Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive34

• MB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Hi, I`m reporting this user for vandalism, he was warned a couple of times about this revertion[7]. See what action is warranted, perhaps a block? ThanksZmmz 21:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Definatly not worth a block. One edit in a day, and no clear consensus about the text on the talk page. --InShaneee 02:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion page of the article there is a clear consensus there. The material is a translation of the historian for whom the article is named after, and it is relevant to that section; it does come with ample references from R. N. Frye of Harvard and others. The user continues to erase that section, despite good intentioned warnings, although, as of today, he has been eerily quite. ThanksZmmz 02:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI,

GOOD!! Best news in a long long time! Especially Essjay, probably one of the most active people on here, he will help clear it up I hope! Mike _{(T C)} 01:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't Ambi have already had it as a former member of arbcom? Mike _{(T C)} 04:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User:82.42.237.114, He promised to stop the vandalism, and I gave him a few rules to read in the meantime. He sounds serious, and is almost begging to be unblocked. Whopper 00:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• In the interests of assuming good faith, I have unblocked this user. Joyous | Talk 00:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that people can vandalise articles and the like ? I've heard rumors and scuttlebutt about this going on only on April Fools Day. Martial Law 00:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC) :)

People can vandalise articles any day of the year. They'll get blocked for it just the same on April 1. And there was an arbitration case after last year's foolishness, I believe. -Splash^talk 00:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Since April fools end at noon, which time zone would this be in? April fools is another stupid day that people try to use as an excuse to act out in ways they wouldn't normally. Mike _{(T C)} 01:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope rules against the vandalism and other antics that appear on April Fools' Day really are enforced. I don't want to call anyone out, but the participation by some admins and bureaucrats last year was disheartening and only served to make other users believe April Fools' pranks were okay. joturner 01:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Users interested in vandalising on April 1 are encouraged to do so on their own user and user talk pages and nowhere else. ;D - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I say free reign for civil, non offensive, fun pranks on USER PAGES. But article space, forget it. Mike _{(T C)} 03:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I hope we all intend on enforcing the vandalism policy for April fools just as we would for any other day. I suppose we may have to take an extra step of assume good faith and warn everyone first, but more pranks in article space after a warning is grounds for blocking. As I've said here and elsewhere, there are plenty of people in meatspace to goof around with, there's no need for the pranks to be in articles, especially not on the main page. - Taxman ^Talk 21:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

See also:

In my area, April 1 starts at midnight, ends at midnight,April 2 Martial Law 04:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Here is a good idea: Pick a User who is not a Admin to be one, but only for April Fools Day ONLY, so that the User will experience what it is to be like a Admin. I've heard that in some areas of the planet during the Middle Ages, roles between the rulers and those ruled got reversed for this one and only day. Is this a good idea ?! Martial Law 04:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC) :o :)

I hope that wasn't serious. joturner 04:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Just making some inquiries. Martial Law 04:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC) :)

One could ask the boss to appoint a user to be a Admin, but for April Fools only, and only for April Fools, but have a different User appointed every year. Is that a good idea ? Martial Law 04:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC) :o :)

Anyone we can trust with admin access for a day should probably just be promoted to admin, I would think. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I say we call the contest "Be a janitor for the day!" and see how many applications come in. And you are right, anyone with the powers for a day should have them forever. Mike _{(T C)} 06:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate the assisstance. Martial Law 00:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC) :)

"You have created 6 accounts, which exceeds the maximum allowable limit. As a result, you cannot create any more accounts at the moment."

