet ... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person ... who receives the communications ... shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

The law is correct to target abusive Internet behavior that hides behind anonymity. Wikipedia's procedures should be overhauled in light of this new law. Every screen-name signature should always show the originating IP address next to it on Wikipedia, and those who open accounts should provide a verified email address. These addresses should be available to anyone on request (but behind a captcha to keep spambots from harvesting them). This is a minimum requirement for Wikipedia if it ever hopes to restore its good name. 211.30.63.158 (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You're assuming that everyone on Wikipedia's intent is to "annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass". Your logic fails. JuJube (talk) 08:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the title of the act, I believe that only applies if we're harassing women or the Department of Justice, as well -- men who are not employees of the US DOJ appear to be fair game. More to the point, that suggestion makes little apparent sense; an IP address, in and of itself, hardly identifies a specific person. Privacy policy already contains elements to deal legal requests like subpoenas. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget that all Wikimedia projects are international, and are not subject to interpersonal laws to much degree. If someone in Mumbai was being specifically harassed by another user who happens to be in Perth, then the law doesn't do any good.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing the public's right for being anonymous is too harsh a step to take for dealing with a small number of users who "annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass". Od Mishehu עוד מישהו 09:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you're all taking this post so seriously. This, along with Section 230 discussion, is the oldest trick in the WR book. Will ^(talk) 10:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what the post directly above means but this seems to indicate that this new law is real while this is an example of how this type of laws can (in my opinion) be mis-used to control speech and media. I do not think anyone here can/should do anything at all about these intrusions (again,my opinion) on freedoms and liberties but it might be worth a discussion somewhere on wikipedia. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a minimum requirement for Wikipedia if it ever hopes to restore its good name lol Jackaranga (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Webgeek because this is 38kb of wikitext, 201kb post-expand, and literally half the rendered page.'

Executive summary: Webgeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and numerous IPs added many links to sites apparently run by him. —Random832 19:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Hello, Image:Inkou.jpg is up for speedy deletion as of December 1, but the category has been deleted (because it was empty, the tag had been removed against policy though, after the expiry date) , can someone please look at the image and delete it if necessary thanks. Jackaranga (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the uploader adequately addressed the issue. Using the DVD cover as an example in order to illustrate porn in Japan, falls within the scope of fair use, and I think other admins felt the same. Otherwise, the image would have been deleted. Your revert however (which removed part of the fair use rational), labeling the removal of the template as vandalism, does not show good faith. The template states "Please remove this template if you have successfully addressed the concern." That is what he did, so I have removed the template. — Edokter • Talk • 23:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You can see at

WP:NFC Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). Anyway if you accept to be the admin who is refusing deletion, please drop me a note so I can start a DRV as this is a common type of problem and a DRV on this kind of one would be useful, thanks. Jackaranga (talk

) 23:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, but the image was never tagged with a CSD template, but with a disputed fair-use template; uw-speedy does not apply here, and you totally misread the policy and the templates. Now you have sent it to

Wikipedia:Images for deletion. Can someone close the DRV? — Edokter • Talk

• 12:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. --

desat

12:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

He placed a wildly inappropriate "warning" on Mongo's talkpage here. This was after QE had been placing inappropriate fact tags (which Mongo reverted) over several 9/11-related pages. His contributions, such as they are have been disruptive, as he has called an established editor a "vandal" numerous times, and refuses to retract when others tell him this is inappropriate. He lashes out at anyone who dares question his reasoning. I have warned him about this disruption. I think it would be appropriate for a user with the tools to keep an eye on this guy, and block him if he refuses to discontinue his disruptive behavior. Mr Which??? 07:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks MrWhich...he is just a new editor or recreated editor who is only here to support the "alternate storyline". I've asked him to cite what sources he is using to try and refute what the article states and maybe he will...one never knows.--MONGO (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's the jolly old disruptive single-purpose account again. He's only been here 4 days and he's progressed to edit-warring, fringe theory advocacy, biased editing, incivility, personal attacks, templating the regulars - crikey. How far wrong can you go? Can someone with more patience than I explain why he needs to do everything completely differently from now on? Thank you. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Blocked MiguelL0pz Guy (Help!) 17:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have posted the following in Nikki311's talk page and on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

• MiguelL0pz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The editor is begging to be blocked by continuing to make vanfalism. ClueBot has warned him, but he still continues. The user has not made one single edit which is constructive. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 17:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are his edits:

There are many other edits, but you can't suppose I'd write them all down here. Please see to this ASAP. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 17:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting quite fed up with User:Rex Germanus. Since I'm definitely not neutral on this (involved gradually in different editing disputes with him), I am bringing this here for general consideration (since the CSN board is closed down), to see what (if anything) should be done.

Since his return from a month long block on November 13, Rex has continued his disruptive behaviour, but is now supported by a number of IP adresses, including

Problems are: asking for references without ever providing some themselves (e.g. on

Finally, edits like this one[22] are to me unacceptable.

This is a complicated situation in which I am a party, but I seriously doubt if Rex has changed a bit since his last block, and if he is beneficial to Wikipedia. I have not issued any formal warnings, since (coming from me) they would probably only inflame the situation, instead of helping.

Since he's been warned off editing German topics, Rex certainly seems to have acquired a bee in his bonnet about all things Flemish. The disruption is at a much lower intensity than before, but it's still there. --

Folantin (talk

) 10:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

All edits made displayed here where either because I had (better) sources or because others lacked them. I stand by all of them.

'Disrupted Topic' according to Fram:

Jean Bart: Being Dutch-born, ethnic sense, (Dunkirk being almost completely etnically Dutch at the time of his birth) doesn't say anything about nationality; the source of your confusion as noted in your edits.

