Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Tasks

The following backlogs require the attention of one or more editors.
NPOV disputes, Images on Commons, Overpopulated categories and Copyright Problems.

General

Arbitration

Geoff_NoNick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new editor, he keeps deleting factually correct information from the List of conflicts in Canada article. I discussed the matter with him at the articles user talk page. He disagrees with the reverts and has posted me as a sock puppet of someone named WritersCramp Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WritersCramp. Would you please remove my name from the request page and speak this person about proper etiquette at Wikipedia. If you believe I am a sockpuppet of this editor please close my wiki account. I will move on to another hobby. Thank you SirIsaacBrock 19:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, is anyone looking into this matter? I have not heard anything yet. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 12:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You can ask for a checkuser request to try to prove you and WritersCramp are different editors (assuming you are). I am unable to perform this check for you. Superm401 - Talk 03:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I did a check user and they said "Inconclusive" so I need a third party to remove my name from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WritersCramp. I cannot do it myself, it has to be an admin, thank you SirIsaacBrock 09:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is nobody looking into this matter?? SirIsaacBrock 12:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The RFCU was inconclusive, please feel free to post to that effect on the RFC. RFCs cannot take binding action against editors, so it will not mitigate against you. Stifle (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Proxy/anonymizing IP

Please, add the following proxy IP to your banned IP list: 65.19.174.35. According to http://cqcounter.com/whois/, this IP is that of the email anonymizing company Primedius (http://www.primedius.com).

E-mail aonymizing, therefore not a open web proxy. Mike _{(T C)} 01:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not an open proxy, true, but still a proxy. People can hide behind such proxy IP, vandalize Wikipedia, act irresponsibly under cover of anonimity. It should therefore be banned along with all open proxies.

If it doesn't proxy HTTP traffic (and it apparently doesn't), it's not an issue for us. If you find evidence it does proxy HTTP, let us know. Superm401 - Talk 03:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I wish we could allow anonymous proxies. Maybe it'd be a good idea to disable non-logged-in editing and enable open proxies. I think that'd be better. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 17:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Offensive user page

I'd like to point out that the content of User:Fenian Swine's userpage is blatantly offensive and borders on incitement. It clearly contravenes WP:NOT. I have not contacted the editor in question about this. Instead, I sought the advise of a couple of administrators, and was directed to this page. I do not want the user blocked - I would merely suggest that he be strongly advised to tone down the content of his user page, and to not use Wikipedia as a soapbox/sounding board. --Mal 11:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have too, and got an earful for it. This has been discussed on WikiEN-l, both Jimbo and Angela have expressed disquiet. If action is to be taken it will need to be tactful but firm. Just zis Guy you know? 12:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember some discussion of the user name last year; I don't remember what the outcome of the discussion was, but it seems to me that while it's highly offensive for a Unionist or Briton to call an Irish Republican a "Fenian swine", for an Irish Republican to call himself that is acceptable. (I similarly wouldn't have a problem with a user whose user page made it clear that he was a gay rights activist calling himself User:Faggot, for example.) As for the content on FS's user page, the only thing that looks a little questionable is his suggestion that the Welsh have an armed insurrection against the British if they're considered a province rather than a country. (This seems to be a false premise, though, as Northern Ireland is called a province but is nevertheless regarded as one of the Constituent Countries/Home Nations of the UK.) He does say he does not hate English people. Angr/talk 13:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, let me tell to you that "English people should get over themselves" is offensive. His rant is particularly offensive to appeasers like myself who would happily "give back the counties" (of Northern Ireland) if the people living there wanted it. He's tarring the silent millions like myself with the empire-builder brush and it just isn't on. This kind of partisan politics is something we don't need at Wikipedia. --kingboyk 13:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have had some limited interaction with Fenian. I don't find the name particulary offensive, but this post seems to be about the content of his user page. Yes, it is a rant and a soapbox in the early parts. Could it be toned down a bit? No doubt. Need it be toned down? I don't think so, it's not that offensive and is instructive in informing other editors where his POV edits may be coming from. There are no direct attacks on individual users, just POV political grandstanding. Let the page stand I say. The username debate is another matter. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You are correct Cactusman, in pointing out that this complaint is about his user page, and not his name. His name is self-referential, and he can call himself whatever he wants as long as he's not offending others. But you also state that his userpage is "it's not that offensive". I beg to differ: I find it extremely offensive. --Mal 17:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I would add that as an Englishman I wouldn't have complained about it myself. I understand his historical perspective and don't want to add fuel to the flames. I was just pointing out in my post above that as currently worded it is a bit offensive, and the "I don't hate the English" just looks like an excuse to rant on about how he does dislike us. I'm happy to sit back and let others judge this one - I think it's best decided by people external to the British Isles (the island group of which Great Britain is the largest, lest anyone think it's a political term, which it isn't). --kingboyk 13:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If you think that "English people should get over themselves" is offensive. you probably get offended by quite a number of rude users around here. ROGNNTUDJUU! 00:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I get offended by people telling me I'm not allowed to have an opinion! As an Englishman, that statement is mildly offensive to me - what right have you to tell me what should or should not offend me?! I don't find it offensive enough to make me request action (indeed I'm one of the admins mentioned by Mal - a Northern Irishman - who declined to take any action on the matter), but I do question it's helpfulness towards our stated goal of writing a neutral encyclopedia. That's my last contribution on the matter - unless somebody challenges my right to my own opinion on what is offensive to me - because, as JzG stated on his talk page this is a matter best dealt with by non-English admins (if it needs to be dealt with at all). --kingboyk 10:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking at User:ROGNNTUDJUU! (I knew that name from somewhere!), his statement is probably more to do with his personal grievances about what he sees as "rude people" (vis a vis the crossing out of flags) not a denial of my right to take offence :-) So, I retract that part of my statement but the rest still stands. --kingboyk 11:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The views are similar to those that motivated the creation of the term Islands of the North Atlantic, just a tad less diplomatic. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

A "tad less diplomatic"? "people living in it [Wales] really need some kind of armed rebellion against the British" --Mal 12:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• I can't see that anything has been done about this userpage. Would an admin please tell me what the procedure generally is regarding complaints of this nature. The userpage remains as it was when I first posted on this board. --Mal 15:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The world is a big place, and there are billions of people with opinions that you could find offensive. I found nothing offensive on the page, and found it quite tame compared to many statements American Presidents have made about the British or that many around the world make about Americans. WAS 4.250 17:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, YOU may not have found it offensive (although you claim that, and go on to say that it is "quite tame" in comparison to XYZ). The userpage is full of snide remarks and also incites terrorism. I don't care if the world is big, small or medium - that has nothing to do with Wikipedia in this context.

By the way, I've never heard any American President suggesting that the Welsh people should commit acts of terrorism to get what they want. I'm not even sure that most Welsh people are unhappy with the current political situation in the first place. Certainly not to that extent.

Anyway - the fact remains that the userpage is offensive, xenophobic, inciteful, elitist, POV, unnecessary, soundboarding and conflicts with WP:NOT. --Mal 18:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Extensive internal spamming?

Please have a look at Special:Contributions/Rgulerdem, for a long list of user pages that have been visited to leave a message about Wikipedia:Wikiethics. Is this allowed? --KimvdLinde 00:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Tiger loose

Looks like there's a tiger named Rgulerdem (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) loose in the natural history museum and he's performing WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming.

Resid appears to have spammed upwards of one hundred (if not more) user's talk pages.

The following is just a sample of it. See some of the rest here and here (do note the blind alphabetical order he's following).

spam 01 User talk:Borincano75
spam 02 User talk:BonsaiViking
spam 03 User talk:Blarneytherinosaur
spam 04 User talk:Benzai
spam 05 User talk:Ben davison
spam 06 User talk:Beau99
spam 07 User User talk:Bcat
spam 08 User talk:Banes
spam 09 User talk:Awcolley
spam 10 User talk:Averykrouse
spam 11 User talk:Archola
spam 12 User talk:Andrewski
spam 13 User talk:Andrewa
spam 14 User talk:Zjhafeez
spam 15 User talk:Zereshk

Might be worthy of a bit of admin attention... but I could be wrong of course.

Netscott 00:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Rgulerdem has been notified of this report. Netscott 00:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Currently there is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Wikiethics. I am inviting people to the discussion. More input from the community will help better. Resid Gulerdem

01:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• User:Rgulerdem has managed to even spam User:Guettarda the admin who blocked him yesterday for 3RR violation.... seems to be rather blind spamming. Netscott 01:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

User has been blocked for 31 hours for talk page spamming. I will unblock (or will not contest another admin's unblock) if he apologizes and promises not to do it again. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Ordinarily I'd tend to agree about the unblock after apology... but you might want to be aware of this 3RR report from yesterday that will put his spamming in perspective. Also perhaps take note of the bad faith and false 'revenge' 3RR report he filed against me. Netscott 01:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Despite my constant banging the drum that we warn and then block only as a preventative measure, Kelly's block is quite fair in this case. That's a karmafist-worthy list of talk page contributions he's made. - brenneman^{L} 01:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If you read those above from the bottom up, they are in alphabetical order. -Splash^talk 01:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was part of why I blocked. It seemed obvious to me that he would have continued all the way to "Z" if not stopped. He's still demanding a reference to the rule against spamming; I'm not yet willing to unblock. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well durable block or apology/unblock... good admining on the part of Kelly Martin, thanks. ;-) Netscott 01:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

General consensus after the User:Ram-Man duel lisence thing was that spaming is bad however as WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming we never put together any solid rules. The problem is in defineing spam and the like. For example putting the same message on a large number of userpages appears to have become ingrained in WP:RFA culture. Bulk bot produced unserlictored messages are a key part of our anti copyvio stratergy (or at least a key part of minimiseing complaints about it). So yes the user is correct that there is no rule agaist spaming. If we look at WP:BLOCK the cloest policy to being aplicable is Users who exhaust the community's patience. However that is mostly meant to be for permablocks.Geni 02:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm still learning about WikiPedia and I'm not familiar with how WP:RFA works, are mass WP:RFA User_talk page postings done absolutely blindly? Netscott 02:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but in that case the people spammed are the people that actually bothered to vote, not some random number of people you've never met. —Ruud 02:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks Ruud for the response, but what you are describing doesn't sound too blind to me... if they voted then it sounds a bit more "Opt-in". Netscott 02:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• And Rgulerdem is using a list from somewhere.Geni 02:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup, some users are identified as either muslim or christian, the groups that most likely would be in favour of some censorship at wikipedia. KimvdLinde 02:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No. The groups most likely to be in favor of censorship are the various people with strong political opinions. Of course they won't help his particular case. The old Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency might once have been a logical place to start if it hadn't collapsed into a rather messy VDF.Geni 03:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You guys seem to mix up something. Wikipedia:Wikiethics is not pro-Censorship. Wikipedia:Wikiethics is pro-Ethics. Censorship would mean, that an admin blocks your content because he finds it unsuitable. Ethics rather means, that the editor himself thinks about what and what not to write. That's a big difference, if you make an effort to think about it. Raphael1 04:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

(removing indent)

He also sent out spams on the 10th and 12th of March. On that occasion his spamlist was partly composed of users who voted object on the censorship policy poll. I suggest someone request him to share the origins of his spamlist on his talk page. It might be a good criteria for unblocking. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 03:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious he used Category:Christian Wikipedians for the A's and B's and Category:Muslim Wikipedians for the Z's. —Ruud 04:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I had a polite conversation with User:Rgulerdem where he indicated to my satisfaction that he intends to continue talk page spamming. I have therefore extended his block by 72 hours. Nandesuka 12:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Sometimes we don't need hard and fast rules, we just need to do what is right. Asking for specific rules that prohibit a disruptive action is wikilawyering and not helpful. The block is covered under disruption. And finally the spamming is more likely to make people vote against the proposal anyway, but that's not an excuse to allow it. - Taxman ^Talk 13:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Response

Although I made an explanation above, my account is blocked, unfortunately. I would like to repeat my response to this accusation again. I hope that I can find some democrat admins here to listen what I am saying. Misbehaving users are no good for Wiki but admins misusing their previliges is even worse and may lead to chaos.

Admins should use their privilages wisely and consciously. Only then it may help to keep the place safe. Warning before blocking is not a luxury, it is a standard. Asking about the reasons for an editor's actions, if not well understood by an admin, is not a luxury, it is so wise. Asking and warning doesnt take more than 5 min and doesn't make Wiki a volnerable place. It rather creates a better and friendly atmosphere. There is no need for strong formality if and only if admins following well-established ethics and standards. The definitions of acceptible and unacceptable should not vary from one admin to another. If there is unclearity on an issue, they need to use extra caution. In a civil environment the standards are not only for poor ordinary users, but also for admins. An admin who is not so careful in his decisions distrup Wiki from functioning as well as a user who do not care about it. Unfairly blocked users are a good exapmle of disruption.

What I was doing was not spamming. I was just letting a selected group of people who might not be aware of the proposal and who might want to know about it. (Babylon - spamming: simultaneous sending of an irrelevant message to a large number of discussion groups on the Internet). I my case I am blocked without a prior warning, and blocked for 31 hours, and blocked on subjective decision of an admin which is extended subjective decision of another. 'Assumeing good faith' should not be just a link for the admins to color their talks, when talking to ordinary users.

I am expecting an apology from the admins involved for their poor behaviour against me and a promise regarding that they won't misuse their priviliges anymore towards anyone. I should add that I would like to see this incident as a mistake which should not be generelized for all actions of the admins involved, neither to the community of admins. I am sure and in fact I know that there are many who are doing their jobs as good as possible.

I checked my account and it was unblocked. I am signing my name as you see here. I hope some admins here won't ask me pay for the flaw in the system, if there is. Thanks. Resid Gulerdem 21:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Question

Based on the explanations above, I would like to keep informing a selected group of people who might want to know about the proposal and who might be interested. I would like to make it clear with you that there is no problem with that. Please let me know what do you think about it. I believe informing a group of people is nothing to do with spam and should be welcomed in Wiki. Thanks... Resid Gulerdem 21:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• This is not innocent "informing a group of people" so much as astroturfing. It is not kosher to attempt to radically shape polls in the way you have. I don't personally have an opinion as to if you should've been blocked for it, but it is certainly something you should not have done and should not do in the future. --Improv 19:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable question. I'm afraid I think the block was technically an abuse of admin powers, but I don't think there's any point in taking this further. It would be different if any of the recipients of the message had complained, but there's been no evidence presented of this. And, at the very least, IMO a warning should have been given before the block.

The root cause of the problem seems to be an attempt to gag this user by calling a poll on a policy proposal for the express purpose of getting it rejected. The opponents of this draft policy have declared that, assuming the poll fails (as is IMO certain, the proposal is not nearly ready to be a guideline, let alone a policy) that the proposed policy will then instantly become a failed proposal. What this means is unclear, but unfortunately an admin has suggested (I hope in jest) that they would then be willing to just delete the proposal. IMO the tactic of calling such negative polls is to be discouraged. As far as I can see it does not violate any policy or guideline except perhaps WP:POINT, but it seems a pure waste of time. Assuming that this poll is rejected, that does not IMO prevent the proposers from working further on it, and calling a new poll when they are ready to do so. However the proposer is relatively new, and I think it is understandable that they should be worried about this apparent attempt to delete their work.

Even if all the allegations against this user were true, that would then make it even more important for admins to follow procedures and guidelines, and to encourage others to do so too. See Wikipedia talk:Wikiethics. Please note, I'm not defending the unfortunate and IMO misguided spate of "Christian" activism, advocacy and trolling on Wikipedia of which this proposal may be part. Rather, I am saying that it is important not to descend to their level. Andrewa 12:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• This is not innocent "informing a group of people" so much as astroturfing. It is not kosher to attempt to radically shape polls in the way you have. I don't personally have an opinion as to if you should've been blocked for it, but it is certainly something you should not have done and should not do in the future. --Improv 19:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Improv, you made some assesments but I can not see any retionale behind your conclusions. Can I get your reasoning for your statements like: This is not innocent and something you should not have done and should not do in the future. Besides being impolite, 'it is not innocent' statement seems to be contradicting 'assume good faith' approach. I cannot see any policy, guideline or regulation to disourage this kind of informing procedure. I think it is totally unfair and unacceptable to think that with a single message all Wikipedians will go for the vote as I suggested. As the poll indicated, just a few users voted after my message. The message is clear, and my position in this dispute clearly stated in it. I am not pushing anyone to vote (it is simply impossible), neither hiding my position by using some flowery words to misguide the users. It is natural that my message reflects my perspective. I am ready to follow a consensus (and only consensus) among the admins, but please note that independent from the case, a consensus against this kind of informing procedure will highly restrict users' freedom of speach in Wiki IMO. If it is decided so, than some objective norms will be needed such as 'informing how many users will be considered as unacceptible'. Please note that, existing no-spam guideline is not applicaple to this case. Resid Gulerdem 00:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Resid's line above, "I think it is totally unfair and unacceptable to think that with a single message all Wikipedians will go for the vote as I suggested" seems so disingenuous when one reads his last edit before going on this WP/AN reported "spampage": "I am leaving the decision about you and your actions to the community here. Resid Gulerdem 00:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)". Obviously Resid, you expected to have some impact. Can we stop the spin now? Netscott 01:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• I cannot see your point Netscott, where is the insincerity? If you really want to see insincerety, spin and some cheap tactics you can check this diff. Resid Gulerdem 11:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If Rgulerdem does anything resembling spamming in future, I intend to block him. This is one of the most egregious, bare-faced and unrepentant cases I have ever encountered. --Tony Sidaway 04:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't 'anything resembling spamming' a little vague? Can I get your reasoning for calling it 'the most egregious, bare-faced and unrepentant cases I have ever encountered'? Please note that discretionary actions are not acceptible. If there is an administrative consensus on the issue, I would follow that. I cannot see a consensus so far. If there is, it would be better if the consensus is mentioned in some policies. Resid Gulerdem 04:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the admins page WP:AN and there is no admin consensus on this being spamming. I have been blocked for this before and I hope people do not want to repeat the same mistake. Resid Gulerdem 04:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The above quote from Resid's talk page in reply to a warning from Thebainer. NSLE _(T+C) at 04:46 UTC (2006-04-07)

Long blocks on shared IPs

I noticed that a number of long(more than 24 hour) blocks have been put on IPs that have been marked as being shared among multiple users. AFAIK, this is a Bad Thing. I have removed a number of these placed by User:Hall Monitor. I am posting here for further consideration and discussion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with nice long blocks to vandal schools personally (long blocks to other shared IPS is different). If the IP has been a consistent vandal and has produced nothing but vandalism and the students can still use the site for research and education but simply cannot edit, I fail to see the harm. I personally feel it's better to miss out on the one good edit that will likely not come out of that IP then to put up with their nonsense, because we want them to be able to continue to edit and vandalise. The site is still available to them as an encyclopedia and it likely more than one idiot who is vandalsiing if it happenign that often so a one hour or three houtr block ain't gonna do it. I mean, look at the vandalism history...it ain't working! I say well done HallMonitor, we need more vandal fighters like you. My opinion.Gator (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

