Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive45

User:Myrtone86 blocked for 48 hours for continuing to use disruptive signature and other incivility

New section as the old one looks stale. I have blocked Myrtone86 (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for a) continuing to use a disruptive signature (an email to me confirms that he currently has no intention of changing it) and b) paranoid incivility and trolling over a period of some days, e.g:

• here, where he removes Tony's explanation for his block with the edit summary "remove personal attack by user that possibly "talks with an American accent," never trust the Americans",
• here where he appears to be trying to rally defence, claiming he is being "scapegoated" (for what, I can't imagine).
• He has also been opposing RfAs for no reason - while he claims to be opposing users which don't say they are multilingual, after opposing Samir, and having it pointed out to him that Samir speaks three languages, he refused to change his vote. [1]
• He has been making good-faith contributions to article space, but many are highly dubious [2].

Going back through his other recent contributions will find similarly dubious edits. Hopefully he might straighten out if the Wikibreak he claims to be taking is actually enforced. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a "used up the communities patience is a good reason for this paticular block. It's all the little things. --mboverload@ 09:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If the user doesn't change his signature, then perhaps it's time to start thinking about disabling raw signatures. robchurch | talk 03:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Disabling raw signatures over one user? Chuck^(contrib) 19:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you realise what his sig is doing to the spam-bots that prowl this page for email addresses? :) ---J.S (t|c) 16:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Breaking them? That seems about the only positive thing about his signature game. Although maybe not, the bogus addresses are just going to be tried to be used and gum things up. Funny though. ++Lar: t/c 23:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Jennifer Government: NationStates

The May 14th activity at this (Jennifer Government: NationStates) article seems fishy, but unless this sysop knew the user requesting the edit was banned and helped him intentionally in a manner that harmed the wiki (not just the article, but the safety/security/operation of the wiki itself, the the whole thing is dumb. There is no mechcanism in place which can prevent a banned user from getting a new ISP and starting a new account. Tht being the case, what's to be gained by the banned user by going through the sysop? Unless sysop powers were needed (and given) towards a 'nefarious' end, then this penalty is excessive. Even so, a time-limited demotion is better. This admin shouldd be restored automatically after X period of time. If not, then ban the admin too. If it's so bad that an indef/permanent desysopping is warranted, the a banning is warranted to. If not, then a time-certain restoration of NSLE to admin is in order. 72.232.205.18 01:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, everyone, I've previously discussed this extensively with Jimbo and undertsand the actions of the ArbCom. I'll contnue to be in discussion over this with Jimbo, but for the meantime please just treat this as a blip in the road, and please, for my sake, drop the matter. Cheers, NSLE _(T+C) at 02:49 UTC (2006-06-11)

Just for the record, I have personally asked NSLE to make a comprehensive public statement about this matter, and as far as I know he is still thinking about whether or not to do so. I hope that he will. The decision about whether or not to go public with the details is his, and one of the reasons the ArbCom kept their statement short and sweet is out of respect for NSLE's own choice so far not to make a public statement. If he wants to tell people about it, he can. :) He's a very good guy, I like him very much, and his record as an admin has been good, other than what the evidence in this case strongly suggests (sockpuppeting). --24.144.77.195 00:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC) (It is suspected this edit is actually from User:Jimbo Wales Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC))

Copyvios

I'm sorry this is probably not the best place for this, but wiki-en has grown too complicated for me to understand the procedures.

Are we accepting song lyrics now?? Because i found at least two: I Sign a Little Player or Two and José and his Amazing Technicolor Overcoat. Cheers, muriel@pt 16:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Song lyrics are copyrighted, and posting them is a copyright violation. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless they are so old that they are out of copyright or are public domain for some other reason. However, it is unlikely that putting the entire lyrics for a song in an article would be appropriate. -- Kjkolb 03:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete Image File History?

Image:UEIN Crest.png

Something simple. Could you please delete all the earlier revisions in the file history section of this image? Please do not delete the most current revision that is present! Spikey 22:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that for you. Could you explain why you would like this done first? Prodego ^talk 20:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The artist and copyright holder both no longer want the older image used or the potential for the current image to be reverted to its former state. They believe it doesn't appropriately represent the artistic vision they were striving for. Any help you can provide is appreciated. Spikey 22:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Prodego ^talk 15:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Spikey 17:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should be granting that kind of request for a reason as week as this. History delete was intended as a way to remove personal information and/or possible libal. In fact, if anyone else has edited the image, it would violate there copyright as well, wouldn't it? (GFDL requires all editors to be given credit for there work, that's what the history if for). This sorta undermines the history function... ---J.S (t|c) 15:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The image is tagged as {{logo}}, and we shouldn't have old revisions of fair use images anyway. --Rory096 19:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Shultz IV/PIHNN

Became aware of this page due to a short IRC conversation in the #wikipedia-en channel, but was unable to make the user understand that a forked piece of biased, unresearched content like this doesn't belong on this project, in any namespace. robchurch | talk 02:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Killed it with fire. To hell heck with this skirting the boundaries of WP:CSD, this is clearly not something which belongs anywhere in Wikipedia, and doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell a hot place anyway. It's at uncyclopedia:hell (place)#Other Notables now in Hell now, if anyone really wants to see it. --bainer (talk) 05:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. robchurch | talk 11:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User Martial Law is BACK, but ....

I'm back, but my sig is fouled up. Is that normal for returning users ? All I get when I sig. is the IP, not the designated sig. I'm on a satellite/wireless rig. 66.82.9.58 03:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That's because you're not logged in... Sasquatch t|c 03:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

<guinness-ad>Brilliant!</guinness-ad> --Cyde↔Weys 03:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Tried logging in. Will not remain logged in. 66.82.9.58 03:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ensure that cookies are enabled in your browser. If they are, try deleting existing cookies relating to Wikipedia. robchurch | talk 11:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ohhhhh this explains the odd message on my talk page! :) ---J.S (t|c) 15:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalbot load-sharing

AntiVandalBot (talk · contribs) and Tawkerbot2 (talk · contribs) are now load-sharing. They are both running simultaneously and trading off in a fashion such that, in the long run, each handles 50% of vandalism cases. The load-sharing mechanism is "top secret", but you should be able to figure it out if you really apply yourself (haha). If one of the bots goes down, the channel operators on IRC have been briefed in how to tell the remaining bot to handle everything. --Cyde↔Weys 03:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Load balancing anti-vandal bots? What next? Automated workload-sharing recent changes patrolling? robchurch | talk 13:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's an awesome idea. I can't wait to see it live. As it is currently we have a fair number of users doing recent changes patrolling, but I can't imagine how much duplication of effort is involved. By the way, Vandalbot has been upgraded further so that it supports any number of clients. We have a maximum of three right now - Jude is running one. --Cyde↔Weys 23:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

When is that coming in!!! Sasquatch t|c 00:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Disputed tag is removed from Dhimmi article

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disputed_tag_is_removed_from_Dhimmi_article. This was a duplicate entry. --Tony Sidaway 13:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Gzlfb

Gzlfb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been around for a few months and is proving to be a troublesome user. He has, as far as I can see, made very few productive edits, and instead has spent his time trolling around Wikipedia, adding external links to sites or articles which demean Wikipedia - for example [3] and [4]. He has also been creating numerous cross-namespace redirects to his userpage (which have all now been deleted), such as Gölök Zoltán Leenderdt Franco Buday, Gölök Z. L. F. Buday and Gölök (B.J.) Buday. On top of this, he's been using his personal website(s) to bypass the spam blacklist, to redirect to websites such as WikipediaWatch and Scroogle [5]. The two websites that I have spotted he has been using to bypass the blacklist have now been added to the blacklist themselves. He's also been making personal attacks, [6] and is generally uncivil [7]. I am wondering if an indef block would be appropriate in this case – if he continues to edit, chances are he'll create more websites which bypass the spam blacklist, and will continue with his trolling. Thoughts? Thanks, — FireFox 14:35, 13 June '06

Just for some local color. I've spent some considerable energy trying to reason with this user. He seems determined to be disruptive and uncivil and persistently resorts to personal attacks at any perceived slight. I haven't seen evidence that he's willing to work within the framework of Wikipedia's policy and guidelines. At the least he needs to be watched as his editing can be quite offensive and certainly disruptive. I might suggest starting with a medium-length block (1 week? 2 weeks) to see if that helps him cool off a little. Gwernol 19:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have also had discussions with this user, mostly over the verifibility policy. He does appear to think that information should remain in until it's a "properly proven errors", and seems to take removal of uncited (or unencyclopediac) material as a personal affront. His own autobiographic article was deleted which, at the end, had about 32 redirects pointing to it from various titles/mispellings. He has also created articles for his father Zoltán Buday and grandfather László Buday. I did trim the former article, removing things like a long list of name misspellings. The page Talk:Zoltán Buday is a reasonable summary of his general interaction, and you can see on the talk page the long list of (mostly irrelevant) external links he inserted as a response to a reminder of the verifibility policy. My own feeling is that he does not yet understand what wikipedia is not, and is treating it somewhat like a free web host. I don't think blocking is necessary at this point, and may just inflame the situation, but it would be useful if the articles in questions were trimmed and he was pointed to policy by other editors, as I think if the same people keep telling him, he may think it's personal, and not because of wikipolicy. Regards, MartinRe 10:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:65.40.141.126

User:65.40.141.126 is reinstating NPOV text in Corpus Christi Elementary School that another editor removed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corpus_Christi_Elementary_School&action=history This may be the same user as User:69.34.26.158 (blocked at least once) and User:Googleyii I suggest a block. TruthbringerToronto 00:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:TheVirtualToolshed

User:TheVirtualToolshed appears to have started their account for the sole purpose of advertising using their Userpage. Ran a helpme template, and it was suggested that I report this here as a spam-only account. Luna Santin 05:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You could nominate their user page on MfD as well. Kimchi.sg 14:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Not necessary. Spam = vandalism. I think it's deletable on sight. I'll hold off for a bit though to allow more experienced admins to tell me I'm dead wrong, if that's indeed the case. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhm folks, you do realize he asked what the policy was for how his userpage could be used and hadn't reverted the blanking after talking about it? Spam sucks, but this might have just been someone clueless. Shell ^babelfish 18:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Substing {{deleted page}}

Should I be substing {{deleted page}}? One good reason to do it would be that articles containing these 16 characters are flooding Special:Shortpages and making that super-useful tool a lot less useful... - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not usually substed, no. This is because it might hypothetically be useful to be able to use Whatlinkshere to work something out. It's not critical, though, I guess. -Splash - tk 15:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't subst it either, it could be usefull to be able to centrally update it, if we change policy. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be substed, because if it is, it increases the article count at Special:Statistics. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It already has a category in it, thus you wouldn't need to resort to Whatlinkshere. Generally I substitute it when I remember to. --Cyde↔Weys 17:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure which is the more pressing concern in substing - the use of resources in transcluding or the use of disk space - but for the sake of freeing up Special:Shortpages, I would like to run through with AWB and subst everything. Is a discussion on this page sufficient - or do I need to make sure people are ok with it elsewhere? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, seeing as there is no consensus here, I'd bring up at the pump and create a poll. Seems like a good idea. Maybe an alternitive could be a long comment tag to pull it out of the short-pages list. That's not unheard of in computing. (something like this: <!-- This is a buffer, do not delete. NNNNNNNNNNNNNN (etc)--> perhaps?) ---J.S (t|c) 19:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There's already discussion on Template talk:deletedpage that suggested the same thing. You guys might want to review that. --Rory096 19:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

AFD for Chirotalk.

The AfD for Chirotalk has been open for 7 days. Consensus is clear... can we get an admin to review and close this please? ---J.S (t|c) 15:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Closed. Joelito (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu banned from editing heavy metal articles

• Leyasu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Leyasu1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • There are other socks.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu

I've reviewed Leyasu's recent edits and he's still edit warring even while blocked. This cannot go on.

This is the formal ban notice. Each time he edit wars on a new heavy metal-related article, the article will be added to the ban list and he will be blocked. [8]

• 1604 UTC 14 June 2006 Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), for persistent edit warring, particularly while blocked [9], [10],[11] banned Leyasu from all heavy metal-related articles including but not limited to:

  General: Speed metal, Gothic metal, Heavy Metal music, Symphonic metal, Speed metal, List of heavy metal genres, Black metal, List of black metal bands, Heavy metal fashion

  Bands: Iron Maiden, Draconian (band), Children of Bodom, The End Records artists, Venom (band)

If when he comes back from his three month block he still cannot do anything useful, I may suggest that we just go for a complete ban. --Tony Sidaway 15:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

what about hard rock?Geni 22:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Simishag's posts under Kobe Bryant

I request one of the admins please look into them objectively. The key word here is objective. First off, he continuously falsely accused me of being user Bucsrsafe when it was found the guy is not even in my continent, and this speculation led to unfair blocks on me for weeks. Now, because he is upset I am only posting the truth and making the Kobe Bryant article and others amazing (please check the kobe bryant history, I added a lot of great info there about the past), Simishag attacks me here ON THE ARTICLE ISTELF. Please check it out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kobe_Bryant&action=history

Specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kobe_Bryant&diff=58644758&oldid=58641908 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kobe_Bryant&diff=58657199&oldid=58653661

I've never done anything this bad, actually attack other users on the articles themselves. I would like to ask someone keep a close watch on this user and make sure some justice is served here. I think 128.6.78.50 is his ip. Hganesan 23:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan

Some of Simi's criticisms of Hganesan, who has disrupted several NBA-related articles (at the very least, the harms caused by his POV-pushing and revert-warring have outweighed the benefits to the project from his substantive contributions), are valid; Hg is altogether correct, though, that Simi too has engaged in personal attacks, and his disruption of Kobe Bryant, illustrated by the diffs Hg adduces, is in contravention of WP:POINT and, more importantly, common sense. Neither of the two users seems inclined to partake of the collaborative aspect of the project, but at least in this instance Hg appears to be the wronged party; more to the point, Simi appears to have disrupted the project by inserting attacks against another editor and the latter's POV into mainspace. I left him a note to the effect that his conduct isn't helpful and that he might seek to make his arguments in other ways, those that eschew personal attacks and disruption and focus on improving the project and fostering a collegial atmosphere. Joe 03:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. I apologize for my actions. I was attempting to be as non-disruptive as possible; there was already an edit war ongoing. My comments were intended as parody, but I realize this is not appropriate. I do object to the claim of "personal attacks." I don't believe I said anything that wasn't both true and easily verifiable.

I will accept whatever punishment the admins deem necessary. I hope, however, that this will at least shed a little more light on what I and other NBA-page editors have had to deal with over the last month. Where do we go from here on that issue? Simishag 03:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

NSLE desysopped

The Arbitration Committee has been made aware of very strong (but necessarily privileged) evidence that NSLE (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) abused his sysop privileges in unprotecting an article which he then used a sockpuppet to edit, and we believe that these actions were done under the direction of a permanently-banned user.

Despite repeated pleas over many weeks from the Committee for some benign reasoning of the evidence, no such satisfactory explanation was forthcoming. Thus, NSLE's administrative privileges are hereby revoked. He may not reapply for them without first obtaining the Committee's approval. The Committee would particularly like to thank Greg Maxwell and Kelly Martin for their efforts in dealing with this situation.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I attest to the veracity of the above and concur. Raul654 18:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur Fred Bauder 21:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur ➥the Epopt 21:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Realizing that Checkuser results etc. are confidential, could you direct interested parties to the record in the log that led to this ArbCom action? What page(s) was unprotected/edited? The more transparency in this case, the better, wherever feasible. Thanks, Xoloz 20:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Xoloz give us more info, NSLE was one of our better admins, and I had no idea what is taking place Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I, too, think transparency to be a good thing and concur in Xoloz' request (I've not always been a fan of NSLE's admin activities, but I'm inclined also to concur in Jaranda's assessment of his efforts, FWIW). Joe 20:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to contact the arbitration committee privately, this information is confidential for a good reason. In the interests of disclosure, I do know the details of the case, but I will not reveal them unless the Committee does so itself.--Sean Black 21:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Good man. Snoutwood (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw this case come past, but missed the vital sockpuppet clue, so I left it as is. Apart from the sockpuppet (I have no checkuser), I can confirm that the above is correct. Kim Bruning 20:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Same here. I can't confirm the sock, but the rest (unprotecting an article in a quid pro quo exchange) is damningly proven publicly. I don't know if the arbcom wants the specific evidence made public so I will defer to them, but rest assured, dig hard enough and it won't be too difficult to find. Johnleemk | Talk 21:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, practically anything more said here would be a dead giveaway, and would be quite damning for NSLE. So I'm clamming my lips shut too. One last thing I can say: It was technically not his fault. Kim Bruning (after triplechecking that I really didn't give anything away with even that) 21:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

So question then... If it wasn't really NSLE's fault, then why the desysophood? Wouldn't a "Geez, NSLE, you messed that one up. Don't do it again." be in order? Or were his privileges revoked because of the lack of explanation? I'm a little confused. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if this is giving too much away, but this is only technically the fault of the banned user who used NSLE as his meatpuppet. How to interpret this I leave to you, but clearly someone has to be consciously acting as a meatpuppet. Johnleemk | Talk 21:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Kim's comment did not add to the clarity here. I'll state the obvious by mentioning that there is some activity around the infamous Daniel Brandt in NSLE's protection log, but I see nothing improper in my superficial analysis. Xoloz 21:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Gee, some of the replies here make it seem like nobody believes we will trust the correctness of Kat's statement, that her veracity must be independently testified to. I trust ya implicitly Kat :-). NoSeptember 21:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of trust. The idea that someone can be desysopped in camera isn't thrilling, I think, and a precedent needs to be set to make anything that can be public, public. Xoloz 21:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you need to know? He knows why, the Committee know why. That's more than sufficient. Titilation and curiosity is not the basis for chosing the appropriate mode of action.