Dunkirkers: Explained at my talkpage, point of concern? 'Dunkirkers' also refers to people from Dunkirk in general. Simple as that.

Van Beethoven Family

: In the Beethoven question, which I've dropped as announced on the talk page) I proved my point that Flemish meant Dutch in beethovens time (and his ancestors times). Fran/Folentin demanded something more specific (what could cover my point more I ask myself). If that's 'not ever providing sources' then I don't know what that is.

For example Another false accusation to add to my list. I do use sources, more than any of the people mentioned above. This report to me is just a clear example of how these people try to push their changes on wikipedia without referencing. A small step from unfounded opinions, to personal attacks and allegations and now ... and attempt to block or similar. Sad, if you think you're right, go to library and find out for sure.Rex (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I deny all accusations made by Erik Warmelink who accuses me of using sock/meatpuppets. I have never used them and never will. Just because an IP (I assume it is the same person) disagrees with you and supports me doesn't make it a sock, it just makes 2 vs 1.Rex (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then, quote the starting 10 words of the entry on "beethof" on http://www.etymologie.nl/ (I get: Lemma niet gevonden! Dit deel van het Etymologisch Woordenboek van …, crude translation: Lemma not found! This part of the etymological glossary of …), give a reliable source that links "van Beethoven" with Beets or the Betuwe, give a source that "van Beethoven" was ever used as a familyname in the Netherlands, give a reliable source that "proves" that Flemish meant Dutch in Beethovens time. Just because several IPs agree with you, doesn't make them socks; if all they do is agreeing with you (even repeating your accusation that I would lie) and reverting to your versions (without interwiki's that were added and with spelling errors that were corrected), appearances are against you. Also explain this edit summary. Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I invite everyone to look at the edits linked, and compare them with the actual statements by Rex Germanus. E.g. the

Do not confuse yourself with me. I do provide sources. Look at Dutch people, over 110 references, nearly all added by me, I know how to reference.Rex (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You have not provided sources for any of the disputes mentioned here: I'm glad that you know how to do it, but that doesn't excuse your behaviour in the last month. Why do you say here that "some people love fights" while going from a more to a less correct page?[24]. Why do you make such clearly invalid statements like this one?[25] Why did you change from one unsourced spelling to another unsourced one[26], but then accuse me of OR when I provide an independent but unreliable source (which of course is not OR at all), while not providing any source at all to support your version?[27] And why are you so uncivil in nearly all your edits and edit summaries (when you use them)?

Fram (talk

) 13:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What's less correct Fram? Explain that to me. That note on West Flemish is really a cry for help for your behavior. Your 'arguments' were/are completely discredited on talk and still you revert to your version. Also you did not, hence no links, in the entire West Flemish discussion provide any reference. So don't make it seem you did.Rex (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Good grief, are we still dealing with this guy? How many kilobytes of AN and ANI discussion have been devoted to his antics? When is enough provocation enough? Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep your good griefs to yourself and focus on what's presented, not how many times a name comes up on a page you happen to watch.Rex (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd move for a ban to stop Rex wasting any more of our time. He's just a Dutch nationalist logic-chopper with a grudge against Germans and, now it seems, the Flemish. --

You people can go on making more melodramatic comments here for as long as you want, in every case here I provided references, others did and an the contributions button will show anyone that Erik Warmelink started all this with his on purpose nonsense reverts. He even stated against an IP how much he hates me. Ridiculous. I'm off continuing referenced editing. Some of you ought to try that too sometimes.Rex (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting way to summarize I don't hate Rex Germanus and No, I don't hate Rex Germanus. Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This really is nonsense. If someone askes references? or if he is a little bit nationalistic? Dit kinse toch neet meer geluive. --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Rex I have met you editing for over a year now, and most of it you have been engaged in one or more disputes. Although I have had my own disputes in that time, and made a comparable number of edits as you in that year, I have never been accused of any gross violation, no official complaint was ever listed against me. It cannot be only other editors bad-faith towards you that cause you being involved in so many formal procedures; it can only mean you are doing something wrong. Please consider this. Arnoutf (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A clear cut example. The first adress of Erik Warmelink on talk was not a plea for his own version and why it was better, but a direct personal attack. A rant about how many blocks I've had. How do you see any good faith in that?Rex (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

From my POV, it started with this edit. My edit was after my additions[28][29] to Talk:Van Beethoven family#Meertens reference, which Rex Germanus ignored. Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Community ban discussion

Last time we discussed Rex Germanus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on October 13, I blocked him for one month and suggested that further disruption should result in an indefinite block. Rex Germanus' long block log is strong evidence that he has worn out the community's patience. Before placing an indefinite block, I would like to run a checkuser to see if there is any sockpuppetry involved, and I'd also like to see a concise list of diffs showing disruption since the most recent block. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rex Germanus, and here is a set of diffs that demonstrate edit warring if these IP's are in fact Rex Germanus: [30] [31] [32] [33] -- [34] [35] [36] [37] If not, there may be other evidence sufficient to justify a community ban. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wie een hond wil slaan, vindt licht een stok. Go find your stick Jehochman. Surprise me.Rex (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you know anything about the IP editor(s) who have been supporting you in these content disputes? - Jehochman ^Talk 20:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly they/he/she must be insane, rude and nationalistic assholes. Why else would the IP(s) support me? I can't even comprehend that myself, I can only imagine how you felt in all your biased glory when you saw them! Poor you. Rex (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• (ec) The checkuser result is "Possible". Given the identical point of view of the IP's and Rex Germanus, and the lack of technical evidence to the contrary, I am inclined to accept the assertions made by
  Fram (talk · contribs). Rex Germanus has apparently returned to his previous editing style which has resulted in approximately 15 different blocks, placed by diverse members of the Wikipedia admin corps. I think Rex Germanus has expended the community's patience and the time has come to ask him, politely but firmly, to leave the project. (add) Rude comments won't help your cause, Rex Germanus. - Jehochman ^Talk
  21:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• This diff shows an IP removing properly sourced content, using an deceptive "Interwiki" edit summary: [38] The IP is Rex Germanus: [39] [40] - Jehochman ^Talk 22:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. And if that IP is Rex, we have at the very least a breach of the revert parole, as he repeated the same revert under his account the next day ([41], [42]). However, that IP is not from the same range as the others, from a university in Tilburg. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) Editing at home, school/work, and a cafe will result in different IPs. I think we should mainly consider the styles of editing, and the tone of Rex Germanus' comments on this very thread. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC) (Keep thread open. 22:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC))