• Used to be 10, what happened?--152.163.100.200 03:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am confused why anyone would need 6 accounts nevermind 10! Mike _{(T C)} 03:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

AOL users get this message all the time. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

(Reply to the anon) - People are using them to go on vandalism sprees while avoiding the autoblocker. Cutting it down from 10 to 6 was a necessary measure. Raul654 03:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does it say "you" instead of "this IP address" or "your IP address"? -- Kjkolb 07:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Because nobody had changed it yet. I just did it (it's at MediaWiki:Acct creation throttle hit, if you want to propose a better wording). --cesarb 16:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it further. I would appreciate someone checking I got it right. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've tweaked it some more. Rd232 ^talk 21:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

On the Kurdistan webpage user:Diyako added a claim that the Kurdish flag is criminal in Iran. He cited bogus non-existant cites as verification after the issue was clearly pointed out on the talk page recently and in the past. This is gross falsification of articles. For references bless see my talk page and the administrator I asked to get involved's talk page. I asked user:InShaneee to act on the issue, but the adminstator did nothing and said it was basically okay as long as any web page is given. That is ridicuolous and an insult to everything Wikipedia stands for. Additionally this user was warned just before that for personal attacks and instigation with offensive terms that he uses continually. I would like to see some action taken. The Kurdistan and Iranian peoples are constantly vandalized and falsified by this user and user:Acuman who has made racist attacks and personal attacks on other editors who are asking for neutrality or reasonable articles. I offer my talk pages and the Kurdistan talk page as evidence and the section with the flag and the sources used. Once agin it was clearly pointed out that these were phoney sources and for this behaviour to stop. Manik666 04:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• sigh* For the record, I simply told him that if they're bad sources to say so, and hopefully get a counter-source to prove it. And Aucaman's warning was not nearly as dire as it sounds here. --InShaneee 04:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't make my case clearly enough, and I'd be happy to do so. CWSB was instrumental in the careers of the four authors. Willingham went on to his DC comics work, much of which was related to his stories in Clockwork Storybook. Now fellow CWSB founder Matthew Sturges is working WITH Willingham on his new Fable spin-off series for Vertigo. Chris Roberson launched a new publishing company, Monkeybrain Books, specializing in printing non-fiction genre books, as well as establishing his chops as a novelist and short story writer. Mark Finn wrote some fiction and turned his attention to non-fiction work as well and is now one of the more recognized Robert E. Howard scholars in the country. Maybe a couple of the wiki reviewers never heard of Clockwork Storybook, but a Google search of any of the four authors above with Clockwork Storybook produces many results for their books, the reviews of same, and comments about the work they did. Seems valid enough for me, and likewise for something as all-encompassing as Wikipedia. Solomon Kane 04:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can take this up with

deletion review, and try to get the article undeleted. Alternately, you can write a new article that better establishes notability, or insert info on the work on CWSB into the articles on the (apparently notable) authors. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops

) 06:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you've seen it, but

Talk

06:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that. Unfortunately, the user's attitude seems to be "if it's not explicitly against the rules, I'm gonna keep doing it, yah boo sucks." —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the page could be more explicit. Would it help if I put a guideline tag on it?

Talk

06:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Another admin has warned the user not to continue blanking his talk page. We'll see if he gets the message this time. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Who is the admin who deletes userpage images without informing the user? That is rude, to say the least. Please check my userpage, two images have been deleted without any notification. (They were tagged as userpage images, and thus acceptable without any other licensing, AFAIK) I ask here, because I can find no history to refer to, nor can I any longer see exactly how I tagged the images, back then... Thanks, --Janke | Talk 10:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That they were tagged for deletion without notification to you was, indeed, impolite. But as far as I can tell, the deletion itself was justified: the licenses on those images qualified them for deletion under

talk

11:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, Thanks for the info, I'll upload them anew under CC or GFDL, then. --Janke | Talk 11:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• UK car ownership per capita is ranked 14th among the list of countries in the figures; UK GDP per cpaita is ranked twelfth
• UK total car ownership is ranked fourth, population is ranked sixth
• UK GDP per capita in purchasing power equivalent is ninth in the list
• Of the four countries with population density per km higher than the UK< two have higher car ownership rates, two have lower (one of which is Japan)

Which seems to me to refute the claim.