James F. (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to know -- but generally, public disclosure of information promotes fairness and fellowship. Secrecy, contriwise, promotes speculation and rumor. The truth is good, and should be spread. The fact that I need to remind you, James F., of these axioms, coupled with your apparent assumption that my interest in disclosure is merely for the purposes of "titilation," does nothing to increase my confidence. Xoloz 02:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Me too, but I think the problem is that the same could have been said for NSLE as well. Martin 21:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I was as surprised as you are when I saw the evidence. Johnleemk | Talk 21:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In this instance we have endorsements from several respected editors/admins/arbitrators who are familiar with the evidence, so this is not a matter of trusting a single individual's judgement or veracity. -Will Beback 21:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, it is more about curiosity than anything else. On a different note, I hope NSLE does return as an admin eventually, admittedly I am not familiar with anything to do with this case, but I am familiar with his previous work. Martin 21:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to say "never", but after an act like this I think it would take a lot to assuage serious concerns about NSLE's trustworthiness. --Tony Sidaway 23:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

So much for clamming. Those meddeling kids will blab anyway. (or worse, investigate on their own). :-P I'm really not saying another word, because in the end I think it's unnescesarily hurtful to NSLE. But if you insist on doublechecking, I can't stop the curious wikipedian spirit, so by all means, do so! When you come back here, just leave out the clues, and just go "confirm" or "deny" on this page. (that, and that way you won't leave spoilers for other curious folks too :-P ) Kim Bruning 21:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sadly I agree with this after I found out what happened privately in IRC and with research, it's a big shame and im sickened to my stomach that this has to happen. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have better things to do with my time than deal with this kind of puzzle so I'm going for the dirrect aproach:

Is there any significant risk of further problems relating to whatever it is? yes/no.Geni 22:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Most likely. That's honestly the best answer I can give. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well as long as those in the know are ready to deal with them I'll go back to trying to figure out internation, US and UK copyright law.Geni 22:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If the ArbCom members think it's to the advantage of the project to make this public, they'll presumably do so. It's presumably very difficult to become an arbcom member, so I think we should trust the people we've chosen, if they feel it's better to keep it confidential. After all, checkuser results aren't made public either, but only very trustworthy Wikipedians are granted checkuser privileges. I'd feel more comfortable if we could drop the speculation, hints, and half hints. I know nothing about this case. I don't want to know, unless NSLE or the committee chooses to make it public. I found him a conscientious admin. I'm sure it's horrible to be de-sysopped, so I'd like to give him as much support and sympathy as possible, while still respecting the integrity of the members of the ArbCom. AnnH ♫ 22:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It'd be really nice of everyone "in the know" weren't being so coy. We can almost hear your giggles. Really, either say nothing or say everything. Don't drop hints, just tell us or say "concur". Stop being children. --Golbez 22:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes granddad ;-). Concur. Kim Bruning 22:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC) (good wording)

Trust me on this -I am not giggling. I've just decided to remove someone's admin rights for fucks sake. We had to say he's lost his admin rights, we had to say we concur so you know the decision was taken by all of us. We are being coy because we think that's the best cause of action not because we want to titllate. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Theresa, you were not one of the people being coy, my comment was not directed towards you. My comment was mainly directed towards Kim, who oddly remained coy in his response. Very annoying. --Golbez 00:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry i got annoyed with you. I agree Kim's responses haven't been helpful. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I know what this is about (unless there was some other page unprotection involving NSLE and a banned user), but am not sure why it amounts to a desysoping. Nor do I understand the need for secrecy. The unprotection doesn't seem to have been unreasonable... is it the action on behalf of a banned user which is objectionable? That certainly could cause problems... but I don't see where it did any harm in this case. If a banned user asked me to correct a factual error, which I could verify to be an error, I would probably do it. Why not? Obviously that's not a direct parallel as the change here was not an unambiguous improvement... but nor was it in any way obviously harmful. Just a fairly generic edit which people might asthetically agree or disagree with like any other. For the record, I don't know much about NSLE except for vaguely recalling a couple sysop actions which I disagreed with (easier to remember those than others) - so my comments are not motivated by any sort of personal connection. I think alot of us have an instinctive aversion to 'secret trials' with 'secret evidence', but even knowing the details I'm not sure what was driving this desysoping. The idea of 'exchanging favors' with a banned user absolutely could be a very bad thing... I just don't see where it actually was in this case. Very dangerous / questionable ground to stray out onto, but what actual harm was done? --CBDunkerson 23:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It amounts to a desysopping because it was a very grave abuse of admin powers in the service of a banned user. --Tony Sidaway 23:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

C'mon Tony, that's hyperbole. If it had been a "very grave abuse of admin powers" you would think someone would have reversed it... rather than this 'horiffic' admin action standing unchallenged to this day. The 'in service of a banned user' part seems to be the actual complaint and I can see cause for concern there, but don't make false claims about the actual action itself having been harmful or abusive. It was a perfectly routine and reasonable unprotect that nobody objected to until they found out that 'the banned user' had requested it. The upshot seems to be - 'don't do things asked for by banned users even if they cause no apparent harm to Wikipedia'. Or perhaps just, 'do not offend the PTB'. --CBDunkerson 23:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Very vague - which article, which banned user? It would be more serious if it were a featured article than a stub, etc. --Telex 23:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ask the Arbitration Commmittee if you have a reason to know. --Tony Sidaway 23:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that means if you have to ask, you don't need to know ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it means what it says, no more and no less. --Tony Sidaway 23:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is, if a banned user contacts you and asks you to make a change to a protected article (or allow one to be made), and you happen to think the banned user's request is reasonable, the correct thing to do is bring it here and ask the community how they think you should proceed. Our actions must be transparent as well. bd2412 T 23:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Our actions must be transparent, but the Arbcom can make backroom decisions? --Golbez 23:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I greatly respect everyone who has concurred with this, including you, and my respect is in no way lessened or dented. I'm just annoyed at the teasing we've gotten, mostly by those who were not the original ones to concur. My comment above, however, was aimed at BD, not at the Arbcom - I wanted to wake him up to the comment he was making. --Golbez 00:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that ArbCom should make decisions in secret, but admin activities must be in the open irrespective of what we ask of ArbCom. bd2412 T 03:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, not a hotbed for intrigue and secrecy. If someone made a mistake, then let everyone know about it so as to not make the same mistake while writing this encyclopedia. --Telex 23:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me help you out "NSLE abused his sysop privileges in unprotecting an article which he then used a sockpuppet to edit, and we believe that these actions were done under the direction of a permanently-banned user". Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

So what? If it improved the quality of the encyclopedia, then good for him. --Telex 00:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Laughs. We know stuff about this case that you do not. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed - why don't we change that? Sharing (knowledge) is good. --Telex 00:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Other members of the AC have advised secrecy in this case for potentially important reasons. So sorry but you will just have to trust our judgement in this case. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to know, for reasons that it is not wise to spill beans so that we get more of this type of editing by proxy. Banned users are banned for a reason, and if we reward them in this way, it becomes a game to try and find an admin who wants to help. In that case, why ban them in the first place. For that reason, I think it is very wise that they do not provide the details. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Just one non-admin's opinion: I don't think revealing the details would be all that constructive. It's not going to resolve the matter or magically make anything better. Given that the info could hurt Wikipedia if it got out, it isn't worth satisfying curiosity. — Nathan ^(talk) 01:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Those who know what went on hinting that there is something that could potentially cause great damage to the project or is of an extremely embarrassing or humiliating nature is not helping things. This may lead to wild, unfounded rumors and conspiracy theories. I don't think that anything else needs to be said about the confidential aspects. With a project like Wikipedia, I think that disclosure is usually the least harmful way to go. In extreme cases where something needs to be kept confidential, don't encourage speculation. They did do the right thing in giving a general idea of what happened, otherwise speculation would be much worse. Still, I suspect that it may become a widely known "secret". Too many people already know, interest is very high and in my experience the vast majority of people are incapable of keeping secrets, especially when the truth getting out won't be harmful to them personally. -- Kjkolb 02:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, making those kinds of insinuations doesn't help. I haven't, personally, been able to find any evidence of meatpuppeting, but I'm not familiar with the edit patterns of all banned users, so it's quite possible that I missed the meatpuppet edits. Or I may simply be stupid. I have faith in more than one (actually more than ten) of the users who state that there was wrongdoing, and so I have no problem with accepting that. In any case, I think some of the replies here have been unhelpful in terms of calming the situation. -- Pakaran 04:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think all this discussion is not helping any. I know people want to know, but people's privacy is sometimes more important than transparency. (After all, if the process is transparent, the charges and evidence don't have to be). There's no need to air NSLE's dirty underwear for all to see, and even the variety of "clues" that have already been given away are probably too much because they just encourage gossip and rumor. What has happened has happened. Those of us who don't know will simply have to live with that fact. --Bachrach44 02:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Repeating what I've said below, thanks for your support, everyone, I've previously discussed this extensively with Jimbo and understand the actions of the ArbCom. I'll continue to be in discussion over this with Jimbo, but for the meantime please just treat this as a blip in the road, and please, for my sake, drop the matter. Cheers, NSLE _(T+C) at 02:50 UTC (2006-06-11)

A blip on the radar? A bump in the road? We mixing our idioms now? ;-) Good luck. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/BRSG - I would thank the user that gave a me hint but I don't know if he wants to be "outed". And apologies if this is not it, but it matches everything. --SPUI (T - C) 19:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I assume the complete and utter inability to keep a secret is meant to be a proof of There Is No Cabal? Has it occured to no one, to let simply NSLE resign from adminship for personal and refraining from teasing about the reasons? --Pjacobi 03:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I learned about this via the Signpost, and after reading through this entire section, I have to agree with Xoloz and Jaranda. After reading what was posted here, even though I had no previous knowledge of any of the parties or the article involved, it took me all of 2 minutes to discover the details via Google. And if I can do it, surely anyone reading this can, as well; therefore it seems to me in the interests of Wikipedia to simply air the facts in a fully transparent, NPOV, and dispassionate manner, rather than stimulate endless speculation. No, I won't do it myself, because there seems to be a near-consensus that it would be a bad idea, but I believe I can make a good argument that secrecy in this case actually increases the likelihood of harm to Wikipedia and recurrence of the problem. And more importantly, the immediate background of the issue (as opposed to whether NSLE's conduct warranted desysopping or milder censure) is something that should be discussed openly on Wikipedia (probably not here, but somewhere in the project namespace). But at this point it's not even possible to do that, since it would necessarily involve disclosing the background of the case. --MCB 05:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I wish that this could be archived. At this point, all that's going on is speculation and I think that's unfair to NSLE. Just archive this someone. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the blanking, as this is a serious issue that is being discussed, and to remove it smacks of censorship. If the ArbCom wishes to avoid this speculation, they can confirm the details. --SPUI (T - C) 14:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow this whole thing makes me uneasy... If NSLE wasn't an admin, would they be getting the same kind of protection? Also, do we realy want the ArbCom to act as a secret-cabal, even with good cause? Is one user's reputation worth the posible long-term damage that this can cause to the reputation to ArbCom? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know. I don't have the awnsers here. It just makes me uneasy. ---J.S (t|c) 15:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that anyone else would get similar protection. For instance in the motion to restrict StrangerInParadise to a single account, he was eventually restricted and has evidently chosen the alternative account. The Committee is aware of the other account's name but has not disclosed it, for privacy reasons. StrangerInParadise's other account was not associated with other abuse. Neither account is an admin.

Editors at all levels of Wikipedia may occasionally handle confidential information and should make an effort not to disclose it without good reason. The Arbitration Comittee is no different. The administrators have been informed, and anybody who has a good reason to know what exactly happened can ask the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 16:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Except that, having read the background of the case via a Google search, I still do not see the need for confidentiality regarding the background and circumstances of the case. Yes, the case indirectly involves something that should remain confidential -- NSLE's identity and personal details -- but much more information about the case, specifically, the article and edits involved, the identity of the banned user involved, the specific conduct NSLE was accused of, the specific nature of the evidence, etc., could all be disclosed without compromising NSLE's privacy. However, ArbCom and others have clamped a complete veil of secrecy over the whole thing. It's not that I don't believe they came to the correct decision or that NSLE did not receive due process, it's that the secrecy has prevented any sort of discussion of the policy and process issues involved, or of how to prevent a similar threat to Wikipedia's integrity in the future. --MCB 16:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Not everything an organisation does--particularly one that handles confidential information--is done in broad daylight. What NSLE did, anyone with a sysop bit could do. There are strong policies against everything he did, and he still went ahead. He knew what he was doing. No sysop should ever do it. So he lost his bit. People have lost the bit for far, far less. --Tony Sidaway 16:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony (if that was directed as a reply to my remarks), as I said, I don't challenge the ArbCom's decision, and if I had sat as an arbitrator, I almost certainly would have come to the same conclusion. What I am criticizing is the veil of secrecy over the entirety of the facts of the case, when that is clearly unnecessary in order to protect NSLE's personal information. No one, to my mind, has made a case that open discussion of the background and facts of the case, the article and edits involved, the evidence, etc., would in any way compromise any confidential information. If you disagree, please feel free to make that justification, either here or by email. --MCB 16:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, I'm as curious as anyone - but I trust the ArbCom, and I see no pressing need to add ritual humiliation to NSLEs woes. He'll tell us if he doesn't mind us kowing. Leave it be. Just zis Guy you know? 22:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This issue will come up again in a few month when NSLE decides to re-apply for adminship. Why should I, or the community, trust NSLE with the mop if we know nothing about why he lost it in the first place? If he was de-syoped, it because he was a danger to the community, right? Like I said... this makes me uneasy. ---J.S (t|c) 21:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • For that matter why shouldn't we trust him if he did: all I am aware of are the good contributions. Although, it wouldn't get to that because of the block on reapplying that ArbCom created. Ian13/talk 19:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

New England

When convenient, it would be great if someone could take a look at the vandalism going on at the New England article. One user has been deleting things from the article and inserting profanities from various different IP addresses and user names, also violating WP:3RR. Thanks. --AaronS 14:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeepers, things were really out of control there. 66.159.172.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to have violated 12RR. I've just plonked him/her for a solid week, for continuously reverting everyone in sight, for disruption, and for personal attacks, mostly against User:Yanksox. I've also s-protected the article, as this is the third IP to go nuts on the page. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this. It is getting to be impossible to figure out what needs attention on this page. Jkelly 04:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

BenH

Many users at WikiProject Television Stations are very upset at User:BenH over his unsourced and unverified (and, frankly) BS info. He also rewrites well written articles and makes them substandard. WP:BLOCK#Users_who_exhaust_the_community.27s_patience comes into play. Please block this guy forever. Thanks. --CFIF (talk to me) 20:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I can definately see how he's being uncooperative and yet he seems to have a really good grasp of wikisyntax, so its hard to think that this is out of ignorance. In the interest of assuming good faith, I'm going to try a 24 hour block to get his attention and see if that might get him talking. I'm amazed he's been here 6 months and never once used any talk page. Shell ^babelfish 22:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I also looked into this situation and support your action.--Alabamaboy 17:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sohh, its content and its related editors

The page in question is Sohh.com, a seemingly notable web forum for the hip-hop community. I don't believe the page is deserving of deletion, and so I'm not bringing it to AfD but there's no way for me to maintain this page on my own. The page is, as I'm sure you can tell, riddled with profanity, non-notability, fancruft, personal attacks and so on. I brought the page down to a managable copy source in this edit, but I recognize that this sort of mass deletion is unlikely to hold, especially in such a heavily edited page (10 edits/hour-ish?). IMO, the page should be semi-protected and restored to my version or a version similar to that. How should this be handled? Wes! &#149; ^T_c 02:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The article as of now is horrible ... it is completely nonsense, incoherent, and full of libelous comments. I've put it to AfD. --Ragib 04:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

AFD for it is over here.--Andeh 13:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Very odd

Anyone care to delete:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Block
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles for deletion/Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Block
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Block
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Block

I have no idea what prompted this (and have asked, see [12]). In some absurd sense I suppose I'm involved, so shouldn't delete these myself, but really ... -- Rick Block (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Jkelly 04:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please delete

Can somebody please delete Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/class="standard-talk"? I don't know if this is a joke or what, but it needs to be gone. And, how is it possible that it was created by an IP? --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 15:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. I think the IP was able to create it because it's a talk page. The anon & new user restriction on creating new pages only applies to articles: talk pages are fair game, and rightly so. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian Wood "move"

Rst20xx copied the content of Brian Wood (illustrator) to Brian Wood instead of moving it, thereby losing the complete edit history... Not sure what to do here, but maybe an admin could just delete Brian Wood and then move the previous version of Brian Wood (illustrator) (the current one is a redirect) there. --Fritz S. (Talk) 16:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Now appears fixed. Ian13/talk 17:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding release of information about persons

I was contacted personally by a person in a position of public office that I had released information (to the wikipedia) about. My feeling at the time was that this information was insignificant. The person in question asked that I redact the information on the basis that the security detail (in this case, united states federal law enforcement) assigned to them felt it would compromise their security. I can imagine a way or two in which this could be the case, however remote.

So, I am wondering what the policy is on redacting information on public articles (this is not a "right to disappear" issue). It seems to me that it would be hard to entirely remove such information as we have mirrors, caches, etc. However, I am convinced that the person in question is correct.

Lastly, I feel confident that I can go and remove that information (from our local copy, which should eventually propagate to all those mirrors and caches) without arousing attention directed at it (thus invalidating the whole procedure of removing it anyways). ... aa:talk 19:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this information properly cited from reliable sources, if so I'm not sure what difference appearance on wikipedia has, if not then it shouldn't be here anyway? --pgk^(talk) 19:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Pgk. Where the information is verifiable and notable, the prospective security risks, as a wholly unencyclopedic concern, ought not to militate against our removing it. Even WP:BLP (which is, of course, only a guideline and not policy) isn't intended to address situations in which physical harm may befall a subject, and so I think no further action on our part to be necessary (as avriette and Pgk intimate, though, one imagines that if the information is sourced, it will be otherwise publicly available; Wikipedia and its mirrors, to be sure, happen to be more readily reached via Internet searches, but if one who is intent on assaulting a given public official likely isn't going to be deterred by his/her having to sift through several pages of Google returns). Joe 02:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

please let me know if I'm not using this noticeboard properly

could someone please check user:M+a-k e h*im h-u-mble (remove spaces, dashes, symbols). if it turns out this user is not abusive or tricky, lemme know. thanks, CrackityKzz 21:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what your problem is with User:Makehimhumble. I see he's trying to make some point about Philadelphia transplant, but he only has 2 (vandalism) edits. If you want to report persistent vandalism, try WP:AIV, but the user seems to have stopped. Try talking to him on user talk if you are having a dispute. SCHZMO ✍ 21:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

my oops. I didn't notice that what s/he did was quickly undone. thanks for your attention. CrackityKzz 23:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User discovered vandalising a ton of pages

I reported this on long-term abuse, but I think it needs to be considered that this user is blocked from any further editing until this is sorted out. The user has expressed on their talk page they don't care about wikipedia policy and will do what they want. The user has a very long history of over-linking pages. Essentially going in and linking every word he can find and marking every single edit he makes as minor. User:Eep² is the user, Special:Contributions/Eep² are his contribs. I've been going through trying to clean it up, but honestly its probably going to take a team of at least a dozen to go through and clean this up. This is an example of what he did on one article and I've found this on many many more articles as I've gone through his contribs [13] --Crossmr 00:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Neighborhoods and projects in Detroit, Michigan

User:CNC is doing some odd things with this page and, despite a couple of messages on his/her talk page, continues unabated. FWIW, the article as it is is pretty shoddy. I believe it was created by consolidating a whole host of really awful little stubs. But a few of the articles were left as standalone articles with links to them on this page. But CNS is copying the unwikified text of these articles and pasting it into the article. I don't think it really qualifies as vandalism per se, but it is certainly not improving the article. If there's anyone with more tact in dealing with non-communicative editors, I'd appreciate some help here. older ≠ wiser 01:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

CNC is at it again. I notice that s/he was also reported for 3RR as well.[14] CNC is needlesly duplicating poorly written content across multiple articles. Some of it is an unwikified copy and paste of other articles, and some of it appears to be copyvios from external sites. Repeated requests to engage in discussion about the edits have been completely ignored. I'm not sure at what point this rises to the level of being blockable or if there are other avenues to consider. older ≠ wiser 16:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the account until we get a commitment that they will stop pasting content unfreely-licensed content into articles and discuss changes on Talk pages. Jkelly 18:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ipboptions

Some updates, and discussion about the best set of options is in progress on MediaWiki talk:Ipboptions, comments on that page are always welcome! — xaosflux ^Talk 13:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Username "crazy mofo"

Isn't this username against what a user name is? "Mofo" is in reference to mother fucker and ought to be changed, shoulddn't it? (or user blocked)

Jean-Paul 14:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Talk to me!