To be fair the editor was simply importing material from the Dutch version of the same page - summarizing this as "interwiki" might not have been entirely bad faith. --

talk

) 00:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, Rex was deleting material, and then as shown above, he subsequently repeated the edit with his own account the next day. This is evidence of

gaming his revert parole. - Jehochman ^Talk

02:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The edit didn't import, it reverted to a previous version by Rex Germanus[43] and re-added cy:Ffleminiaid which was added[44] by User:AlleborgoBot (AlleborgoBot did add in alfabetical order, though). Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've been asked to comment here. I haven't had time to look into this in detail, but there does appear to be a case here for an indefinite block. Before supporting that, I'd like to ask if there is any case for a repeated one month block, or a longer block (with people watching out for block evasion) or a topic ban? The evidence above that Rex has been evading his revert parole should also be followed up. I'd also urge Rex (and others) to speak up if any of these blocks were inappropriate. Carcharoth (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Given the repeated incidents of revert warring and POV pushing, compounded by the use of IP accounts to evade scrutiny, proven in one case, and very likely in at least three other cases, plus incivility by Rex Germanus right here in this thread, I suggest a 1 year ban. We've had 15 prior blocks, but Rex Germanus hasn't gotten the message yet. It's time to protect our editors. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jehochman. You can stop stalling the block/bann process in order to make it seem fair to outsiders, I've beaten you to it. Have a nice life, or whatever you call it.Rex (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for blocking indefinitely here. Rex is a long-term problem editor, who has had multiple last chances, has sockpuppeted to avoid his parole, and has a net negative effect on Wikipedia in general.

☎

16:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've placed an indefinite block, and added the user account to

Wikipedia:List of banned users#Banned by the Wikipedia community. If any administrator would like to refactor the block and ban, you have my permission to do so. - Jehochman ^Talk

17:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Good. --

Folantin (talk

) 17:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

Fram (talk

) 20:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ambivalent. --Van helsing (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ambivalent too. Arnoutf (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Good, considering the absence of the entry "beethof" on etymology.nl. Erik Warmelink (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am in support of the ban. Bearian (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I might be willing to unblock Rex after the new year, he's not community banned just yet. I will not unblock Rex without Jehochman's agreement, nor without Rex's agreement to a broad topic ban, &c. All purely hypothetical. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to support that solution. If Rex Germanus wishes to return, subject to editing restrictions that will keep him away from topics where he has had past problems, then he can be unblocked.- Jehochman ^Talk 11:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what the point of this is. The guy spent his credit here long, long ago. He's had umpteen chances already. He also claims to have left Wikipedia of his own accord. --

Folantin (talk

) 12:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Rex has both contributed positively and negatively to Wikipedia, with the former recently being more and more often overshadowed by the the latter. If Rex were willing to return, I'd strongly suggest a compulsory mentorship by an neutral and experienced administrator. His mentor then could help Rex reinforce his good behavior (i.e. his contributions) while providing an external check against the problematic one (i.e. POV and civility issues) - and, if necessary, in an emerging dispute, either support Rex and curb potential trolling and incivility or encourage Rex to back down (if he doesn't) - as this is Rex's weak point; his edits might be ok (even if not "correct") but instead of a quick and painless discussion, it quickly turns into a "my way or the highway" scenario where Rex won't accept that he might be wrong nor will back down. An experienced mentor with the power to repel trolls (he did manage to accumulate a number of enemies) might just help him get back and stay on the right path. CharonX/talk 16:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Rex has entirely exhausted my patience, and I suspect the community's as well. Ask yourselves - is this really an editor we need? For me, that's a resounding "NO". Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Without making any comments on the rest of this section, I am willing to mentor Rex if he is allowed back (which I am not saying *should* happen - I'm staying neutral). I am a new adminsitrator, and I feel up to the challenge. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Look at that. And his contribs! The has repetedly recreated

User:Pegasus got him. east.718 at 04:34, November 27, 2007

Signed to allow archiving. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an alternate account. I am an administrator here on the Wikipedia. A checkuser may be performed on this account to verify the truthfulness of this statement but I do ask that the sockpuppeteer account name not be revealed except with my permission. This account is not a violation of

Checkuser confirms the above does belong to an admin. Raul654 (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeez. Whats the point, honestly. I don't understand people sometimes. Honestly, I would suggest a wikibreak, at least in terms of your admin acct. Let the storm die down. Sad it has to come to that, but it is what it is.↔NMajdan•talk 17:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been done before to disappear from one account and then reappear as an admin under another account. I suggest you contact one of the higher authorities if you would like to regain your admin access while remaining anonymous. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a user gaining admin access without an RfA would stand out like a sore thumb. If an admin is going to drop and come back, I'm afraid that they should work back through the ranks to become an admin again. Yes, it really sucks, but it's also the only way to avoid a red flag on the account. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. In two examples some people on a certain site were able to figure out which admin had recently disappeared and then compared the editing patterns to figure out who it was. Maybe you could continue making edits with both accounts to throw them off the scent, though that there's a very fine line on what kinds of edits are allowable.. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk to your telephone company about logging the calls (they record the details) and your local police for advice regarding the caller(s) - that is what you pay your taxes for - especially in conjunction with the death threats. Talk to the service provider about the site publicising your details; if they do not have permission from the copyright holder they should not be able to post your picture (unless it was released under GDFL) and they may be violating their terms of service in publishing your information without permission (same problem about GDFL, though) or in a manner which might cause you distress. The perhaps co-incidental receipt of the silent phone calls and death threats can be cited.