De Facto has now removed the comparitive ranking per capita, and is comparing car ownership per capita with total GDP. This is, to my mind, a false comparison - the size of population is accounted for in one, and not in the other, whihc is absurd. If I came across this as an outsider I would give De Facto a warning re NPOV and 3RR, but (a) I am involved in the dispute and (b) my POV is not neutral. So if somebody would like to have a look and perhaps ask De Facto nicely not to do this, I would be grateful. I would stress that this is the first time our strongly opposing points of view have come to anything I woudl characterise as an edit war, so I think a gentle comment from a neutral third party is probably all that's required.

Or, of course, I could be wrong. But I don't think so, not this time. Just zis Guy you know? 11:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm being quick, but to me that article is not of encyclopedic standard. The bulleted list of objectives, I would argue, is in violation of POV, since such a presentation discourages a discussion of each point. However, the association do state that the UK has low car ownership rates by international standards, so removing it as a method of refutation is also POV, the claim should be refuted in the article citing sources. You can't refute that the ABD claim such a thing, since they do and a cite is provided. Hiding talk 13:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You've got an entire section devoted to one claim by ABD, and the attempt to invalidate it is clearly original research. If Transport 2000, the Department of Transport, or some other external body has scrutinized that claim, write about that. Don't make up your own refutations like this.

In "Criticisms", the first paragraph reads: "Taxation per car in the UK is around the European average, similar to France and Italy, higher than Germany, much lower than the Netherlands or Ireland, and claim robust evidence that reducing speeds reduces both the incidence and the severity of collisions."

I cannot parse this. Who claims what? --Tony Sidaway 13:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

A final decision has been reached in the above arbitration case, and the case has been closed.

Boothy443 (talk · contribs · logs) is subject to a personal attack parole. If he engages in personal attacks, he may be briefly blocked. The maximum block length will be one week. Unlike the standard personal attack parole, the maximum block length will not be increased after five blocks. Blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 17:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

IMO, this case has been handled in a negligently poor fashion. Half the Committee didn't bother to turn up and vote and half again closed the case without waiting for the others. There was a significantly opposed Principle (of "administrative fiat") which has been rejected even though there is no majority either way, backed up by a rejected but majority supported remedy that failed for want of one vote, which might have been somewhere in the sleepy half of the committee, which could not have been enforced if it had passed, since the enforcement was being rejected; but without a committee majority either way! And yet 4 arbitrators (out of 12 non-recused!) have closed the case. You should reopen the case and do it over again. And abolish the rather silly-looking 4-to-close rule. Bed without cookies, the lot of you. And the clerks, too, for not making sure the Arbs are doing their job. -Splash^talk 18:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User IAMthatIAM has arrived and is systematically editing LaRouche related pages to sanitize criticism and posting AfD's. These actions need to be inspected for possible violation of arbcom rulings concerning LaRouche-related pages. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/IAMthatIAM --Cberlet 17:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There were only about 9 article edits under that username, and all appear to be handled. Let us know if more show up under other usernames or IP's. - Taxman ^Talk 21:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There is some organised vandalism going on at Holland, all inserting variants of the phrase: Toast is used as currency in Holland, by a large series of different IP-addresses. KimvdLinde 17:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Crazy. Anybody knows that the Netherlands is waffle territory! --Tony Sidaway 18:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! KimvdLinde 18:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The arbitration committee has closed the above case.

Restrictions applying to Huaiwei:

• Huaiwei (talk · contribs · logs) is restricted to proposing only one page move, poll of editors, or policy change relating to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) per week. he may be blocked, for up to a year in repeat case, if he violates this restriction.

• Wikipedia:Probation
  indefinitely. Any administrator may ban him from any article he disrupts, for cause.

• Huaiwei (talk · contribs · logs) is placed on General Probation indefinitely. Any three administrators may, for good cause, ban him from the site.