It doesn't strike me as offensive as is. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 15:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not a question of whether it offends a given admin or not. The question is WP:U, which says:

• Names that are recognised as (in html comment: racial/ethnic/national/religious/ideologic/homophobic/generic) slurs or insults
• Names that refer to or imply sexual acts or genitalia, including slang, innuendo, and double entendre
• Names that refer to or allude to reproductive or excretory functions of the body

This username is all of those things, and probably more besides. It should be blocked. -Splash - tk 15:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it only offends the policy by the narrowest interpretation. I think it's fine. Exploding Boy 15:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If we ban this name, we should also ban any names including the terms crud and poo. --AaronS 15:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And why not? What need is there, among all the words in all the languages in the world, and all the non-words in non-languages and all the non-words that aren't even not in languages, to use those that offend people? Look around you at those referred to as "established editors", those likely to make a good impression, and the admins (in case they are disjoint from the others...). Do any of them have a username along those lines? -Splash - tk 17:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"(1) nobody necessarily needs to have such a username; (2) "good" editors don't have those kinds of usernames; (3) therefore, you are justified in restricting people from having such usernames." Fine, then. Nobody should be allowed to be called Zolorlororororplax, either. --AaronS 18:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, I needed some inspiration for my new sockpuppet. Zolorlororororplax 17:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. "Crud" and "poo" are different (though "poo" might be acceptable in some cases---Mikeypoo, or similar). Exploding Boy 17:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with it. "Crazy Mofo" is an example of a phrase where the meaning of the phrase is different from the sums of the meanings of the parts. --Carnildo 17:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the name is fine. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

fwiw, I see no issues with the name. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you mean User:Crazymofo? There is no User:Crazy mofo so far as I can tell. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a User:Crazy mofo and User:Crazymofo, but no User:Crazy Mofo. :P Anyway, the names don't seem particularly offensive. — TheKMan^talk 19:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The username is fine, law firms use it, for example, www.mofo.com. - Merzbow 23:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That said, this name seems fine. -- Jared Hunt 21:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly confusing user name

I just ran across a relatively new user, DrLeebot (talk • contribs). As I understand the user name policy, this name might be misleading since the user isn't actually a bot. Since I don't have any practical experience in dealing with questionable user names, I haven't contacted the user about this issue. Someone who has more experience in this area may or may not want to ask him to change his user name. --TantalumTelluride 19:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Leebot could very well be their last name. Chuck^(contrib) 19:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It probably is his (or her) last name. The name could still be confusing, though. But like I said, I don't know what the precedent is for enforcing the user-name policy. --TantalumTelluride 19:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Essentially there has to be a consensus that the username violates the policy for it to be changed against their will. Best of course in all cases is to ask them first very politely to consider the policy and how their name might be a problem. In this case if it was DrLeeBOT I could see a problem, but as it is I don't, so no need to even ask them to change it. - Taxman ^Talk 21:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I considered this myself seeing the user's name before, but dismissed it. It's pretty clear that it's not a bot. I don't really think there's a problem, though I certainly understand your position. --Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 21:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. That's exactly what I wanted to know. I didn't know how strict "the community" might be on this issue. The wording of the policy leaves plenty of room for interpretation, so I thought I should ask here before even suggesting that the user change his or her name. Thanks again. --TantalumTelluride 21:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be more concerned by the fact that an account with less than a page of contributions has not only found AFD, but decided to vote in it, then with the confusing nature of the name--152.163.100.200 15:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not surprising, since pages nominated for deletion have prominent links to their respective AfD subpages. I'd be more concerned about an unregistered anon who has already found the admins' noticeboard, knows how to use Special:Contributions, and is familiar with the deletion process. ;-) --TantalumTelluride 16:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless of course the user doesn't mind, I don't think there is a big reason why he should be renamed. -- Jared Hunt 21:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks on Admins

194.46.164.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is currently placing unsigned messages on at least three admin talk pages at the same time. SatuSuro 01:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• 2006-06-17 01:05:55 Tony Sidaway blocked "194.46.164.59 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 hours (Infantile troll)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaosflux (talk • contribs)

Only 3 hours? Tony's in a nice mood today... Sasquatch t|c 18:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that's my normal block period for nuisances:

• 20:53, 11 June 2006 Tony Sidaway blocked Clever_curmudgeon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) with an expiry time of 3 hours (Personal attack. See also block of Iodyne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log))
• 20:47, 11 June 2006 Tony Sidaway blocked Iodyne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) with an expiry time of 3 hours (A short, sharp lesson in civility)
• 16:59, 9 June 2006 Tony Sidaway blocked 85.25.141.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) with an expiry time of 3 hours (Nuisance)
• 16:57, 9 June 2006 Tony Sidaway blocked 85.227.10.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) with an expiry time of 3 hours (Nuisance)
• 13:51, 8 June 2006 Tony Sidaway blocked Myrtone86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) with an expiry time of 3 hours (Taking the piss. [15])

You'll see a lot of indefinite blocks on my block log, but those are arbitration enforcements, banned editors, socks, etc. Bona fide editors rarely merit longer than a few hours. --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Username: Not Diablo

Username may have been intended to attack administrator Mailer Diablo.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 17:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have been around a few weeks without doing anything objectionable. If you're concerned, why not ask at User talk:Not Diablo? User seems to be responsive, use Talk pages, etc. Jkelly 18:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that people are getting too overreactive here. Diablo is a popular word and the admin in question's name is Mailer Diablo. If this "attack" user was named "Not Mailer Diablo" then it would be a obvious attack, but it isn't. Mike _{(T C)} 21:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Diablo is a common name, so unless the user is making attacks against Mailer Diablo, I see no reason to believe it has anything to do with them. The Ungovernable Force 06:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User: Turdbitch

Violation of the username policy and has started to vandalise. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 00:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Exploding Boy 00:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

material deleted from my user talk page

user: HappyCamper deleted a message to me on my user talk:Rick Norwood page. I have no idea why he did it. There may be an innocent explanation. But I do not like the idea of someone deleting material from my user talk page without discussing it with me. Here is the record of the message and the deletion:

(cur) (last) 23:25, 17 June 2006 HappyCamper m (Reverted edits by Michael D. Wolok (talk) to last version by Beneaththelandslide) (cur) (last) 23:02, 17 June 2006 Michael D. Wolok

I appreciate any help you can give.

Rick Norwood 00:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think HappyCamper reverted the page because the user who added it is spamming tons of talk pages with the same message. -- Kjkolb 00:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that appears to be the case. HC simply reverted spam. He did not delete anything, and he was providing a service. If you would like the info restored, simply revert it yourself. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This is baloney. I was not spamming anybody. I was trying to find one advocate who knew the subject matter, agreed with my position, and had the time to help me. I was also trying to get more responsible, intelligent Wikipedians involved in the article, and the issue at hand. I do not know why I should not be allowed to find a sympathetic advocate or mediator. I have been trying to get an advocate and mediation for over a month. I emailed the Wikipedia foundation, posted my request on notice boards all to no avail. My time is valuable. I get the feeling like this is some kind of game, and I don't have time for playing games. There should be someone at Wikipedia who would help editors like me find a suitable advocate. I don't know who Lethe is or why he has so much power. But it is clear he is violating Wikipedia policy. Michael D. Wolok 07:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

172.148.254.250 (talk · contribs)

This AOL user is attempting to merge an article with another without a concensus, and in disregard for the fact that the article is an umbrella article for 3 other military operations. They have resorted to personal attacks against me [16] calling me a "non-entity". --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• no, I just don't respond to users who are supposed to be indefintly blocked from editing, and certianly not when they're using strawmen--172.148.254.250 02:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• also, this isn't a chat room, this is a noticeboard, please refrain from abusing this venue to air personal grievances--172.148.254.250 02:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please ban this AOL Anon, they have now violated WP:OWN with this statement (I don't respond to the indefintly blocked, anyone else on the entire planet, they can revert it, you can't) Also anyone can see I am not blocked. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• As I've already stated, this is not a chat room, and you are abusing this space, either way, had your strawman not attempted to compromise the integrity of an antivandalism-bot, I'd have had no reason to become invloved at all, that said, you're stuck with me until such time as someone takes you off my hands--172.148.254.250 02:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You (User:172.148.254.250) have been blocked for 3 hours for violation of WP:NPA. Naconkantari 02:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Now they are using AOL socks to avoid the 3RR rule. [17] The new IP is User:152.163.100.202 Can we get a semi-protection status on the article please to stop anon users from editing it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• you should talk, using socks, that's quite funny, in an ironic sort of way, or at least it would be if it wasn't so sad--152.163.100.200 02:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken on who I am, so I will just ignore you from now on. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• you seem to have misunderstood this all rather badly, my only concern is that you, or any other person you may or may not be, not attempt to disrupt the normal operations of either of the antivandalism bots, beyond that I really don't care what you do--152.163.100.200 02:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The antivandalism bots are not perfect and may be reverted. Naconkantari 02:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it actually wasn't trying to revert it, rather it was trying to argue that it was a biased POV pusher and needed to be blocked for it's right wing pov pushing, taking a bit of liberty with the paraphrasing, but you get the jist of it, as i said, the user I'm refering to now, was a strawman trying to disrupt antivandalism activities, to draw admin attention to the article in question, just as I diffuse the situation, in sweeps zero to draw yet more attention to the article--152.163.100.200 03:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to start from the same branching point that I did, then you probably want to start here, but frankly it's a non-issue at this point, so it's probably best if everyone just moves on, myself included--152.163.100.200 03:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and he called me a vandal, how cute--152.163.100.200 03:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, so....

So I stumbled upon this today: User_talk:Srose/Love. It is a dedicated talk page intended to be used by two otherwise upstanding users, Yanksox and Srose, for the sole purpose of repeatedly telling each other how much one loves the other (seriously: Quoth: I LOVE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!! Srose 16:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC) -- I LOVE YOU, TOOOOOOO! Yanksox 16:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC) - and it manages to get worse), and carying on inane small talk not dissimilar to a chat room (in terms of frequency and meaningfulness of posts). The type of activity here is best suited to IRC or IM or whatever kids use these days (hello, telephones?), and has no place in a discussion forum meant for encyclopedia editors. Mind you, Wikipedians have (somehow) carried out more useless and rediculous conversations in the past (to say the least), but to have a page dedicated to such drivel seems over the top, and although harmless and in the userspace, it simply doesn't belong here and violates the spirit of our talk page guidlines. I was going to MfD it and warn the users, but on the inside I am an unsentimental old man with a hardened little grinch heart with no patience for such poppycock, so I'll see if others aggree first before dashing their puppy love forum on the jaged rocks of wikipolicy like so many discarded Hollywood hookers. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

So it is a violation of Wikipedia:no terms of endearment? --TeaDrinker 03:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I was serious - it (the page) doesn't belong. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Per guidelines, If you want to communicate privately, try using e-mail. Per policy, If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. I would talk with Srose stating this is not the proper medium, and kindly request the user to mark the page with {{db-owner}}. Hopefully they will understand. -- ReyBrujo 03:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Slovenians

Could someone please protect the article Slovenians? In the last few weeks, two users are constantly edit warring there. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. There is absolutely no discussion going on about acceptable sources for population figures, which is what the edit warring is about. --ajn (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Lethe continues to violate all these Wikipedia policies or rules

Lethe is an administrator yet violates all these Wikipedia policies and rules. Is there anything that can be done about this? He is extremely patronizing. He never apologizes for his his mistakes. Time and again he wrongly accuses me of writing something patently false, that later turns out to be an undisputed truth. He reverts everything I add in its entirety. If another adds the exact same thing, he does not revert it.

To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. As we allow anyone to edit, it follows that we assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning.

So, when you can reasonably assume that something is a well-intentioned error, correct it without just reverting it or labeling it as vandalism.

Especially, remember to be patient with newcomers, who will be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's culture and rules. Correcting a newly added sentence that you know to be wrong is also much better than simply deleting it.

You should not act like their mistake was deliberate. Correct, but don't scold.

Avoidance The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place.

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to.

Michael D. Wolok 17:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't use = to create a separation like that it creates subsections. --Crossmr 17:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence to these accusations? Naconkantari 18:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This editor seems to be somewhat confused. From the low volume and quality of his edits [18] and the high number of blocks he has nevertheless attracted [19] I expect that he has come to harbor a grudge against administrators. --Tony Sidaway 22:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Michael is spefically referring to, but I'm not surprised he's being reverted for edits like these (I myself reverted him twice when he was inserting commentary into that article). He would be better off trying to understand the policy of verifiability instead of spamming everyone in sight looking for an "advocate". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Blintz

Blintz (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

I seek another opinion of this user, who has been warned a few times that comments like those in this AfD, on his talk page (review the whole page at that point, its short, and shows evidence of multiple warnings) and on mine (review the thread at that point) are bordering on incivility. I'm inclined to give a either another warning, or a short block but want to make sure I'm not too closely involved and missing something. I let it sit for a day to return myself fully to calm... Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 21:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

My advice, walk away. pschemp | talk 22:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User:PaulMichael86

Please check his work on Fabulous.. I will reach the 3RR in one two moves. ackoz 22:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

One or two moves? Wikipedia isn't a boardgame. Although that would be an awesome merchandising idea. Anyway, he hasn't re-reverted yet... but his insertion of this picture not only borders on vandalism, but feels eerily familiar. I've warned him about it anyway, but does anyone remember this kind of editing? Could it be a sockpuppet? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

His next move was to remove the db tag I added to the image. ackoz 23:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Also check Image:NotFabulous.JPG ackoz 23:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I deleted both pics and will make sure Fabulous (the redirect) doesn't get messed around with. Sasquatch t|c 00:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Willy Nilly

May have a point. There were no contribs, and there was no warning. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Obscuring standard layout

I came across a user who is using absolutely-positined <div>s to "replace" the title on his user and talk pages. I think it's a cool hack, but I think it's ultimately a bad idea. I believe users should have relatively wide latitude in how they decorate their user pages, but I think that obscuring the title or any part of the standard layout is a bad idea (I have no problem with the little tabs people use to indicate their online status or such). Normally if I saw someone hacking their user page in this manner, I would edit it and leave him a note, but in this case it's a well-established editor. I requested he change it, but he politely declined. Am I overreacting to a minor issue? This case is relatively innocuous, though if others engage in this practice, it could be confusing (and I can think of some malicious uses for this sort of hack). What do others think? — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that that hack doesn't work on non-standard skins, but if Moe doesn't mind that, I don't see a problem. Don't understand the "standard layout" issue, anyone who finds there way to a user talk page is unlikely to be confused by a pretty title, nor can I think of any "malicious uses". Also, this isn't an admin matter and would be better situated at the village pump. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit protected page: Template:Unsigned2

As it has been done for Template:Unsigned, the appended comment that gets substituted to every usage of this template, and there are many even in a single talk page, should be deleted. The comment is unnecessary and excessive. —Centrx→talk 05:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Matter closed: A kind, gentle administrator has responded to my frenzied cries for help and corrected the problem. —Centrx→talk 06:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

I was blocked on English Wikipedia en:User:Brasoveanul, even if no evidences have been provided. I requested a CheckUser and that proves that I was blocked illegal. I request to be unblocked now. The Admin that blocked me didn't provide any evidences and he will not be able to provide any. They harrast me. And they blocked my page. --Brasoveanul

It's very true that now all the Romanian editors will be blocked soon. These russian admins have begun to block all romanians, e.g. en:User:Constantzeanu. --Brasoveanul

A CheckIP will demonstrate that I'm innocent. Please help. --Brasoveanul

Apparently, you are a sock account of banned user User:Bonaparte, [20]--MONGO 10:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, but that is not an evidence. I asked for the evidences and I asked the CheckUser. Jayg said it's not the case. Please, reconsider. I feel like this is a campaign against romanians. See User:Greier, he was also blocked as sock of apparently Bonaparte 4 days ago indefinitely, then he was unblocked. Many mistakes happens. --Brasoveanul 10:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Result of the CheckUser: "The evidence is inconclusive" [21] Jayjg ^(talk) --Brasoveanul

Brasoveanul is certainly a sockpuppet of Bonaparte. The clearest evidence of this are the constant accusations of Anti-Romanianism and his prejudice against User:Mikkalai. I can dig for diffs if anyone feels it necessary. --Tēlex 10:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No. You and Khoikhoi you just want to block innocent people. You said this to a lot of other romanians so far. --Brasoveanul

CheckUser is by no means the only indication of a sockpuppet, and who says Bonaparte is now one person, or ever was? Of course, now you've invoked the law of the Cabal, I guess the jig's up. Seriously, we're trying to do something productive and fighting a lot of prejudice and incompetence and general malinformedness from the media (who else?) and you're fucking about pushing your nationalistic little disputes all over our web site. Go and vandalise some other little web site, or better yet, a bus stop or something. robchurch | talk 11:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh my ...If I will block you and you didn't made anything wrong and I say that you're one of the former blocked user, tell me how do you feel? Just great, I suppose! Ok, let me blocked you for being a sock. It's good that way? No. I don't think so. So better don't try to make personal attacks on me or other users. Who said fucking? Why fucking? Control yourself. --Brasoveanul

Good lord...and these people are allowed to edit? Your overreaction and poor behaviour in the face of a reasonable assertion is what's causing people to disagree with you. Stop with the straw arguments, start explaining why your past behaviour was not disruptive or otherwise in violation of basic policies and common sense, and start people along the road to realising their mistake, if it exists. robchurch | talk 12:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My overreaction you say? If one get's permmanent blocked even if he's innocent how should he feels or talk? Just feel great I suppose after your mind. You're wrong. --Brasoveanul

First I have to see all the facts that I'm accused of and to be shown the evidences. If there are not, and I know for sure there aren't (unless they are fabricated) I should be immediately unblocked.--Brasoveanul See also here:

Result of the CheckUser: "The evidence is inconclusive" [22] Jayjg ^(talk) --Brasoveanul

I say we block that IP address for block evasion. --Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 12:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I should be able to defend myself. --Brasoveanul

See the results:

Result of the CheckUser: "The evidence is inconclusive" [23] Jayjg ^(talk) --Brasoveanul

There's no prerequisite for you to have to be able to defend yourself on WP:AN. Defend yourself on your talk page. As you are evading your block, it is block evasion, regardless of what you're evading your block for. --Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 12:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I posted on META WIKIPEDIA, they told me to post it here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat --Brasoveanul

Have you attempted the dispute resolution process? If you wish, you can request a CheckUser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser (try logging out to edit the page). Please understand that the Meta-Wiki does not oversee Wikipedia, and there is little we can do to help you with your problem. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 12:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte's other sockpuppet User:Excaliburo did the same thing when he was caught [24]. Bonaparte, what you are doing is called WP:TROLLING.--Tēlex 12:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You only quoted half of what Jayjg said.