2nded. I have given a few long blocks to school ips as well, and shortened them if/when someone emailed me with an objection. My assumption of good faith doesn't go so far as to believe that there will be a single good edit waiting in the ether, and it will make up for the time that the vandal fighters take away from actually building an encyclopedia to remove vandalism. BTW did you (JesseW) try to discuss this first with Hall Monitor before removing the blocks and bringing it here? --Syrthiss 15:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked and didn't see anything...Gator (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Note however that I do quite frequently have to unblock my own school IPs when i want to edit from work. Schools do frequently have hundreds of people sharing the IP. Slapping a 1 hour block takes half a minute at most. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the above, I can't see it as a huge problem when the IP is primarily used for vandalism (bug 550 would help too), people can contact the blocker if they have an issue and I see no reason to believe that Hall Monitor is not receptive to this. Similarly the long blocks tend to invite a system admin to contact Hall Monitor. This seems to be a good way of trying to deal with the problem, see if the school/whoever is willing to try and work with us, rather than just saying it's a WP problem (or rather an RC Patrol problem). I wish people would do the same with AOL, AOL User blocked complain to AOL see if they are willing to help, enough do it maybe they will... --pgk^(talk) 17:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well said.Gator (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm very affected by long term school blocks. I just had a 2 week block instituted on my school IP (Which was unblocked by request), however after one case of vandalism, the IP was once again blocked for 48 hours. It's a major inconvinence when I want to edit from school, but am unable to due to some vandal. My school IP is shared throughout the entire school, and possibly the entire school district. Just wanted it to be known that there are good editors at school :P --lightdarkness ^(talk) 19:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do think a named conributor with a history of good edits requesting an unblock on such a block should be given a fair weight. --pgk^(talk) 19:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I have yet to have that happen to me though, but would be willing to unblock in that case. Very rare though.Gator (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have this problem too; a school network I often edit from had a 1 month block plonked on it, and it can be frustrating if I've just spent half an hour working on an image, only hit upload file and get a "You have been blocked by user:JoeAdmin". smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 23:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Glad I asked here. I ought to have asked Hall Monitor before unblocking, sorry about that. It seems like blocking school IPs for long periods is accepted, but blocking non-school shared IPs is not. Can someone update the blocking policy to reflect this, please? Also, it would be good to have a distinguishing template color for shared school IPs from non-school ones. JesseW, the juggling janitor 11:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You want to to update the blocking policy bases on what a handful of admins stated despite the fact that several people have stated that there is in fact very real collateral damage? I think there needs to be a fair bit more discussion before we start changing policy! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not particularly familiar with the handling of blocks, so I personally don't have a strong opinion on this. My understanding of the above comments was what led me to the suggestion to correct the policy to be in line with what appears to be current practice. I'd be delighted for whatever further discussion anyone wants to do. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Fear not, for Raul has already proposed a solution to this problem (Comment #13). I'm now prodding Rob Church to impliment it. Raul654 03:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

College hockey

I just got this in my mail box:

• Hi, I noticed you were active on many college hockey pages on Wikipedia. My friends and I are starting a sports wiki that you may be interested in. It uses Wikipedia's software but we made a lot of technological improvements to allow for more news and opinion articles, as well as regular encyclopedic entries. If you’re interested in it, check it out at [spamblocked address]. Here's the College Hockey home page: [spamblocked address]. Thanks, Rob [from rob4point0@a*l.c*m]

I'm fairly sure I've never edited an article on college hockey. Have others received this email? -Will Beback 10:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a known semi-spammer I think... JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this person has been banned for spamming for his wiki. Will, if you'll look at some of Almeidaisgod's sockpuppets, he's posted his spam on at least one or two of them. Possible he may have gotten your username from one of his socks' talk pages. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 13:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Yes, we encountered these folks a little while ago at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive81#Sports Wiki Spam. Several accounts were blocked for posting a few hundred talk pages spams to the blacklisted site. (I'm assuming that we're talking about a URL that starts with 'armchair'.)

The accounts were unblocked when they seemed to 'get it' about spamming talk pages. Evidently they're a bit blind/clueless about the notion that spamming through email is also inappropriate, or they don't care. Presumably the Wikipedia account is Roblefko (talk · contribs), though it may have just been a throwaway for talk page spamming. I've got to go to work right now, but if someone can find a way to get them to stop again, that would be dandy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do, I got spammed via email today... ccwaters 18:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with WP:PAIN backlogs.

Over the past two months WP:PAIN has received a increasing number of requests, some of which appear to stay on the page for several weeks. That is worrying to me, as either the admins dealing with it are not removing the notices, or the requests are getting backloged due to lack of admin time. IMO, personal attacks are a lot more serious than childish vandalism, as any editor can revert vandalism, and are less time critical, but unchecked personal attacks are highly divisive and can drive good editors away, especially if allowed to escalate without intervention. I'm also a little concerned that twice in the last two months when there has been a backlog, the older complaints have simply been removed without any comment that I could find on any of the disputants page (17 Feb: [1] and on 26 March: [2])(I've left a note on the admin's talk page, bringing this comment to his attention, but I thought I should bring the topic up here, as suggested by the WP:PAIN noticeboard, as it concerns admins in general.

I have sympathy for admins, as I can understand that personal attacks are difficult to deal with, but as it stands, if I, or anyone else was being personally attacked, we are supposed to talk to the user, and warn them via {{npa}}, and if they persist, post on WP:PAIN, but without admin backup at that point within a reasonable timescale, those warnings are as effective as the famous english police warning - "Stop! Or else I'll yell 'Stop' again!", leaving the users who are being attacked feeling isolated, and increasing the likelyhood that they themselves will reply with heated comments.

Could I politely ask some admins to keep PAIN on the their watchlist, as I believe that with prompt attention, many personal disputes won't get chance to escalate into something that will take a lot more work to sort out. Regards, MartinRe 22:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, this would require an adjustment to the blocking policy. Currently it only allows blocking for cases where the attacked user is in personal danger. Without some more teeth in the blocking policy one is left with exactly that. Stop or else I'll yell stop again. - Taxman ^Talk 23:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK#Disruption allows blocks for "harassment, and excessive personal attacks", so it does have enough teeth as is. But I would hope that consistant prompt action with a warning (if required) from an admin, showing that it is being taken seriously should stop many disputes getting to the stage of excessive attacks in the first place. If users see that continuing personal attacks will get them blocked rapidly, it should help, both in discouraging attacks, and showing the targets that their complaint are being taken seriously. Regards, MartinRe 00:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Only if it is riseing to the level of dissrupting the normal functioning of wikipedia.Geni 00:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, seeing an experienced user leave wikipedia because of personnal attacks is "disrupting the normal functioning of wikipedia" ... --LimoWreck 00:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a subjective point of view, it would vary. I for one have WP:PAIN watched, but have never taken action on any of them quite simply because blocks are not for punishmen, and there's no need to resolve a three- or four-week old case where attacks may have stopped. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:45 UTC (2006-03-28)

My point is that cases shouldn't get to three weeks old in the first place. If an admin looks at a report, and thinks nothing needs to be done, that should be noted (explained to the user(s) in question, if required) and the entry deleted from the page to show that it was looked at. My worry is that if a case gets that long, and the attacks stop, is that because the target just had enough and left? WP:PAIN is a board intended "to get administrator attention quickly when dealing with personal attacks." As it stands, many requests for assistance are left unanswered for several weeks, when then they get archived with no response as being "too old", but they only got too old because they received no response in the first place!.

To clarify, I am not worried about which action is taken, just that a decisive action is taken (even if that action is "do nothing", whcih it may be in several cases) An admin is entitled to "Do nothing, warn them again, or block the user in question" depending on their view, but if they decide to do nothing, it should be clear that that is the case. Currently there is no way of someone to tell the difference between a complaint that an admin has looked at, and thought nothing needed to be done, and a valid complaint that no admin has looked at. It's the difference between asking for something, and being told "No", and asking for something, and not getting any reply at all. Regards, MartinRe 12:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree... I had listed a user on the WP:PAIN page, but well... after only a few days my entry was removed, without any notice, probably no one ever bothered to look at it. (I have had the same problem with the request for comment and request for investigation pages however, which actually led by to just tag an article with AfD after a few weeks, because that was the only way to get some response on that case; but we shouldn't need to abuse other pages or procedures to get some response). But esp. on administrator-related pages users should at least get some response --LimoWreck 12:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how good idea WP:PAIN really is. It seems to encourage tattletaleism, often on the part of someone who is equally guilty of personal attacks as the person being accused. Angr (talk • contribs) 13:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

(De-indented for readability) That is a worry, yes, but an unfounded reports should get a response as well, even if they range from "uncivil, maybe, but wasn't an attack", or "No way was that remotely an attack", or "*you* are complaining about attacks, with *that* comment, please be civil yourself". If there is no negative response from filing unfounded reports, then disruptive users could use them to continue harrassing the same users.

PAIN seems to be an anomoly in its location in the disuption resolution chain. In WP:NPA the steps are 1) talk to the other user 2) use dispute resolution, and 3) WP:PAIN. Most of the suggestions in WP:DR (informal mediation, WP:30, or WP:RFC/USER, none of which are mentioned in PAIN) have the appearance of more "formal" complaints than PAIN, giving the impression that PAIN should be used first, which de facto, it appears to be. Admins take action on the serious complaints, which the page was designed for, but I believe that the dis-joint between the intent and usage of the page is causing some problems.

Following from the above, another possible improvement would be allowing ordinary users to deal with/comment on the requests. This is consistant with vandalism, anyone can revert or warn, and admins only have to get involved when it's serious enough to warrent admin level action. I know nothing is stopping people doing that now (and I see some do) but the page as written is clear that "editors add, only admins deal with/remove." I'm sure admins would not object if some of the workload was removed :)

In line with the above, I'm going to make the above suggestions shortly on Wikipedia_talk:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard.

Apologies if this is a little unclear, please feel free to ask me to clarify any points. Regards, MartinRe 17:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought the famous English police warning was a warning shot to the back of the head. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt's team, 'Wikipedia Watch'

I reverted some deletion vandalism at Vincent Gallo and posted appropriate warnings on the IP's talk page. I then received these replies. High points: 1)user claims to have access to 100+ Penn State University IPs, and thus can never really be blocked, and 2)s/he is "part of Daniel Brandt's team, 'Wikipedia Watch', and our eventual goal to get Wikipedia privately edited. It will happen some day soon, trust me. Jimmy Wales will cave some day soon enough." S/he has left similar messages on other pages. It's point #2 that's particulary troubling. However unlikely it is that there's some sort of organized effort to sabotage Wikipedia, we should all know about it. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 01:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If he keeps coming back, block the whole range, with a note that university staff should contact the blocking admin to discussion the reason for the block. Universities, unlike most ISPs, are very responsive when blocked. Raul654 01:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

With threats like that, I'd contact the university right away. We can't tolerate bullshit like that. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 23:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

User needs some intervention

Hi. User 24.171.16.151 is in the middle of a campaign to push a very narrow POV on a number of neonazi and white supremacist pages. I hope an administrator can try to see if there is a way to get this user to calm down and edit withing Wiki guidelines. This is part of a much larger battle over these pages, involving a split in the white racist movement with supporters of different factions now edit warring on Wikipedia. At some point this larger issues needs attention as well. The pages in question can be deduced from simply looking at the page contributions for User 24.171.16.151 [3]. Cberlet 14:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I left a note for this editor to consult WP:V and WP:NPOV before making any more unreferenced additions.--MONGO 15:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, nice note. Alas, this user continues to remove [and previously has removed or added] information on one of the factions from several pages: Aryan Nations, Aryan Brotherhood, Richard Girnt Butler, [[August Kreis III], Jonathan Williams (pastor), White supremacy, Nazism, Neo-Nazism. --Cberlet 20:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- 2

• -Ril- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CheeseDreams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above arbitration case has closed. -Ril- is CheeseDreams evading her block. The -Ril- account is to be blocked indefinitely. CheeseDreams' ban is extended for an additional year.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 22:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-life will certainly be less stressful/interesting now. --Doc ^ask? 08:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC) (pops open the champagne)

I'm still trying to get my head around the fact that he's a girl. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

She obviously learned well from the last couple of her sockpuppets that were spotted fairly early on. It's a pity (but of course, understandble) tha some of her editing patterns were noted in the arbitration case, because I'm sure she'll learn and create an even craftier sockpuppet. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

indef block of User:Licorne

Licorne (talk · contribs · block log) was recently given a year-long block for POV-pushing, personal attacks, and other bad editing habits (see Final decision). He opted to not participate in his RFC or his RFAr, and when it became clear that he was going to soon be blocked he started spewing out anti-Semitic personal attacks that I will not re-print here. (you can see the whole exchange here) (Why he's decided I'm a Jew, I don't really know, but it is clear that is his motivation for wanting to attack Einstein. He also seems to think I'm homosexual. I suspect "homosexual Jew" is just a catch-all category of hate for him.)

Since then, Licorne has managed to push through occasionally with his sockpuppet accounts, and appears unrepetent to say the least (see, i.e., this one from a few days ago). It seemed to me silly to pretend he was only banned for a year — it seems unlikely he will ever be welcome back to Wikipedia after this sort of behavior — so I increased his block to indefinite.

Being the target of most of these latest attacks, it seems reasonable that I should make sure I have support from others on this. The way I see it, ArbCom's sentence based on the considered evidence was totally reasonable, but they did not consider the anti-Semitic comments (they were not entered into evidence because they came at the end of the voting stage). I think if one were to review the latest attacks independently, it would be a clear case of an indef-block. In the short term of course there is no difference, really, but it seemed important to me to distinguish between a handed-down sentence for POV-pushing and what he really deserves on the basis of his latest behavior, and to pull no punches about his desirability at Wikipedia. But I want to make sure there are no serious objections to this. --Fastfission 02:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not have an objection to this. He is not welcome back if he keeps up the same behavior that got him banned. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleting attacks in edit summaries

Am I correct that the only way to delete a personal attack in an edit summary is to delete the entire edit? And that, in the case of articles with over a few hundred edits, the task is best handled by a developer? -Will Beback 09:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, this should be changed - "a few hundred" sounds a bit generous; over thirty or forty sounds more realistic, I can't imagine an admin ticking hundreds of boxes. There should be a "select all" button, so that the admin can "unselect" the version he or she wants deleting - it would make life much easier... --Latinus 09:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There is an extension to do that floating around. I suspect there is a way tp do it through your monobook.js. Not sure how though.Geni 10:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The best thing to do when there is a huge number of edits is to

1. Delete the article
2. Restore the offensive version.
3. Move the offensive version to a "dump" title and delete again.
4. Restore all the "good" versions under the redirect.
5. Restore the content.

This way, if offensive material is added a second time, we won't need to remember previous offensive versions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be easy to notice the edits with offensive edit summaries - that is a good way of doing it though. --Latinus 10:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't only go for offensive edit summaries, it also goes for things like libellous attacks in biographies which are tougher to spot on the undelete page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this method should probably be mentioned in the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and should be specified as the "recommended" method. --Latinus 10:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Cryptic/toggleundelete.js is a script to add an invert button to undelete pages. But in the case of pages with a very large history it should probably be left to a developer to avoid strain on the servers. the wub "?!" 10:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What qualifies for "very large"? The two articles I'm thinking of have about 300 and 600 edits respectively. I'll try Sjakkalle's suggestion, and the .js script. Thanks for the help. Cheers, -Will Beback 10:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That should be fine. I was thinking pages with thousands of history entries, like this one, George W Bush or AFD. Someone deleted and undeleted AFD a while back, and it locked the whole site for a bit. the wub "?!" 11:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that's called the User:Ed Poor effect. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 14:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppets

My account was blocked because in a IPcheck and after many edits in a discusion page I found to have used once the same IP with another user who happen to be a close friend of mine and sometimes we both edit from the same pc at the University. It is clear that at other stimes we were editting from different computers. Using IP check shouldn't be a proven way to discover sockpuppetry. Our votes were removed and now me and my friends (Aleksandar, SteliosMpikakis) have to make new user accounts. (banned from editting) Svetlyo at 213.16.187.114 10:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The above claims for sockpupetry are not valid. I'm pasting below the findings from the usercheck:

Stevepeterson (236 edits), ALEKSANDAR (47 edits), Arnegjor (82 edits), Steliosmpikakis (12 edits), Svetlyo (136 edits).

How can Svetlyo for example be my sockpupet, he has almost as many edits as me. Stevepeterson 11:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You could make similar amounts of edits on both accounts. Mike _{(T C)} 18:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What can I do to prove that I am not a sockpuppet of Stevepeterson? I want my account back, this is not fair. what will wikipedia gain if I have to make a new account; they blocked me just because they wanted to remove my vote in a votal (Anne-Marie of Greece), a vote that anyway wouldn't make any difference, as we all dinally decided to follow wikipedia's convections for our final choice, regardless the result. This is just NOT FAIR.

Blocked Svetlyo from 213.16.187.123 19:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like point out that posting here while blocked will only make your block longer. You cannot prove it, we cannot see who is actually at the computer. How long is your block for? Mike _{(T C)} 19:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's an indefinte block for being a sock-puppet of the other person. So there's really nothing for him to get extended. No real opinion on the blocks themselves, just wanted to toss that out. - TexasAndroid 20:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I just find a bad idea having to create a new username and losing all my history of edits. The other option is to quit wikipedia... Svetlyo

User:Jimmy Jones

Could an admin take a look at the recent activity of User:Jimmy Jones. In short, this is a recently created account that created a series of nonsense new pages that were quickly speedied (e.g. Sex is Nice I Like 2, Return of the Killer Sex Is Nice I Like Article etc.). I put the speedy notice on several of these. Others were tagged by other editors. I also left a warning on User_talk:Jimmy Jones asking him to refrain from vandalising Wikipedia. This was not a standard message, but I hope it was reasonably civil and appropriate.

Jimmy Jones then reverted my comments on his talk page, claiming I was in breach of Wikipedia's policies on WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:NPA and WP:Etiquette by posting to his talk page. See his edit summaries at on his talk page history for details. At this point it was clear that he was not an average newbie vandal, and his edit summaries claim that he was an admin who created the Jimmy Jones sockpupet for the purpose of testing editor's responses to deliberate and provocative vandalism.

Finally he left a comment (since reverted as vandalism) signed as if by User:Essjay further accusing me of violating WP:BITE. This was clearly a forgery: I confirmed this with Essjay, and further evidence was provided by freakofnurture here.