Restrictions applying to Instantnood:

• Instantnood (talk · contribs · logs) is restricted to proposing only one page move, poll of editors, or policy change relating to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) per week. he may be blocked, for up to a year in repeat case, if he violates this restriction.

• Wikipedia:Probation
  indefinitely. Any administrator may ban him from any article he disrupts, for cause.

• Instantnood (talk · contribs · logs) is placed on General Probation indefinitely. Any three administrators may, for good cause, ban him from the site.

For details, see the final decision.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User Weki-star has been recently adding nonsense and errors into the Buu article. He has been adding all sorts of made up attacks like “Galaxy Ball” and renaming the already officially titled attacks names like "Special Beam Cannon" and "Super Ghost Kamikaze Attack" to "Super Special Beam Cannon" and "Super Ghost Buu Kamikaze Attack". I have tried to reason with the user on the discussion page but he assist on turning it into an argument. I tried asking him for proof or evidence and so far he has given me none. He has responded with more irrelevant information based on dub errors. (Ex: Super Buu existing before the absorption of Majin Buu arc)

Gunsword 01:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

(cross posted from AN/I) Per his arbcom case, Ben is on

PS - If people think that a longer block is warranted. I would not object. I just asked for 2 weeks since we need 3 admins on this. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin number one here. This is ridiculous. He's wasting arbitrators' time with that. Hermione1980 14:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

How do we expect to keep getting uninvolved admins? I'd be for the 2 weeks considering he had several options to discuss the issue of his behavior without wasting people's time on the disruptive arbcom request, and he knew that. He could have discussed it on his talk page or here. Consider me involved or not as you like, I've had a different dispute with the user over similar behavior in the past, and no contact since other than commenting on AN and his arbitration talk page. If not for the obviousness of the disruption this time and last, I'd be for giving some leeway considering he is trying to be a little more helpful in his edits. - Taxman ^Talk 21:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd consider you uninvolved. So that's 2. We need one more. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

An IP vandal has started an edit war, please IP-block this article for several days. Thanks. --Denniss 03:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a single IP, but several, most in the same range. I'd recommend semi-protecting the page if this keeps up. --InShaneee 04:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've temporarily {{

sprotected}} this page, and will follow up on it. — xaosflux ^Talk

05:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Protection has been lifted. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I’m writing to complain about the actions of one of your administrators, Golbez:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Golbez

This user came to my attention when I attempted to correct some factual errors on the wikipedia entry concerning the Old Man Murray website:

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

When I attempted to correct these errors, I discovered the article had been locked. I then went to the discussion page concerning this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Old_Man_Murray

Only to discover THAT page had been locked as well. At this point I am at a loss as to what to do. I was under the impression that the free exchange of ideas is not only a feature of wikipedia, but it is INHERENT and VITAL to the continued existence and relevancy of the project. Mr. Golbez seems to have entered into some sort of flame war with an external site (www.caltrops.com) and this has caused him to unilaterally shut off ALL contributions concerning Old Man Murray.

I respectfully request the article and its discussion page be unblocked, and that Mr. Golbez be instructed as to the true responsibilities of an administrator on wikipedia. If he feels he cannot carry forth those duties, his admin priviledges should be revoked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fussbett (talk • contribs)

There wasen't any edit warring going on on the talk page, but rather an arguement with the admin in question over someone on the actual page, IMNAO (in my non-admin opinion) I dont think the talk page should have been protected. Mike _{(T C)} 05:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'v unprotected the talk page and notified

Talk

06:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, fine. I don't wheel war, and if others think it's a valid thing to do, OK. Though to be honest, I should have unprotected it after only a day or two of so-called cooling down. Do tell me what is objectionable about [8], however, aside from the quartermine comment being caught in my revert. This is not a DISCUSSION of my protection, it is attacks on me. I particularly enjoyed the wikipedo comment.