The evidence is inconclusive, but if the edit pattern is the same then you don't need CheckUser. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If the edit pattern is the same you don't need CheckUser. I have blocked that IP address for block evasion. Give up. --Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 12:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit war on Serbs of Croatia

This page was under edit war previously, then I protected it and requested discussion, no discussion ensued, I then unprotected the page and promised to block next person to make undiscussed revert, and I just did that as you can see here. But, the only problem is that I feel manipulated by User:Luka Jačov, as you can see from the former link, and I'm not sure the edit war will end here. And protecting of the page didn't help. As being new and underexpirienced administrator, I request help from mode experienced ones. What is to be done? Protect the page? Make WP:RfAr? Block everybody for a week and get drunk? Feel free to unblock the users I just blocked if you feel I shouldn't have done it. --Dijxtra 15:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support the blockings, and I'd suggest longer blockings (a week or more) if they return after 24 hours and continue revert-warring. I'm currently having to put up with complaints because I protected Bormalagurski's user page - see above - because he can't be trusted not to fill it with abuse of other nationalities and nationalist sloganeering. Bormalagurski is one of the people Dijxtra has just blocked. There are far too many people from the former Yugoslavia who seem to see Wikipedia as a chance to continue the wars of the 1990s by other means, and it needs to be made absolutely clear to them that this is not acceptable. There does seem to be some reasonable editing of Serbs of Croatia going on, so I think the solution of blocking the revert-warriors is the right one. --ajn (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I support Dijxtra's hard work on improving wikipedia, but I feel like that this time, he has been manipulated by User:Luka Jačov.

The text we are edit-waring about is this:

According to the Croatian census 2001 ^[25], most Serbs of Croatia declared that they speak Croatian. The opinion on the diaspora population has not been polled and the data for them is unavailable.

Luka Jačov is insisting that census data on language is irrelevant to Serbs of Croatia#Language because it will "confuse readers".

Let's make detailed chronology of edit war on.

Timeline

First, I must remind you that Dijxtra's rule was introdiced primarily because of Jacov's behaviour. Jacov was also responsile for blocking the article in the first place, see Talk:Serbs of Croatia#accuracy disputed (Luka Jačov deleting references)

After the page has been unlocked, Jacov started reverting changes without even trying to discuss it:

• 04:43, 24 May 2006 Jacov reverted the article with comment "no time 2 disscuss"
• 09:09, 24 May 2006 Jacov reverted the article with comment "I ll discuss it later"
• 12:25, 26 May 2006 I warned him that he must discuss his changes

I called Dijxtra and this led to this new rule by Dijxtra.

• 16:36, 26 May 2006 Dijxtra warns Next person that makes undiscussed revert will be blocked for 24 hours

• 08:10, 8 June 2006 Luka Jačov explaines the change he is about to make with words "What they declare is merely political preference and this will only make confusion among readers."
• 08:14, 8 June 2006 Luka Jačov changes the text and deletes part including valid reference to census results

• 08:22, 8 June 2006 Ante_Perkovic returns part of the text with valid reference with comment "Returned text based on cited resource, as per WP:Verify and WP:CITE"
• 08:23, 8 June 2006 Ante_Perkovic makes additional comment on talk page

• 09:48, 8 June 2006 Luka Jačov explaines his changes
• 09:50, 8 June 2006 Luka Jačov reverts with comment "Explained in talk page"

• 10:15, 8 June 2006 Zmaj returnes the referenced text, but removes some irrelevant bits
• 10:15, 8 June 2006 Zmaj explaines the change he made

• 12:57, 8 June 2006 Luka Jačov deletes disputed text
• 12:57, 8 June 2006 Luka Jačov explaines its change with words "It is not cause we are talking about what they speak not what they declare."

• 13:10, 8 June 2006 Ante_Perkovic returnes disputed text
• 13:15, 8 June 2006 Ante_Perkovic comments Jacov's changes
• 13:25, 8 June 2006 Ante_Perkovic ask for explanation on User talk:Luka Jačov and ask simple yes/no question that so far still remaines unanswered by Jacov

• 17:29, 9 June 2006 Luka Jačov explaines his change (but not answering my question)
• 17:30, 9 June 2006 Luka Jačov deletes disputed text

• 17:37, 9 June 2006 Ante_Perkovic reverts Jacov's changes
• 17:42, 9 June 2006 Ante_Perkovic warns Jacov (at his talk page) that he didn't answer the question
• 17:47, 9 June 2006 Ante_Perkovic warns Jacov that his comments are basicaly offtopic

• 17:56, 9 June 2006 Luka Jačov explaining his changes on Ante's talk page

• 18:01, 9 June 2006 Ante_Perkovic warns Jacov (at his talk page) that his (single and very important yes/no) question answer still remain unanswered
• 18:02, 9 June 2006 Ante_Perkovic makes a comment on hid own talk page, after Luka's text

• 18:03, 9 June 2006 Luka Jačov makes a comment on his revert
• 18:04, 9 June 2006 Luka Jačov deletes disputed text

• 18:06, 9 June 2006 Ante_Perkovic reverts Jacov's changes with comment "REV, Jacov keeps avoiding my simple yes/no questions", but makes no changes to Talk:Serbs of Croatia or any other talk page. This was the reason for blocking.

• 19:01, 9 June 2006 Luka Jačov warns Dijxtra that I made "undiscussed revert"

• 19:07, 9 June 2006 Estavisti deletes disputed part with comment "come now, really...", without changing Talk:Serbs of Croatia. This was the reason for blocking.

• 20:04, 9 June 2006 Luka Jačov makes slightly insulting comment on User_talk:Ante Perkovic. ("I c u r talking to yourself now. You have gone totaly mad. :D.")

• 20:18, 9 June 2006 Zmaj returnes disputed text with comment "Estavisti, "come now really" is no argument; please go to the talk page to justify your reverts", without changing Talk:Serbs of Croatia. This was the reason for blocking.

• 21:49, 9 June 2006 Bormalagurski deletes disputed part with (misleading!!!!) comment "just a suggestion", without changing Talk:Serbs of Croatia. This was the reason for blocking.

• 01:24, 10 June 2006 Joy returnes disputed text
• 01:24, 10 June 2006 Joy explaines in detail why there is no way that disputed text could confuse anyone.
• 01:28, 10 June 2006 Joy improves Serbs of Croatia#Languagewith detailed explanation af the language issue.

• 15:10, 10 June 2006 Dijxtra announces massive blocking on Talk:Serbs of Croatia giving "list of undiscussed reverts".

• 20:51, 10 June 2006 Luka Jačov, reverts page to his last version, deleting all of the usefull contributions by User:Joy.

Comment

Now, regarding the edit-war after setting the rule:

Technically speaking, I (Ante Perkovic) did, at 18:06, 9 June 2006, make revert without changing any talk page.

I must admit that Jacov did make a change to some talk page every time he made a change to the article.

So, technically speaking, I did break the Dijxtra's self-invented rule, and Jacov didn't.

Unfortunatelly, Jacov's "changes" were almost completely limited to reverting page to is last version regardles of the fact that, in the meantime, some people made considerable effort to improve the article. As an example, see his change from 20:51, 10 June 2006. This is not the first time he showed disrespect for other user's contributions.

Regarding commenting changes:

First, I must admit that I totally overlooked "Dijxtra's rule". Zmaj, who was yesterday banned for the first time in his 16 month of contributing this wikipedia (he joined us 18 February 2004) also privately told me that he actually overlooked this "warning", which is no miracle considering intensity of our activities here.

I commented my previous changes not because Dijxtra told me to but because I do it anyway, most of the time.

Since Dijxtra set the rule, I made alltogether 4 changes to Serbs of Croatia.

First 3 changes were accompanied with alltogether 3 comments to Talk:Serbs of Croatia and additional 3 comments to User talk:Luka Jačov. Since Jacov kept ignoring my questions on his talk page (see timeline), I made one last (4th) revert without any comment on any talk page. I wrote the only reasonably comment I could think of at that time - "REV, Jacov keeps avoiding my simple yes/no questions"

On the oter side, Jacov decided to "play by the rules". He did remember the rule set by Dijxtra and decided to make a "trap" for me by making endless reverts with poor (but regular) explanations until I, having nothing to add without senslessly repeating myself, made a revert without actually changing any talk page (but, I did write a comment, by the way!). When that finally happened, Jacov quickly contacted Dijxtra and reminded him about his rule. Dijxtra had no choise, but to block a few users, despite his feeling of "being manipulated by Luka Jacov" (Dijxtra's own words).

What strikes me even more here is that, if I just copied some of previous explanations to the bottom of the Talk:Serbs of Croatia, I guess I wouldn't be blocked! You must agree that this is absurd!

Problems with Luka Jačov

Since entire croatian comunity here feels disturbed by Jacov's behaviour, and since even Dijxtra admitted that he felt manipulated by the Jacov, I'm thinking of making WP:RFAR or some other procedure on this issue. I would kindly ask administrators to take a look at my talk page and give me an advice about what to do next. Problem is explained here: User talk:Ante Perkovic#About Jacov's behaviour

Regarding Dijxtra's feeling of being manipulated bu Jacov, he is right. Jačov's behaviour is called "gaming the system" and is strictly prohibited by wikipedia rules. It is explained here: Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point#Gaming the system.

Statement by Dijxtra

Ante has a point here. Several points, in fact. My recent reflections on that matter can be found here and here. I urge some more experienced administrator to help me deremine if User:Luka Jacov is breaking WP:POINT, since I'm not fully neutral here. I share some views with Luka but I also feel he acts disruptive. I have some disaccord with views of Ante but I also feel he is acting in good faith. Therefore, I'm not quite the person to deal with this situation and I therefore request fellow administrators to advise me on this situation. --Dijxtra 17:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A comment on Dijxtra and adminship

This is a comment on Dijxtra and the role of administrators. He was a bit heavy-handed in blocking, but his intention was noble. Wikipedia says "be bold", which is what Dijxtra was, and I (one of the people he blocked) can only commend him for it. We need such dedicated people to help us with disputes in numerous Croatia-related articles. Dijxtra, I do not think you lack neutrality. Some administrators believe they can be impartial only if they are uninformed about the topic. That is so wrong. There is no way administrators can help in complex disputes unless they know in detail what is being discussed. I am not talking about 3RR, vandalism and similar clear-cut cases. I am talking about undue weight, gaming the system, slippery slopes and similar insidious techniques. I am aware of official procedures such as RfC or RfA, but honestly, it seems nothing beats the personal dedication of an administrator. --Zmaj 19:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Joy

I've since been trying to make that section of the article acceptable to all, but User:Luka Jačov has continued to be at times obstructive and at times barely susceptible to change. One doesn't need to be a wizard to figure out who was hard-headed (in the meaning of mulish) here and whose behaviour (note: whose behaviour, not whose arguments) caused the revert war. --Joy [shallot] 15:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Andrewjens

Hi there, I need the help of some admin(s). The matter relates to User:Andrewjens.

A dispute arose some time ago relating to the insertion by User:Andrewjens of an external link into the Sydney Technical High School page: see Talk:Sydney Technical High School.

During this time, User:Andrewjens made a number of personal attacks against several users, myself included. Afterwards, User:Andrewjens began selectively taking quotes, out of context, from my old personal website, from many years ago: [26]. He arranged these quotes, from my personal opinion from about 10 years ago from up to 10 years ago (when I was about 12 years old), and added commentary in a manner designed to damage my reputation on Wikipedia.

After warning him to stop, he has edited his post to add more material. I am finding it difficult to deal with the continued harassment from this user. I'm requesting that he be banned because his actions now are adversely affecting my ability to edit in Wikipedia. Warnings by several administrators in the past do not appear to have made him understand Wikipedia policies relating to civility and harassment (not to mention NPOV and editing policies) - see Talk:Sydney Technical High School, for one of several examples. --Sumple (Talk) 06:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I endorse Sumple's account here - User:Andrewjens has gone one step too far. As an admin involved in a current mediation with him, I do not feel that it is appropriate for me to enact any block on him, but I ask that other administrators consider this case and its history seriously. Thanks. enochlau (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just blocked User:Andrewjens for 24 hours - he had expressed defiance on his talk page when a warning template was put there. A block will at least stop this in the interim. I welcome comments about what further action should be taken to sort out the damage. I know nothing about the underlying dispute or who is ultimately to blame for the sorry state of affairs here, but there was no excuse for the immediate attack behaviour, nor any sign that it was about to cease. Metamagician3000 11:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't really know what to do myself. Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-16_alumni_link will give you the background story - it started over an external link that he placed and I removed. He's gotten all angry and mediation and pleas for him to be reasonable have seemed to have failed. We'll see how he goes after the block ends, but if this happens again, I would say that an indefinite block is not out of the question? enochlau (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe some more experienced admins can think about that overnight (my time) and comment here. The main thing was to stop his immediate attacks on Sumple's talk page. But I'd certainly support some kind of firm action if he remains defiant on his own talk page or resumes attacks when he returns in 24 hours. We can't allow this sort of behaviour to go on and on. Metamagician3000 12:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have had an exchange with him here, in which I have tried to spell out the problem after his initial reaction to the 24-hour block. If he responds in a way that shows he simply does not accept our policy against personal attacks, then I am inclined to take him at his word and impose an indefinite block. It's up to him to decide whether or not Wikipedia is for him. If anyone thinks there is a better way to handle the matter, would you please comment here. Metamagician3000 02:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Complex vandalism.

johnpallen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a series of vandal edits (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fürsts of Schwarzenberg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earl of Amersham); Karl Philipp Fürst zu Schwarzenberg appears to be a genuine subject but shows traces of the vandal going back a way (ip edits adding the bogus Stefan of that ilk). Can someone who has a good working knowledge of German please check the German 'pedia at and compare the info to see if we have a factual article or not. Just zis Guy you know? 09:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This user has also persistently vandalized Earl of Shaftesbury and Earl of Jersey, adding a non-existent "Stefan Roberts". See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Roberts (second nomination). The German article on Schwarzenberg is rather terse, but a genealogy of the family is available ([27]); I've removed the bogus "Present Family" section, but the data inline looks OK. I was going to ask about banning, but I see you've already done it... Choess 15:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Fan1967 for fixing the mess. Just zis Guy you know? 11:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Weird article hijack attempt?

This is very weird, I noticed on Bengali wiki that an AOL IP 64.* renamed the Interwiki link to the en wiki page Joan of Arc to Joan Of Arc. However, the one with "Of" is a complete duplicate of the "of" page, the original article. Investigating furter, I see that the same anon IP (64.12.116.* , 64.12.116.68 etc.) has gone through ALL the different language wikis and changed the interwiki links to the duplicate article (which was created May 29th). I redirected "Of" to the original article, but the anon aol IP reverted it to the duplicate version.

Now, I've fixed some of the iw links in other wikis, but the whole purpose or intent of the anon is quite intriguing. Also, the remaining interwiki links in other wikis need to be fixed. --Ragib 21:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The interwiki bots will fix the links if given enough time. --cesarb 15:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Lord Karmic

The userpage User:Lord Karmic has been getting hit by all sorts of IP addresses (no obvious range) and newly registered users today. Any help watching or sprotection might be useful. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 00:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My watchlist

This page seems to have been created by accident a few times (once very recently myself through my dodgy JS). It now seems to redirect to Wikipedia:Bad title, but I wonder if Special:Watchlist would me more suitable... Ian13/talk 17:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting to Special: doesn't seem to work. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well, that explains it then I guess. Thanks! Ian13/talk 18:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure it doesn't work, I can't see how/why not...? Ian13/talk 18:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

... Yes, I'm sure it doesn't work. Because I, you know, tried it ... and it didn't work. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound bad, and I noticed you tried. It's just because if you browse to that revision in the history, it displays as a stardard redirect, so I was wondering of the technicality of it. Ian13/talk 19:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirects to special pages were disabled for security reasons AFAIK. --cesarb 23:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it shouldn't redirect to Wikipedia:Bad title becuase it's cross-namespace. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 17:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not just delete, place {{deletedpage}} on it, and protect? It's not useful as it is, and it's not even a bad title as described in the page it's now redirecting to. Snoutwood (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done that, as the redirect to Wikipedia:Bad title is confusing and not very accurate in this case. Snoutwood (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've converted it to a protected redirect to Wikipedia:Watchlist instead, as it is more useful for Random J. Newbie. --cesarb 16:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Way better, good idea. Snoutwood (talk) 04:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted as cross-namespace redirect. C'mon, you guys should know the drill by now ... don't go redirecting into something in project-space. --Cyde↔Weys 04:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The problem is for me that when you are at Special:Watchlist that actual title is My Watchlist My watchlist, so it can get rather confusing, and puzzle JS stuff as I found out. Ian¹³/t 21:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Errr? My watchlist is a Wikipedia-specific term; a few crossnamespace redirects are allowable, especially when there's no chance of having an article (for instance the ubiquitous WP:* redirects, or AfD). Don't be so draconian, Cyde, in the absence of an actual verifiable problem. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well first of all, it's not a Wikipedia-specific term. Second of all, WP:WATCH or somesuch would be more suitable as a redirect to a project page explaining the role of watchlists in Wikipedia. Third of all, it's not possible to create any title to take the to his/her own watchlist, because redirects to "Special:" fail. — Jun. 20, '06 [20:17] <freak|talk>

You might want to check on the example "AfD" you just gave ... Cyde↔Weys 20:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Early AfD close

Can someone close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broncomania? Everyone, including the person who created the article, wants it deleted.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I know it is a bit soon, as it was listed today, but I don't think anyone will change it. Consider WP:SNOW.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, SNOW doesn't apply with this AfD yet. Let it run its course. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This was speediable by A6 (attack page) and Snowball clause (hadn't a chance of being kept). Closed as a speedy delete. --Tony Sidaway 23:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd strongly discourage anyone closing deletion discussions (including DRv) while citing snow. It can raises ill will and serves very little purpose. This also applies to admins closing deletion debates that they have participated in. - brenneman ^{L} 00:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Myrtone86

Myrtone86 (talk · contribs) was unblocked (expired), I see. Needs an eye kept on him; some of the behaviour since the block expired is troubling, including four edits ([28], [29], [30], [31]) which "warn" other users not to revert "without a good reason", i.e. a reason good enough for him; followed up here with a dodgy reversion of a lot of anonymous contributions. See also here, where he pushes the assertion that he is an Australian Wikipedian to mean that his opinion is superior in that "field".