Either Jimmy Jones is an admin's sockpuppet created for the express purpose of vandalism who tried to pass himself off as Essjay (presumably for the purpose of implicating an innocent admin), or he is a serious long-term vandal who is trying to provoke editors and admins into rash action. I tend to the latter, under the assumption of good faith: I believe no admins are behaving like this. Assuming the latter, is there any way to trace the individual behind the Jimmy Jones account?

Thanks, Gwernol 16:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Which vandalism board?

It is not clear where to report someone who has worked his way up to {{Test4}}, stops editing on that warning, and then resumes with a new vandalism (I'm thinking of User:207.106.138.2, who just signed Athenian democracy. ) Please advise. Septentrionalis 19:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Try WP:AIV, although the test4 was over a month ago. Perhaps a test3 or bv is in order, because this is an IP and could be anyone else. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete request for user subpage

Could I get a delete for User:Topaz/sectionsplitter_debug.js? I'd mark it {{db-owner}}, but it's a javascript and doesn't appear to respond appropriately to templates. ~Topaz^♪♫∆ 19:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Ragib 19:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a new one...

Wikipedia email from rogerhorne6@aqualityplace.co.uk:

Hi there,
Please move 100 pages to (Article name) On Wheels... or (Article Name) Is A Sexfreak!!

and you will win $5000!!!

Linuxbeak requests you do this, so do it now and get the $5000 off him!

Roger Horne

--Syrthiss 20:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I moved the pages as requested. Linuxbeak, I want my $5000 now, dammit! --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's not feed the trolls. --Doc ^ask? 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocking on request?

Blocks that may be controversial are ... blocks that, while possibly wise, lack policy basis.*

The info-en address got a request from a sysadmin responsible for 216.120.176.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), asking for the IP address to be prevented from editing - they don't particularly want their students editing, especially given a lot of what results is pure vandalism, but are having trouble setting this up with their local filtering software.

After checking various details to confirm it was actually an admin there, I've blocked the IP indefinitely; this is a bit unusual, though, so just thought I'd mention it here. The blocking policy doesn't say anything about block-on-request, but it feels fine to me - anyone want to yell at me? Shimgray | talk | 21:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Totally fine. I've done the same thing. If that's what the system admin wants and it prevents vandalism then we're looking at a win win situation. Well done.Gator (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks. Shimgray | talk | 22:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait. IPs should never be indefinitely blocked. It could easily be reassigned to a totally different entity in the future. Superm401 - Talk 00:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem - the blocked-user page provides a few ways to resolve that problem when and if that day comes. Theoretically the open proxies we have blocked could eventually be reassigned too, but until then we're better off blocking them. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, this is one of the reasons we could really use a new form of blocking. With the current situation, good editors will no longer be able to edit from this school. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 00:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I for one will not be losing any sleep about losing out on the opportunity of one day having a good user come out of this school in exchange for the ton of vandalism and hours of wasted time put into stopping the BS that consisitently comes out of this IP ESPECIALLY when the the school's authorities don;t care (why should we?). You will not get any pity or worries about this block from me. I say good riddance to bad rubbish.Gator (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Earl Andrew and images

While going through my contrib history, I noticed that an image I had tagged with Template:No source in December 2005 was still in existence. Upon checking, my adding the template had been reverted by the uploader but no image source had been provided. I deleted the image Looking at the user's image history I discovered another one, deleted that, and then realized that the removal of "no source" tags without providing a source was actually a habit, and that the user has uploaded a very large number of images without sources, tagged with Template:Promotional without any evidence of these images' copyright belonging to the subject of our articles as a "work for hire" or being from a press kit.

I left a message for the user. I received a somewhat unfriendly response, and replied. User:Earl Andrew responded by blanking their many image warnings. Given that this is a long-time editor with a large number of contributions, I assume that some administrator has a good collaborative relationship with this user and might be able to have a word with them about uploading unsourced copyright-infringing images. Thanks in advance. Jkelly 22:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a "good collaborative relationship" with him; I've never encountered him before. But I have warned him that removing warnings from his talk page and continuing to upload improperly sourced and licensed images after being warned are both blockable offenses. Angr (talk • contribs) 06:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It would have been so much easier if you had alerted to me where I was going wrong instead of just deleting my images. I did source the images, but I assume I did not do it properly. I would prefer if you guys would tell me what I'm doing wrong instead of saying I'm not doing anything at all. All these new image policies are confusing and are constantly changing, so it's hard for me to keep up with all the changes. --curling rock Earl Andrew - talk 22:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

In spite of the conciliatory note above, just reverted my placing Template:Nsd on an image and gave a URL that does not actually contain that image. The user then reverted my edit at Paul Dewar to replace the unsourced unfree copyrighted image that I had removed in favour of a free-licensed one from Wikimedia Commons. Is anyone here inspired to speak up on this user's behalf before I block them pending confirmation that they are going to abide by Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria? Jkelly 03:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway

The Arbitration Committee has reached a final decision in this case. Crotalus horridus is prohibited from creating or editing userboxes (either templatized or hard-coded into a userpage). If Crotalus horridus edits a userbox, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall be one year. Crotalus horridus is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If, in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, it is found that he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Tony Sidaway is prohibited from reversing any administrative action more than once. Each reversal shall be accompanied by an explanation in the appropriate venue, including especially a listing at Wikipedia:Deletion review in the case of a disputed deletion.

Should Tony Sidaway or Crotalus horridus violate any of the remedies in this decision, they may be briefly blocked, up to two weeks in the event of repeat offences. Blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Lock Kosovo

Please lock the Kosovo article untill the final status negotiations in Vienna are over. The article is vandalized on a daily bases by Albanian and Serbian nationalists. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 02:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection but there isnt enough vandalism to protect imo, but im not an admin so its only my opinion. Mike _{(T C)} 05:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

MrMister

Just blocked indefinitely based on these page moves. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Proliferating PoolGuy (talk · contribs) sockpuppets

With a sockpuppet a minute, he/she is continuing to spam WP:RCU with justifications of his WP:POINT violations. Suggestions on what to do to stop it? I am pondering semi-protecting WP:RCU. Thoughts on whether that will have undesirable side effects? --Nlu (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps protect it for a SHORT SHORT amount of time, its not like people will have to post check users done right away, they do take time. Mike _{(T C)} 13:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Roitr

Please block the following sockpuppets of Roitr (see [4] for more information):

• Markdanil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mikhai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Valentinnaksh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Nixer 14:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Nlu

I find it rather worrying that an admin should semi-protect his page, unless he intends never to interact with anons via blocks, warnings, etc. Do other admins agree? If so, could Nlu be advised to unprotect it? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Its only been sprotected for a day, right? I've had to do that before when I was getting slammed with Iain Lee vandals. People can still email Nlu through his email link in the meantime. I wouldn't think it was a good idea if he forever left it semiprotected, but a day or so isn't something that I would be too worried about. --Syrthiss 18:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

As I explained already -- check out the page history of my talk page as well as WP:RCU to see why. The last few days, PoolGuy (talk · contribs)'s sockpuppets have been thoroughly spammy. --Nlu (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Sometimes we all get hit with socky goodness. :/ --Syrthiss 18:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

And I find it disturbing that I already explained this to Mel yesterday and he still acts as if he didn't see my explanation. I am going to assume good faith once more and assume that he has good faith basis to bring this here, but otherwise it becomes suspicious whether he is simply trying to pick a fight with me over the User:Croatian historian situation. --Nlu (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you supply the diff, as I didn't see any explanation? (By the way, if you're going to assume good faith, do so — don't say you're going to do it and then make it clear that in fact you're not.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This is lame. Nlu, feel free to semi protect your user talk apge to keep vandalising IPs away fro as long as you like. I for one see NO problem with it. Good for you. Mel: stop trolling and do something more productive with your time, please. Wow.Gator (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

My explanation is still right there on User talk:Nlu. Feel free to read it there. If you mean what I was combatting, see [5], [6], and [7]. Again, see the entire history on WP:RCU as well. I fail to see what's so difficult to comprehend. It's not a case of vandalizing IPs; it's a case of vandalizing new sockpuppets, which are also generally blocked by semi-protections. (And, thanks, Gator.) --Nlu (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Nlu has not had vandalism on his page. If you read WP:VANDAL and the three references above, the posts were not vandalism. Nlu has protected his page simply to erase questions from an inquiring user that he blocked, and avoiding answering a legitimate question to the basis of his block. Unless vandalism has actually occurred, Nlu should not have his talk page protected, especially as an Admin responsible for inquiries from users. Nlu is stating that he is following policy, however just reading the WP:VANDAL page any novice can see that his page was not vandalized. AvoidingAvoidance 06:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You are not asking a legitimate question -- which has been answered many times, by me and other admins. --Nlu (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Semi-protecting your talk page so as not be bothered with questions from annoying sockpuppets isn't really kosher. Nlu, please unprotect it. Angr (talk • contribs) 06:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It was only protected for a short duration. Of course, Mel Etitis's making it sound like I've been protecting it forever. Check the protection log. --Nlu (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

After unprotection, harassment by PoolGuy's sockpuppets resumed. See [8]. Happy now, Mel? (No, I am not reprotecting at this point, but I am not going to be asking your permission to do so.) --Nlu (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And I assume you are reading this, PoolGuy (or whatever your name is going to be next); pursuant to WP:SOCK, each time you use a new sockpuppet, your 1-week block will be reset, so if you actually do want your block to be lifted (as you claimed you did), wait it out. --Nlu (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Nlu, you are being asked a legitimate question which you refuse to answer. You refuse to answer because you are wrong in your position. If you are right in your position you will cite the reason for the block. As demonstrated at your latest Check User Request there is no reason for a Check User to be completed, because there is no violation of policy. Your block states it is done because of a sockpuppet. Sockpuppets are not a violation of wikipedia policy, and can not be the basis for a block.

When questioned on PoolGuy's Talk Page you succumbed to the fact that your reason for a block was off base. You then stated the block was imposed because "You violated WP:3RR, WP:NPA, and WP:POINT, at least." Those you have not and can not cite. So when you were asked to prove those violations occurred you got embarassed because you couldn't do it. So what you do is you delete the very legitimate question for you to explain where the violation occurred from your talk page [9] [10] [11] [12]. I suppose it is embarrassing to leave a question you can't answer on your talk page. You also protect the talk page of the user you inappropriately blocked cutting off their communication and their means to request an unblock. You are acting nervous because you are unable to cite this 3RR and NPA and Point that have been violated that caused you to block the account.

I don't know why another admin has not tried to help you, and find the violation that occurred. Perhaps others have looked but could not find it. I don't know why you don't cite these violations and show everyone the edits that caused the violation so heinous that you had to block an account (probably because it doesn't exist).

I am sorry if you think you are harrassed. I think it is harrassing to take administrative action against a user when you can not even justify it with a policy violation. Perhaps you have been working so hard to make this issue go away because you can not justify your action. Other admins on Wikipedia justify their action all the time. They simply cite the edit that demonstrated the violation. I don't understand why you refuse to, except maybe, because the violation does not exist. Absent the violation you can't seem to find, please unblock and unprotect the accounts. Thank you. YouDontGetIt 07:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because you're refusing to read the citation doesn't mean that policies weren't cited. --Nlu (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How many times to I have to explain to you the reason you continue to be blocked is because you create sockpuppets to evade a block. How many times do I have to tell you that GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs) was blocked for spamming people to support you on Pet peeve, (even those who say didn't edit the article) something an ArbCom member even told you that was disruptive, yet you argued with him about it? How many times do I have to tell you to sit it out, and do whatever you have to do after the block? How many times do we have to tell you that for each sock you make means your timer resets (as your userpage says)? I've already asked Bauder to look into this, so please let him do what he has to do. Also, out of curiosity, what are you going to do with all the socks you created during your block? I don't see what anybody can do with so many sockpuppets, especially one which reads User:YouDontGetIt. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 22:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone help Nlu?

In the topic above Nlu has been unable to find the violation of policy. Perhaps someone can help Nlu and actually find the three policies he stated were violated. Just cite the edits to help out Nlu. I have looked and I can't find them. Maybe someone else would have better luck. If Nlu can't even find the violations that he said occurred, I don't know how anyone can. Perhaps the accounts should be unblocked and the pages unprotected since those actions appear to be baseless.

Thanks for trying to help Nlu fulfill his Admin responsibilities. Sorry he can't find the violations on his own. GreatTerriffic 07:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker

This case has been closed. The remedies are warnings to IronDuke (talk · contribs · logs) and Gnetwerker (talk · contribs · logs). No enforcement is required.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Temporary undeletion

Could someone temporarily undelete the image description page for Image:092str.jpg? I'm being accused of vandalism with respect to this image and OrphanBot, and I'd like to figure out what happened, particularly since OrphanBot's logs don't show that it ever encountered this image. --Carnildo 19:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Let me know when you're done with it. Jkelly 19:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The deletion log shows that it was originally deleted because it was listed on WP:PUI.[13] I do not see how OrphanBot had anything to do with it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot's never had anything to do with it. The image has never been in either category that OrphanBot works with, and it has never been even tangentally related to any special request by OrphanBot. OrphanBot did once edit a page that the image was used on once, but that was to remove an entirely different image. --Carnildo 20:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm done with the image. Feel free to re-delete it. --Carnildo 20:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Neonazi edit war

A Neonazi edit war is brewing on the following pages over a faction fight in Aryan Nations: Aryan Nations, Aryan Brotherhood, Richard Girnt Butler, August Kreis III, Jonathan Williams (pastor), White supremacy, Nazism, Neo-Nazism. The primary problem is POV editing by 24.171.16.151 (talk · contribs). I am really tired of running around after this user and making the pages NPOV. Now POV antinazi edits are appearing (see [14]) I have no interest in being a referee for a bunch of neonazis and thir foes. This is my third request.--Cberlet 20:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet, what do you want to see happen? Is this a request for more editors to watchlist the pages, or is page protection needed, or blocks need to happen... what are you looking for here? Jkelly 21:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, well, I'm not an Admin., and I am not sure what is appropriate. I am worried about this getting out of hand. Perhaps semi page protection for a week on the other pages, (Aryan Nations is already full locked); and blocking User 24.171.16.151 for 48 hours? I don't know what is customary in these types of cases. I suppose just having a bunch of Admins. watching the pages might chill stuff out, but I doubt it. Hoping you folks might suggest an appropriate remedy.--Cberlet 21:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What is it going to take to get folks to pay attention to this? The edit war continues. This is just ridiculous. I can't revert anymore without starting to violate 3RR. If nobody cares, just let me know so I can give up. I prefer to see even the pages on neonazis be accurate, but if I can't get any help, what's the point?--Cberlet 03:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried RFC? Administrators really have limited power in a content dispute. We can't make people talk, or understand Wikipeia's rules, any better than a normal editor can. What it takes is someone willing to try to shepherd the article into shape, and that's got nothing to do with administrator buttons. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 03:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked into this, and there was a pretty clear 3RR violation on Richard Girnt Butler, so I blocked the IP for twenty four hours. I doubt if that is much of a solution. –Joke 03:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Joke. For the record, Chip, I know nothing about this issue, but I left a message on the IP's talk page hoping to help him see that he's going about things the wrong way. Doubt it'll take, but hope springs eternal. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 03:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no idea what to do other than ask for a block for 3RR. But if it is just me reverting the warring editors, I hit 3RR quickly myself. Look, it's a bunch of neonazis fighting over who controls the "real" neonazi group Aryan Nations. Do you seriously think they want some "help" working out how to edit the text? Have you ever negotiated with neonazis? I realize most people do not enter this realm of reality, but while there are some neonazis who might actually abide by Wiki rules of courtesy, this is not what is happening here. Check the page histories. It is an ongoing revert war. Some creative thinking here would be greatly appreciated.--Cberlet 03:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that may be the way to go. Let him run up against 3RR and get blocked. If he keeps it up, the blocks will get longer. I was tempted to block him myself tonight for the kinds of obviously inappropriate edits he's been making today, but I wanted to give him another chance to "get it." · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 03:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no idea what to do. This aspect of Wikipedia is depressing. Sufficiently motivated editors can almost always keep an article in good shape, but a lot of time can be wasted in the interim, and a lot of people can get frustrated with the process. Perhaps if the RFC process were better developed it could be used to establish a consensus outside the special interests who normally edit these articles. The problem I've seen is that RFC's are fractious and easy to ignore: these aspects impede their use as tools for consensus-building. –Joke 04:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and of course the reason they're easy to ignore is that it's a rare bird who actually wants to wade into some pitched battle about a subject they likely have no interest in, particularly when there are usually enough battles to be fought in one's own "wikiturf." · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've semi-protected those articles under active attack (IP reversions in the last day). --Golbez 03:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, now that the offending IP has been blocked for 24h (and suspecting it's a static IP, I propose blocking for longer), only one article, Nazism, is being vandalized by multiple IPs. It's been semiprotected. --Golbez 04:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Nazism has anywhere near enough activity to be semi-protected. Please reconsider. It only had two edits yesterday. –Joke 04:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Now Christian Identity is involved. Sigh...--Cberlet 16:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A possible end to Squidward vandalism

Over the last few weeks, while I was supposed to be on break :) , I have been receiving multiple e-mails from Squidward. After many messages back and forth (the current total is 50), we have come to some terms (I have not promised him anything, before you think I've been pretending to act on wikipedia's behalf.) He has stated that if his name was removed from the vandalism in progress page, as well as the links to other sites (he claims that we have implicated other people, "The Indianna Chess Club" for example) that all the attacks will cease. We could, alternately, delete the whole page, this is something he has been asking for which I thought a bit much, what do you think? I've also been receiving some angry e-mails from other parties whose sites have been implicated here. Apparently the names on this page, have particularly incited him, and I have his word (a vandals word yes, but I am inclined to believe him) that the attacks will stop.

From the e-mail exchange I've come to understand a bit about the background of his vandalist contributions. He started out as a 'normal' editor, but was branded as a vandal from the start. He saw himself as mistreated, and over-reacted to this by becoming what we know as the Squidward vandal.