They had their chance to be adults. I do not find it incivil to describe them factually. An edit war is inherently childish, their reaction to my quashing of it doubly so. The article is off my watchlist, it's your responsibility now. --Golbez 10:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with unprotecting a talk page without asking, after the protector apparently forgot about it. Also, it can often be incivil to describe factually; that is not a defense.

Talk

15:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. --Golbez 00:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Would somebody consider closing this AfD? It's become a farce and having just been personally attacked I'd rather the temptation to respond was removed. The creator of the article isn't going to stop until the debate ends. Cheers, Deizio 11:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I for one am not prepared to close it a day early, despite the meat- and/or sockpuppetry going on. If you want to avoid the temptation to rise to the bait, just take it off your watchlist.

talk

11:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've got the AFD tagged {{inuse}} whilst I sort out the mess. Give me a few minutes please. At the moment it's looking like comment after comment by the article creator one staunch defender. --kingboyk 11:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It's cleaned now, and basically there's one keep vote and a stack of deletes. It could be closed early citing

WP:SNOW but since that's not yet deemed policy I recommend leaving the debate to reach it's natural conclusion tommorow (which will be deletion or userfication, of course). --kingboyk

12:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Will314159 has really blown too much hot air on the page now, he keeps coming back and flaming. I don't like being called a "Bozo" (hey, it's funny though), but even worse is the comment he left on Kukini's talk page. To have a racial opinion thrust in your face for the dreadful crime of writing "Delete. As per above" on a vanity page's AfD is a little much. Most of his comments are just babble written in slightly obscure language, but the comment that those who don't want this vanity in WP are apparently "...low class people unworthy of being associated with a great encyclopedia." is out of line. Any admin care to mention the incivility of this (and perhaps give a brief run-down on AfD etiquette) to Will314159? Deizio 18:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC

I regret any uncivility. I don't think Kukini took offense when I pointed him to a forsenic anrthopologist's position from a nova pbs site on a position he takes on his user site although Deizo enjoys having a go with it. I really have no clue what he means by "meat socket puppet" stuff though I find the language instantly viscerally inflammatory. It has been quite an experience and mercifully it is over. Thankfully, I did not contribute any funds to Wikipedia during the fund drive, although I came very close. I need to learn a lot more about its control structure and how it is run. I see that are reasonable folks here punctuated by hotheads. Take Care —This

• I too regret any incivility, and my sockpuppet comment (I've explained the meaning of this to Will in talk) was retracted after Kingboyk cleaned up the page and chased some IPs showing we were dealing with a great number of posts from one user unfamiliar with posting on Wikipedia. However, as I am not an admin, and given the large number of unsigned posts that were left by Will which led to my suspicion of sockpuppetry, I think Will has shown inexperience with Wikipedia practices and recommend he get to grips with the project a little more before calling experienced users with extensive contribution records "Bozo" and saying I accused him of fraud. I do apologize for any inadvertent bad feelings my actions caused. However, it is not up to me, or anyone, to look up IP addresses if users cannot follow the given advice about signing posts. I would also strongly encourage others to look at this AfD to get a true measure of what actually took place. As a result of this and several other AfDs I've noticed where (among other reasons) new users with an interest in one particular page being considered for deletion get a little too involved I've proposed a policy at Wikipedia:EsperanzaRLY. I know some wikislang is strange for newer users and am being more careful to explain things to such users in AfD debates to avoid precisely this kind of situation. I hope Will continues to contribute to Wikipedia and realizes that like many Wikipedians I am only interested in quality content in line with WP policies and guidelines entering the encylopedia. The article that precipitated all this off has been deleted. I hope this can be the end of the matter. Deizio 00:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I did actually look up this user's IP (he posted as an anon IP on occasion) and it resolved to the USA as he states. The IP of the article creator also appeared - but not as Will314159, and taking the opposing view - and resolves to the ESA in Germany. I can therefore confirm that to the best of my knowledge Will314159 is indeed an American user and not the author of the article. As regards the article, community consensus in the AFD was that a self published book and one notable cartoon does not satisfy