Cyde Weys has blocked the user for 48h for disruption, which I understand is the current operational block. I'm wondering now if the user's pushing to the stage where people are becoming tired of him, and considering opening a request for comment. What triggered Cyde's block in the short term, I think, is the comment he left opposing a self-nominated request for adminship, which was the same act that caused me further concern.

What do we think? robchurch | talk 12:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It strikes me I should emphasise something at this point. I don't think the user is acting in bad faith, at least not at this time; right now, I'd like to think that the problems s/he has caused/is encountering is due to a lack of complete comprehension as to how Wikipedia works - a "clueless" newbie, if you like - ultimately wants to do the right thing, but is confused as hell and doesn't seem to appreciate how we deal with various aspects of day to day interaction, etc. around here. Perhaps someone could take the user under their arm, wing or prosthetic implement? robchurch | talk 15:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been aware of "Myrtone the Strict Australian Wikipedian" for some time, and I've never quite been able to work out whether it's someone who feels the occasional need to troll, or someone who is genuinely an oddball. The "reverting of unexplained edits" has been going on for a while (he/she feels that when there are no edit summaries it's fine to revert anything), and there was a campaign to remove all swearing from the encyclopaedia, too. There is, as far as I can tell from my non-tram-obsessed perspective, some good editing mixed up with the eccentricity. But I think after six months of heavy activity, most people would have gathered more about how to do things here, which is why I wonder how much of the "eccentricity" is actually trolling. --ajn (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm seconding the "clueless" notion, I don't think he has an intent to troll, just an unfortunate way of coming across as rude. At least that's what I've experienced the few times (four, I think) I've spoken to him. Perhaps he has somehow evaded the existence of some rules and acted upon his own common sense? -Obli (Talk)^? 22:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Dangerous incitement

Pardon my intrusion here, but the matter requires the intervention of admins. The following dangerous message does not belong on Wikipedia and someone may think that it should be reported to the FBI and the Secret Service which would be a disgrace to Wikipedia. This goes way beyond Wikipedia:No legal threats. Thank you, IZAK 07:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

See user page of User:Merchanttaylorsschoolnorthwood

Should George Bush be assassinated?

(If George is reading, that means killed)

I deleted the page and left a note on the discussion page not to post such comments next time the page is created. There was nothing else in the history, so it was simplest just to zap the whole page. I'm sure there's a speedy criterion to justify my action, but if not I'll go with IAR and SNOW. Given the name of this user, warnings about blocks, blah, blah, didn't seem especially appropriate. Metamagician3000 07:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

omg call teh fbi a 9 year old threetaned the prezidant! --mboverload@ 09:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, quite. Ho, ho. But it's still not appropriate to leave it there. Metamagician3000 11:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User: 220.239.134.188

look at his work just this week! I think you'd be making your jobs easier by banning him...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=220.239.134.188

Well, we don't ban IPs (and bans are rare, anyway) but I've blocked him 3 hours for this and this. This user also indicated he would vandalize again, so I've added Che Guevara to my watchlist. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sunholm

Sunholm seems to have been blocked by Cyde. Cyde seems to think Sunholm is a bot. Sunholm seems to disagree. See Sunholm's talk page for more information. I'm mentioning it here because it seems clear to me that Sunholm is not a bot and I'm not sure what lead Cyde to this conclusion. That said, I blocked Sunholm about a week or so ago for strangely vandalous edits so I'm really unsure about everything. It could be that I am a bot. Presumably if this is true, I've been programmed not to know. In any case, can someone else take a look at what is going on here? It's not clear to me which if either party is in the wrong here. --Yamla 19:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a simple syllogism...

• Sunholm has a bot emergency stop button on his userpage.
• Only bots have bot emergency stop buttons.
• Therefore, Sunholm is a bot.

Additionally, I'd really like to hear an explanation for this edit. --Cyde↔Weys 19:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

While normally only bots have emergency stop buttons I don't think this is the case here. This user may have put the bot button on their page as a lark and has now gotten burned by it. However that's no reason to block them. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 19:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Rory096 is a good example. NSLE 19:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That was my inspiration! Apologies for the confusion. --Sunholm(talk) 19:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I now see the flaw in my syllogism ... cyborgs have robotic exteriors too (and thus they have bot emergency stop buttons), but contain human brains. Obviously Sunholm is thus a cyborg. I have unblocked. --Cyde↔Weys 19:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not funny. Just stop messing around and admit that you screwed up.Geni 19:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Relax. It was an easy mistake to make. --Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 19:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I screwed up. Sorry. I'm trying to be a WikiGnome. I was such an idiot. Sorry for causing all this conflict. --Sunholm(talk) 19:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Relax.... word of the day, for me. --Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 19:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not too worried about Sunholm's actions but Cyde is an admin he should know better. Blocks should not be lightly thrown around. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geni (talk • contribs) .

Unauthorized bots can be a serious threat to Wikipedia and should be blocked immediately. --Carnildo 21:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Geni. Attempting to defuse an unfortunate situation with humour is a grotesque offence and should result in an indefinite ban. Wikipedia policies only allow the use of obvious and unfunny sarcasm as a response to unnecessary conflict. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo the individuals edits did not fit the patturn of a bot.Geni 23:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I find that humor is a great way to diffuse a conflict. It seems to work for me. --mboverload@ 09:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked the IP

I have blocked the IP that Sunholm (former Sunfazer, it is claimed) uses, since the promises from last time it was blocked that no more vandalism or sockpuppet creation from this IP would occur have been proven to be lies, and the old tricks are back.

I ask that no admin unblock this IP without talking to me. Vandalism and sockpuppetry from this IP has been going on for at least nine months; despite numerous blocks and promises to reform, the behaviour returns each time. The person/people behind this IP are playing us for fools; don't let them do so again. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of old IfD logs

Somebody has blanked many subpages linked from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Log (which is apparently the right thing to do) and then put a speedy tag on them (see cat:csd). I don't quite see the point in deleting these pages, but don't know if this was discussed anywhere. Shouldn't we keep the history of the old deletion discussions available for non-admins (and undelete the pages that have been speedied)? Kusma (討論) 23:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Somebody is me. -- ∞Wirelain 00:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I will take this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Images and media for deletion, where I should have started it in the first place. Kusma (討論) 00:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Standards for article templates?

In recent months I have seen a massive growth in article page templates. While these often add useful information to article and help group articles with their like-minded kin, the design aspects of where these templates are placed are often quite bad. For example, in the article Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks a vertical and a horizontal template intersect at the top of the page, breaking up the lead in an awful way. My question is this: Are there accepted Wikipedia standards on the placement of article templates? If so, where are they? (I searched all over and couldn't find them.) If these standards don't exist, are any other admins irritated by the way article templates are beginning to dominate articles here and willing to work with me on developing some consensus on their placement? Thanks for any info or comments. Best, --Alabamaboy 00:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The WP:MoS hasn't been updated for these that I know of, but the general tendency I have observed has been to put 'vertical' (and small) templates towards the upper right and 'horizontal' templates towards the bottom center. Multiple horizontal templates are generally no problem as they can be 'stacked' atop each other - usually as a sort of categorized 'See also' section of navigation boxes. Multiple small and vertical templates on the same page, or such in conjunction with images, can get messy though. All of these tend to be placed in the upper right corner and sometimes you will have things 'double parked' or the entire right hand border taken up by one box/image after another. That said, I haven't seen such problems on alot of pages, most of them were actually more due to trying to stick a template in amongst an overload of images, and they can usually be fixed quickly. --CBD 10:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Autoblock template

{{subst:User talk:AOL user/cab}}, might it be a good idea to incorporate such a thing into standard block templates?--64.12.116.200 00:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Not convinced of its use myself, why would a blocked user be interested in autoblocks generated as a result of their block? It won't affect them since they are blocked anyway. Regardless is such a thing were included you'd want the time range to be last 24 hours, autoblocks expire after 24 hours so anything older is irrelevant. --pgk^(talk) 07:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you do...

I'm not quite sure what to do with El benderson over here. I originally warned him against purposely trying to provoke other users with POV statements like this (the warning is here). He then since has called me a "psycho Red Chinese guy" and a communist repeatedly, called other users communist not to mention thinking that the "Cabal of One" joke on top of my talk page is some crazy communist spreading symbolism meant to brainwash the world. As well as initially thinking the fake sockpuppet warning on my Userpage was some kind of super conspiracy. I'm not sure whether to block him more... give him a humor handbook. Sasquatch t|c 02:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Mr. Treason *cough* sock *double cough* sock--64.12.116.200 02:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• come to think of it, that might also explain the recent surge in AOL vandalism/denial of service attacks--64.12.116.200 02:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

HeadleyDown + sock/meat vandalism activity, suggestions for handling.

HeadleyDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and a range of socks and meats around the world, have waged a POV war for the last year on neuro-linguistic programming. I'm reluctant to post much of the evidence against current socks here, since he is a known persistent sneaky vandal who attempts not to be noticed. Right now we have 3 socks/meats operating, one on an IP, two under user accounts.

The problem is that since he's a "block on characteristic behavior" vandal/sock master, I don't know where to take it. It basically needs blocking, up front, before it deteriorates. Probably will need ongoing blocking of more subtle forms of approach as it continues.

• David Gerard's view on HeadleyDown: [32]
• WP:LTA entry here.

I reported his latest socks on WP:AIV but was told with only one or few edits apiece (which would only be obviously vandalistic in the context of previous activity and modus operandi) to take it to WP:SSP instead [33] However, a sock check is likely to reveal nothing per David Gerard and sockcheck isn't whats being sought. WP:RFI also seems inappropriate as watchlists aren't the issue, blocking the new sock/meatpuppets on behavior is.

What's perhaps needed is a more experienced admin willing to be long-term familiar with the article's vandalism history (ie not a page editor or content contributor), to whom future events or suspicious aspects of behavior can be notified to for fast judgement of blocking. It should be noted that as with many sneaky repeat vandals and sock users, the evidence will be slender and therefore good judgement of handling problematic cases is likely to be needed. Communication by email will probably be preferred.

Apologies for the above approach, however this article is an exceptionally problematic case. It's just been trashed by a year in which about 10-20 socks and meats played POV warrior with it (all blocked), and all mentors were driven off the article by the wiki-stress of it (Woohookitty's comment), and days later we now have 3 new sock/meats (2 obvious, 1 subtle) starting all over again.

Advice how to proceed? Please reply here or by email, many thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Just need to note here that Headley and his sock/meats have been blocked in the past. And they are all bound by the arbcom decision on NLP. Here are the documented bans. FT2, I'd really recommend doing a checkuser check. It's what's gotten them blocked in the past. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Done it a week or so back. RFCU failed -- he's switched to using other IPs. If it had succeeded he'd be blocked by now. Track record is in the WP:LTA link. Note the user and talk page comment for 62.25.106.209 (talk · contribs) for example. He has edited from worldwide IPs as well as those in his home country. There's no real question that all 3 new editors (the two accounts and the IP at times) are being used as sock/meats now, based on circumstances, editing patterns and other evidence. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Santa's reindeer

I have no idea where to take this, so I'm trying here. A user has created an individual page for each of Santa's reindeer. Frankly I have no idea what to do with this. I was thinking NN until I realized that they really are notable. Chances are more people have heard of Prancer the Reindeer than Yukiji Asaoka. The question is - do they really deserve individual pages? --Bachrach44 14:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how encyclopedic it is, but i'm seriously about to fall out of my chair laughing at the sheer number of edits this person has done on the subject, its REALLY funny. I would say that you should group them together and take them to AFD for discussion there. Batman2005 00:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason there are so many edits is because I am new to editing not because I am crazy about reindeer. This is like a test project for me to see how far my editing skills can go. --Merond e 18:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I think they are notable. The question is whether they really deserve seperate articles or not. I'm gonna send a message to the creator essentially asking him if he actually has enough info to warrant seperate articles, but to be frank our standards for encyclopedic in nature have dropped so much over the last year or so that my eventualist tendencies are saying we should keep them. --Bachrach44 21:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Filling wikipedia with one liner articles like these, and also on some presidential pets is really a bad idea. All these info could easily be summarized in articles like "Santa's reindeers", List of United States Presidential pets. I really can't see how it is possible, without doing originalr research, to create a non-stub article on each of the reindeers, and each of US presidential pets. Merging them all into a single article on each topic should be done. Thanks. --Ragib 21:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's my thoughts. I realize how it might be more essential to merge the pages, but I would like until the 14th to try to find enought information on them to make them more than stubs and to make them separate enough from each other. If I cannot accomplish that, then yes, merging will be required. Can you grant me that time? --Merond e 10:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As the great MTV Celebrity Death Match Referee/Judge Mills Lane would say "I'll allow it." Batman2005 03:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for allowing me this time. Now I just have to take the information I have and work it into articles to see if it looks good. If it does I'll post it and you can see what you think. If it doesn't look good to me or you we can merge the articles. --Merond e 10:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to butt in here and congratulate Merond e for being a civil editor. Good job. ~Chris _{Don't be evil.} 17:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

PinchasC Abuses Adminstrative Priveleges

Removed copy/paste of semi protection policy by User:70.8.99.43. For relevant discussion of the poster's complaint, see Spicynugget below. FreplySpang 19:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks by user Pantherarosa

I posted the issue on the backloged WP:PAIN but it became a cluttered mess that gave no result. Instead of getting into a detailed explaination, below are the personal attacks made by Pantherarosa even though (s)he had been warned numerous times to stop. I think they speak for themselves:

[34] edit summary [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] and [43]

Keep in mind these were being made after Pantherarosa had been warned numerous times to stop. Paul Cyr 04:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello? Paul Cyr 04:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Pantherarosa also is vandalising my user page and using misleading edit summaries: [44] Paul Cyr 20:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

YOU are spreading lies and libel as for quite a while about me. On your user-page i have taken the LIBERTY to correct a spelling mistake (your mistake: "indefinate"/my correction: indefinite), ironically at the same TIME STAMP instant as you have subsequently changed your previous MISSPELLED posting. You are welcome to take off your erroneous accusation and my clarification, here.Pantherarosa 20:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Correcting" another user's spelling mistakes, when you are in dispute with them, could be considered as harrassment. Why not just not edit his page? User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you reverted the page back serveral revisions and changed the spelling. Thereby removing another user's comments and reverting my edits, since the prior revision I had changed "indefinite" to "a month". Given your previous actions, I think it's safe to say you were screwing around with my page and passing it off as an innocent edit. Why else would you had reverted back several revisions instead of just editing the word? In addition, your edit was over 2 hours after mine. That is not at the same instant. Paul Cyr 20:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Paul is right. This is not a spelling correction. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I made one single entry and did not REVERT at all, there may have been a timelag though between making the correction and SAVE PAGE action. So no need to spread further libel. The User Zoe's observation is not applying, as I am the one who suffered harrassment, as can be easily backtracked!Pantherarosa 20:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Setting the page back to a previous state is reverting. Given your previous statements, I think you are lying when you expect us to believe you waited over two hours to save your edits. As for Zoe's comments, all user's comments apply; it's one of the founding principles of Wikipedia. Paul Cyr 20:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If Zoe's comment applies, than certainly in your regard: YOU have, in fact, repeatedly applied yourself to reverting and "editing" my Talk page. The last time a few minutes ago...Pantherarosa 21:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I reached your miss-spelled entry over my page watch and it has been your last entry, at the time I chanced upon it. All i did was change the spelling, so don't construe anything! Why would I in my right mind REVERT senslessly and sign with my good name??? That would constitute vandalism.Pantherarosa 21:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Editing talk pages in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines is not harrassment. I doubt you'll find an admin who'll object to me removing personal attacks against me from an indefinitely banned user. As for you editing my page when I was the last editor, what you said is impossible as it would have resulted in an edit conflict warning preventing you from accidentally overwritting what had been written. Paul Cyr 02:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Reconstructing the events, I agree that, in fact, THERE HAS BEEN an editing conflict warning (in connection with "show preview"), which i did not attribute to an edit concerning this matter, after a considerable break in editing, having done other work for more than 2 hours. I understood only after your verbose accusations that the said SAVE PAGE action had obviously triggered then only (I presume admin can ascertain this in due course). I do not accept your renewed false accusations, especially not in light of your continuous attempts at defaming me. It was due to the fact that i found you on my watchlist today (and reading your contributions log) that I came to know about your relentless bickering on this board and your userpage. My spelling correction was meant as a reminder for you to see I am on top of your pranks. My first impression regarding "same instance" editing was based on comparing your TIME STAMP before and after my edit, which shows the same time. In any event: Say what you want; I merely attempted to correct your spelling of the word indefinite. The ensuing mishap has not been my intention.Pantherarosa 03:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Except the fact you can't accidentally overwrite suceeding edits in an edit conflict without cutting and pasting your edits from the bottom text box to the top. So either you did it on purpose or you just intentionally bypassed warning messages without looking at what they said. As for your relentless bickering on this board and your userpage and I am on top of your pranks, those aren't personal attacks, but they definately violated WP:CIVIL. Paul Cyr

Stop editing my comments as you did here: [45]] if I make spelling mistakes then it's for me to correct. As Zoe said "Correcting" another user's spelling mistakes, when you are in dispute with them, could be considered as harrassment. Doing it after being told not to is harrassment. Paul Cyr 03:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Pantherarosa, I see this as a simple question of whether you realise that your comments could be understood as demeaning and/or a personal attack. Whatever Paul Cyr's age is, it does not mean you should make fun of it. You may be right or wrong about the edit conflict (I had a problem with overwriting newer versions by mistake myself) but that does not excuse the language you have been using to refer to another member of the wikipedia community. Regards, --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 23:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Especially when in 10 days I am legally an adult. Hardly a "schoolboy" ;) Paul Cyr 23:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well then, " Happy Birthday! " Pantherarosa 09:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

AFD backlog

There's 5 days of AFD pages backlogged at the moment. People seem to close the easy ones, then skip over any that involve a modicum of effort (such as merging, or transwiki-ing). I'm wading through June 6 at the moment, but I can't close AFDs I've already been involved in, which is most of them. Help would be appreciated. Proto||type 13:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with closing contentious or tough AfDs, and I very rarely "skip" an AfD, but I simply don't have the continuous time it takes to close 50+ AfDs in succession. Usually when I see the AfDs for a particular day drop down to around 20 or 30, that's when I'll get cracking on closing the rest of them, so it would be great if we have a lot of volunteers just close a few to bring it down to this level. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just closed a couple and will try to find some time to close a few more tomorrow. Metamagician3000 15:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Out of interest, how other admins deal with merge results? As it's basically a keep, do you just declare it as keep, declare as keep but also add merge tags on or what? Just out of interest as I've done very little AFD work (and not really been around there much recently), but would be useful to know as this as it seems to be the number 1 reason for non-closure of the older AFD's. Petros471 18:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As you prefer. Personally, if I think the result is merge I say so. If I can execute the merge, I do, if I don't feel qualified I don't, note that fact on the AfD and add merge tags as needed. -Splash - tk 18:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I also tend to find merge results hard to deal with. Usually merging requires some expertise in the subject matter, and if I have significant expertise in the subject matter I tend to vote on the AfD rather than closing it. So for me, it's generally merge tags. I think that's about all that can be expected of the closing admin. moink 19:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

(shift left) If there are several merge and keep votes together, I usually just close the AfD as a Keep or Not delete, and close the article as per a keep result, making a note that Keep vs. Merge debates can be handled out of AfD. For merge results, I usually try to do the merge myself, but if the subject matter is too difficult, the work required is extensive, or if I'm simply too lazy (that happens on occasion), I just apply the merge tags to the AfDed article and the target article. I make sure to pass, as the second parameter, the proper talk page to discuss the merge (the talk page of the AfDed article is most appropriate, I think).