In my humble opinion, those terms are reasonable and we have little to lose, however, it may be viewed as "giving in". What does everybody think? Banez 22:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Protect the encyclopedia. If the vandalism stops its worth removing it, if not it isn't. (usual not an admin disclaimer) Prodego ^talk 23:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think it really matters. His vandal attacks stop within seconds; the vandalism is reverted within a minute nowadays. But I suppose that's a reason in itself to take him of WP:LTA. --Rory096 23:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't think you would take it off WP:LTA as long as the subject still attempts to vandalize. i.e. WOW is still on WP:LTA but he is usually blocked in seconds Prodego ^talk 23:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If the user stops vandalising, there's no need for an Long term abuse page at all. I see no reason not to delete it in that case. We welcome all contributors, so helping them join the project isn't "giving in". :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 23:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. —Prodego ^talk 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

(4-time edit conflicted) Wikipedia should not "give in" to anybody, espically a vandal. Perhaps after six months of non-activity it could be archived. But for now, if the vandalism continues, there is no reason to remove the entry. The more open proxies that we get, the better. These attacks, while a nuisance, are easy to clean up and give us many IP addresses to block that could have been used for other types of vandalism. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well a show of good faith is always helpful, if Squidward continues, we just put it back. Prodego ^talk 23:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It isnt so much deleting the page (that was an option), he actually wants the name and links removed. Banez 23:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Six months is far too long, in my opinion; that'd be a significant fraction of Wikipedia's entire history. Perhaps delete after three weeks of inactivity, and remove the offending information immediately? We're not "giving in" by doing so; the LTA page is intended only to track vandalism. At the point vandalism stops, the page becomes useless. As Prodego says, assume good faith. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 23:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I was just throwing out a number, the time really doesn't matter, just as long as it stopped. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

We will have to wait and see what happens, but Squidward does appear to have grown tired of it all, and wants an end. Banez 23:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There was a fresh Squidward attack today. -- Curps 17:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure of that, your bot has, shall we say... issues--64.12.116.200 02:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

We do not negotiate with vandals and trolls, that being said if he's willing to stop then I'd suggest blanking and protecting the page which I think is a fair compromise and is also more GFDL sound since deleting things on request would if nothing else violate the GFDL and is a bad precedent. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 23:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I just went ahead and blanked it, on the assumption that he is going to stop. (Can't hurt to try.) If he attacks again, restore it. Ashibaka tock 23:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, since there was just another attack, I'm going to go ahead and restore it.--Shanel 19:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Squidward claims that his IP is huge and shared by many, and that he hasnt done any further attacks...Oh well, who knows... Banez 19:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That statement just proves that Squidward is trying to screw with us. There was indeed an attack, after the page was blanked, and it was in classic Squidward style. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 21:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I have come to that conclusion. I've got tired of getting 30 ranting e-mails a night from him, but yet he still insists that that attack which looked so much like him wasnt in fact him...I can't say I'm not a little skeptical. Banez 06:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a simple answer to that - send em and email stating that any further emails from em will be considered public, and you will forward them(without reading them) to wikien-l. Wait a bit for the wikien-l admins to request that you stop forwarding them, and then simply delete the emails. Simple enough. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

User 12.35.165.82

Anonymous user 12.35.165.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been severely vandalizing every page he touches as you can see from his edit history. Just thought some one should take a look. ArchonMeld 02:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked 31h. Thanks. --Golbez 02:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

User Account hacked by Vandal

The user that is being attacked is Xchrisblackx. Someone has hacked his account and is committing vandalisim and making this user look like the bad guy here. Can he get his account changed ? Martial Law 02:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC) :)

• He's already made a new account I think. And the offending account has already been permabanned. --Golbez 02:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone should tell him this. Martial Law 08:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC) :)

I am User: Xchrisblackx and I have not made a new account This is my statement and I will only say this once, Morning March 30 I went to log on and my password was wrong I then went to check on my User page and found nothing wrong I went to check my history and found that an edit war had been raging between myself??(note: Check my edits and you'll find i'm only on usually in the late morning to early afternoon, and it said I was on in the early morning?) Then User: Deckiller told me my account was hacked and that this hacker was blanking pages and I told Deckiller to go ahead and block him. I then confronted User: Curps and told him my story and talked to a few other users. I am currently trying to control my vandal buddie and take my account back over.--66.37.64.6 17:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

(Note if getting my account back does not work I would like my account to be changed, just tell me what to do)

Has been returned to me and solved Mahogany-wanna chat?

Leaky gut syndrome

User:Mutters1 has moved the article "leaky gut syndrome" to "leaky gut syndrome sucks", reasoning "because it does". An admin needs to delete the existing redirect so we can move the old page back, sans "sucks". Also, the page now points to snowboarding for some reason. Isopropyl 04:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like that was already resolved. --Golbez 04:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Check and mate.--Sean Black ^(talk) 04:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Isopropyl 05:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, you can move a page onto a redirect if the page has no other history. Stifle (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Payson High School

We've got a situation over at Payson High School. User:Jonsiebob is committing repeat WP:POINT violations. Probably need someone to protect the page for a few minutes. Isopropyl 05:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I just blocked him for disruptive behavior instead. Angr (talk • contribs) 06:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

User Apostrophe's persistent incivility despite administrative warning

Please note that user Apostrophe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was initially advised by administrator Stifle here to observe civility and please do not bite newcomers. Still, he has persisted in violating these and other policies in the following instances [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. This is only a small sampling of this user's persistently hostile attitude towards multiple editors. He is ignoring written warnings to modify his behaviour to conform with Wikipedia standards. Please assist, thank you. Netkinetic 06:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Stifle (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Jonathanbender

I've noticed an interesting pattern of edits which may indicate an unusually sneaky and persistant vandal, and I thought someone might want to take a look. User: Jonathanbender and User: Jonathanbender2 are both indef. blocked for the same vandalism. User: Jonathanbender3 is nearing the end of his current 48hour block. All three have the same pattern of vandalism, specifically inserting ytmnd saftey not guaranteed, often with a misleading edit summary (usually "rv ytmnd vandalism" or some variation on it). The same patten of edits have come from the apparently stable IP User:71.252.164.152.

This is where things get interesting. Shortly after removing some vandalism by User:Jonathanbender3, another editor User:Monosylab1k gave me a {{bv}}, more or less out of the blue. I left some comments on his page, inquiring as to why. Other than this edit, Monosylab1k has not edited related to ytmnd. After no explanation was given, and I could find no reason for the warning, I (perhap unwisely) removed it, noting I was doing so on Monosylab1k's page. My own comments there were then edited by the aforementioned IP, 71.252.164.152, and subsequently by now indef. blocked User:Billy212 to make my edit into a personal attack.

The latest stage of this saga seems to be User:Arbinado, a new user who started right in reverting Billy212, and almost exclusively Billy212's edits, but sometimes incompletely leaving some of the vandalism. Tellingly, Arbinado uses the same wording in his edit summaries as Jonathanbender. My strong suspicion is that Arbinado is the latest incarnation of Jonathanbender, as his edits are always immediately after Billy212, and only reverts Billy212's vandalism, and often does so incompletely so as to leave in the bulk of the vandalism. See edits:

Vandalism by Billy212/"Revert" by Arbinado [22] / [23]
[24] /[25].

I may be wrong, of course, and Arbinado is a new user who sometimes uses a true revert, and other times attempts to edit out the vandalism by hand for unknown reasons but doesn't get all of it, and coincidentally reverts using the same phrases like "rv more ytmnd vandalism" on his edit summaries as Jonathanbender. But it seems unlikely.

I think appropriate action would be to

• block Jonathanbender3 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• keep a close watch on Arbinado (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) (and maybe Monosylab1k (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log))
• watch the edits on the ususal ytmnd articles, Time travel, Wanted, Safety, Mark (given name) (I, and I know others already watch these pages) for new variations on the theme of trying to seak in ytmnd jokes.

If anyone could take a look, I'd appreciate it. Sorry for the long post. --TeaDrinker 06:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting, indeed. Props for uncovering a possible web of vandalism :) Isopropyl 07:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist and Plasma cosmology

ScienceApologist has consistently violated several Wiki policies in the article on Plasma cosmology, where we are fortunate to have a plasma cosmologist helping with the editing.

• ScienceApologist continually removes from the article, the term "plasma cosmologist" [26][27][28][29][30] contravening Wiki policy on NPOV (specifically on Word ownership where he personally questions its use), igoring verifiable citations to the phrase [31].
• He has also included an ad hominem on contributing plasma cosmologist, Eric Lerner [32] by questioning his credentials, and "cosmologist" label, contravening Wiki policy on No personal attacks.
• Contravening Wiki policy on Civility, where he suggests that I have (a) "no verification to back myself up" (already provided) (b) I "continue to bluster about hot air" (c) that I should be "ready to return to civil engagement" (d) that I am on a "POV-warpath" (whatever that is) (e) that I am "not ammenable to listening to any editorial points" (despite an extensive dialogue). [33]
• Contravening Wiki policy on Verifiability, where I have asked for verification of ScienceApologist's position [34], but have not received references to the required information.
• And although only a guideline, I see no consensus for ScienceApologist's point of view.

A more detailed discussion can be found on the Plasma cosmology talk page. --Iantresman 09:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, specifically, a dispute over how to use the label "cosmologist". It is not something that needs any more assistance than the RFM you've already filed. Ashibaka tock 23:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist and Galaxy rotation problem

Despite two consecutive complaints against ScienceApologist, this is not harrassment, as I hope I can demonstrate.

In the article on Galaxy rotation problem ScienceApologist has contravened Wiki policy on Verifiability, by (a) removing my citation tag [35] in request for speciific information to back up a statement in the article (b) not provided the verification to support the article statement. As background:

• The last paragraph of the article on the Galaxy rotation problem mentions FIVE theories (1) dark matter (2) MOND (3) plasma cosmology (4) quasi-steady state cosmology, and (5) ideas advocated by Halton Arp
• The paragraph concludes (unverified, I believe): "None of these alternatives are considered by the vast majority of the astronomical community to be as convincing as the dark matter model", followed by a reference to two articles 1 2
• Both references discuss dark matter and MOND, but not the other three theories. So the reference can not apply to ALL the alternatives as impied, only to MOND.
• Neither reference is peer-reviewed, one is a press release, one is a general news item. Both are based on the interpretation of either PR people, or a science journalist, which in turn is based on the opinions of one or two scientists. NOWHERE is there any reference to theories other than MOND and dark matter, so the article's concluding statement is not verified.

--Iantresman 14:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"removing my citation tag in request for speciific information to back up a statement in the article" -- Um, it looks like that is not removing the tag for no reason, but adding more sources to fulfill the request that you were asking for. Ashibaka tock 17:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

But the existing source, and new source, do not verify the statement. Wiki policy on verifiability does not let you provide any old citation, it surely must verify the statement?--Iantresman 21:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

When you bring a problem to the admin noticeboard, you have to show that you need administrative assistance. The link you've given here is a content dispute. Ashibaka tock 23:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This noticeboard is not a battleground. Please take this discussion to user talk or make it clear what an administrator needs to do. Thanks! Isopropyl 23:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This battle ground was also taken to my inbox by Tommy, the user I blocked for legal threats. I am not getting involved either into this content dispute, since I am an idiot when it comes to science. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"original work?" objection

It is quickly summed up here on my talk page. I am a very new member.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reid_Welch&redirect=no

The irregularities are at "antidisestablishmentarianism", "Flatiron Building" and "carpe diem".

This is no emergency.

I stand by to make deletions if that should,

or especially, if deletion -must- be done.

Thanks for your guidance.

Reid Welch 23:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever seen a poem about a building in any other encyclopedia? They don't belong here either. We collect information, not verse. --Golbez 23:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I have not seen any other verse about a building, period.

Nor is there a verse contextually defining the long word, "antidisestab---"

"We collect information, not verse"

Why, then, are pages filled with poetry citations, quotes and reprints?

This is my question: how does the entry of "A" (not mine any more=public domain) relevant verse --differ from the entry of the "same thing" by, say, some other person not its author?--

Very hazy here.

Reid Welch 23:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If we had an article, Reid Welch, you could put your poems there. You may also put them on your user page. But you can't put them on other pages; it's not relevant enough to the article. Ashibaka tock 23:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I would have to disagree; we don't paste Hamlet to Shakespeare. We could perhaps MENTION his works on his page, if ever he warranted one; however, they would belong only on Wikisource, except for exceptionally short works. --Golbez 23:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. See To be, or not to be - it's all a matter of notability. :) zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, posting one's own original poetry can be considered vanity. Even if you release it to the public domain. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; see WP:NOT. Your addition to the page in question must be of encyclopedic value.

It's also common practice to structure your posts in the form of paragraphs. If you need assistance, help is available. Isopropyl 23:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Because the quote or poetry is vital to the understanding of the subject. "Carpe diem" was used in ancient poetry, and that is useful to understand its meaning. And it wouldn't matter if someone else inserted it, it's still not a proper addition. This doesn't fall under original research - it falls under original works. Wikipedia is not an essay or poetry depository, yours or anyone elses. We require reliable sources. These citations and quotes are required to expand our understanding of the subject; we can't, nor do we want to, include every single media involving the subject ever made. --Golbez 23:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Now that the three entries are removed, I do agree with you about two of them being not-vital to the encylopedic nature of the Wiki.

Then, too, the citation of a Honeymooner's TV sitcom quote at "carpe diem" =is not valid either= and should be excised.

So should all near-contemporary references to a subject word like "carpe diem", such as it's being employed in classical or modern poetry: not needed, so you state, to convey the (unimportant?)present currency value of the term in popular culture.

I would state that, vanity aside, which I have surrendered inasmuch as is possible, the antidis.. verse is completely relevant to the its subject-word.

":Because the quote or poetry is vital to the understanding of the subject. "Carpe diem" was used in ancient poetry, and that is useful to understand its meaning. And it wouldn't matter if someone else inserted it, it's still not a proper addition."

I do not see the distinction made except that you apparently feel that "vanity" is my purpose in wishing for the antidis.. verse, only, to be reinstalled.

This verse is not ancient but it is quite useful in helping to impart an understanding of antidisestablishmentarianism, ca. the 1860's.

And it defines the word, contains the word and makes the word very simple to understand, in a palatable, amusing way.

In every sense the "anti..." verse meets the criteria you yourself are now promulgating, except that the author is living.

Here it is for the record, for reconsideration. I would gladly surrender copyright and even author name to have this practical verse applied to the entry "antidisestablishmentarianism"

http://poetry.tetto.org/read/15281/

Our Aunty Prudence disrespects

those who aim to disestablish

ties of England's Church to State.

Her hot protests of angry Ire-

land in the deaf ears of those men

who tarry not in grasping goals

while taking aim at an arcane

jingoistic jism-ism,

antidisestablishmentarianism

Reid Welch 00:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We have articles, not poems. We may describe poems, but do not create them because new ideas (and all poetry includes new ideas, to some degree) are forbidden original research. It's that simple. Superm401 - Talk 01:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Still in conflict with itself, this policy.

"We may describe poems..."

Superm401, Wickipedia includes poems, not just descriptions...

"...but do not create them because new ideas (and all poetry includes new ideas,..."

I cannot make the leap that there is a genuine distinction between the anti... verse, vs. and other poetry, though old, which is printed in various Wiki articles.

There are no new ideas in the anti.. verse.

It is a summation of existing knowlege put into an exceedingly compact and memorable (utilitarian) form.

As such, it is of educational value as clearly as is a prose article, but set apart from mere prose by being art, and art is the iconography of a culture.

So that is that.

I've registered my thoughts without rancor or resentment.

Thank you all.

Reid Welch 01:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

We do sometimes include poems, but only when they are short and have already been published elsewhere. Superm401 - Talk 17:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You could also try Wikisource. Stifle (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks on a AfD?

I nominated a list for a AfD and Itake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued to put up personal attacks. I have removed them and they have been reverted[36]. Arbusto 23:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I would block Itake, but I am involved in this (having asked both Itake and Arbustoo to stop fighting and cleared the crap form the AfD to talk as well). Itake is young, I think, but unnecessarily aggressive. Just zis Guy you know? 22:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say asking them to stop fighting and cleaning up their mess is not being "involved." If you had taken a specific side in the relevant debate, then certainly a recusal would be called-for. However, if anything, you are the perfect person to take administrative action as you know both sides of the story and have a clear idea of what is going on. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2006

I'd fix this (admittedly menial) problem myself, if the page wasn't edit-protected, but extraterrestrial is one word with no hyphen. User:Raul654 said he'd fixed it, but the hyphen is still there. Sorry to disturb... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 00:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Golbez has fixed it. Hermione1980 00:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

April Fools RFAs

I want Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mathbot and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vandal restored as they were joke noms for April 1st only and I do want to go on with it, but I won't not placing them on the WP:RFA. I want them to be archived soon after for historical and BJAODN perposes as I don't have a copy of them. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Valid deletions of invalid RfA's. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Support deletions as disruption of process. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:11 UTC (2006-04-01)

Agree with Jeffrey O. Gustafson, leave them deleted. Pepsidrinka 01:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh bull. We've had joke RFAs for two years running. It's absurd to suddenly crack down on them with no discussion. Mr. Treason 01:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I need at least the content to place it in a user subpage --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Can they be moved to my userpage the content like User:Jaranda/Requests for adminship/Vandal --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved them to User:Jaranda/Requests for adminship/Vandal and User:Jaranda/Requests for adminship/Mathbot and deleted the redirects. Everyone should be happy (but they never are). Superm401 - Talk 01:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

APRIL FOOLS DAY SECTION

April's Fools

Could an admin put this up as today's main page? zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Em, yes, if that admin wants desysopped. But, I think I'll pass. --Doc ^ask? 01:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Translation: No.--Sean Black ^(talk) 01:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoa there. A lot of people have worked on this, including admins that I don't think plan to be desysopped (eg User:Deathphoenix, User:David Levy, User:Ashibaka, etc.). See Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page. No need to be so harsh. :) zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Did we come to any sort of consensus about this? Did Raul OK or actively reject it? Mr. Treason 01:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure. But at any rate, I don't think this should be viewed as vandalism, and one doesn't need to be attacked or bitten. zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Jaranda/April Fools 2006 to add all April Fools jokes so far. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

*scratches head* For all the planning, it seems as if someone dropped the ball on implementation—especially with all the admins involved. Why was zafiroblue05 left feeling compelled to bring it here? RadioKirk talk to me 02:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Because some people (including admins) don't realize that April Fool's day has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia and would rather spend their time on stupid April Fool's Day jokes. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 04:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Is there a date for burial services for your sense of humor? RadioKirk talk to me 17:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You could add a link to the April Fools version on the regular main page. -- Kjkolb 04:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

My name was mentioned, so I should note that I've never endorsed this idea. My participation was limited to the discouragement and removal of patent nonsense from the proposal. I would much prefer that we retain our usual style of content. After all, someone has to. —David Levy 04:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

April Fools Day ALERT

April Fool's Day is here. The mayhem may start, if it has not already. Martial Law 03:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC) :o

That's right! Willy on Wheels 3:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC) \/\/ [] \/\/

I've blocked indefitnely. :) -Zero^Talk 04:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the mayhem has begun. Red and blue text ? Martial Law 05:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Now its back to normal, for this site. Martial Law 05:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Dealing with blatant April Fools articles