On-wiki, I suggest you WP:IGNORE/DENY, or take a break per Nmajdan. I wouldn't change account names - a new admin popping up without going through RfA is likely to attract attention, and there will not be that many recently inactive admins to sift through, from the off-Wiki sites. Sorry about your experiences, and I hope this has helped. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If you aren't already in contact with WMF, please communicate with them. Also I'd be glad to talk to you under whatever account you wish. Suggest you set up a gmail account for use in connection with Wikipedia volunteering because your location can't be traced from the headers. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 23:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please send email to me using your admin account. I am interested in this case, and I have some friends who are also interested. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, everyone. I'll contact the WMF in the next couple of days. EVula has a very good point, I talked to another admin who changed account names earlier this year and it didn't really do much to help protect his identity. For the record, I have never used an alternate account other than this one. I'll also start star-69'ing the dropped calls, though I doubt this will give me much information. Does that even work if the person only lets it ring once or twice and I don't pick up? To the best of my knowledge, my telephone number has never been posted in relation to my Wikipedia account, not anywhere. And I haven't had any hang-up calls today so hopefully it was all just a false alarm, though I am still concerned. I'll please ask people (including those off-wiki) not to speculate about my identity. I am sure I am not the only Wikipedia editor who has been in this situation. Also, while I am not thrilled with so-called attack sites posting my personal information or using pictures without my consent, I am far more concerned with what third parties do with that information. Anyway, if I choose to start editing with a new account, I will check with a couple of trusted people to make sure I am not being abusive. --Okay Bignose (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You can refuse calls that are callerid blocked, I would contact your phone provider about that. Prodego ^talk 02:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In the United States, at least, you can arrange a trap with the phone company if you get a civil restraining order. You'd document the exact time of each harassing call and you'd need to synchronize your own clock so it's accurate to the minute. I suggest you contact an expert for advice about the details. Durova^Charge! 02:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought the timing issue was a myth, and the phone company knows regardless of when the call was. Prodego ^talk 02:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a question of correlating particular events. In the past I've had two weeks of evidence tossed out by the police because my clock wasn't synchronized with official time. They probably could have correlated it rather easily by shifting all the data two or three minutes, but some people refused to take that effort. Some jurisdictions try any excuse to avoid paperwork. While I was filing a report once I saw a woman turned away even though she was reporting a death threat. A minute later I spoke to her outside, we compared the fine print on our restraining orders, and she marched right back and compelled the clerk to take her report when she realized his excuse was invalid. Durova^Charge! 04:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading this account, & having worked with real phone switch logs, I suspect the problem is that either no one in authority understands how this works -- or don't care. Excuse me while I talk about some stuff that has little to do with either WP:AN or Wikipedia in general, but explains how this information gets recorded.

Phone switches are in effect computer servers, & keep a very detailed log of all of the calls that are handled by a given central office. The record is kept so that at the end of the month the phone company can bill you. However, to get access to these logs for any reason other than billing, there are many barriers. To start with, most of the information is stored on 9-track tape, & the tape drives that could be used to read the data are in use; companies only have the minimum number of tape drives they need. Further, for various reasons (primarily to conserve space) those logs are encrypted, so they can't read them with a text editor like notepad or vi. (When I handled these records, I used a perl script that did the decoding, then search-&-printed all of the records in question -- which took as long as a couple of hours.) Despite all of this, it is theoretically possible to find out who called you many years before -- or as long as the phone company keeps the records. However, phone companies are not organized to provide that information at a moment's notice. (Remember: those companies are set up to handle providing customer service, & think about how well they do that.) In many cases, the people who handle the initial requests about calling info don't even know who handles all of those logs. I'm sure that's why a court order is needed -- to get the attention of a manager who has the clout to get the information. That's probably why most law enforcement agencies would trace calls -- it was far, far quicker than delving into the phone company beauracracy.

As for the question about "dropped calls", if I understand telecomm technology correctly, until you pick up the phone, no billing information is written. However, ISTR anecdotes about people being billed for calls they never answered; so if that if correct when some phones ring for a certain number of seconds, then a token charge will be written to the billing log on the switch. (There are several models of phone switches, all of which handle billing and pass voice data in different ways. And use one of the most unusual operating system I have encountered.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you eliminated the more mundane possibility of telemarketers using

United States National Do Not Call Registry and have not yet added your name to it, perhaps you could do so as a test (though there might be a delay before it takes effect). I apologize if this idea is off base. Cardamon (talk

) 07:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not offbase. Actually, I was just about to suggest that as the most likely cause. Hangup calls, blank voice messages, it fits the description of certain dialers perfectly. I had that problem for short while; a friend is an engineer for the phone company and confirmed. El_C 13:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

See

Predictive_dialer#Silent_calls. The half-life of these dialer stalking can be between three to six months, if I recall correctly (but sometimes it will only last a week or two, as was the case for me), so changing one's phone number needs to be weighed accordingly. El_C

13:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Many phone companies allow automatic rejection (or voicemail) for unidentified calls. My preferred

VoIP carrier also allows me to shunt specific numbers directly to voicemail. - Jehochman ^Talk

13:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I would expect that, were you to notify the 'crats in advance (by email, obviously), the issue will not even be raised. Given that'd you'd vanish from one account while in good standing, there would be no problem whatsoever. Personally, however, I think this sucks beyond words. sigh. We have to start comming down MUCH harder on harassment. — Coren ^(talk) 15:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the subject of a current ongoing controversy regarding a former employee of the Wikimedia Foundation. The article is at

Related to this matter, I've fully-protected User:Carolyn-WMF‎ and semi-protected User talk:Carolyn-WMF‎, as both had already seen some vandalism (it didn't help that the Wikinews article linked directly to her userpage, which I've since fixed). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I tagged the talk page and two redirects as speedy deletes if someone wants to get them. [45] [46] Lawrence Cohen 06:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I really have a problem with the talk page being deleted. From what I looked at it, there was nothing in the talk page that warranted a speedy deletion. At least restore it to allow talk about the article, if one should exist. At least have it for a week or two. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk page restored by another admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zscout370 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Even though I have expressed genuine doubts about the notability of the subject of the article, it is probably wise to keep at least the talk page undeleted for a day or two simply to diffuse the inevitable drama. Risker (talk) 06:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And a soft redirect was made to Wikinews. I issued the protection to the soft protected article, so it is up to Wikinews now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I did a double-take on the soft-redirect due to the fact that at this time there's not enough reliable source for us to link to the Wikinews article. (If Washington Post runs a story blowing the whistle, I wouldn't hesitate to link to Wikinews--- I'd even say that we could probably write an article for C.D!) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 07:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Wikimedia Foundation article is sadly out of date and currently gives the impression that Doran is still an employee, doesn't mention Sue Gardner or her position, etc. If someone is in a position to clean that up using reliable sources, this might be a good time to do it. Risker (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Since Risker's post, the problem he described has been fixed -- although I'd argue that the changes he advocated were not controversial & did not need reliable sources. -- llywrch (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Everything needs reliable sources. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Be my guest & start flagging non-controversial statements like "London is a city in the United Kingdom" or "Wyoming is one of the United States" with {{

WP:POINT at you. ;) Now if you want to find a reliable source for those statements (I guess the Congressional act which made Wyoming a state would work for the second example), & add them to the article, I'd be honestly surprised if anyone objected. But now this thread is drifting into the hypothetical. -- llywrch (talk

) 19:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have been fine with someone who actually knew the information considering themself a reliable source. I didn't know to the degree of certainty required to change the article, and find that there are often conflicting sources of information for the Foundation, so better that someone else make the edits. Hence my post. Risker (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys.

I'm PimpUigi, and I noticed there is no email address attached to my username. I can't log in, or change my password, or anything.

Can you assign my email address to it?

I should be able prove I am PimpUigi, as I have accounts on tons of other forums, and many people on those forums even know me in person.

To my knowledge I am not blocked.

My email address is <redacted> or <redacted> It may be better to use the second one, as it will get CC'd to both email addresses that way.

Thank you for your assistance, and any info you can provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.149.217 (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean

Chick Bowen

06:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since there is no e-mail attached to your username, there is no way to get back your account (for obvious security reasons). Sorry. -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. That's strange, as I've never edited anything. I have no idea why my account would lose it's email either. To my knowledge, I signed up, but never edited anything. I just kind of signed up, and forgot about it. Can you delete the name, and then I can remake it????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.149.217 (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the five things it said I contributed to, and I've never seen them before in my life. I'm worried my account has been compromised, or someone was impersonating me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.149.217 (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have no way whatsoever to tell if you are telling the truth, since those edits are months old and the IP logs have likely expired. Sorry. Just ignore it and make a new account; if that one starts being bad, we'll block it, with no harm to you. --Golbez (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you guys wouldn't like it either if someone somehow took your account name. I can prove that I am PimpUigi. I can't prove I didn't make those edits, but I can indeed prove I am PimpUigi. And since I can prove I'm PimpUigi, you guys should attach my email address to my name. I have no idea how it would get unattached to begin with.

http://www.smashwiki.com/wiki/Pimpuigi http://razerblueprints.net/index.php/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,99/action,profile/ http://smashboards.com/member.php?u=14397 http://forums.newdoom.com/member.php?u=10757

You can see that my info at all of these places will sync up. If you need more proof, I'll be happy to oblige. But I won't be happy with the possibility of someone impersonating me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.149.217 (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I would still like this to be taken care of...

Please check the relevance of

...why should we have the article, though? I appears that Kelly only appears in a single game, whereas Sanders at least appears in multiple books set in the Doom universe. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Those books are horrible and their mere mention on Wikipedia is a blight upon all mankind. Er, ahem, I mean, uh, just because she's in four horrible books that collectively probably sold less than a single video game (in this case, Doom 3) does not make that character inherently more notable than Sergeant Kelly. Quantity alone does not infer more notability. Personally, I'd nuke both articles - redirects are sufficient. --Golbez (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit that it's been almost 15 years since I played Doom, & that this entire thread properly belongs elsewhere, but I have to ask -- there were characters in that game? I thought the cast consisted of one guy with at least one firearm, & the creatures he killed. There was no plot to get in the way of the story! Merge, redirect, & insist on reliable sources for everything else. -- llywrch (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There were no characters in the first two games. There we characters in the horrid books, and in Doom 3. --Golbez (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Those books were awesome. Jtrainor (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Awesomely bad. The first one was marginally entertaining, the second two were bad, and the fourth killed my puppy. --Golbez (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The fifth would have raised it from the dead as a mindless zombie. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've commented it out from Mediawiki:Common.js, as when toolserver is down, it IS down, usually for weeks. _→AzaToth 14:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The toolserver is alive and well. east.718 at 02:12, December 17, 2007