For example: {{mergeto|Target article|Talk:AfDed article}} and {{mergefrom|AfDed article|Talk:AfDed article}}. That's just how I do it, I don't know how other AfD closers do it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add my voice to get some AFDs closed. I noticed people relisting AFDs that were 9 days old yesterday and a few AFDs I'm involved in have surpassed their 5 day point and still haven't been closed. --Crossmr 16:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was very dicey before, and I saw about four or five days worth of AfDs listed in WP:AFD/Old at one time. We're down to two days, so maybe things are better. I'd still like to see some folks willing to bring it down to about 20 AfDs. I don't have any more continuous time to devote to closing AfDs today... --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hrm. I'm not sure about that. I've got outstanding AFDs that are older than the 12th still sitting around. --Crossmr 18:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Which outstanding AfDs are you talking about? According to the Mathbot, when it processed WP:AFD/Old, all the ones listed prior to June 12 were closed. Perhaps these AfDs are orphaned? --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just closed off June 12. There was one mathbot picked up but that had been archived into page history for privacy reasons. As Deathphoenix says if any are still open, please let us know as they don't (obviously) show up on the listings. Petros471 20:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

These AFDs are still open: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nithlings Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicto that one is from the 9th. Here is another from the 9th Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Resonance_(MIT). I'll keep looking as I know there were some relisted yesterday that weren't on my watchlist. --Crossmr 21:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Corky_Bucek This is also from the 9th it appears. --Crossmr 21:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

They are all relisted, which is a legitimate option. They will be closed next time around. Petros471 21:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Relisting restarts the 5 day counter? I thought relisting just made sure you were able to reach a concensus by giving it exposure and didn't extend the length of the actual discussion? --Crossmr 21:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It basically restarts the counter, as they are placed on the same page as the other 'brand new' AFD nominations. However, they can get closed in less than the extra five says if consensus becomes clear. The exposure happens by being put back on the 'front page' and having the length of discussion extended. Petros471 22:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Adventures_of_Dr._McNinja_(fourth_nomination) this one is from the 10th and hasn't been relisted. --Crossmr 02:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why, but this one is listed in June 17. Likely, it was either orphaned when first nominated (then listed on June 17) or it was relisted June 17 without having the relist notice up. Either way, it'll be closed in time. Despite the fact that having that AfD notice up on an article can be stressful, these things get closed in time, and there's no harm in having it up for a little longer, especially when you consider how overworked some of our AfD closers are. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Its not a matter of stress per se. Just closing the AFD in time to ensure a proper process. When it comes to deleting someone's work, or keeping something controversial, I think the process has to be transparent, and abnormally long AFDs and other things can lead to people questioning that process. --Crossmr 15:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. Unfortunately, AfD closers are volunteers. Just earlier, I closed an AfD that took me almost thirty minutes to complete. And there are tonnes of AfDs to close. In an ideal world, AfD closers would swoop in and close all the AfDs within the space of twelve hours after they have expired. Unfortunately, they are not. In addition, proper process doesn't actually give a maximum time limit into when an AfD has to be closed. It only says that AfDs may be closed after five days, but may sit in the back log for several more days.

But in any case, you have a valid complaint. AfDs can sometimes sit in a backlog for a while. Perhaps you'd like to help control the backlog by helping us close AfDs? If you're not an admin, but still want to help clear our AfD backlog, take a look at here to see how you can help. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 19:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Deathphoenix, I'll have a look at that. I'm not an admin currently, but if I can close unanimous keeps then that might help when I come across them. I'll go through and read the proper process. Is there anything in particular I should tag the closing with to indicate I'm not an admin when doing so? --Crossmr 20:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No, there's no need to do so. Just remember that you can only close AfDs that are very unanimously a Keep (or Merge, or Redirect). A good rule of thumb (someone else could correct me if they wish) would be at least four Keeps (or Merges, or Redirects), and maybe 90% consensus. Anything else might be a little too contentious for anyone but an admin to close. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds pretty reasonable. I'll see what I can do to contribute. --Crossmr 20:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thanks. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I started closing AfDs (as a non-admin), but found that I was scrolling through the whole lot searching for near-unanimous keeps and not finding many. There were others where I would have closed and made a decision, but didn't want to overstep the mark. I understand in the past there was more leeway for non-admins closing with "no consensus" or whatever. If this were approved, it would share the workload (and non-admin closures are subject to review anyway as a safeguard).

On the subject of difficult merges after an AfD, would it be an acceptable solution to change the article into a redirect to the second article, and paste the contents of the first article on the talk page of the second article, making it clear that this was material from the first article that needed to be merged? The editing history would of course still be preserved with the first article.

Tyrenius 15:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you see any obvious delete closures, I wouldn't see anything wrong with closing it as delete then putting {{db|closed [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}]] as delete. ~~~~}} or somesuch. Other users might disagree, saying it's a slippery slope, but I think boldness would be appropriate in times of massive backlog. — Jun. 24, '06 [15:45] <freak|talk>

That's for speedy delete, but most articles for deletion don't meet speedy criteria, which is why they're put on AfD in the first place, so that tag would be misleading. Non-admins can't complete the process, even if there is a (near-)unanimous consensus for delete. However, they could close "no consensus, keep" AfDs. Tyrenius 16:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure non-admins should be closing close (i.e. no consensus) keeps. I don't have too much problem with them closing obvious deletes and than tagging with db|(afd link), but that wouldn't really save admins any work as they would still have to check the afd was valid etc as it is the deleting admin that has to 'take the blame' in case of future questions. Closing clear delete afd's hardly takes any time at all anyway. Petros471 16:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought! Tyrenius 16:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Image undeletion now possible

All hail the devs, for image undeletion is now possible. -Splash - tk 15:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

NO!! It was better without this function :'(. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 17:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

How so? Images as anything else should not be undeleted without good reason, and if there is good reason this is defenently better than tracking down the image and re-uploading. Hopefully this will also reduce some of the "drama" about people crying bloody murder if one of theyr self created images gets deleted for lacking copyright info while they where away on vacation for a week. Wikipedia:Deletion review might see a surge of "frivelous" undelete requets for a while (omg! that was a gr8 pic unletele plz!11", but I'll sure we'll manage. --Sherool (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a bad idea for copyright violation pictures. Nothing too significant though. I am guessing this applies for images after June 2006. -- Jared Hunt 21:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well obviously. I would tink that goes without saying. Any and all votes to overturn a copyvio deketion should be ignored unless a persuasive fair use argument or proof of a free license release can be provided, but AFAIK this have not been a problem with copyright infrindging text, so I don't think it copyvios getting undeleted will be a huge problem with images either. And yes, only images deleted after the feature was implemented (June 16) can actualy be undeleted). --Sherool (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I won't be happy until it is possible to move/rename images (and redirect them to avoid the need for duplicates in template contexts). It would be nice to do something about bloody fuck obnoxious non-descriptive image titles such Image:0006AC40-2CAA-1FD7-8DAB80C328EC0000.jpg. — Jun. 20, '06 [20:23] <freak|talk>

If the filename is a GUID, then the image is probably a copyvio ripped from the web somewhere, and should be shot on sight. --Carnildo 02:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally second Freakofnurture. And if the filename is a GUID, then it could be fair use too, no? ~Chris _{Don't be evil.} 17:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Yuck, my balls smell like raw sewage

Athough a hilarious username, it violates the username policy (Names that refer to or allude to reproductive or excretory functions of the body). The user is also vandalising. (Also, if this is the wrong page to be reporting this, please let me know...) -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 14:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User already has been blocked: 10:43, 18 June 2006 Malcolm Farmer blocked "Yuck, my balls smell like raw sewage (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (inappropriate username, vandalism) Metros232 14:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Got another one for you: You're all queers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 14:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Nevermind, already blocked. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 14:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That name is pathetic. Iolakana|^(talk) 16:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Cheezus H Crust

I'm guessing most native English speakers will understand the reference (and, admittedly, it's humorous), yet this may have been altered enough to let stand per WP:USERNAME. No contribs as I type this. Thoughts? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Username block, most certainly. --Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 20:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Not certainly enough for you to do it, apparently ;-). I've blocked the account. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That really seems like overkill. It's not likely to be mistaken for the actual religious figure, which was your stated reason for blocking, and it's not so offensive as to be de facto worth blocking pre-emptively in my opinion. -- nae'blis _(talk) 12:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm leaning away from the block—barely, but leaning away. As written, this could be to whom you might pray for decent food at Pizza Hut... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This user never complained or contributed, so it may have been the right call after all. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Spicynugget

Spicynugget has been adding spam links to prayer. After consensus on the talk page has shown that there should not be spam links there, ip addresses from the same isp have been adding those links those ip's have also been editing the same articles that Spicynugget has been editing. These ip's have violated the 3rr rule. There is no checkuser result to prove that they are the same person as checkuser are only done for more extreme cases (so I have been told when requesting the checkuser [46]). Therefore based upon the above I have blocked Spicynugget and his most recent ip for 24 hours for the 3rr violation. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User:70.8.87.34 is now making edits [47] [48] [49] that fit Spicynugget's pattern.--Birdmessenger 20:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Block extended to a week for evading block. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've put in a request for investigation, because this has been an ongoing problem, with 31 spam edits in the last month, including six today, from not only username SpicyNugget, but also from 8 other IP addresses. See my report on the investigation request page for details. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked three of the IPs for activity today: 68.30.30.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (vandalised my user page), 70.8.87.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)(5RR on Prayer) and 68.30.202.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (removed afd notice from God in the Pits. Now 70.8.99.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is cheerfully spamming my talk page (User_talk:KillerChihuahua#KillerChihuahua_Abuses_Adminstrative_Priveleges). I have to go offline, anyone who wants to take over, please feel free to do so. All the IPs resolve to Sprint Reston VA, btw. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua

Semi-protection is intended to allow good edits to be made while preventing vandalism of the page. There are some situations in which it should not be applied. It is:

   * not to be used to deal with regular content disputes. See the protection policy for how to deal with this;
   * not intended for pre-emptive protection with the exception of some biographies of living people
   * not for the day's Featured Article, which should almost never be protected;
   * not intended to prohibit anonymous editing in general.

Article-talk pages are not protected as a rule, except in special circumstances. User-talk pages subject to persistent vandalism or trolling may be semi-protected or protected on request.

Semi-protection should only be considered if it is the only option left available to solve the problem of vandalism of the page. In other words, just like full protection, it is a last resort. Remember to lift the semi-protection after a brief period if appropriate.

I demand that you unprotect the Prayer links page and unblock any affected users or I will be forced to begin a campaign requesting removal of your administration status.70.8.99.43 19:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I was also offended that you view Wikipedia as a place for redistributing the world's knowledge according to your POV. You state on your user page:

"Judaism at 14.5 million is less than 1% of the world population. [1] [2] Please help with correcting this bias by adding religious views as appropriate."

If Wikipedia truly is a platform for the world to exchange the best ideas, then the more dominant, livable, and realistic philosophies will surface. Please remove your destructive comments for they are inconsistent with Wikipedia's progressive philosophy of education.70.8.99.43 19:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

KC didn't protect Prayer, and it has in any event been protected appropriately. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

ecIn case anyone is curious, it was actually Petros471 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who protected Prayer due to external link spamming. Jkelly 19:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Quick edit to state that my Soapbox is being quoted out of context. Please see my user page; where the full content can be viewed. This was the basis for the WP:BIAS section on religion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Adminstrators.

Greetings Administrators,

> Can you provide evidence to these accusations? Naconkantari 18:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can. Can you please email me at [email protected]

Please look at the Many-Worlds article. And read Lethe's comments on the article's talk page from the time I made my first edit.

> This editor seems to be somewhat confused. From the low volume and quality of

> his edits [56] and the high number of blocks he has nevertheless attracted [57]

> I expect that he has come to harbor a grudge against administrators.

> --Tony Sidaway 22:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I harbor no grudge against anyone. I certainly harbor no grudge against any Wikipedia administrator. Accusations like this make me wonder about the accuser.

The high number of blocks I have are because I post from AOL. All but three or four of those blocks were intended for others, not me. Two of those three blocks that were intended for me were put in place by Lethe. Both were for violating the 3RR.

The fisrt time he issued the block, it was my very first day editing Wikipedia. I did not know there was a 3RR. Instead of identifying himself and explaining the rule to me, he just blocked me for twenty-four hours. The second time he blocked me for 3RR, I don't believe I violated the rule. I did not revert the same material three times in one day. The material I reverted remains reverted. Other editors agreed with me that there is no known category called "Gray Rape." A Google search of "Gray Rape" only turned up the Wikipedia article that described it. I have made dozens of other important contributions. Other editors have described the quality of my contributions as "excellent."

For some reason, Sam Blanning and Lethe think their personal opinions are infallible.

Only one other block was intended for me. That was by Sam Blanning for putting commentary into an article. I realized someone would see the commentary and correct an error in the article. I was afraid to correct it myself as Lethe was reverting every edit I made. Someone did read the commentary and made the change I requested. Again, this was on one of the first days I was editing Wikipedia, and did not know it was wrong.

Instead of Sam Blanning introducing himself and explaining the error I had made, like Lethe he just blocked for 24 hours, and left a nasty note on my talk page. At the time, I didn't even know I had a talk page.

Lethe and Sam Blanning were both as nasty as can be. They were patronizing, condescending and scolding like school marms with PMS. They insulted my writing ability, and belittled my talent.

With administrators like these, it seems to me Wikipedia is hell-bent an making enemies and doing all it can to discourage new editors.

> I'm not sure what Michael is spefically referring to, but I'm

> not surprised he's being reverted for edits like these (I myself

> reverted him twice when he was inserting commentary into

> that article). He would be better off trying to understand the

> policy of verifiability instead of spamming everyone in sight

> looking for an "advocate". --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand the Wikipedia policy of verifiability very well. I have reliable sources for everything I have added to Wikipedia. Just about all my edits have remained in place. Most of what I wanted to get into the Many Worlds article is now there, despite the fact that Lethe assailed everything I added as patently false, and reverted all of it in its entirety.

Now, Sam Blanning and Lethe continue their personal, petty war against me, attacking me every chance they get and making snide remarks.

I thank you for your time, consideration and patience

Warmest and kindest regards, Michael D. Wolok

Michael D. Wolok 02:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Without context, your post doesn't make alot of sense to be honest. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It makes no sense. --Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 07:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to the above claims, I have never blocked Michael for 24 hours or otherwise [50], and the warnings I gave him related to this edit - actually the first edit only qualified as a warning in the technical sense, as I asked him politely not to insert commentary of articles into the articles themselves and pointed him to Talk:Rape, then when he repeated the edit without response I gave him a stronger warning. Then I gave him a 3RR warning for other edits which was already too late. I've barely interacted with Michael at all since then, although I have been observing his contributions, hence my comments on his behaviour above. I'm also highly bemused that Michael feels I was "as nasty as can be... patronizing, condescending and scolding like [a school marm] with PMS", yet I was one of those he asked to be an advocate for him. [51]. Can't comment on the issues with Lethe, but I expect the rest of Michael's post has an equally tenuous connection to reality. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

For those watching from home, I've filed an RfC. -lethe ^{talk +} 14:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocking AOL IPs

Dear Wikipedian Administrators,

I could be mistaken but I thought I read somewhere in Wikipedia that blocking an AOL IP never targets the intended user. I can't find that reference. Maybe, I am mistaken. I just know, my IP is blocked many times a day, and the block is always for some other user who has done this, that or the other.

I wish someone could help me set up an account that will not mistakenly get blocked, with blocks intended for other users.

Warmest and kindest regards, Michael

Michael D. Wolok 02:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• RU's aren't imune from autoblocks actually, so.. --64.12.116.200 02:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly AOL users are common vandals and AOL IPs have to be blocked to protect us from harm. However, these blocks almost always last no longer than 15 minutes, at which time you should be able to work again. Because of technical limitations currently we can not setup special accounts to let those legitimate users continue their work - even admins.

If you can, changing your ISP will stop your blocking as AOL is setup in a strange way that lends itself to being abused. --mboverload@ 02:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me expand on what you said. Vandals can be found at AOL just as they can be found at every other ISP. A large group of Wikipedians who are fortunate to not have AOL don't really care about good editors being blocked, and would rather block lots of good editors than have to deal with reverting vandalism. We need admins with empathy and admins who want to help good editors edit. Tooo many people here would rather kill off good editors as long as some vandels get killed at the same time. Hort Graz 10:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to take my place at the recent changes patrol if you're so for allowing vandals to deface the website. --mboverload@ 01:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the place now, but I am sure I read somewhere on Wikipedia that when you block an AOL IP you NEVER target the intended user, that someone else is always blocked, not the intended objective of the block. For some reason, I can't find this place. I think this place also stated AOL blocks should not last more than 15 minutes. Does anyone know where on Wikipedia I can find this information again?

I have repeatedly had my AOL IP blocked for over twelve hours at at time. I find my AOL IP blocked on different user discussion pages by different administrators. I can still edit articles but find my AOL IP blocked by administrators who left the Wikipedia project months ago. For example, I tried to edit Garzo's discussion page, but found my AOL IP blocked by "Lucky 6.9". When I went to Lucky 6.9's talk page, it was blank. There was just a notice saying he had left the Wikipedia project and everyone should leave his talk page blank. In the meantime, I was still able to edit articles.

That block lasted over twelve hours. I tried editing Joanne's discussion page, but found my AOL IP blocked by another administrator. None of these blocks had anything to do with me. All the blocks I encounter now are intended for other users.

AOL has a lot of members so it doesn't surprise me that a lot of vandalism comes from AOL. It seems to me everyone should have to log in with a screen name and password. That wouldn't identify anyone, and would control vandalism. The idea of blocking a range of AOL IPs is worse than any evil that might result from having all users log in with a password.

Your objective to be more inclusive is backfiring!

It is unrealistic to expect AOL users to change their ISP for Wikipedia. To the best of my knowlege Wikipedia is the only web site on the Internet that gives AOL users a problem.