So what exactly is consensus here because I am getting mixed signals based on the previous discussions above, recent speedy deletions, Template:Aprilfools, and Category:April Fool's Day 2006? If a legitimate user creates a blatant April Fools hoax article, should we immediately speedy delete it, keep it, or redirect it into some other namespace? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete with extreme prejudice. But, then again, I need to "get off it." --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Just ignore it until 2006-04-02. --Cyde Weys 05:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been speedy tagging all the hoax articles I see outside of the main space but unfortunately many administrators are resisting me even to the point of misusing rollback to do it. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should take the hint? --Cyde Weys 05:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No worries, Pegasus, I have been going through and removing the garbage on Newpages. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I plan to delete any joke articles that I run across in the main article space, tagged as "April Fool's" or not. Joyous | Talk 17:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've been doing Newpage patrol for more than 13 hours, and the ratio of bad to good doesn't seem any higher than normal. Still, the more eyes, the merrier, especially on Newpage patrol. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been SD'ing several, if requested on CSD. We can't count on a template/category to clean these up later. Most of the talk on the mailing list is that odd or funny was fine, but nonfactual was not. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Move to WP:BJAODN/nameofjoke, then delete redirect, finally list on WP:BJAODN/2006. - Mailer Diablo 05:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Or better yet move to my namespace where alot of the articles is going User:Jaranda/April Fools 2006 is the BJAODN/2006 anyways when I move it tommorrow --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's important to keep April Fool's jokes out of article space, and I even understand why people want to keep it out of project space (though I really don't think a couple of silly RFAs or AFDs being listed for one day is going to hurt anyone). But why do people feel the need to revert war to keep a rather well done parody off Jimbo's user page? Jimbo invites people to edit his page and it has always seemed to me like he has a sense of humor, and the page was obviously clever parody, and probably something someone worked hard on. What damage could it possibly do? Why waste any effort on it when there's actual vandalism to deal with? Polotet 06:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC) (Oh, and the interest of full disclosure, I reverted the humor back into Jimbo's user page twice and got a rather harsh "vandalism" warning from Pegasus1138 for my trouble. Polotet 06:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC))

I reverted on Jimbo Wales once, but was going to stick to 1RR per editor on it, so wouldn't have reverted you again. Nonetheless, you were also immediately reverted by another. I've reduced page protection from protected to sprotected at this time, but do not encourage pranks on it :p — xaosflux ^Talk 13:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that April Fools' jokes should be kept strictly to userspace... hence I think reverting Jimbo's page is overzealous. If he doesn't like it, let him revert it himself. --Sam Blanning (SQUIDWARD!!!)^(talk) 13:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, we can be a bit more tolerant of April Fool's jokes today, but, unless it is within a person's userspace, anyone should feel free to revert any jokes made. "Wait until April 2" will mean a huge clean-up operation where we will undoubtedly miss many things. Also, if your April Fool's prank is reverted, do not reinstate it. The integrity of the encyclopedia is more important than the joke you think is so funny. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I continue to think that we should adhere to the precedent of the past two years and allow joke RFAs, RFArs, AfDs, FACs, and other such things. These have not gotten out of hand in the past, have not been difficult to clean up, have been funny, and do not need to be cracked down on - certainly not by some admins with sticks up their asses who didn't bother to get any sort of consensus that we weren't handling this the way we've handled the past two years. Mr. Treason 15:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sjakkalle's got it. Keep them out of article space. Speedy, warn politely, etc. In project space be a little more tolerant, and in user space, if it is on that user's page leave it alone. But in all cases, definitely don't ever reinstate a prank that's been reverted. That is disruption, and just isn't worth it. There are plenty of people in the real world to play jokes on. - Taxman ^Talk 17:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

April Fools Day Mayhem.....

All Admins be advised that the April Fools Day mayhem is now underway. Martial Law 06:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC) :o

And it's now over, at least in UTC. *Dan T.* 00:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Stalked pages?

Perhaps this is nothing, but I noticed something weird when I left a message at User_talk:Joturner. At the top of the page (where the links to my user page, my talk page, my preferences and so on is) the words "my watchlist" were changed to "Stalked pages". These new words still linked to my watchlist. This only appears to happen on the talk page for Joturner. Could his talk page have been hacked somehow or is this some design option I'm not aware of (although as an admin I was not aware this part of Wikipedia's programming was open to editor design). Comments?--Alabamaboy 19:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It was just User:Cyde messing around within the MediaWiki namespace. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 19:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I figured it was something minor but just wanted to check since I'd never seen it before.--Alabamaboy 19:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

April Fool's

I don't know where else to post this. I'm saddened that Wikipedia didn't post any April Fool's pranks on the main page. Where's your sense of humour? — natha(?)nrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 01:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Subjugated to the desire to keep Wikipedia in a position where it can still be viewed as a serious resource. Jaranda has a subpage with links to Wikipedia April Fool's jokes. Hermione1980 01:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I also bet that if we did not have half the problems as we did in the past few months, we would have done something. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

April Fool's are soooo 2000. Do you you suggest we change "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" to "all your free encyclopedia belong to wikipedia?Geni 09:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, we had some stories on the front page which looked absurd but which are actually true. That's way better that silly pranks in my humble opinion. --kingboyk 12:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Apostrophe

Readdressing matter above which has not been responded to regarding Apostrophe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This editor was initially advised by administrator Stifle here to observe civility and please do not bite newcomers. Still, he has persisted in violating these and other policies in the following instances [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. This is only a small sampling of this user's persistently hostile attitude towards multiple editors. He is ignoring written warnings to modify his behaviour to conform with Wikipedia standards. Please assist, thank you. Netkinetic 06:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've given him a final warning. Superm401 - Talk 06:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much. Hopefully he'll respond favorably. Netkinetic 20:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 24 hours now, as he didn't choose to take much notice of the warnings. Stifle (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the next time he does it, block for a month. After that, indefinately. I have a feeling he'll still be rough when the block is up. — Deckiller 00:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry by blocked user

User:Itunes666 appears to be a sockpuppet of currently blocked User:Atticus765. Similar edits: (1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b) (Edit: his shifting of band genres was one of the reasons for his current block.) -- ChrisB 05:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked the sockpuppet indefinitely and extended Atticus765's blcok for an additional week. Thanks for the report. Superm401 - Talk 06:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like User:Atticus765 has got himself a brand new sock puppet: User:Apple765, just after User:Itunes666 was banned. Similar edit: [44].--Count Chocula 12:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Likewise indef blocked. --Syrthiss 12:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I extended the block on User:Atticus765 for another week. Superm401 - Talk 17:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked User:Nrcprm2026 for 3RR violation

I have blocked User:Nrcprm2026 for egregious violation of the 3RR. Since I have participated and commented on his RFArb (although I have never — knowingly — edited any of the articles he has been involved in), I'd like another admin to review my action, and support or reverse as appropriate. Thanks, Nandesuka 18:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This is just to point out that my edits at Uranium trioxide are not vandalism but an attempt to remove material that is irrelevant to the subject matter and/or introduced against consensus. Everyone is invited to consult the talk page.

I have contributed to James' RFAr as 131.215/16. 82.41.26.244 19:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like >3RR to me. Though of course I have a history of conflict with Nrcprm2026; otherwise I would have blocked him myself William M. Connolley 21:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Profanity Clarification

When quoting someone who has had a paranormal experience, is it OK to incl. the profanity often used by the people who has made the report ? I'd give a example, but I don't know if that would violate anything. Martial Law 20:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC) :)

I think if a direct quote is relevant to the article, it can be included its entirety, including any profanity, regardless of whether it's about a paranormal experience or anything else. Wikipedia has no general policy against profanity, though it does have a policy of not being censored. Angr (talk • contribs) 20:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Profanity--The Ungovernable Force 20:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Also see WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not censored. I would say that, in a direct quote, profanity should almost never be removed. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Can I state a example without any disciplinary action ? If so, I'll state one, and why. Martial Law 07:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Go ahead. The Ungovernable Force 07:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Persuant to this permission, this is the kind of example I will run into on Wikipedia:Paranormal Watchers:"I was driving alone huntin' coon when this damn light suddenly appeared, then, next thing I know is that I'm in one of those UFOs that you read about in the Weekly World News and some damn alien is putting things up my ass and they threw this THING on me and told me to fuck it to get some sperm, then they placed some kind of damn thing up my nose, which hurts like hell, then when I reported it, the damn cops thought I had lost my damn fool head, then I find out here on this Wikipedia about the Robertson Panel article, which states that if you see one of these UFOs or a alien, the US Government set this up to make ME to look like some kind of damn dumb fuck because I had some alien up my ass." Wikipedia:Paranormal Watchers is a Wikipedian organization set up by and for wikipedians who have had bizarre encounters with the paranormal,(such as the hypothetical UFO report that will not be that way for long ), may continue to have bizarre experiences, and/or investigate these matters. Some may play Chess, some may play music, we have had these experiences, some continue to have these experiences( like having a real ghostwriter on Wikipedia ), and some are investigators of these bizarre matters.

Here is a invite: All are welcome to Wikipedia:Paranormal Watchers. The example is stated persuant to the permission granted. Martial Law 08:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Anyone interested ? Martial Law 08:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC) :)

User adding bigoted POV to many pages

Could someone look at this user (71.131.245.179) to see if something can be done? See the recent wave of objectionable edits here. --Cberlet 23:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Kinda reveals himself in his edit comments: Jewish Zionists do control the mainstream media. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Lolicon images

This page is protected due to wonderful edits wars over the images, but in its current state it may be infringing on copyrights. In such cases, it is better to remove the disputed content until it can be resolved (see WP:BP and WP:CV). As such, I request that the image be removed from the page. Yes, there are some that disagree with the removal of these images but there certainly is not a consensus to include them regardless of the copyright claims and even if there were policy is clear that content should be removed. Kotepho 00:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• This has been copied to WP:RFPP. - brenneman^{L} 04:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark

I took a quick look at the block on User:Blu Aardvark. The original block of the chain that went quickly from one week to indefinite seems to be grounded on a false premise, that being on "indefinite wikibreak" means one can be banned for longer than would normally be tolerated. Things escalated from here, and within 36 hours, Blu was blocked permanently. I am inclined to reduce this back to the original block, if that, because there has been a lot of needless escalation and out-of-process stuff done, by both sides. I think what is needed here is a calming period, not blocking, protection, and discarding.

PS, the new Wikipedia Review has no Nazis on it that I know of, so can we please stow that strawman? That definitely causes needless stress and bad feelings, and makes civil debate extremely difficult.

So let's chat. --Golbez 07:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed in principle: We're always supposed to have benefit to the encyclopedia as our first priority, so is it possible that this user can be brought back into the fold? As to this particular case, "Have they made positive contributions before the mess?" would be the pertinent question. - brenneman^{L} 04:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Raul654 18:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and if they have, shorten the block to let them edit productively again, but given them a short leash. If you shorten the block you take responsibility for closely monitoring the user's edits. Also it's a good idea to contact the blocking admin and ask them to respond here as there may be more to it. - Taxman ^Talk 17:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

With respect to Golbez, his summary is highly misleading. See wp:an/i Raul654 18:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

See Wp:an/i#Blu_Aardvark:_I_recommend_a_permanent_ban and previously Wp:an/i#Blu_Aardvark.27s_personal_attacks. It would be better to continue this discussion there so that others know it's happening. I must admit I fail to see how you could think of unblocking someone who has gone around vandalizing the project. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well there goes the other half of the truth coming in as I alluded to. Discuss over there please so it's in one place. - Taxman ^Talk 19:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Dutch and Sandertje

There's a problem at Dutch language which involves the user Sandertje refusing to change the proscriptive nature of a comment about the use of the term "Flemish" to describe Dutch spoken in Belgium (well, Flanders, at least). He is reverting several other users' suggestions for a neutral compromise and refuses to provide any kind of reference in his own support. The consensus so far seems to be against him. His most recent comment was:

I'm sorry? References?! I should have references for the word falsely?! I don't think so, I will continue to edit, revert and expand wikipedia and I don't care what or how you, or people like you, think about that.Thank you.

Sandertje has already been in some conflict over Dutch issues with AvB and there's been some heated verbal exchanges at talk:Dutch language.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

User: Sandertje, is having a fruitful and successful discussion via MSN with AvB at the moment concerning present 'problems'.Sander also didn't revert the changes of other users, the last 'real' revert/edit concerned the changing of not correct into incorrect. On another matter it was User:Peter Isotalo who did not provide references for his edits, and provoking conflict(s) not Sander.

Sander 12:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a note to confirm that Sander and I had a fruitful and successful discussion via MSN yesterday, to be continued sometime this week. AvB ÷ talk 22:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

John Christopher Hepesus

Could you please ban this user ASAP? He appears to a re-incarnation of persistent vandal Johnny the Vandal and he's pretending to be Hephaestos. Mike Garcia 15:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No vandalistic activity has been observed so far. I talk paged the new account with a note to have the old account endorse it, if everything is on the up and up that should take care of it. If this, or any, account starts obviously vandalizing, please post on WP:AIV. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted this user on my talk page from claiming that he's really Hephaestos. In fact, Hephaestos never created any sockpuppets, so this user may (most) definitely be Johnny the Vandal or Wikipedia is Communism. Mike Garcia 16:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, he never made it to my page. Johnny usually does Hephaestos, Mike Garcia and me in one quick vandalism spree. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I seem to have violated WP:BEANS. He hit me after I posted this. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal Rapid Transit

Personal Rapid Transit or PRT is used by anti-transit right-wingers and libertarians to bash real transit. PRT does not exist and like Intelligent Design, has no support among transit advocates and professionals. Like Intelligent Design, PRT has been promoted by the Discovery Institute. I and other transit advocates have been harrassed by proponent of PRT. Because PRT does not exist, the proponents can constantly move the goalposts. However, one thing remains constant--their claim that PRT is superior to conventional transit, in particular LRT. Wherever LRT has been considered (Minneapolis, Seattle, Cincinnati, Austin, Denver, Detroit and more), the PRT proponents invaded the meetings...arguing...arguing...endlessly as you see them doing ( in particular, an anonymous editor who calls himself "Transportation Enthusiast") on the Wikipedia page, wasting everybody's time...and that's what PRT is designed to do-- waste everybody's time. I hope that you will lock this page up with a disclaimer at least until the middle of April (when the Minnesota Legislature's session is half over). There are important transit bills before the legislature, and I don't want to see this Wikipedia page being used as it has in the past to help right-wingers like Rep. Olson [45] to argue against the bills. The mediator who is working on the page now is very good, however he is performing a Sisyphean task of keeping the article neutral. I suggest you contact transportation professionals to give you on the facts on PRT....Thank you.Avidor 16:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"The mediator who is working on the page now is very good". From what I've seen, you probably couldn't get any better. So what have you brought it here for? We don't have a lot of power when it comes to resolving content disputes. --kingboyk 17:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, mate - I don't claim to be very good, but I do what I can. Since both sides are now saying the article is biased to the other, it's probably going OK on balance, but anyone else who feels like pitching in is most welcome. And as Kingboy says, this is not really the right forum. There is already one admin watching the thing, after all. Just zis Guy you know? 21:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Spellcheck?

(moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Spellcheck?)

Regained account control

Xchrisblackx has stated that he has regained his account. Can the "permablock" be removed ? Martial Law 02:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Possible name issue: The Editor in Chief (talk · contribs)

I think that this name may be misleading, but I don't really have the time or energy to deal with this just now. If somebody else were to manage this I would be very grateful. – ClockworkSoul 04:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have posted a note on his talkpage regarding this concern. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Troll at large?

SlashDot (talk · contribs · logs) appears to be some kind of troll; new account, edited a bunch of porn and GNAA related articles, has been removing info related to spyware in 180 Solutions products diff. See also Talk:Zango_Messenger. Also has gotten into a 3RR dispute on his/her own talk page User_talk:SlashDot. Also uploaded a bunch of not-quite-hardcore porn-related images (see user log). No blatant vandalism visible but Inserted prank image into Al Gore diff and the rapid edits from a new account smell like block evasion or some such (edited 09:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)). Conspiracy/coincidence angle: a slashdot.org comment [46] alleges that the Zango Messenger page was itself edit-warred by 180 Solutions personnel last year. The page has been pretty quiet since then but this person suddenly shows up after that comment appears. Phr 07:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

User has already been blocked for 24 hours for vandalism, and I would suggest reblock indefinitely for not only being a vandal account, but for having an inappropriate username that resembles the name of a popular internet site. Thoughts on this? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Suspected sock/block evasion (re-revert of Zango Messenger from an IP address: [47] Phr 03:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Also further reverts to same page Phr 02:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Remove autoblock: 207.200.116.10

I'm attempting to add a Wikipedia page, and it appears that the IP I am on has been autoblocked (its an AOL IP) for the past few hours. Would someone please help me out by unblocking the IP so that I can post my article. I'm sure that the troublemaker has long since lost interest and moved on.

Thanks. --Brianvdb 10:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked all three autoblocker-triggered blocks of (possible) AOL IPs I blocked earlier today, does that work? NSLE _(T+C) at 10:57 UTC (2006-04-03)

Looks like it did. Thanks for your help! --Brianvdb 11:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

User not removing fair use images from userspace

On 28 March 2006, I removed a fair use image from User:GreatGatsby's userpage (diff). My grounds for the removal of these images is Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy item #9. On 29 March 2006, GreatGatsby reverted the removal without comment or edit summary (diff). On 30 March 2006, I left a note on his talk page requesting that he remove the image in question plus an additional logo (logo for Opera) as well, as it was a fair use image (diff). Since then, GreatGatsby has edited, and in fact added an additional userbox to his userpage (diff), ignoring my request for him to remove the two images. I've no wish to engage in an edit/revert war with this individual, and am thus posting this here for other admins to comment and/or take corrective action. --Durin 15:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have left him a note asking him to comment on your note Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 15:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the images again and left a note on his talk page. Angr (talk • contribs) 15:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As the Wikipedia logo is copyrighted, is its use on User pages a copyright violation? User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say no, because the page is published by Wikipedia. (Wikipedia is not a free web host.) --kingboyk 17:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've asked that question myself someplace, Zoe (don't remember where so I can't provide the diff), and also got an answer like Kingboyk's: "I would say no" or "I don't think so", but I've never gotten a definite "No" from someone in authority. I think the question is still up in the air. Angr (talk • contribs) 17:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've wondered the same, but I think it would probably never get anywhere in court; Wikipedia suing itself for itself using logos on its own userpages where it's not allowable under fair use? Seems a strange claim :) Maybe you could go after individual users, but that's doubtful too; once you click submit, the submissions are licensed under GFDL. Regardless, I've operated under the assumption that Wikipedia logos are allowable outside of the main article namespace. --Durin 19:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Court has nothing to do with it. This is about Wikipedia policy, which says no copyrighted images on user pages. Whether an exception is made for Wikimedia's own copyright has never been explicitly stated. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's copyright policies descend from copyright law. Within that law, there doesn't seem to be a clear case that any harm has been caused when Wikimedia's logos are used outside of fair use within its own project. Therefore, lacking any direction in explicit Wikipedia policy, it would seem that usage of such logos would be allowed. Similarly, a company can use its own logos wherever it chooses to do so and does not break copyright law in so doing. I'd be surprised if Wikimedia took a stance against its own logos being used on this project. --Durin 21:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

But Wikipedia's image use policy is much stricter than necessary under US copyright law. It would be better if there were a clear statement from someone at Wikimedia that Wikipedia's ban on copyrighted images in user space does not apply to images copyrighted by Wikimedia. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:CFD

Just wanted to drop a reminder here about checking in on CfD. Kbdank71 used to handle most of the closings, but he's on wikibreak at the moment...and while I've been trying to take up the slack (with the help of TexasAndroid and others), I took a weekend off and came back to a 4 day backlog of closings. I've caught up again with the closings backlog (and don't mind catching up even on 2 day backlogs) but I'd appreciate it if admins could check in periodically and do some closings if its >= 3 days. That usually means I'm busy IRL or my computer is down.