It say to drop by here and leave a gentle reminder, so.....Hi! How's it going? Anyone want to come and visit the AWB request for approvals at their convenience? Thank you so much!! KellyAna (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done - sorry for the inconvenience. Keilana 18:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration committee has lifeted the editing restriction on this user. See here...for the committee... — Rlevse • Talk • 18:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, can I please remind everyone that removal of speedy deletion tags from pages you have created yourself is a violation of policy. I just realised many users do this, including admins, I may have myself also I can't remember, please be careful of this. I reworded the user warnings {{

Is this a joke? 81.153.124.23 (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok I will admit not all the tags are speedy deletion tags, some are "relative-speedy" deletion, so perhaps this doesn't apply to those ones. But for example invalid fair-use claim as well as missing rationale are, see

WP:CSD#Images and media, invalid fair-use rationale is not one however, so perhaps the problem is not as big as I thought, but still something to remember. If a page creator could remove the speedy deletion tag himself we might as well scrap the whole speedy deletion idea, so not a joke, but I did perhaps overstate the problem a bit. Jackaranga (talk

) 23:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never had a problem with people removing "speedy deletion" tags from images after they have fixed the problem. --

talk

23:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it's only when all you do is remove the speedy tag that it becomes a problem; if an article is tagged with {{

the policy is wrong). EVula // talk // ☯

// 23:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but you must remember it's the consensus that no distinction is made, so we must try to abide by it if possible even if we disagree personally. Jackaranga (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is the consensus; EVula's description is closer to what has been standard practice by long precedent. Remember that policy pages are descriptive rather than prescriptive.

Chick Bowen

01:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

How about removing wrongly-added speedy tags? DuncanHill (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

One of only many examples, yes. Jackaranga's original example, a bot-added tag about a specific problem with an image, is actually a good example of a situation in which the author's removing a tag is clearly acceptable.

Chick Bowen

01:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you fix a problem with your images, please remove the deletion tags. It saves a lot of time when going through and deleting the non-compliant ones. Mr.Z-man 02:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

for images, removing the tag oneself makes good sense--there seems to be already an excessive amount of overhead in dealing with images. For articles, however, I disagree with EVula, Most cases i see of authors removing the tags are at least questionable. We should revert Jackaranga's change, restoring the reading 'article' and enforce it. i would have no hesitation in supporting the blocking of an admin who removed a speedy tag from a article he had created, and further action if it continued. It's almost as bad as protecting or blocking in ones own edit dispute--it amounts to the same principle. We dont change CSD policy here. DGG (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just posting a notification here of the DRV, as this is directly relevant to admins. Lawrence Cohen 17:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That's very nice. Message posted here at 17:15 UTC, DRV closed at 18:48 UTC. Time to MfD Wikipedia:There is no deadline perhaps? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Angus, you should consider yourself lucky to have been told at all.</sarcasm> It appears that the trout whacking category was restored unilaterally, without going to DRV.... --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Could a few other's more familiar with bios and BLP please visit

The problem seems to be that people don't know how to use the ref citations inline and that they have to cite every possible thing. I am concerned about a possible bias as someone decided to conveniently ignore the fact that Paulk actually denied the allegations (a serious point of his). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Has a system ever been used where trusted editors (who desire to become admins) are given admin tools for a trial period (a month for example), in order to test whether they would make good admins? If there is a more appropriate place to ask this question, let me know and I'll move it :). Seraphim ^Whipp 02:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This has often been suggested, but never seems to get any agreement.--

Doc

^g 02:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I would think it useful if it were implemented. RfA is based around presuming what sort of admin a person would be...if they were given a trial for a week, their actions as an admin for that week could be reviewed and adminship decided on that trial period. There are negatives but I haven't fully thought them through. Seraphim ^Whipp 02:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Would probably create more problems than be a benifit to wikipedia. Admin school seems to address using the tools, in an environment that will not harm the encyclopedia. see →

Wikipedia:New admin school--Hu12 (talk

) 02:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

All someone has to do is not do anything outrageous in the week they're a trial admin. Once it passes, they can go wild... EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem I see is that it would create a system where people have to go through 2 RFAs. Since we can't just hand out the tools to anyone who asks, we would need some sort of approval process both before and the process after to evaluate. Mr.Z-man 02:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(five edit conflicts - is this a record)I think it is a good idea and that existing admins should be subject to periodic review too. DuncanHill (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)All excellent points. It could be difficult to judge who to approve...and become too complicated. Periodic review sounds like a good idea though. Seraphim ^Whipp 02:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Make it automatic: If you've been around for at least three months, have racked up at least a thousand edits, and ask for the tools, you get them for a month. After that month, there's an RFA to see if you should keep them. If you abuse the tools during the trial period, it's grounds for an immediate and permanent de-sysopping. --Carnildo (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is actually an important issue. There is a huge backlog of admin hopefuls/candidates looking for mentorship, going back as far as October, from what I see. But there also seems to be little take-up from existing admins to adopt them. I look at RfAs, and see very few people I recognise. That, in itself, is no bad thing, because a lot of admin work, particularly clearing backlogs, does not show up on the radar of an average editor. However, I can see that a case can be made for "trusted editors" having limited tools to deal with patent vandalism either by blocking or page protection; this would release "full admins" to deal with issues such as sock-puppetry, edit-warring and the like, where a greater depth of experience would be useful. However, the position at present is that the admin tools are indivisible. It is difficult, and ultimately nugatory, to propose a hierarchy of admins; however, a little responsibility, properly transferred to editors in good standing, and subject to appropriate review, would be no bad thing, in that it would relieve admins of what is, ultimately, voluntary responsibility, and minimise some of the drama that seems to occur on a daily basis. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 02:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with EVula. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Up to a point. But all you have to do to become an admin is keep your nose clean. After that, as long as you don't hit the radar, you're home and away. Is that what we really want? --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 03:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