Warmest and kindest regards, Michael

Michael D. Wolok 06:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't give AOL a problem – they do. I think in the past it's been suggested that you complain to AOL, and not Wikipedia. NSLE 06:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't have an AOL problem, we have a lazy admin problem. Too many would rather block good users than do the work that could let good editers edit while stopping vandals. A single admin can get frustrated with AOL and ZAP hundreds of good editors at once. That is a lazy and bad admin. Hort Graz 11:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

When we block someone vandalising wikipedia they maybe editing without logging in, if so we know their IP address and normally don't block for more than 15 minutes, we do however sometimes need to block a given address for longer if it is a sustained attack when the initial block (s) finish, normally however the 15 minutes suffices. The blocks I have seen you get caught up in are those where the user vandalises logged in, we block the username. Admins have no way of telling that the username wwas using AOL. The autoblock feature of mediawiki may then cause the IP address to be blocked until manually unblocked. There is no way for an admin to avoid blocking such users, since we simply don't know if it will further affect AOL users.

I appreciate you see it as unrealistic to expect AOL users to change ISP (to a greater or lesser degree I would agree), but it is also unrealistic to expect admins to let vandalism go unabated. As to if wikipedia is the only site which gets problems from AOL, we are large and certainly attract an amount of negative attention from certain AOL users but the aim of the project has always been to be open and so we keep the doors open, if you like those abusing this are the equivelant of those in society who mug old ladies, i.e. they go for a soft target. This doesn't mean that no effort is being expended on trying to resolve the problem, the elusive bug 550 is being worked on to rework the blocking system entirely which will hopefully go someway to sidestepping some of the problems. --pgk^(talk) 06:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems like autoblock does as much harm as it does good, perhaps more. Besides blocking innocent users, it forces them to reveal their IP address to be unblocked, whereas we go to extreme lengths to avoid divulging the IP address of vandals. Perhaps the autoblock should be shutoff until bug 550 is fixed. If the vandal makes a new account, it could simply be blocked when it starts vandalizing. If they edit by IP address instead of creating a new account, they can be given a 15 minute block, repeated as necessary. Alternatively, the autoblock time could be reduced to 15 minutes, which would frustrate vandalizers, but allow innocent users to simply wait it out instead of revealing their IP address. -- Kjkolb 07:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If you inform someone quick enough, then you don't need to reveal your IP. Admins can go to Special:Ipblocklist and look up the autoblock, and unblock the autoblock ID, which is just a number, not an IP address. However, if you sit around for a while before doing anything about it, then you do have to reveal your IP. --Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 13:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

How quick do they have to be? If it very quickly becomes too late (10 to 30 minutes), then even making a long edit without loading any pages may force the person to reveal his or her IP address. However, there is a very good chance that the person will not even be editing at the time of the block. If he or she starts editing 2, 8 or 16 hours later, will it be too late? Also, the instructions on the block message tell you to reveal your IP address, I think, because it says "IP address that is reported in the block text", not the masked number.

Blocking a user who is unaware of autoblocking is particularly bad, since they may think that they have been blocked for making perfectly good edits or that they have been blocked for making an unintentional mistake. While some indication of an autoblock may be given, it's best not to overestimate the knowledge of users, their technical competence and the probability that they will read and understand notices, instructions and warnings. I had to constantly reword and otherwise modify the somewhat popular website I run (9,000 members, many thousands of relevant, unique Google results and tens of million of visitors (I'm the sole admin, but did not create the site)) because of this problem. It has been refined about as much as possible, but a few people still manage to screw things up, although the frequency has been greatly reduced.

Finally, the Autoblock page says that IP blocks are sometimes extremely long, even indefinite, if the account has been indefinitely blocked. Except for open proxies, indefinite bans on IP addresses are prohibited. It would be necessary for a user to reveal his or her IP address to get such a long block removed, unless they happened to be around when it occurred and knew that it isn't necessary to reveal your IP address if you act quickly, as waiting it out would not be an option.

Luckily for me, my ISPs have given me a new IP address whenever the old one has been exposed and I have been able to change ISPs when necessary. Perhaps autoblocked users who want to keep their IP address private should be told to ask their ISP to give them a new IP address after it has been revealed in order to remove an autoblock. The disadvantage of this is that some information about the person may be attainable with the old IP address, such as the ISP and the user's general location. They could also change it to simply avoid the autoblock. Doing that won't help vandals much, since it usually takes a while to get it changed and an ISP is unlikely to constantly change a user's IP address. Another solution would be to have a form that a user enters his or her IP address into that gives a masked number that could be used in an unblock request. -- Kjkolb 09:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Advice to AOL users suggest HTTPS connections. Does that still work to bypass AOL proxies? As for the main topic, I have seen vandals putting summaries as "I have AOL and can't be blocked" or similar. I believe 15 minutes blocks are justified. It is the price for having an "anonymous can edit" policy instead of a "registration required" one, a collateral damage as it is usually explained in TV. Let's hope Willy on Wheels will never use AOL services. -- ReyBrujo 15:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read: Some people do not get that when we get raped in the ass by an AOL vandal, we BLOCK THEM. You do not seem to understand the gravity of the situation. I'll record my screen next time we get hit by a sophisticated AOL vandal and you'll see why. BLOCKING AN IP RANGE DOES NOT BLOCK ALL OF AOL. We have to PROTECT ourselves and asking us to take the bullet for you is too much to ask some times. If you would like to pick up recent changes patrol, I'll let you ride along as you watch Wikipedia be defaced before your eyes by ONE user that we can't stop because the the AOL rules. --mboverload@ 21:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

We've all been sick of AOLs shit for the longest time. It bears repeating, If you have AOL, and you have problems editing, complain to AOL, not us. This may have been asked in the past, but why haven't we instituted a similar scheme that Wiktionary uses? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The secured server is in place; however, it can't handle the load. Wikipedia is quite significantly larger than Wiktionary, though I agree entirely that this is the best solution, and as such have been campaigning for some time. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. You people act like this is all that comes out of AOL. The vast majority of AOL edits are good edits. Blocking that is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I've done my share of vandal fighting, it's expected of everyone. But when all you do all day is look for vandals then all you ever see are vandals. This us vs. them philosophy is fundamentally wrong. It fosters an attitude of 'were better then everyone else'. Everyone is who is building this encyclopedia. We have vandals, yes, but we have many more good edits, orders of magnitude more, coming from these IP's and its this elitism thats dangerous to this project, not these common, come and go vandals that are easily reverted. -M^ask 11:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

all true. Except, how is it elitism to block vandals as they come? We get a sophisticated vandal on an AOL range, we block that AOL range. We get a sophisticated vandal on an ISP of Burkina Faso, we block that. The whole point is that AOL is not sacrosanct: AOL ranges should be treated the same as any other range: incoming vandalism results in temporary blocks, end of story. dab (ᛏ) 17:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not display a message when a Wikipedia page is accessed from an AOL IP number asking them to connect to https://en.wikipedia.org (or the https:// version of the current page) for "a more reliable connection" or a similar euphemism for an IP-specific connection? TruthbringerToronto 18:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

IANADeveloper, but when this issue has come up before, apparently HTTPS puts extra strain on the servers. Wiktionary can do it, because very few people actually Wiktionary compared to Wikipedia. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 18:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

JumpTV spamming by User:Headeditor42

Headeditor42 (talk · contribs) has created a huge number of articles with text "Watch <insert channel name> on JumpTV". The user has been warned for spamming, but claims this type of promotional campaign is valid since the user is only linking to internal JumpTV article (which contains a single promo paragraph and a huge list of a large number of TV channels, some of which are not even provided by the company). Does WP:SPAM prohibit such internal commercial spamming? --Ragib 01:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, articles created by the user with a few sentences are all cut-paste jobs from JumpTV's website. For example, Balle Balle is a cut paste job from [52]. My guess is that this is just another attempt by an overzealous publicist to promote an organization. --Ragib 01:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is an update on this: I got an email this morning from JumpTV's online marketing division. The Director of online marketing apologized for the behavior of Headeditor42 (talk · contribs) (who is an employee of JumpTV). However, the Director also requested whether an internal link to JumpTV can be provided in the "existing" TV station related pages, since JumpTV is the only online Internet TV provider for the corresponding TV channels. Now, what's the policy on such links? It would be great if other admins could look into the links , and whether this request from the director is ok regarding internal links to JumpTV in the "see also" sections of TV channel pages. Thanks. --Ragib 20:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a similar issues. I posted about 6-9 links to "Podcasts Related to <foo>" in the external links sections of Wines, Pokers, Dogs, Anime, and one or two others. These do not go to the homepage of the site, they go to an internal page that lists all podcasts that users have tagged as Wine, Dogs, etc. Since these links are to content that are directly related to the wikipedia source, I felt this was OK. I do own the site itself, but only posted to wikipedia artcles where I am personally knowledgeable, e.g., I am a wine lover, dog owner, etc., and know that other people like me would find access to podcasts related to these topics of interest.

This was deleted as spam and the editor are publicly lambasted me as a spammer and made several threats about putting the site on the world wide blocking list, banning me, etc. He has been extremely heavy handed and incivil. I am an enthusiast about podcasts and sincerely believe there needs to be a way for someone who is, for example, reading the wine wikipedia so realize that there are podcast channels/episodes related to wine tasting, growing, etc., that would be useful and relevant to them.

There must be a way to do this that isn't spam and a way to do this that is spam. There needs to be some direction around this so people know what to do.

Also, we can't have editors acting heavy handed and insulting people in public. That creates a perception, that I am beginning to share, that there is a group of wiki-elite that seem to think they are above everyone else. That isn't community and will turn people off and damage wikipedia's credibility. my 2 cents.

I'd just like to add, in my own defense, as Ragib feels so strongly that what I was trying to do was completely wrong, without ever trying to assist me and maybe set me on the right path, that after he had discussions regarding the situation with the director of online marketing for JumpTV, that a decision was reached regarding posting of information about JumpTV Inc. This decision, from the best of my knowledge, was that information was allowed to be posted on the talk page as to inspire other wikipedia users not affiliated with JumpTV to take from that information and post on the the main JumpTV page, as to expand on the "single promo paragraph and a huge list of a large number of TV channels" that Ragib still complains about. Furthermore, the only reason those channel pages, like Balle Balle, had no information on them is because Ragib felt it necessary to remove any and all information that I attempted to post, in some cases deleting all the information altogether. I'd like to help contribute information to both the main JumpTV page and have informative pages on the channels that are offered not only by JumpTV but as services through public websites. With the way Ragib is behaving, that is becoming an impossible task. I would greatly appreciate any and all other admins to look into this situation and please let me know what the best course of action is in this situation, as Ragib seems to be making it his mission to personally attack each and every edit I make. I have currently submitted this case to informal mediation, and hope to receive further information from other admins soon. Thank you for your time and patience. --Headeditor42 20:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

User:PierrreLarcin2

I think an admin needs to review the behaviour of User:PierreLarcin2 and his IPs in relation to the edit war on Rotary International, and consider a block. Incidentally, since I started reviewing this, I see the user I'm complaining about has put in an RfC and claims to intend to start an arbitration. If true, I'd suggest that any block should permit him to pursue those, even if (as I'd recommend) he cannot edit at Rotary International for a time. A review of his behaviour took me far longer than I'd expected, but can be summarised as follows: POV editing: [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]. Illiterate editing: [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]. Just plain weird editing: [63] [64] [65]. Advocating POV: [66] [67] [68] (especially the motherfucker comment). Failure to assume good faith: [69] [70] [71] [72]. Breaches of the no personal attacks policy and civility policy: [73] [74] [75] [76]. Accusations that editors who change his edits are Rotarians engaged in a conspiracy against criticisms of Rotary: [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88]. Wikilawyering, and accusations of "wiki-fiddling", whatever that may be: [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100]. Evidence User:PierreLarcin2 and 84.100.98... IPs are one and the same (about halfway down):[101]. Evidence User:PierreLarcin2 and 84.102.229... IPs are one and the same: [102]. Evidence of trying the patience of the community: [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108]. An odd piece of duplicity was the argument that these strange "how to use the links"-links were there to assist blind users, which led me in good faith and (in consultation with User:127) to initiate Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Accessibility for blind users (now fallen out of archive). In fact, these edits, and a few around them, make clear the actual intention was to give prominence to "bad" Rotarians like Pinochet and Hubbard. On the whole, I think the guy needs a lengthy block: he's disruptive, he's uncivil, he angers and attacks people, he adds bullshit to wikipedia, and he just fundamentally doesn't get it: but it's a shame: he seems kinda genuine in his own beliefs. AndyJones 13:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I am getting very annoyed here - this is getting WAY too personal - [109]. Bridesmill 01:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

72.68.171.211 versus WP:NPA

Could an adminstrator please clarify for 72.68.171.211 what constitutes a personal attack here at Wikipedia; I think they are unclear on this. See the bottom of Talk:Democratic Underground#"External Links" for several examples of their work.

Atlant 14:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

They are likely unclear what a personal attack is becuase they have never been warned. I have warned them about their only two edits. Iolakana|^(talk) 16:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.

For the record, please note that 72.68.176.238 and 72.68.173.75 also appear to be the same person as 72.68.171.211.

Atlant 16:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfinished Afd Attempt for Ben_Burch by User:72.68.176.238

Hi! Looks like some more nastiness from some of my detractors. In this case some IP user listed the article about me for deletion, but only went as far as to put the header on the page, and did not add the topic to pages for deletion or start a discussion thread about it. Sorry to be such a PITA, guys. BenBurch 16:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous can't AFD articles, as they can't just finish the process. I believe you could remove the tag and explain in the talk page that, in order to AFD it, the user needs to create an account. -- ReyBrujo 16:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Burch (2nd nomination) by User:Alabamaboy

Hi! I reverted these edits already, but I bring this up here because this person is an admin. Do admins have some exemption from the rule of not editing comments into closed AfDs? If so, then let me know, and I'll happily undo my reversion. BenBurch 18:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Alabamaboy's edit included the reason for his edits to that page. I don't understand why either party is edit-warring over this, or why it can't be worked out between the two of you. Jkelly 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The talk page would be the right place for such comments, right? My only concern is that these are never supposed to be edited, and I wondered if there was an exception for admins? (I didn't know he was an admin before I reverted, BTW.) BenBurch 18:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the talk page of the article is a perfectly good place to put comments about the old AfD, or the AfD talk page. I don't feel there's any exception for admins to edit closed discussions, though I could be wrong... -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me--vandalism? I merely made a notation on the page about the probable use of sockpuppets in the voting so that if the article comes up for another AfD editors can be aware of the sockpuppets (which voted in both of the last two AfDs for the article and have made few other edits to Wikipedia). While it is not standard procedure to edit an AfD after it is closed, in this case I felt it was warranted and I added a notice of what I'd done to the closing editor's talk page (see the note here). I also can not be said to be edit-warring over the item because I have not reverted BenBurch's deletion. Because this possible sockpuppet use has occured with both AfDs on this article, I felt the talk page was not an appropriate place to put the notice. That said, if the consensus is that this is not appropriate I will accept that consensus. I must protest the vandalism charge and feel it is wrong to make that claim against me. --Alabamaboy 18:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On the other hand, "vandalism" is entirely the wrong word to describe Alabamaboy's edits. It's hard to imagine that he's trying to make the encyclopedia worse by editing a closed AfD, quite the contrary. Let's not get into the habit of calling things vandalism when they aren't. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my assumption was that editing anything that says on it that it is uneditable is vandalism. I retract that word. BenBurch 18:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's an honest mistake. See Wikipedia:Vandalism (policy) and maybe Wikipedia:On assuming good faith (essay) for more on what is and isn't considered vandalism here, if you're interested. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Always interested! Thanks BenBurch 19:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Since you object to adding that information to the AfD page, its fine with me if it stays off that page. Instead, I will place information about the use of sockpuppets and other AfD irregularities on the talk pages of The White Rose Society (website) and Ben Burch. This way future editors will know of this information if they bring an AfD up on either of these articles. Best, --Alabamaboy 18:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the comment I have added to the article talk pages: "The White Rose Society (website) and Ben Burch have been involved in previous Articles for Deletion discussions which have involved the use of sockpuppets and attempts to "stuff the ballot" (even though AfDs are not a vote and these attemtps do not matter to the outcome). Possible sockpuppets include Sweetm2475 and InvictusNox. Anyone attempting to bring an AfD against either of these articles, or attempting to have discussions regarding these articles, should be aware of this fact." Best, --Alabamaboy 18:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep! Thats where it belongs! BenBurch 19:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others

This arbitration case has closed.

Ombudsman is placed indefinitely on Probation. He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article concerning a medical subject which he disrupts by tendentious editing. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others#Log of blocks and bans.

Cesar Tort is cautioned to limit critical material to that supported by reliable scientific authority.

Delivered on behalf of the Arbitration Committee as clerk. I take no part in making these decisions. --Tony Sidaway 18:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Routine unprotection of George W. Bush results

Today George W. Bush went through the usual ritual of temporary unprotection, for seven hours. Here are the results of today's experiment:

• 10 anonymous edits which were reverted (counting sucessive edits by the same address as one)
• 2 anonymous edits which were not reverted:
  • 1 of them removed some information, but I've not checked whether it improved the article
  • 1 of them shuffled a couple of words to add a wikilink
• 1 non-anonymous edit (not reverted)
• 10 reverts:
  • 1 manual revert
  • 6 rollback-style
  • 2 using VandalSniper
  • 1 using popups
• Average time before being reverted: 1.9 minutes

--cesarb 18:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Good (that is, statistic wise) - the other revert time was three minutes. Iolakana|^(talk) 16:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Washington post linkspam...