There are also a bunch of moves and deletions for processing at the moment because of the backlog, and no Nekodaemon to do auto category moves from tags. :/

Thanks! --Syrthiss 18:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As soon as I get done with my current batch of template substing I'll get my bot over to deal with some of the larger load category moves though not being an admin I can't do anything about pending deletions. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Worst case, if you've emptied a cat and need it deleted just move it to the "to be deleted" section on /working. When I go to close discussions I'll wipe out stuff there if nobody has got to it first. --Syrthiss 11:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete request for user subpage

Could I get a delete for User:Topaz/prodego-monobook.js? I'd mark it {{db-owner}}, but it's a javascript and doesn't appear to respond appropriately to templates. ~Topaz^♪♫∆ 20:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Baleeted. --Syrthiss 20:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Massive WP:SPAM by Serbian Genealogical Society

User:SGS has flooded wikipedia with links to advertising article Serbian Genealogical Society and External links of many articles related with Serbia, Montenegro, Genealogy etc. I plan to WP:AfD the SGS article first, but which further steps should I take

a) to establish community's consensus about the inacceptability of such blatant advertising

b) to get the damage undone and the commercials removed from Wikipedia

c) to warn the user about his conduct

Note that "Srpsko rodoslovno društvo" has only 20 Ghits for Serbian search string, while has 15,400 starting from Wikimirrors and every possible directory the guys could find. Duja 21:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless the link adds significantly to the article (which, from a quick glance, doesn't appear to be the case), mass addition of links should generally be regarded as inappropriate. You may wish to point the user, who may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies, to the proper pages describing this. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Overenthusiastic use of warning templates

User:203.15.35.68 appears to have cut-and-pasted two warning templates (rather than subst'ing, and thus retaining their category, which is why I noticed) onto the user page of user and IP address to touch what I assume are his favorite articles (Brisbane Boys' College and Anglican Church Grammar School). While this appears to have been done in more or less good faith (e.g., all the people warned did engage in vandalism of these pages), the several I've examined had already been given first-level warnings for that particular act of vandalism, so adding these second- and third-level warnings seems inappropriate. Perhaps they ought to be rolled back? Choess 22:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Aiman abmajid

Aiman abmajid (talk · contribs · count) (who claims to be 10 years old on his user page) has been creating lots of short stub articles, as well as articles for buildings which are not significant. But what irks me the most is that he creates very, very stubby Malaysian Federal Route articles that do not conform to article style convention (Malaysia Federal Route 89 and Malaysia Federal Route 91 are typical examples), and uses non-descriptive edit summaries (just take a look at his contributions and you'll see), even though he has been told to use more descriptive edit summaries [48]. Is there any way to slow him down and make him read his talk page, before he creates more short stubs and nn-road articles, a la Striver? — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

2006-1985=21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onthost (talk • contribs) Note the math is wrong, it isn't June 2 2006 yet. Prodego ^talk 00:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The user page says "Aiman was born in Petaling Jaya, Selangor on 2nd June 1985", which makes his age 20, not 10. Prodego ^talk 00:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The math isn't wrong its just not june yet! But the point I was trying to make was he is not 10. Mike _{(T C)} 01:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoops... my bad. Morning grogginess. :-( — Kimchi.sg | Talk 02:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you like Tawkerbot2 to report repeat vandals here

Someone has proposed having Tawkerbot2 make a post here if someone triggers the bot multiple times (say 4 times or more, the exact number is up for debate) with links to all of the diffs that the bot caught. Would this be helpful and if so, would you prefer that it posts here or on an "automated bot reporting list" somewhere else.

Feel free to reply either here or my talk page, it makes no difference to me -- Tawker 00:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think a separate list would be better. This page is already quite overloaded. --Ragib 00:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. And WP:AIV would be an ideal place for that kind of report. --Ed (Edgar181) 01:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a seperate section on AIV might be a good idea. No harm in giving it a try I think? --kingboyk 01:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I too agree that WP:AIV would be a good place for this. --CBDunkerson 01:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Concur, a subpage of WP:AIV would be good. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 02:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok WP:AIV/TB2 has been born. Of course the code to report to it isn't there yet, but thats the location to add to watchlists eventually -- Tawker 06:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It should now be reporting to WP:AIV/TB2. Personally I would prefer that it report directly to WP:AIV as I fear that subpage will get forgotten. joshbuddy^talk 07:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Put a note on AIV asking admins to add the subpage to thier watchlists. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 09:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Lindosland

User:Lindosland is insisting on placing external links to a commercial website on a number of articles. The links point to a company he founded and, though he claims to no longer own it, continues to work for. I've tried to explain the problems with linking to commercial websites and linking to what is at the very least his own website content, but he doesn't seem to hear and I don't have time right now... Please can someone else help out. AlistairMcMillan 01:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Seeking clarification

I'd like to request clarification from others regarding an unfortunate recent exchange between me and another editor. Here is the timeline of events:

• I tagged Elizabeth Haldane, a one-liner article from Duncharris (talk · contribs) on March 12.
• BenAveling (talk · contribs) comments on the talk page on notability of the person, pointing to this link, which states exactly the same thing noted in the article

(Scottish social-welfare worker and author. The younger sister of the statesman Richard Burdon Haldane and the physiologist John Scott Haldane, she was educated privately. For much of her adult life she served on various advisory and regulatory boards for nursing. Influenced by the English housing reformer Octavia Hill,).

• Presumably on the basis of this, Duncharris (talk · contribs) uses his admin revert button to revert the notability tag
• I reinsert the notability tag requesting for further establishment of notability (i.e. the link given in the talk page adds no new information).
• Duncharris (talk · contribs) reverts it further using the admin rollback button.
• I request Duncharris on his talk page to explain the unexplained removal of the notability tag.
• Duncharris (talk · contribs) replies with this personal attack, with the edit summary

If you get enough chimpanzees with enough typewriters they are capable of adding stupid tags to all articles),

and suggesting inside "A guide for you:1)Try to use your brain 2) If you can't do (1) try using Google instead, (admittedly (2) requires a little bit of brain use, but still, if you can't manage (2), don't bother at all.)".

• On getting no further proofs of notability, I nominate it the article on AfD.
• Duncharris replies in the afd page with the comment Someone needs whacking with a cluestick..
• Later, some other editors provide links that establish her notability as the first women J.P. in Scotland, on light of that I withdrew my nomination.

My question is, does the mere reference of a EB article, with exactly the information I quoted at the top of the post, establish notability of a one-liner article to the extent that it makes the AfD nomination bad faith? Is requesting notability proof "vandalism"? And is the AfD nomination a violation of WP:POINT, in light of the above timeline of events? I'm not accusing anyone of anything (except for the abuse of ther rollback button by Duncharris), I just want clarification from experienced admins, so that I can make better judgement in future, and not go through the sequence of events that happened here. Learning is always good, and if I am at fault in nominating this article, I'm happy to admit my fault, apologize for that, and learn from it to make better decisions. Thanks. --Ragib 02:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In general I would suggest that the existence of an EB article would support a claim of notability. Frankly, EB is much pickier about the people that they include in their encyclopedia, and I would be very hesitant to AfD anyone who demonstrably had an EB entry.

That said, the freely available portion of EB's article doesn't indicate why Elizabeth Haldane was notable. It was a bit sloppy of Dunc to create an article that left out the single most important fact about Haldane—and perhaps the key fact that makes her noteworthy.

There was a bit of rudeness on both sides of the issue, but I really don't like to see admins using rollback on (what was at least initially, if not finally) a good-faith notability tag. Revert warring over a notability tag is bad behaviour on both sides, particularly when either party could have just used Google to find one or two more sentences. (The first non-Wikipedia hit would have done just fine: [49].)

Looking at the exchange on Dunc's talk page, Ragib seems to have done the right thing in approaching Dunc about the reverts, and he got a really obnoxious reply.

One more note—I'm pretty sure that Thryduulf's addition of a NPA warning template ([50]) to Dunc's page isn't going to calm things down. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

FWIW: the EB article (subscription version) is 2 paragraphs and mentions that Elizabeth Haldane translated some works of Hegel and Descartes. The other notability that EB might have relied on is Elizabeth's being related to an English politician and a doctor (i.e. she's from a well known English family). In general I don't think Wikipedia should be making so many stubs about minor historical figures like this and using EB as a list of names to make such stubs from isn't so good a tactic, and being related to obscure English society figures isn't so notable either (despite EB). Phr 03:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit at a loss about the statement "there was a bit of rudeness on both sides" above – from what I can see, Ragib's behaviour was blameless. Just pointing to the mere fact of the existence of a EB article, not to its actual contents, was not sufficient to establish notability in this situation; the article as it stood was clearly AfD'able, the crucial information hadn't been forthcoming despite repeated polite requests, and Dunc's behaviour during all phases of this was really abominable, and quite unacceptable for an admin. Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There wasn't rudeness on both sides; the rudeness was entirely on the part of Duncharris, who as an admin really ought to know better. As for adding the NPA warning template to his talk page, if Thryduulf hadn't already done so, I certainly would have. Angr (talk • contribs) 09:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to request further clarification of whether using the admin rollback button to remove "notability" tags without any explanation is correct in this case. Duncharris (talk · contribs) has again removed one of the tags from an article that has no information about the person's notability other than his family information. Having rollback privilege doesn't mean it needs to be abused in such way. Thanks. --Ragib 15:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right. The rollback button is for reverting vandalism and oneself, not for removing tags left in good faith. I'd say his use of the rollback button in the diff provided above is an editorial comment on the insertion of the tag. Angr (talk • contribs) 15:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

User 198.161.33.146

Here is a persistant vandal with ip 198.161.33.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) that has been blancking out pages. Look at his edit history. ArchonMeld 02:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Help needed to merge edit history of redir with main article

As per what was said on AfD, we need someone to merge the edit histories of Thank you Mario, but our princess is in another castle! (currently a redirect) and Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle! (difference in punctuation). The redirect's history got messed up as a result of an edit war, and the main article is now at the latter title. Thanks! — Kimchi.sg | Talk 06:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The histories have been merged. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

monobook.js pages appearing in Category:Articles that need to be wikified

I figured that I would be more likely to get an answer and solution for this here, so this is where I came. Also, editors who have pages in the category are frequently admins.

For some reason, some editors' monobook.js pages show up in Category:Articles that need to be wikified. The only reason the are not that many right now is because those of us who wikify articles keep asking people to edit their monobook.js files so that they don't show up anymore. It happens so often that I suspect that people are copying the code from somewhere. So, I would like to know where they are getting the code and a way to stop the pages from appearing in the category, without a loss of funtion if possible. Thanks, Kjkolb 09:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Brossow fixed it. You can get the new code at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Quick wikify. I guess that's where it came from. Thanks again, Brossow. -- Kjkolb 12:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

probable linkspam

203.214.42.73 has been adding links to moddb to various game articles. I'd have called linkspam on it and reverted, but would these links possibly fall under being userful? Mod DB does seem to be a pretty significant site, from what I have seen.--Drat (Talk) 11:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that it's borderline. I suggest adding a link to it on an article that deals with game modifications in general. Wait, it already has one on Mod (computer gaming). I think that is sufficient. -- Kjkolb 12:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It even has an article! -- Kjkolb 12:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

So should I or shouldn't I revert the adding of the links?--Drat (Talk) 22:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Spliting articles and the GFDL

Could an admin familair with the GFDL and how it replated to splitting articles spare a moment to comment on the following thread, please? Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#How_to_split_pages_-_Wikipedia_guidelines_missing.3F

Basic question is if you split off a subpage, like this one, is it acceptable that part of the the history is in another article. (that part seems okay to me, under GFDL item J for modifications) However, the question is what happens if the original article is deleted? Is the history still "accessible enough" to cover the GFDL? Or, if not, is there a way of either marking an article as containing the history of another, or copying over the history to the split article so they are indpendendent from the moment of the split. Regards, MartinRe 13:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In case it helps, I've summarised the links to most of the discussions (though the Village Pump seems the best place for discussion): see here, here, here and here. Carcharoth 15:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

J. Robinson

Could an administrator please ban this user ASAP? He appears to be another re-incarnation of persistent stalker Johnny the Vandal and he's pretening to be Hephaestos. Mike Garcia 13:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Zephram Stark indefinitely blocked

Rather than bother extending Zephram Stark's block timer (per his arbitration) every time he comes up with a new sockpuppet, I've taken the liberty of indefinitely blocking him as "banned by the community". It doesn't seem to me like there's any reason to pretend any other remedy is relevant. If I have acted precipitously, please advise. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

User:TrumpetPower!/Jesus as Mythical Creation

I understand that Jesus as Mythical Creation was recently deleted. However User:TrumpetPower! has a copy as a user subpage. Do we allow for this? I've never been entirely sure. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I can't see any reasonable argument why not. People can keep all sorts of things in their user space, and this is certainly relevant to the encyclopedia. While the article was rightly deleted as a POV-fork, the content could presumably still be useful in editing Jesus-Myth. –Joke 16:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

PaulinSaudi unblock request

User talk:PaulinSaudi#I am Blocked, Again Someone please take a look at this unblock request. Femto 16:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC) PS this seems to be an IP autoblock or something like that

I've left a message. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of duplicate images

While checking CAT:CSD I frequently see images marked for speedy deletion as duplicates, but the duplicate is on Commons. Be aware, before speedying them, that images must both be on Wikipedia to qualify for speedy deletion category I1. See Wikipedia talk:Moving images to the Commons for reasons why, and {{sdd-i1|Image:imagename}} for a talk page template you can use to advise users why it doesn't work. Stifle 16:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy permanent deletion of article User talk:AgainstFakeClaims

WP User Dave Null has violated privacy and personal copyright by editing in names of certain people when a shared PC was being temporarily used by User:AgainstFakeClaims. Section : Question and observation

The violated individuals are reporting unauthorized use of their names on public space in WP without their authorization. Following is the version in which this incident has happened. WP ADMINS Please permanently delete entire page and all versions following this version below. This is a liability issue and personal right and privacy violations issue.

Thanks for your support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AgainstFakeClaims&oldid=46675721 --129.188.33.222 18:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Done I removed the three revisions with the private info in them. (Note to other admins, if this was the wrong thing to do, undo it and let me know on my talk page.) Prodego ^talk 22:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to remove any private information that might be requested, but the only possible "private information" contained in the three deleted revisions is a three word phrase: "Abhiraj or Rupalee". I fail to see how this is anthing close to a case of "violated privacy and personal copyright"(whatever that might mean). If it was an address, a full name, a location, an employer, a personal ID # of some kind, or something like that, I would certainly agree it should be deleted, but two words? That's akin to saying that the phrase "John or James" is a violation of the privacy of anyone named John or James. I don't credit this. There's no reason to undelete the revisions, but I can't see what the complaint is either. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist

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

Lapsed_Pacifist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from articles which relate to the conflict in Northern Ireland. The ban is intended to include any page in Wikipedia which Lapsed Pacifist engages in a dispute related in any way to the conflict in Northern Ireland.

If Lapsed Pacifist edits any article from which he is banned, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 19:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

regarding User:68.219.87.13

This anon has been adding unverified information in Calvin Ayre for several days, most of it seem like personal attacks at Mr. Ayre, and it has been reverted by several users. I have no idea who Calvin Ayre is, so I have no idea whether this is a content dispute or pure vandalism, but I'm leaning on the later. The history of the page here. Can an a more experienced user please take a look at the page, and talk to User:68.219.87.13. Thanks. Eivind^t@c 23:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I warned them earlier and they continued the edits, so I have blocked temporarily and warned again. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Vkasdg

He's doing some crazy stuff. Vkasdg 01:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Vkasdg

Vkasdg (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)'s repeated removal of Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy cartoons image, deceptive editing practices and violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA:

• Removed Image 19:37, 9 March 2006
• Falsely labeled rv 19:44, 9 March 2006 (note the change of the position of <!-- and -->)
• Removed Image #2 19:51, 9 March 2006 (extended --> from image warning)
• Falsely labeled rv #2 20:00, 9 March 2006 (note the -> still tacked on after last </span>)
• Removed Image #3 10:29, 23 March 2006 (no editorial comment)
• Removed Image #4 22:09, 4 April 2006 (mixed in some other seemingly 'benign' edits to hide the fact that he removed the image)

• Expressed intention to Remove image again 01:17, 5 April 2006 (relative to talk on User:Vkasdg's talk page and my talk page.)

User:Vkasdg has been politely warned on three separate occasions to not edit to remove the image (as demonstrated here and here) Due to User:Vkasdg's repeated image removal and deceptive editing practices/commentaries it would seem that such behavior warrants at least a 24hr block.

Do note the dis-repectful post made here by User:Vkasdg just above entitled "Regarding Vkasdg".

User:Vkasdg has been notified of this report.

Netscott 01:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Additionally User:Vkasdg has repeatedly added mean-spirited edits to my talk page in an effort to antagonize me relative to my single example of a block for 3RR violation.