EVula makes a good point about requiring the RfA process. But the idea of bifurcating admin duties seems interesting. For instance banning a user or deleting a page are very serious actions, since if done wrongly, they can prevent useful content or users from participating. On the other hand, page-protection and semi-protection is easily reviewable and users of that feature could probably do with less scrutiny then those trusted with the block and ban buttons. Viewing deleted data and editing mediawiki pages is probably somewhere in between, since deleted data can have copyvio issues and mediawiki pages impact the entire encyclopedia. Also, I suspect the first comment will be that a less-vetted page-protection policy will lead to the main page constantly getting deleted. In that case, removal of full protection could be left to regular admins and addition of it and all semi-protections to "trusted editors", whatever that term may mean.

talk

) 03:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll just add that banning an editor is not an admin function; it is that no admin is prepared to unblock an editor; so it is effectively a collective decision, not an individual decision. Deleting a page varies in seriousness, depending upon the page. Closing an AfD on apparent consensus may be, in the short term, serious to its creator. Salting it, certainly is. Deleting a User page is certainly serious, as in the recent

deletion review. There are checks and balances built in, sufficient in general to limit the actions of out of policy mavericks. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs

) 03:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that we hav good checks and balances, due process stuff in place, but some things take more discretion than other and some discretions are (IMHO) more serious than others. I could easily imagine the problems of setting a level of 2000 edits and presto your a trusted editor who could block. Even with containmment, many good new users could be turned off to the whole thing. On the other hand, I don't see reckless page protection as serious as an issue since its unlikely to have the same psychological aspect. And as you point out, there are more processes a person can screw up in deletions (userspace, CSD/PROD/AFD/DRV, copyvio, NPOV) than in protections.

Or we could just ask Jimbo to follow up on his famous quote and make a "bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops"; that could help dispel the notion of being an admin as passing the RfA test :)

talk

) 03:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Imagine what a huge disaster that would be. Prodego ^talk 05:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The flaw with Carnildo's suggestions is that blocks are personal, and cause drama. Even bad undeletions can be quickly reversed, but bad blocks sit in the logs of users (not articles) forever and they are a source of drama. I could almost agree to a system of users-with-three-months-2000-edits-nothing-bad-and-no-administrator-disagrees system (maybe they'd have to post their name on a page for seventy-two hours and if no administrator objects they get two weeks' +sysop) getting temporary +sysop where their actions are clearly marked with a link to distinguish them as actions by a temporary sysop in their trial period, normal administrators can overturn their actions and not be reversed by a temporary administrator, they do not have access to Special:Blockip (or, even better: they can only block people who don't meet the technical threshold for being "autoconfirmed"), and they can be desysopped on the request of any administrator. But people will argue that it's too bureaucratic, probably, but anything less will result in mayhem and drama everywhere. Daniel 10:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's hard enough to become an admin already with all the garbage snowballing on RFA. I can't say I support anything that lengthens the process. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked the above user as a sockpuppet of User:HandsomeJerry. They both created List of Important Subjects, several times, and have the same user page. Also based on User talk:NawlinWiki/Archive 5#I do not understand, User talk:NawlinWiki/Archive 5#Grammar, User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#List of Important Subjects and User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Re: Handsome Dave I think that their actions resemble that of a troll but at least they are really polite. Anyway the cats in the bed again and I have to go shift her so I can get some sleep. If you feel I'm in the wrong then please feel free to revert my actions, talk about me while I'm out of earshot, question my manhood, etc. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

One note to be added is that while

229

12:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please file these at

WP:SSP in the future. — Rlevse • Talk

• 14:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets is for discussing suspected sock puppets. I didn't suspect that he was, I knew he was, and posted this here for a review of my blocking him. I left HandsomeJerry unblocked just on the off chance that the editor was not a troll but misunderstanding of the way Wikipedia works. If he is just trolling then he will certainly show that. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair point -

Anthøny

16:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Could someone roll back the article to a pre-vandalized version? I'd rather not do 12 separate undos. 66.93.12.46 (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Davewild (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

12 separate undos? What ever happened to just clicking on the pre-vandalized version, clicking edit, and then save? Carcharoth (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, undo itself now works on diffs spanning multiple revisions (I don't know when it was fixed, but it works now.) —Random832 14:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A couple of users continue to reinsert BLP infracting material to these articles. Could we get some eyes on them? Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for raising this. For convenience, I've drew up a list of the relevant pages:

• Dominionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• List of people and organizations associated with Dominionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TheocracyWatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Category:Dominionism

–

Anthøny

16:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Hello fellow admins. I discovered User:70.48.245.15 removing various sock puppetry allegations from user profiles, as well as particpating in a discussion that leads me to believe that this IP is involved in the same sock puppetry. I went ahead and blocked the IP indefinitely. I, not having much experience in situations such as this exact one, wanted to post this here for everyone to review. Thanks in advance. Brianga (talk) 08:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin. However, I'm pretty sure that IPs are almost never blocked indefinitely. JuJube (talk) 08:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

JuJube is right: of course it is a sock, but it's a dynamic IP, so indef-blocking is no use and potentially harmful. In general, we almost never do indef blocks on IPs, and any IP block longer than a few days (except perhaps with open proxies) should be done only where we are reasonably certain the IP is static. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the expiration to 3 hours. If there are any other actions required, please let me know. Brianga (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

3 hours is probably too little ;) 3 days is probably more appropriate ~ Riana ⁂ 09:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, depends what history it has. If there is no history at all then I tend to give it longer (less chance of colateral damage), otherwise I look at the contribs and try to guess the likely time between reassignments. Mostly a period of about 2 weeks feels right to me, and that accords with my experiences before I changed to an ISP that gives static IPs. Usually an IP will not be reassigned for a month or so but it depends on the ISP and how many addresses they have. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth, this block has now expired - the individual has probably moved onto another address, anyway. I've tagged this thread as {{