Downtown dan seattle (talk · contribs) has placed a ton of links to projects.washingtonpost.com. Now, the links he's been adding are actually relevant to the articles.... but he's added them to about 40-50 politician's articles and it accounts for more then 90% of his contributions to wikipedia. I'm worried that Dan works for the washingtonpost and is attempting to drive up traffic to his bosses' website. On the other hand, it could just be a new user who found a useful resource and decided to add it everywhere. Not real sure... Some administrator attention needs to be paid to dan. ---J.S (t|c) 19:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the links are legit b/c they are individual links to each member's voting record. I'm going to assume good faith and go with the new user who found a useful resource.--Alabamaboy 19:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As long as the links appended are relevant and encyclopedic (per WP:EL, etc.), I can't imagine that the user's intent matters here (although I agree with Alabama that we should assume good faith); if he desires to drum up business for the Washington Post but undertakes to do so in a fashion that benefits the encyclopedia and doesn't result in the inappropriate external link spamming of pages, I think we'd be fine with that. Joe 05:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the Washington Post benefits much from the links I've added, which have been to almost every member of Congress. I don't work for them, and live quite far from them, but I think it's very appropriate for Wikipedia's articles on Congressmembers to link to their voting records; the Washington Post provides very good documentation of this. User:Downtown_dan_seattle 22:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Editprotected

I would just like to point out that admins very rarely check Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests, and requests can often go unnoticed for some time. There are two pages listed in that category now, but MediaWiki talk:Common.css has multiple requests on it, and MediaWiki talk:Edittools has one request. —Mets501 (talk) 01:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Malformed AfD

As a new admin, I have absolutely no clue what to do with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazo, which was listed again today. Is it G4 if the previous deletion was for crystal-ballism? What should be done with the re-formed AfD? I would appreciate it if a more experience admin came in to deal with the situation. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think having a new debate makes some sense, the article is somewhat better than the previously deleted one although there are still mostly rumors. I will try and refactor the nomination using {{afdx}} and a new AfD page. Kusma (討論) 01:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarity, the current nomination is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazo (2nd nomination). The above link is the original AfD. -- nae'blis _(talk) 14:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Rbanzai

Please direct your attention to the discussion taking place at User_talk:Rbanzai. I need to convince this user to change his ways, because his signature it way too similar to another user's. Assistance would be appreciated. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have done nothing wrong and this admin has seemingly plucked me out of cyberspace to harass me about my user name. He has used the word "impersonate" incorrectly. It does not mean "names that look similar" it means "To assume the character or appearance of, especially fraudulently." I am not assuming anyone's character and did not even know about the existence of the other user. The other user and I have nothing to do with each other. Our names looks similar. That's it. A single click by anyone would make it clear who I am. This kind of pressure should be applied to someone who is impersonating another user which I am clearly not doing.Anon Y. Mouse 02:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the concern is that your signature name is too close to a user's username. In this case, User:AnonEMouse. Your current user name, User:Rbanzai, is fine and all that is apparently being asked of you is that you change the signature. I will agree, however, that perhaps the comments left on your user page were far too harsh and there was a more positive way that this issue could be approached by CrazyRussian. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 02:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's too late, Joe. I appreciate your comments and wish you had been the person to bring this up in the first place. I completely melted down on my Discussion page which only gave CrazyRussian another excuse to talk tough with me. I wish I had not exploded like that but I really felt like someone came from out of nowhere and treated me as if I had been doing something wrong, and that I needed to have immediate pressure applied to me. That was never the case. Thanks again, Joe, for acting like a thoughtful Wiki-citizen. I appreciate it. Anon Y. Mouse 21:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You are only human. Had I been a new Wikipedia user myself, I may have reacted in the same way. As a member of the community, I can't apologize for the actions of CrazyRussian, becuase that's for him to do -- and I fully disagree with how he approached the subject of your signature... because he clearly assumed bad faith in this case, as demonstrated by his wording to you. Obviously, if you need any help from me, feel free to ask. Even if you need to vent. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 03:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ben Burch (3rd nomination)

Ben Burch afd has started again. I'd apreciate it if a few admins could add it to there watchlist and help keep some of the vandels/trolls out? Thanks! ---J.S (t|c) 07:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! BenBurch 16:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Rdos user page

Rdos (talk · contribs) wrote an original research article on his "Neanderthal theory of autism", which was deleted (more than once it my reading of things is correct). He now keeps it at his user page. Proto and I have both asked him to remove it, as it is offensive to some editors who are autistic or Aspies. He refuses at this point. Before I up the pressure I'd appreciate some others having a look. Just zis Guy you know? 07:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If there are objections, user pages are not the place to put deleted content. I'd say the content should be deleted. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The idea that this material is "offensive" to some autistics basically has no merit. I propose that Just zis Guy you know? explains why most large autistic sites have a link to the Neanderthal theory? What many autistics *do* get offended by is Causes of autism and Autism therapies, so I suggest to remove them instead. --Rdos 07:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed the content, since Rdos refuses. Just zis Guy you know? 07:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Imthehappywanderer's category creation

A new user (User:Imthehappywanderer) has been busy creating a lot of categories by simply creating them within themselves. Obviously, most of them are a complete mess to deal with. I've tried to fix some but I'm just wondering if others could help either fix the categories or simply delete the ones that don't make sense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for investigation

The question has been raised on Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation about the purpose of that page, and if it's redundant to ANI. Personally I think it serves an important role filling a niche in between WP:AIV and WP:ANI, as explained in my reply to brenneman on the RFI talk page. It would be good to get other admins input into that discussion though, is it a useful page to have around? If so it could do with some more admins watching that page and acting on reports posted there. Might be better to reply over there to keep discussion together. Petros471 08:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Userpage advertising

Today I came across User:Nutrovitastar who has a user page that consists of nothing but advertising; there are no other contributions to Wikipedia from this user beyond the ad page. This seems like an inappropriate use of Wikipedia, so I brought it here for an admin to take a look. Thanks. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Page deleted (instead of just blanked) and username blocked as advertising NutroVita. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Help in massive deletion needed

Imthehappywanderer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created quite a few circular categories. I started deleting them and then noticed there were more than THOUSAND created during 6 hours! Looks like he was running a bot. I blocked him for a while.

Now I need help in undoing his work. If someone of admins has some one-click tools or some spare time, please help. `'mikka (t) 15:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This incident is also listed on both WP:CFD and WP:SFD. It is possible that he might have used the Special:Wantedcategories and created everything he saw. Unfortunately, a lot of entries on that page are nothing but errors. It pretty much looks like nothing has been properly sorted, so it's a giant mess. For what I can see, he's been blocked permanently. Valentinian ^(talk) 16:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like that is exactly what he did -- the entries on Special:Wantedcategories from about no. 300 to no. 800 are all on happywanderer's list. NawlinWiki 20:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a real HELP!!!! here. The mess must be cleaned up by several admins. I alone cannot revert all what a bot have done in 6 hours. Some editors already fixed some of his categories, so a manual inspection is necessary, i.e., it cannot be reverted in anti-bot-like manner. `'mikka (t) 17:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll lend a hand if someone helps clarify what needs to be done. Should we speedy delete all the categories he created, or do we have to go through and determine which ones are actually useful and place them in existing hierarchies? That's a lot of work. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

These categories were red and hence attracted attention of people who could fix them. Also sometimes this user made wrong categories, like putting fish into people (probably cut and paste in wrong place, so I guess it was a semi-bot). So speedily deleting them is not evil. However if you can place them it is useful. So I suggest

1. Check is this user is the only editor of the category (i.e., the "(top)" label in his contribution list is not enough)
2. Try to place it
3. If you cannot fix it quickly, just delete it.

Of course, proper placement in all cases would be better, but this guy corrupted a HUGE number of categories, so IMO better to undo this quickly. ::`'mikka (t) 19:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers — that will help. Alas, real life calls, so I can't get into it now, but I'll try to lend a hand tonight when I get back. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on these -- about half of them are good categories that need placing, and about half are duplicates (i.e. "French singer" for "French singers") that need emptying and speedying. These don't strictly meet the speedy criterion (i.e., empty for 4 days) but I have had good luck getting them speedied if you mark them "circular category, emptied and deleted" or the like. NawlinWiki 19:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

They have to be speedied because they are resut of the work of a vandal bot, not a honest editor. The longer bad category remains blue the higher is chance that it becomes more populated and hence more work to undo it (if a category is red when I type it, I know something is wrong (like with your "French singer" example), but if it is blue, I suspect nothing wrong). So I suggest a merciless deletion here. `'mikka (t) 22:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The easiest way is to go through his contributions and look at the ones where he's the last editor. Else, they been fixed somewhat. Also, I don't take it personally but why is everyone paying attention now and not at my earlier note? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

no idea, but the work is done now. pschemp | talk 05:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I get back and the work is finished. Oh, well. (Incidentally, I notice that the category edits aren't even showing up in imthehappywanderer's contribs any more. How did that happen?) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted items do not, IIRC, show up in contribution history. I am sorry I did not help. As I said on AN/I, I looked at some of the created cats but was not sure what to do so did nothing. ++Lar: t/c 12:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That's correct. Once an artilce or category or image is deleted, any contribs to it do not show up anymore in a person's contrib list. You have to look at the deletion log to see what was removed. pschemp | talk 12:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Foggy and Sparky

I am sorely tempted to speedy-delete Foggy and Sparky (hippopotamus) under A7; but technically it doesn't apply since A7 is for articles "about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject", but it isn't clear whether the definition of "person" is restricted to H. sapiens. Thoughts? User:Angr 20:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge to Calgary Zoo. Foggy should probably be then redirected to Fog. Purely editorial decisions; no need to use any admin buttons. Jkelly 21:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Johnny the Vandal

Hmmm.... could be a joke, but looks like something to me: [110]. Freddie _Message? 00:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I gave the account an indefinite block. His first edits were for his own RfA, indicating he is familiar with Wikipedia. Then he added some accounts to Johhny the Vandal's long term abuse page. His final edits were to talk pages claiming that he is Johnny the Vandal. If anyone wants to unblock or change the time, it's fine with me. -- Kjkolb 01:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Fake copyright tags

There are dozens of images uploaded by User:system Halted, User:-Inanna- and User:Metb82 among others. They are taggedeither "all right released" or some "Creative commons" variant. However the license of Wowturkey is NONCOMMERCIAL/WITH PERMISSION ONLY. as it's described here: Image:Kavaklidere_Ankara.jpg or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey#Photos from wowturkey.com. Turkey involved people have asked for us not to speedy them, but there are literally hundreds of them (I've removed about 100 today, many to go) with phony licenses or marked NC, and it's unlikely Wowturkey.com will release all his images for commercial use under GFDL. So I just want to give you a heads up. Here's a quick list of my latest findings:

• [111]
• [112]
• [113]
• [114]
• [115]
• [116]

I think I mistakenly tagged some of them (since I initially thought they were all from system Halted. The point however, is that all of those are not creative commons licensed images. -- Drini 00:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on this mess. Jkelly 01:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been a busy day, removing images from pages before killing them. If after a month WT hasn't released the images, they're not liekly to do it. They're speediable by jimbo's rule, and now that undelete for image exxists, should they ever become GFDL or CC, we can restore them. Meanwhile, they're not suitable for wikipedia nd I'll be removing them during this week -- Drini 01:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Global adminbacklog messages

I just finished a quick JS script for monobook that adds a blue "message-like" bar that lists all non image related backlogs, such as CSD and RFPP (assuming they are tagged), whenever you are logged in. There is no bar if there are none, but there usually are. Off course, it can be fined tuned to only show certain types.Voice-of-All 01:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

And, oh voice of us all... where can we get it? 01:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC) (comment by Drini)

Its currently embedded in this[117].Voice-of-All 02:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy

This arbitration case has closed.

PoolGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is restricted to one user account, and placed indefinitely on probation. He may be banned from editing any article that he disrupts.

To aid enforcement, his checkuser details have been logged by User:Fred Bauder.

For the arbitration committee. I take no part in making these decisions. --Tony Sidaway 02:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:CrnaGora

..made a personal attack on me here. He said "...you idot". Could someone do something? --70.79.13.144 03:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding a comment in the user's talk page should be enough, unless the user has a background of personal attacks. Tell him that he should make no personal attacks, and that he should stay cool and civil. If he continues, you can request an administrator to review his behaviour. Most times users do understand they have been wrong and apologize, or at least, they stop making such comments. -- ReyBrujo 04:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

But... he's made personal attacks before, I noticed from his talk page, he was warned ([118]). I warned him too, but whats to stop him from doing it again? --70.79.13.144 04:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What is an idot? sorry couldn't resist Mike _{(T C)} 20:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I like this statement, "Got that you damn Serb (No offense, though)," which makes no sense at all since he could have easily said something non-offensive like "do you understand". -- Kjkolb 21:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, isn't anyone going to do something about this user? --70.79.13.144 22:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The comment I made to the person was made because I was getting mad with that guy who kept editing that page. He kept taking out stuff and changing stuff on the page. Also on Bormalagurski's talk page, I made that comment because he kept changing the User cg template to User is, which got me very pissed off. After that comment, he made compromise, Thank God. I really am sorry for making those comments but whenever someone pisses me off, I do that. Crna Gora ^{(Talk/Contribs/Edit Count)} 03:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I kept taking out stuff and changing stuff on the page? Isn't that called editing? So, when someone makes an edit you don't like, you get mad and that allows you to call people idiots and damn Serbs? I accept your appology now, but you have to control your emotions and we can't tolerate this forever. I wish you all the best, and in hoping that you change, peace out. --KOCOBO 05:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC) (I registered)

Hello

I'd like to change my username, cuz this one is not made up of latin characters. Change it to something like Kosovo or KOCOBO or K-O-C-O-B-O. Thanks, --Косово 04:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Changing username. Conscious 05:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Quote from that page: "If you have very few edits, it is far quicker to just create a new account.", which in this case (~4 edits inluding the one above) appears the thing to do. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for limited edit to protected page Falun Gong

Fire Star referred me to this page since s/he is involved in the discussions and shouldn't make the change hirself. This page was recently protected after the introduction of a new 1st paragraph for the lead section. Without taking sides in the debate, I'm requesting some simple formatting changes to bring back the links to Wiktionary that have been there for months and align the references with the formatting style of the rest of the page. I've posted this request on the talk page and there have been no objections.[119] Fire Star has seconded the request.[120] The new text is below. As you can see, the only change is the move of the first verb, reintroducing the Chinese language Wiktionary links and changing the formatting of the references. CovenantD 22:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

“ Falun Gong, (simplified Chinese: 法轮功; traditional Chinese: 法輪功; pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") also known as Falun Dafa, (simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; traditional Chinese: 法輪大法; pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi (surname is Li) to the public in 1992. Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation). In Zhuan Falun, the Dafa is introduced this way: “Our Falun Dafa is one of the eighty-four thousand cultivation ways in the Buddha School. During the historical period of this human civilization, it has never been made public. In a prehistoric period, however, it was once widely used to provide salvation to humankind. In this final period of Last Havoc, I am making it public again. Therefore, it is extremely precious." In recent years, added emphasis has been placed on the concept of Fa-Rectification. ”

• I was the one who protected the page. The editing is contentious and there is a straw poll on the talk page. I'd favour keeping it protected until some element of consensus is reached -- Samir धर्म 05:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not asking for unprotection. I'd like a dispassionate admin to look over the existing version with the above, verify that it's just formatting changes, and make this single edit. I have no doubt that we'll end up with something much different, but while it's there it might as well be formatted correctly. CovenantD 06:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made the edit, after verifying that it indeed contains no substantive differences to the previous version and that the formatting changes comply with the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. CovenantD 14:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Message on top

I think someone should put some space bars on the messages on top of every article (the one that says about wikimania and scholarships. When there is an icon of spoken articles or featured articles the number 28 is hidden behind them. --Alexignatiou 07:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, the spoken/featured articles templates should be edited to move them further down, as the rest of the metadata templates did. --Rory096 07:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I fixed Spoken Wikipedia, tell me if it's still broken (I have siteNotice hidden in my css). Featured article is protected, I can't fix it. --Rory096 07:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If an admin wants to, "<div style="right:10px; display:none;"" needs to be changed to "<div style="right:10px; top:26px; display:none;"" in the first line. --Rory096 07:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Page inexplicably appearing in C:CSD

Why does User talk:Adrian/Messages from Earth (and other archived stuff) show up in C:CSD? I looked and looked but there isn't any CSD template on the page. Editing the page reports that {{db-reason}} is transcluded, but I can't find where, and the page hasn't been edited since June 8, whereas it started showing up as a CSD less than a day ago. Any ideas? Kimchi.sg 08:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I remember coming across this problem before, so perhaps you want to look in the AN archives? NSLE 08:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently User:This user has left wikipedia is transcluded there, too. Since that was recently up for speedy deletion without noinclude tags (since I didn't think that anyone would be transcluding his userpage), and has since been deleted, the cache must not have cleared on the archive, even though the userpage has been deleted. --Rory096 08:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive33#CAT:CSD_and_Wikipedia:Hangman NSLE 08:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it was removed from the cat when he removed a period because editing a page clears the cache. --Rory096 08:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I forgot all about the cache. :) Kimchi.sg 08:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I purged the cache, it's out now. --Rory096 08:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Celebrity impersonator

User:Brendonurie violates Wikipedia's inappropriate usernames rule by using Panic! at the Disco's singer Brendon Urie's name. Obviously, he's not Urie, as he vandalised the band article. --HarryCane 08:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Kimchi.sg 09:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki

Check this out. 80.178.149.185 10:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhh.. so? — The King of Kings 13:54 June 24 '06

What are you saying? Iolakana|^(talk) 16:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody was doing it, so he asked here. It's done now. --Rory096 17:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ramesh chellani

Impostor or sockpuppet of User:Ramesh? Freddie _Message? 15:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Doubtful, Ramesh is named Ramesh Lakshminarasimhan, and it appears to be a first name (like Rory77 wouldn't be an imposter of me, but Rory096 you must accept PISSCHRIST as your savior would be). --Rory096 17:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Dollar problem ("$")

We have the "$" problem again. When unblocking a user on the unblock page, and the unblocking him/her, the text near the top of the page says "Such-and-such has been unblocked" - it shows the correct name of the user, but the piped link is "$1". If I knew the MediaWiki text I would change it myself, but I don't... Iolakana|^(talk) 16:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Uggh. The page involved is MediaWiki:Unblocked. It was a red link before I touched it, so it was using a default value. I tried changing it, but it fails. Even a straight unpiped link still goes to "User:$1" while still displaying the user's actual name (liek whut?), so I have no clue how to fix it, so I re-deleted it. — Jun. 24, '06 [16:21] <freak|talk>

Help with move Emir -> Amir

I tried to move the page Emir to Amir, but a page with Amir already exists, which acts as a redirect. The article refers to Amir throughout, yet the title is still Emir, this should be changed, but I can't figure out how? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amrix (talk • contribs) .

You need an administrator to delete the redirect page, which I have done. In the future, you can ask at Wikipedia:Requested moves or put {{db-move}} on the redirect page. —Keenan Pepper 17:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This is far from an uncontrovertial move. Please put it back and use requested moves. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a simple transliteration issue (the Arabic letter alif is never transliterated e as far as I know), and the history of the redirect page was trivial. You can move it back without administrator intervention, but please discuss it on the talk page. —Keenan Pepper 22:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not about transliteration, it's whether we should use the most common spelling of an English word. The usual spelling in English is Emir. "Amir" is an acceptable variant, but its not the preferred spelling. - Nunh-huh 23:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"...a simple transliteration issue..." seems to imply lack of familiarity with the Wikipedia policy of having articles at the most common English name. Cambridge dict doesn't recognize amir at all, and Merriam's only has it as a variant. And where do you think emirate, United Arab Emirates, etc. comes from? Should definately be moved back to Emir, and posting at requested moves seems likely to only waste people's time. 24.18.215.132 23:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for addition of users to AutoWikiBrowser

Someone flagged the issue for admin backlog earlier today. We need an administrator to come and approve or reject the wikipedians waiting for AWB approval. Some have been waiting 4 days. The specific page is here: Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. Thanks! --Alphachimp ^talk 00:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem is solved by Prodego. Regards, --Alphachimp ^talk 03:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

A Users' Image

I noticed User:Arsenalwwerulz created an Image that contained two copyrighted logos, Image:Signature2.JPG. The Image is a logo of a football (soccar) club and the other is the WWE logo and some text that says his name below it. I'm not sure on what the rule on that is, but I'm sure thats copyright infringment. The Two logos are not any differant from the original logos and they are copyrighted, anyone want to take a stab at this? — The King of Kings 00:51 June 25 '06

Moe, its quite simply a dervative work of copyrighted work and therefore cant be released as a free image, can an admin please del Benon 00:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Nuked. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)