• 01:06, 5 April 2006

• 01:17, 5 April 2006

• 02:17, 5 April 2006

Not very civil. Netscott 02:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Personal attack: User:Vkasdg added the comment (21:31, 4 April 2006), "Why are you a pedophile? That's disgusting. Vkasdg 21:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)" to User:Zanthalon's talk page. Netscott 03:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

The hidden text says nothing about moving the "-->" Vkasdg 02:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Netscott is just sour because I pointed out he was removing valid edits. If I hadn't spoken to him, this report wouldn't even be here. Vkasdg 02:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Moving the --> hides more/less text, and can be seen as blanking. NSLE _(T+C) at 02:35 UTC (2006-04-05)

No where does it state that in the rules/guidelines, or the hidden text. Vkasdg 02:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

In this case... one can see (22:09, 4 April 2006) User:Vkasdg's blanking... Netscott 02:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think if he touches it again he should be blocked for a good amount of time. He has been warned, knows he has been warned, and has a agenda. Also the comment by the user above is troubling, since he is trying to find loopholes. Mike _{(T C)} 02:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the very valid reasons I've already reported it would be good to establish a "warning" block to initiate a sort of permanent "record" of this individual's editing behavior. Netscott 02:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Right. Vkasdg 02:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What it says is irellevant, the evidence clearly tells that you are trying to be dissruptive. A good idea if for you to stop doing what you are doing there, and try to do some good edits. _→AzaToth 03:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps an RFC is in order? Isopropyl 03:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Just added a WP:NPA violation... see above. Netscott 03:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

So now we can't say anything about pedophilia? Cry me a river. It wasn't an attack on the user - it was an attack on pedophilia, and that dude is a self-proclaimed pedophile. It's not as if I made a false accusation. Vkasdg 03:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

As you wrtote it, and as where you wrote it, I interpret it as a personal attack. _→AzaToth 03:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely... regardless of that person's proclivities there was no need to add such a personal attack comment to their talk page. Netscott 03:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that as long one agrees with pedophilia then it's ok to put something on his userpage, but not the opposite. I wish we had an entry on drama queens...Vkasdg 03:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

personal attacks is forbidden, even if your intentions where good. _→AzaToth 04:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking Prasi90 has agreed to mentorship

I am leaving this message to ask that another administrator remove the block of User:Prasi90, as an endorsement of the suggestions I have made here [51]. I could un-block this user myself, but I feel it might be in conflict of interest to do so. I am confident that Prasi90 is ready to turn over a new leaf, so to speak. Let's all assume that he is willing to do so, and willing to abide by the terms that I have offered to him, and to other involved parties, indeed to Wikipedia at large that I can help him to become a more productive and community minded editor. Thank you in advance for your consideraton in this matter. Hamster Sandwich 18:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, this is one admin who is against any unblock and against any unilateral unblock by another admin. I am a neutral party here and have been watching what's been happening with this user for some time and feel any unblock is unwarranted, especially given the extra conditons and demands that Prasi has the nerve to demand. Just my opinion. I'm sure other reasonable admins will disagree....but none have yet commented here....Gator (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I consider it is reasonable to go ahead and unblock, and be ready to reimpose block if begins to vandalise again. I think if one more admin agrees here the unblock should go ahead. Hamster Sandwich is going guarantor.--File Éireann 18:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hamster Sandwich requested admin review of his request to unblock, so to expedite this I went and had a look at the thread on the user's talk page. The one glaring ommission to me was any mention of why the unblock is requested. I posted the following question:

Can I just ask: For what purpose do you request an ublock? What articles do you have in mind to edit and in general terms what edits do you plan to make? --kingboyk 18:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems innocent enough to me. Hamster Sandwich then recommended that Prasi90 ignore my question and bundled me in with the "detractors". If this is the level of civility Prasi90 will receive during his mentorship I think it better he remain blocked. --kingboyk 19:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Tony's comments on the incident page are illuminating. See here.19:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Many active users have a "todo list" (mine is User:Kingboyk#Todo). If for some reason I were to be blocked, I'd be frustrated at not being able to work on those tasks. I just want to know what tasks Prasi90 is itching to get done, or just he want to be unblocked because he doesn't like being blocked. In other words, what encyclopedic contributions has he in mind to justify this experiment? I don't see the relevance of the diff you provided (other than suggesting we should tread very carefully, that kind of hatred can't be tolerated - and I'm not American). My question addresses the future not the past. --kingboyk 19:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I've had an exchange of views on my talk page with Hamster Sandwich, and reviewed what other folks have to say. If Hamster Sandwich is game I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to give this kid a second chance, although I await with interest to see any useful contributions to the encyclopedia! Instant and long term block for the user if he posts anything vile again, of course, but other than that go for it AFAIC. --kingboyk 20:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Would anybody object if I were to cut and paste this thread over to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Prasi90? We seem to be discussing this in multiple places which doesn't help the flow of conversation. --kingboyk 19:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this an "Incident" or is it a "notice" that something is happening? Perhaps the thread at WP:AN/I should be pasted here? So I guess I do have an objection! Hamster Sandwich 19:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Either/or :) But if it's gonna bother anyone one let's leave it. --kingboyk 19:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AN/I: Continued from above, [52], Prasi90 (talk · contribs) is going to be under possible mentorship by HamsterSandwich as sown here. I am posting a little more information, a sampling of sorts, that demonstrate why I am washing my hands of the matter.

Here Prasi90, using his IP 202.177.246.3 (talk · contribs) refers to Americans as Nazis[53] calls U.S. troops neo-nazis[54] and in article space "perverted,sadistic mentality of American troops and Americans in general"[55], he blanked the article on the United States here to post his commentary[56] vandalized the same article earlier[57] redirects the Category on the United States to Sudan[58] and more vandalism[59],[60]. Prasi90 with his IP login asks how to make a template "anti-American"[61], there is a whole series of edits made from his IP to Prasi90 userpage [62], [63], [64], [65].

With the IP account, he states that the victims of 9/11 are "clearly rotting in hell" in article space[66] and when I first stumbled into him was after he added this lovely comment to my watchlisted article September 11, 2001 attacksAmericans being roasted to death even as they leap toward certain death-Kodak Moments. Ip then insults one editor on his usertalk about his sexual orientation[67]. IP adds information to the Rfc filed against Prasi90 [68]. Using his Prasi90 account, editor again calls Americans neo Nazis[69] tells another editor he has a mental deficiency[70]...oh the list goes on and on. I haven't even touched the rather hard warnings he gave some vandals that they would be blocked and yet didn't do even one vandalism revert that I could find. There is a series of opposition votes on Rfa's that served no purpose aside from disruption.

There have been numerous threatening emails to myself and other editors and he has been asked to stop. I asked him why he posted a user:vandal template on his userpage and he lied and told me that he was reflecting that he was a student at the university of Idaho [71] and I ran three IP checks on his IP and they all came back as India. Anyway, a look at the block logs for the IP[72] and for Prasi90[73] demonstrate that this editor has been blocked by numerous admins and has been released from those blocks prior to their expiration after apologizing, only to return to the same disruptive editing pattern.

I've listed maybe 30% of the edits that clearly demostrate this editor has disrupted, has vandalized, has harassed and has trolled his way around Wikipedia. I believe that Hamster Sandwich has his work cut out for him and also believe that there is a high risk that Prasi90 will open sock accounts once his IP is unblocked. I congratulate Hamster for being so willing to take this situation over, but I can see almost zero evidence that this editor will be a positive contributor to this project.--MONGO 18:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never encountered Prasi90 before, but his clear pattern of abuse, apology and recidivism, and the rather low quality and quantity of his article contributions in the time he has edited Wikipedia, suggest to me that he's a permanent block candidate. I've no idea why Hamster Sandwich thinks that mentorship will turn this editor into a useful contributor, but as long as it's understood that we'll stand for absolutely no more nonsense, I don't see any great harm that can be done by letting him give Prasi90 one last chance. --Tony Sidaway 19:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like this user is waaaay past the point of an indefinite block. --Cyde Weys 20:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is also occurring on the noticeboard with some support for removing the block. I'd suggest that we also comment there or consolidate this.Gator (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I precieve absolutely no logical nor reasonable concensus for an unblock at the current momment or in the near future. This requires more discussion. -Zero^Talk 20:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have told Hamster that I will not be involved anymore on this matter as that will hopefully give him the best chance of success in reforming this editor. I am confident that Hamster, if anyone, will have the best chance of turning this editor around, and applaud his show of good faith in this matter.--MONGO 20:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

I listed it on WP:VPM, but I think thats the wrong place to list it on. The problem is that at the moment there is a month old backlog there, it's stated:

Listings should be checked and processed by administrators after 7 days.

. _→AzaToth 21:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The best thing to do is tag with {{adminbacklog}}. Stifle 22:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Jami

I'm not sure what to do about this. SouthernComfort (talk · contribs) insists on disputing a section of the article on the basis that the claims it makes about Jami's views are just one person's opinion. The odd thing is that the "one person" is Jami. SouthernComfort's argument is that, as Jami's work has been translated, it's the interpretation of the translator, and so counts as merely a secondary source.

This seems absurd to me (and if taken seriously would have huge repercussions for Wikipedia articles more generally). He won't back down, though. I've listed the article at RfC, but it's not arousing much interest. What can be done/should I do? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, to say that Jami's poetry "deals extensively with the esoteric topic of pederasty", is simply the interpretation of the English translator of Jami's works. Nowhere is his work, Jami discusses "pederasty". His narrative is metaphoric and spiritual. --ManiF 22:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've responded to this argument (which involves denying the claim about pederasty on the basis of interpretation of the poetry as "metaphorical") at the Talk page. Note that, despite his "exactly" below, SouthernComfort hadn't made this point. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I am shocked that Mel (an admin himself who should be well versed in WP etiquette and guidelines) keeps taking off the tag when there is still a legitimate dispute. SouthernComfort 02:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Unusual editing?

I ran across this very unusual editing from this account here User talk:Textuvre. What do you think? --HappyCamper 00:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the indef block is fine, not least because of username similarity. People can play around in the sandbox, but not if those are their only 'contributions'. Particularly not when it's clear they are literally just playing. -Splash^talk 00:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for advice / intervention in speedy del noms for 2 pages

To begin; I'm not sure if this is the right forum. If any response could include either a confirmation that this is the right forum to post to, or a suggestion for future queries, I would be appreciative.

I've added speedy delete db-copyvio templates to AV Voice Changer Software and Music Morpher and the templates have been deleted. I know that if a prod template is del, it is to be listed on AFD, but I can't see (from a quick wikisearch) what the best approach is here. I don't want to just edit war. Any advice, please? Colonel Tom 11:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

In general, if a legitimate speedy tag has been removed, the thing to do is restore it, explaining on the talk page why you think it qualifies for speedy deletion. In these cases, however, you didn't provide evidence for your claim that they were copyvios. {{db-copyvio}} needs a parameter giving the URL of the site you believe the information has been copied from: {{db-copyvio|url=http://www.whatever.com}}. Angr (talk • contribs) 11:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the tags, but I nor someone else will delete it unless we got the urls, like Angr said. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses. I now understand when initially applying the copyvio tag, there is a responsibility to provide details of the vio. Fair enough. I must admit that I assumed that the links contained within the article(s), to the manufacturer's site, with the same info, was sufficient. I appreciate your answers and assistance. I'll revisit. Many thanks. Colonel Tom 12:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

These do not look like copyvios to me, although they are products of a company called Avnex added by Avnex (talk · contribs) which is clearly a potential problem. Just zis Guy you know? 13:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they do look like copyright violations, although since the copy was probably posted by the company that owns the copyright the company could technically release the text under the GFDL. That said, the articles are still linkspam and not notable and should be speedily deleted.--Alabamaboy 16:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it matters. If I write something and have it on my website then release it under the GFDL to wikipedia I should source wikipedia on my page since I have licensed it under the GFDL to wikipedia and no longer "own" it. Mike _{(T C)} 20:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Licensing under the GFDL never limits the owner's original rights, it only grants others the right to use the material under the GFDL. The originator can use his own material in any way he sees fit. He certainly does not need to attribute it to Wikipedia, since it's still his own work. --Tony Sidaway 18:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Tony is absolutely right and Mike (sorry) you have it the wrong way round. If I write a new article now, I am the author and copyright owner and Wikipedia have the duty to credit me. If I want to go and use the article somewhere else - including publishing it in print or selling it - I can. It's my work, legally and morally. Work submitted here is licenced to the world (including but not exclusively Wikipedia) and Wikipedia no more own the content than any other 3rd party does. --kingboyk 18:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Gilles de Rais

Anon (User:152.163.100.72 talk) keeps edit warring on Gilles de Rais, removing sourced quotes [74] [75] [76], while ignoring points made through edit summaries as well the talk. A couple of other anons have also been behaving in a similar manner. This is in violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:V. SouthernComfort 12:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That is an AOL IP address, and would be very difficult to actually block or communicate with the user who is actively avoiding any sort of communication. Might a semi-protect be a good alternative here? --HappyCamper 12:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it to me. It looks to me like the anon is adding sourced comments too, which SouthernComfort is removing as well. SouthernComfort seems to be the only significant editor with a username to the article in the past few months and may be having some ownership issues as he has reverted everything added by anyone else except for an interwiki link to fr:. Angr (talk • contribs) 12:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Review the edit history (and take a good look at the diffs I have provided) and compare the versions and do not make blatantly false accusations - I have retained their edits. The anon(s) in question have been deleting sourced quotations and adding edits that are clearly not NPOV. As well, they have also failed to provide proper citations to back up their claims that "many" historians are against Murray's theory. And again, I do not inappreciate your accusations (ownership issues, eh?) which are clearly not civil. I also find it interesting that Angr ignores the fact that the anon(s) have not made a single comment on the talk And please do show me what "sourced comment" the anon has been adding? There are none. What a world. That I have to even explain myself, as an editor with long experience here, is ridiculous and appalling. SouthernComfort 15:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right that the anon hasn't been using the talk page; I didn't mean to sound like I was exonerating him in any way. But here the anon added a source which you removed here. Perhaps I was hasty in accusing you of ownership, but it struck me as suspicious that this and this seem to be the only additions made by anyone other than you in the last three weeks that you've allowed to remain. Angr (talk • contribs) 15:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Revert wars"?

The issue is with User:Niz, but, a brief history:

User:Zzzzz threatened to de-list (and actually did, in some cases) GAs and FAs based on an outdated guideline stating filmogs and other lists must be oldest-to-newest. Now a discussion is under way to determine whether there should be a current guideline (seems left to preference ATM). Editors then reverted several of those articles to their appearance prior to the issue (which, by my experience, is hardly an uncommon move).

Here's where User:Niz jumped in, undoing the reversions and leaving behind edit summaries like "rvv" ("vandalism"?), "rvv, yawn" ("yawn"?!) and "rvcb" ("childish behavior"?!?). "Childish" and "childishness", in fact, are oft-repeated.

Given that User:Niz has yet to respond to my concerns, and that I tend to think an impartial third party would wonder whether this user is creating the very revert war (s)he decries, would I be out of line to request that this user get a refresher course in Wikiquette and assuming good faith, at the least? (At best, I'd like an administrator to step in and revert each page to its appearance immediately prior to any changes by User:Zzzzz to avoid further revert-warring.) RadioKirk talk to me 14:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears this resulted from a user trying to do a lot of work at once and some things got lost in the translation. Please disregard. RadioKirk talk to me 18:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Systematic vandalism and revert war

Dear admins, there has been systematic vandalism and repeated deletions of major part of Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi article by User:80.191.95.2 . --Uvolik19:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call one instance of blanking in two weeks "systematic vandalism and repeated deletions." You handled it already so I don't think there is anything for an admin to do.--Alabamaboy 19:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Scott Keith

This page is getting serially vandalized by anons, with various RC faces making plenty of reverts in recent history. I don't know much about the subject but he seems to be a whistle-blower, or at least holds controversial opinions on pro-wrestling which might be a cause of discontent. He apparently survived AfD last year and seems to be here to stay, also judging by the banter on the talk the article has been under some kind of protection before. It would appear to be a candidate for semi-protection at the moment? Deizio 19:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't complain to the page being protected, as the vandal shares my IP (no, its not me, my IP is shared by the entire country sadly :) ) and I am often blocked. Banez 22:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Melgibson1 possibly blocked in error

User:Peruvianllama blocked newcomer User:Melgibson1 yesterday for vandalism. This may be partly because he kept leaving comments at Luciferene, which I improperly tagged for deletion. Gazpacho 19:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It was probably for making this series of edits [77]. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 19:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

He should probably stay blocked for having an inappropriate username. Angr (talk • contribs) 20:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO abuse of adminship

User ChrisO has deleted template about persecution of Serbs in the middle of the debate, and it was clear that he (who proposed the deletion) was beginning to lose the case. Instead of debating it, he decided to delete it before the period has ended. There were two votes to keep it at the time. From the debate it was clear that NPOV problems can be fixed, and that template has a legitimate place in Wikipedia. Also, his own template about Scientology is more biased than this one, as it slanders the whole religion by attributing a nonsensical doctrine (in a template) to it, while it is claimed that it cannot be proved/verified as it is secret. How can this be NPOV. I think ChrisO abused his privileges. Also, isnt it true that it SHOULD NOT BE THE SAME PERSON who nominates and deletes the page - otherwise, the tags make no sense if noone is to have a say. I think this moderator, who also made personal attacks, has to be investigated for other possible adminship abuses. CeBuCCuCmeM 22:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• RFC filed, so this should be ignored in favor of it. WP:RFC/ChrisO --jpgordon∇∆∇∆

WP:AIV

Lately I've noticed reports to WP:AIV growing, and probably as a result not being dealt with as quickly as ought to be the case. May I ask administrators to consider adding this page to their watchlist if they haven't already, and if they have to please redouble their efforts to be actively involved? Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes maam! Done. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested moves

Could an Admin review the following Requested moves and wrap them up if deemed appropriate:

• Talk:Argyll
• Talk:Bute
• Talk:Ross (area)
• Talk:Moray (county)

--Mais oui! 22:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please take such request to WP:RFPM --pgk^(talk) 06:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

They were already there, I believe; the request was to close the debates. Nightstallion has now done so. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I closed three of them, Nightstallion closed the forth. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism and pov censoring by Anonymous editor

This user on History_of_the_Kashmir_conflict is trying to censor views of

• New York Times Journalist Robert Trumbull:

Robert Trumbull, of New York Times sent this dispatch, published on 10 November:

The city had been stripped of its wealth and young women before the Pakistanis fled in terror, at midnight friday, before the advancing Indian army. Surviving residents estimate that 3000 of there townsmen including four Europeans and a retired British army officer, Colonel Dykes, and his pregnant wife were slain. St Joseph Franciscan Convent and the convent hospital was stormed and four nuns were shot.

• Alan Moorehead of the Observer (London):

reported that recruitment for the invasion had been going on not only in NWFP but all of Pakistan[2].