Anthøny

16:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – 15:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate of me to protect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totient function/Proofs given the fact that it has been slashdotted. Several editors have now offered their opinions despite it having been archived. Would it be a COI for me to protect it? Is it even allowed. Thanks. Woody (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

To avoid a COI, for you, I've protected it myself :) MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 12:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou. Woody (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Hello, The page Hood Surgeon failed AfD last week and was deleted and immediately recreated, but is now protected from editing because it is "transcluded in the following pages, which are protected with the "cascading" option: Wikipedia:Protected titles/Twinkle". It failed AfD, it needs to be deleted.--CastAStone/^/(talk) 17:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Story. There are already people commenting on the IP's talk page. I have semied the page for 7 days. Any thoughts? -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a risk to attract minpeace's attention if we go around interfering with mintruth's work? — Coren ^(talk) 17:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the Ministry of Peace and Ministry of Truth already are watching us. Are you implying that we don't all love Big Brother? That would be badthink! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Orange, my man, we all know that's doubleplusungood think. There is no such thing as "bad" in Airstrip One. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

One unfortunate side effect to keep in mind is that semi-protecting the page also locks the IP from editing its own talk page in the process :/ --

✽

18:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a reason why I am commenting here. But the IP seldom edits. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Without the semi-protection, we would be sure to see many more wonderfully-expressed sentiments from around the world. Although it won't prevent inappropriate comments from established accounts, east.718 has already started a dialogue with one of them. — Satori Son 18:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This site has previously been the subject of multiple deletion and spam blacklist discussions, sometimes heated.

Another admin has stated it may be time to reevaluate this domain and remove it from the blacklist. The discussion is at:

• MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#www.tvrage.com

--A. B. ^(talk) 23:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Would someone please restore Megan McArdle to my user space so I can take a look at it? I have found some recent commentary on her work which would might lift her in to the notability category, but I can't even see if it was in the article when it is deleted. Also, please leave a note on my talk page so I can have a notice when it is ready. Many thanks. (P.S. I asked at the deleting admin's talk page and then saw that he had a sort-of-away notice.) MilesAgain (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Done (User:MilesAgain/Sandbox) Woody (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! MilesAgain (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been blocked by, at my count, nine different admins, plus one extension of a block due to sockpuppetry. According tot he user, this is because everybody else is biased, especially all the admins. He's made it pretty clear he'll pick up the cudgels again when his latest block expires. Is this user redeemable, do we think? Guy (Help!) 17:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if he's redeemable in an absolute sense. But it has become clear that the effort required by the community to redeem him against his will is disproportionate to any benefit. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is unproven. Andries (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Two accounts making identically POV edits to the self-same subjects, with the newer account active only when Sfacets is blocked. Oh, it could be innocent, but it's pretty unlikely. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've worked with Sfacets for two years now, and I'd say he gives "POV pushers" a bad name. He's exhibited a range of

disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate points, harassment of editors, false accusations about other editors, unfulfilled promises to reform, and more reverts than I've seen from any other editor. He claims that all the blocks he's received were "unwarranted, and the reasons given were shams like 'civility'".[47] I also believe that he's incorrectly claimed to have created some of the images that he's uploaded. Regarding user:Yogasun, the sock designation and block were made by one uninvolved admin and confirmed by another. That account picked up right where Sfacets left off and made virtually identical edits. No matter if it's a meat puppet or a sock puppet, the account was only used to continue the edit dispute which led to one of Sfacets' blocks. I can't speak for the community, but my patience with Sfacets has already been exhausted. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

23:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but it would be inappropriate to punish Sfacets for unproven sockpuppetry. Andries (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

For the purposes of the sockpuppetry policies, two users who "just happen" to be editing identically are deemed to be the same editor. "Proving" the puppet via CU is neither required nor necessary. In any case, all I did is reset the then only day-old 10 day block— Sfacets is working very hard at exhausting everyone's patience and is creeping closer to a ban every time he edits.

His stunts on his talk page (before yet another admin got tired of them an protected it) show no willingness to work the encyclopedia, and no admission that his behavior is disruptive. Frankly, I'm surprised he isn't already indef blocked. — Coren ^(talk) 15:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

They're on opposite sides of the world actually..(CU)..Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets has said repeatedly that he splits his time between Australia and western Europe. It's quite possible that he has recruited proxies (either human or internet). Even if it is a separate person

WP:MEAT says, "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.". Separately, Sfacets' now-baned editing partner, Sahajhist (talk · contribs), may be back editing under a new name, Yogiwallah (talk · contribs). CU? ·:· Will Beback ·:·

19:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• See also this edit, where he rmeoves my comments from his carefully-laundered talk page with the edit summary "Remove harassing vandal." Anyone here think it's acceptable to call an admin a "harassing vandal" when they respond to posts on yo9ur talk page? Guy (Help!) 23:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really can't resist that - Guy's edit summaries when blanking content from his own talk page are at times no less uncivil. DuncanHill (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That might be relevant if this were a reciprocal situation, but that's not in an issue in this case. Sfacets has a history of calling good faith edits "vandalism", and of using vandal-fighting tools in edit conflicts. There are numerous complaints on his talk page about mislabelling edits or editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And how is that relevant? Corvus cornix_talk 05:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's an element of the problematic behavior of this user. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You're saying that Guy's behavior is problematic. How is that relevant to the question of Sfacets's disruption? Corvus cornix_talk 23:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that. DuncanHill is saying that, and I told him I didn't think his comments is relevant. Can we get back to the topic now? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)