• And other authors who have published books on the topic of Kashmir, none of whom

is an Indian or Hindu. Akbar is a muslim and the other two are not Indians. References

  1. ↑ Hodson, H.V. (1969). The Great Divide: Britain, India, Pakistan.
  2. ↑ a b c d Akbar, M.J. (2002). Kashmir Behind the vale.
  3. ↑ Brecher, Michael (1953). The Struggle for Kashmir

Anonymous editor is unhappy to see Pakistan's involvement and the atrocities comitted by its armies be listed on wikipedia even though they are sourced from books that are considered unbiased and scholarly. Can somebody please check his vandalism? Here is the diff [[78]]

This is a content dispute, near as I can tell. Are you sure this is the place you're looking for? You might want to try getting a third opinion or opening a topic RFC instead. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Is removing sourced material from reputed books and journalists, published in standard weeklies, newspapers common on wikipedia? I would expect someone to counter with another published source and not just blatant reverts.

More Vandalism by Anonymous editor

On Kashmir page this user has deleted text which shows that hinduism flourished in kashmir for thousands of years and there are hindu temples from antiquity which can still be visited in this state. [[79]]. Looks to me this person has a political agenda of not allowing facts that are opposite to his pov to be mentioned on wikipedia.

Definitely a content dispute, then. This isn't the place to air this; the relevant talk pages and related Wikiprojects handle this sort of thing, as no administrator intervention is needed, nor is inappropriate use of admin privileges in evidence. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, please don't come running to administrator's noticeboard every time you don't like an edit someone makes.--Alhutch 04:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No. This is not running to you guys. I am figuring out how this thing works. Read my comments above. Question to you does citing reputable sources have any value or can anyone reverse without citing his own?

It has value in that other editors are more likely to support you if those edits were reversed without good cause. It won't prevent other people from reversing without citation though (although such an action might well be difficult for them to justify). By the way it's good practice to sign your comments by adding four tildes at the end like so: ~~~~. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Page Protections

In response to various problems (content disputes and possible WP:SOCK vio's) I've placed Kashmir and History of the Kashmir conflict under temporary page protection, this applies to all editors (admins too). Please form a concensus on the Talk pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Requesting block for inappropriate vandalism

Please see this edit and you be the judge. Nobody's blocked the user yet.

Thanks. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 09:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Already blocked by Curps for 24 hours. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

On user Ankaram, self promoting

The user Ankaram, is most certainly, and even certainly Sedat Laciner who is very close to the Turkish government who has written a good deal of materials specifically aimed at linking the Armenians with anti-Semitism, while this is not much a problem here, the main problem is that he is self-promoting himself, his organization and his journal in Wikipedia.

Evidences that he is Laciner are clear. First, the anonymous user who added on the anti-semitism article the links to the articles published by Laciner, and all the links from the Journal of Turkish Weekly, who Laciner is the chairman of. This was done on March 10, this anonymous user also added materials relating to Laciner organizations and affiliations, as well as edited the Armenian Genocide article with materials that Laciner has written himself. Not to forget also the fact that this same anonymous user has added a link in the Armenia article to his article and his journal. Here all this anonymous users contributions. [80]

While this anonymous user appeared in March 10, on March 11, the login Slaciner was created and he started contributing [81], on his user page, he rightly say who he is etc. He also created the page about himself. On 13:30 of April 1, 2006, he stop contributing with this acount, another account appear the same day, which is Ankaram and continue the work starting with the alias Slaciner and his attempt to place his works links and his journal everywhere he can find. Right now of course after that anonymous edit of his on the Armenian Genocide article he has not edited there, but this is probably due to the fact that the article is now locked for new users.

The thing is that his newspaper is not notable, neither it has the credibility to be used as a source for anything. This man consider Armenians to control the world public opinion and has written works with titles such as : "Armenian propaganda" etc, the newspaper also in various occasion been exposed to have manipulated and fabricated others statments, just recently a Courier writter was threatned with legal actions just because he has reported one of those fabrications. I was advised by Golbez and Bertilvidet to place Laciner cases in the administrators noticeboard, but I haven't done so because after my message on Ankaram talk page, he has stopped doing that a little, but he started back again adding another link to his newspaper at the entry on Turkish invasion of Cyprus. [82] Fad (ix) 17:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

well this is interesting

apparently I've found out one more thing that AOL can do, I'm currently editing with two different user names at the same time, on the same computer, and will post this message on both WP:AN and WP:AN/i with both accounts, at exactly the same time--Chelloru 20:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• If I had to guess I'd say that AOL somehow keeps two completely seperate sets of cookies, one for each type of browsing window--Fernblogin 20:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• This is by far the strangest thing I've ever found out about AOL--Fernblogin 20:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• It wouldn't be the only way to do that of course. One IE, one Firefox, one Mozilla, one Opera, and then the same in multiple instances of VMWare - a user could have a veritable sockfarm on one computer. --kingboyk 20:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

now that we know this can work, the question becomes, is there any reasonable expanaition for why it works? It is pretty strange--Chelloru 20:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing particularly unusual about it. Between the use of bots and multiple web browsers, I've edited from the same computer under as many as three accounts at the same time. --Carnildo 22:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question now

Is there any sort of rule saying that you can't operate two usernames on Wikipedia at the exact same time, on the exact same computer? Would it even occur to anyone to make such a rule?--Chelloru 20:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

See WP:SOCK for the closest thing we have to that. Blackcap (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The above comment by Blackcap copied by myself from a duplicate section (which I'll delete now) from above; his was the only comment that wasn't in this section. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

As long as you dont use it to manipulate voting - in which case it would be a sockpuppet - no. KI 20:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What if I manipulate voting in 2 different ways, one vote support,--Chelloru 20:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The other oppose, basically the same thing as not voting at all--Fernblogin 20:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

fool proof, as long as I always have an even number of sockpuppets--Chelloru 20:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really true, usually supermajorities are required in Wikipedia related things, so for example in an RfA, that would be like 2 net opposes, because 1 oppose is worth 3 supports. --Rory096 23:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Of course that's probably covered under WP:POINT somewhere, either way I'm getting kind of tired of this, using 2 accounts at the same time isn't a glamorous as you'd think it is--Fernblogin 20:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, guys there seem to be massive WP:BEANS issues here. I suggest that this conversation be taking off the noticeboard. JoshuaZ 20:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• If you really think so--Fernblogin 20:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• WP:BEANS? I'd think this comes under the "so obvious it isn't worth mentioning" clause myself. --Carnildo 22:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

They've started posting the same thread in duplicate now, so I've blocked both sockpuppets (no other contribs). Interesting experiment but enough is enough. However, I've been told it's triggered an autoblock? How can I reverse the autoblock whilst leaving the accounts blocked? --kingboyk 20:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's alright, I found it on Special:Ipblocklist and removed the autoblock (although if there's an easier way I'd like to know). --kingboyk 21:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Geo Swan

Can someone please watch over Geo Swan? He/she wont leave me alone. The user seems infuriated that I moved Charities accused of ties to terrorism to Charities with ties to terrorism - accused being a truism in my opinion. This move was undone but now this user wont leave me alone and keeps lecturing me about American politics, something I really dont care about. I dont know what angered Geo Swan, but my move seems to have struck a nerve. Thanks. KI 20:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Responded on talk page. I couldn't find evidence of significant harassment. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody help me track down an abuser?

I received several obscenity-laced emails ostensibly sent by User:Homeworld5 to my email account. I have notified abuse@hotmail.com of the abuse, but at the same time, there were several attempts to get my Wikipedia password changed. The attempts all came from IP address 210.8.110.33. ARIN and APNIC are not very helpful at tracking down where this address comes from and whom I can contact to report the abuse. Can somebody help me? User:Zoe|^(talk)`

Its owned by connect.com.au (from APNIC). Mike _{(T C)} 21:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

But I can't find an abuse email address. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This one gives an abuse e-mail [83] -- not that it will actually help, I rarely get anything but a bot answer from those things. Antandrus (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

That email may be defunct due to takeover, there is contact info for AAPT here [84]. Arniep 22:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

When in dobut abuse@, but personally I wouldn't worry about it.Mike _{(T C)} 22:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

70.27.217.5

There's an anon user who has been blanking their IP talk page (User talk:70.27.217.5), which contains some vandalism warnings and other editing comments from the last couple of days. Is it appropriate to revert their blanking (I've done it once already), or is this a legitimate use of the talk page? Cheers, Ziggurat 21:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

He does indeed have fresh vandalism warnings, and he's not served any block. He shouldn't remove the warnings, and I've reverted to your version. --kingboyk 21:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"Reversing" vandalism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aomori_Prefecture&diff=47459008&oldid=46907076 seems to be a new sort of vandalism to me. This user reversed some names and corrupted others. Is this some sort of bot? Richard W.M. Jones 21:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In the diff above the user also added the comment "(names are not Japanese but Aomorese)", which leads me to suspect he's changing names from Standard Japanese to the local dialect, which to my mind would fall under making a political POINT. No, you're right, he's probably just playing. The message you left on his talk page is entirely appropriate, and considering it was only two edits is probably nothing to get worried about. Angr (talk • contribs) 05:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I checked with an Japanese person from Aomori, and the edit was not "Aomorese". Anyway - I'll keep an eye on it. Richard W.M. Jones 08:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup after a bot mistake

Because of a bug in experimental code for tagging new uploads, OrphanBot has been occasionally placing messages at pages of the form "User talk:User:Someuser". I've fixed the bug, and the list of approximately 270 pages that were accidentally created is at User:Carnildo/Bot mistake. Could someone go through and delete them? Thanks. --Carnildo 22:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok I'm starting at the bottom of that list --pgk^(talk) 22:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like humans are still needed, huh? ;-) SoLando (Talk) 23:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

All done it would seem. You want the list deleted now? --kingboyk 23:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I've got no need for it now. --Carnildo 23:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of NPA Template from Talk page

When someone removes a vandalism warning template from their Talk page it is considered vandalism. Does the same hold true for when someone removes an NPA warning template? FiguringItOutAgain 03:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You're begging the question; removing vandalism warnings isn't necessarily considered vandalism. If you could let us know the circumstances that prompted your question – and perhaps the username that you usually edit under – we might be able to assist you with your concerns. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to beg a question, I meant to ask a question. On the vandalism page it is stated that removing a vandalism template on a user talk page is considered vandalism. "Removing warnings for vandalism from one's talk page is also considered vandalism." Here comes the question:

When a user commits a Personal Attack, and they are warned with an npa template, is it considered vandalism for them to remove the npa template from their user talk?

I don't have an username I usually edit under. I have dozens of usernames. FiguringItOutAgain 03:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• The answer to your question is yes. All of warning templates are listed on Template:TestTemplates. Instead of listing every single warning template, WP:VAND does have a link to that page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well that depends on the exact situation generally for properly placed warnings, yes. Clearly there are disagreements about if a personal attack occurred and if the warning was placed in good faith, so if it involves you personally it's sometimes better to ask someone independant for anoter opinion about the specific circumstance, rather than escalating any "hostility". --pgk^(talk) 08:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

PRODs

Hi everyone, WP:PROD is now policy and sometimes I get the feeling I'm the only person actually going through and deleting the PRODs that have been around for five days. There's a big ole mama backlog at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/en_proposed_deletion, including some that I can't delete because I was the PRODder myself. Little help, please! Thanks, Angr (talk • contribs) 08:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That list is deceptive, I just checked it and most of the red items have already been deleted. This display may be the result of replication lag. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried maintaining that once but got extremely fed up because of the problem Xaosflux mentioned. I'd like to help, but there are things I can do on Wikipedia that are just as useful and less frustrating. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there no way of finding PRODs due for deletion that actually works? I clicked on some at random from the Interiot list just now - not just the bottom three - and two had already been deleted, while one had had its PROD tag removed. Hell, I was about to post this, then I did it again - all three were fairly near the top of the reds, and all three had been deleted already. That is not good odds for someone who wants to spend their time productively. I'm wondering how this became official policy. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Any enterprising editor can feel free to leave the {{prod}} tag on, then also add a CSD tag to get these worked as a band-aid solution. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I also gave up on trying to delete PRODs because there was no reliable up to date list of which articles were ready for deletion. Each link I clicked the article had already been deleted or deprodded. Seemed like a waste of time. --kingboyk 03:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Request to return Talk page after reverted page move

A user moved a page, but then decided, for reasons unclear, to edit the Talk page of what was then a Redirect. This meant that when the page was moved back, the Talk page was abandonned.

Could an Admin return Talk:Royal Coat of Arms in Scotland back to its original spot: Talk:Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom for use in Scotland. The User in question is not questioning the return move (although they are seriously questioning the actual content of the article.) --Mais oui! 13:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

'Tis moved, because I'm cool like that. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Repeated MOS violations

Regarding 200.138.194.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): is there a policy for dealing with users who repeatedly make edits in violation of the Manual of Style (sometimes undoing attempts to bring the articles back in line with the MoS)? Template {{Mos3}} (which I left on the user's talk page) says "Continuous changing of content in articles to break agreed-upon MoS rules, when you have been asked to stop, is often seen as vandalism. Constant vandalism may lead to you being blocked from editing Wikipedia", but Wikipedia:Vandalism says that Manual of Style violations do not count as vandalism. The problem is, the user in question is making the same edits over and over to the same articles (e.g. [85], [86], [87]), and each time I've cleaned them up and asked that he/she stop, but they just carry on. Extraordinary Machine 16:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with [88]? Shouldn't a remix name - by extension part of the song title - be in Title Case? --kingboyk 17:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a discussion somewhere about using case that the performers and their record label use, even if it violates usual Title Case. I can't find that discussion right now, however. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Here it is. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss it but I can't help myself :-) The problem with that is that record labels tend to be very inconsistent, exactly the same song can be named in multiple ways over the years. The other thing is, the diff provided is simply "Foo Remix" - it's not the name of the song (it's the remix called Foo), but it ought to be title case because by extension it is part of the song title! :P Now, perhaps I've just proven that right and wrong is hard to define here and we should close this as "no case to answer"? :) --kingboyk 21:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I was told by an editor that it shouldn't. Regardless, the anon has been changing things like "Dirrty" featuring Redman to "Dirrty" (Featuring Redman), which goes against the MoS as the word "featuring" definitely isn't part of the song's title. Extraordinary Machine 21:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. As for what to do about it, I'll pass. I'm a (fairly) new admin and I don't really know, sorry. Others will chip in soon no doubt. --kingboyk 22:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

AFD backlog

There's a bit of a backlog at AFD, with debates as old as March 30 still open (actually March 28 but I'll close that day myself right now). In particular, could somebody either close or relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools in the United Kingdom (2nd nomination) please? I'd do it myself but I'm the nominator. --kingboyk 21:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC) That one's been closed, cheers. --kingboyk 21:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

A list with tens of thousands of potential entries, requiring consant maintenacne, dominated by redlinks - madness! What we really need is a simple system where you can tag the articles themselves and have them automatically added into a list in alphabetical order. We could call it "categories". Just zis Guy you know? 21:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Lol. Much as I agree with you - and despite my best efforts at a deletion rationale - it was closed as no consensus. Sorry about that! :) --kingboyk 21:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It was with much regret that I closed it as no consensus. I would have really enjoyed deleting it. Angr (talk • contribs) 22:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This is what is wrong with AfD. --Doc ^ask? 22:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not "mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles." I agree with you, Doc. AfD does need a reform, especially when articles that clearly violate WP:NOT do not reach a consensus. --M@thwiz2020 22:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem, of course, is that AFD regulars who know the guidelines and actually read my rationale (the first wave of ""voters"") agreed with the nomination. Then along came the second wave who presumably saw the AFD tag on the article and immediately considered it an attack on schools. Consider such comments as "Keep and subdivide list if necessary, but absolutely do not delete this content from Wikipedia" (I proposed placing the redlinks in the Schools WikiProject, which I thought an admirable solution) and (cough) "Obviously, we want this. It's a list of schools and we do articles on schools." (an experienced editor that one but contribs show many education-related edits). Oh well, I tried, and no doubt it will get attempt #3 at some point. --kingboyk 22:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If Genius home collegiate school can be kept at AfD, even once, then basically any article with the word 'school' in the title is probably bound to be kept. I remember suggesting to Jason Gastrich before I became properly aware of the extent of his self-promotion that if he wanted his name in Wikipedia he should found a school, and as long as it had a website he'd be sorted. I thought I was joking :-/ --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC) (P.S. I'll take a look at the backlog if it's still around when I'm sober.)

Gah

Good Day. I would like to support the inclusion of Gah in Wikipedia. This term originated within a PC gaming enthusiast website called www.totalwar.org. Newcomers sometimes ask what Gah means and we would like to lend the term some credibility. Furthermore, the use of GAH! is expanding beyond totalwar.org into the english vernacular. Members of Totalwar.org can view a discussion on this here: http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=63385.

I understand that this topic was submitted for speedy deletion. I hope that the staff of Wikipedia will reconsider this. I will be happy to conduct more reseacrh on the matter and provide wiki with a complete history of the word is necessary. My thanks for your consideration,

Divinus Arma

Sorry. We are not here to lend terms credibility they don't otherwise merit. I suggest you create a glossary of jargon on your own website. We don't cover neologisms. --Doc ^ask? 22:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

A side comment - the article "Gah" was created and speedied twice on April 2nd, so I added a {{db-repost}} tag to the re-creation today. We might consider protecting the page since in total it has been speedied five times now. Gwernol 22:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

To save anyone else checking, it is now protected. [89] --kingboyk 23:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Gnome (Bot)

Hello, I am the bot operator. I am asking for an admin to look and see if the bot is fully unblocked.

The original blcok was placed by User:Zoe, 1 day later User:Grutness also blocked the bot. Both blocks were indefinate. Upon my request, and after I had changed the coding in the bot, I asked User:Zoe to unblock the bot. He did, but when I try to test it on my user subpages, I trigger the autoblock... Please someone explain to me what is wrong. My theory is that Zoe removed his block, but forgot to also remove Grutness' block. Someone please have a look at this, thanks.Eagle (talk) (desk) 23:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it now; if you tried to edit while block, the autoblocker (which the blocking admin has no control over) will need to be unblocked. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You should be unblocked by now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

User:IHATEAUSSIES

This user appears to have been created for the sole pupose of publishing attacks on Australians. So far he has limited himself to his user and talk page, but it is only a matter of time before he goes elsewhere. Can we get an indefinate block on the account? --Hetar 03:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Already indef blocked. I've taken the unusual step of deleting the user page too as it contains some quite revolting words of hatred against our friends downunder. --kingboyk 03:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks

An increasing number of admins are being threatened or harassed off-site. This is usually possible because they've inadvertently left enough information in their contributions or on their user pages for abusive editors to be able to piece together who they are. I've therefore created a new page, Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks, so that admins who are being threatened, or are worried about being identified by an abusive editor, can contact one of the admins on the list discreetly and ask them to take over the case. Feel free to add your own name if you're willing to deal with these abusive editors. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)