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 seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Current issues

"Ru-sib" wiki about to be closed

Public service announcement: according to this, the infamous "Siberian" ru-sib Wikipedia is now about to be closed, after a procedure that was dragged out for almost a year. Happy news. Interwiki bot operators might want to take note. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Good news indeed, judging by all the problems this WP created. It shows how hard it is to assess whether or not a language is fake or not ;). -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Good news, though it did take a bit long to get on with it. Hopefully the dev's will be more discerning with future requests for new wikis. :) The Evil Spartan 00:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The motion started in late October, when User:Mikkalai investigated the content of some articles in ru-sib. A brief discussion here in English Wikipedia was followed by a much longer one in Russian Wikipedia, which resulted in a motion to have Zolotarev's project shut down. In the meantime, Zolotarev and his associates infested the Incubator, suggesting a plethora of new wikipedias, including one in pre-1917 Russian orthography and a Russian Wikipedia spelled in Latin script. I wonder if they have not suggested an English Wikipedia in Chinese or Greek script, too. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that that does not mean the whole Siberian saga is over. The two main proragonists have moved on to pastures greener, where they can compete with and parasite on Wikipedia: Wikislavia, hosted on Volgota and warmly embraced by Metapedia - but no longer paid by the foundation of course. If you still doubt that the project had to be taken off here, have a quick look at Metapedia before they change their main page: they have Siberian nationalism as featured article and a DYK on the political tendency of the group. --Pan Gerwazy 02:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Die russisch Großstaatchauvinisten feiern Ihre Sieg hier auch. So schön :] --Deutscher Friedensstifter 08:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)!

"Gott sei des Herschers Schutz mächtig und weise

Herscht er zum Ruhme, zum Ruhme uns.

Furchtbar den Feinden stets, stark durch den Glauben,

Gott sei des Tsaren Schutz!"

Und nun 'ne Wodka mit Schnaps!--Pan Gerwazy 15:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• • So about how many bots will run to remove all instances of the soon-to-be-closed wiki? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is rather an unusual occurrence, isn't it? Have wikis been closed before? -- ChrisO 08:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It happens once in a while, but usually because of a lack of active users and articles. -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 08:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Moldavian Cyrillic was --ssr 08:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Z: Do we need top use bots to remove links to ru-sib? do we usually do that? --ST47Talk·Desk 22:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure; I seen it done when the Belarusian Wikipedias were being toyed around with by the devs. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection templates, new style

The Wikipedia:Article message boxes project has now changed and standardised the styles for most of the message boxes that goes on article pages. We are now planning to change the protection templates to have a matching look when on article pages. But they will keep their old look when they appear anywhere else.

Here is an example of the new look. (Note: Exact colour for the left-side colour bar is not yet decided, and we will of course have the old full text in them, this is just a short example.)

Any input is welcome, see discussion and more examples at Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes#Protection Templates and Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes#Next steps.

--David Göthberg 02:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The new design is ready to deploy. Have a look at {{pp-meta}}. --David Göthberg 23:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Good. I'm not sure this warrants a mention here. Also, this temp. is usually made small anyway. Good job all the same; this {{ambox}} thing is really catching... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, since some people did complain that we didn't announce the previous round of changes enough before we deployed them we thought we should announce this change a bit more. And an admin within our project suggested announcing this here since it is admin related.

--David Göthberg 08:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible suggestion: Consider re-wording to "Editing of this page by unregistered or newly registered user is currently prohibited" Disabled is jargon and possibly not understood by non-WPedians. Newly registered is not very specific (2 hours? 4 days? 1 month? 6 months?) Or even more direct is "Editing this article requires requires a user name created more than 4 days ago." Archtransit 21:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Prohibited implies that it is possible but that you don't have the right to do it. I prefer disabled, that is more neutral. I'd prefer not giving everyone the time they need to wait either, per WP:BEANS :) -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 08:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Thafadi Adahabou

Today User:Thafadi Adahabou treatened to kill some people. He also vandalised some other articles. All his bad-edits have been reverted, and je is indefenitly blocked. But shouldn't you admins bann his IP-adress forever asswell? -The Bold Guy- 15:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

He was only active for today. He may very well have been using a dynamic or shared IP address, in which case an indefinite block would not only not block him, but it may needlessly block other contributors. Someguy1221 16:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, we don't know his IP address, because having a username masks it. When a username is blocked it does block the underlying IP, but only for 24 hours. If he reappears as an IP, we can block him again. Natalie 14:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Threats to commit murder is very serious. Please post diffs. If it is serious, reporting the user to the police may be appropriate. What if the murdered said "I told WP what I was going to do and they only blocked me. They did not do anything even though I told them the person I was going to kill, the victim's address, and the intended date of murder." This scenario may be not applicable in this case but I have not seen any diffs to say one way or another. Archtransit 22:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at his last edits. --Golbez 04:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User 156.34.212.136 is following me, deleting all my discussion threads

Resolved

 – moved to ANI, please make comments there

Whenever I propose an edit on the discussion page of an article he deletes them for no real good reason at all. Can you please do something about this? This is gettign EXTREMELY aggraviting and annoying. Shutup999 17:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This report should go to WP:ANI, not this board. However, I did skim his edits, and I'm not sure what, exactly, you were referring to. Please provide diffs of the specific reversions you took offense to so we can better determine whether his actions are inappropriate. Someguy1221 17:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I can not find the edits at the moment, but the user is infact removing Shutup999's comments from any talk page, calling him a sock puppet. Regardless of this editor being a sock, his discussions were legit and not vandalism. SpigotMap 18:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

SpigotMap could not have said it any better. Can somebody please help me with this. Shutup999 21:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This is being discussed at ANI, and the IP user in question has joined the discussion, so I'm going to mark this as resolved. Further comments should go to the ANI discussion, to keep everything in one place. Natalie 14:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Harassing emails

Resolved

Someone is harassing me via email for blocking him for 48 hours for vandalism. I saved the emails and asked him to cease on his talk page. What should I do if this persists?Rlevse 19:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

E-mail block? GDonato (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible, is there a wiki procedure, like if it got bad enough, would I forward the emails somewhere or paste their contents to a page? Harassment is a vio and could be a case for a long block I guess.Rlevse 19:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

One or two is enough to justify an e-mail block in my opinion. Do not reply to them. GDonato (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

He sent me two. You mean block within my email program or is there a wiki email block one can do?Rlevse 19:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

On-wiki it says: "Prevent user from sending e-mail" on Special:Blockip GDonato (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh, all the times I've used that form and I never noticed before!Rlevse 19:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a somewhat new feature :D --ST47Talk·Desk 20:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, several new features have been added there recently (we can block for 72 hours now, for example). · AndonicO ^Talk 00:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

We could always block for 72 hours if it was added in manually - those various times are more like suggestions or quick links. There's always been an "other" option. Natalie 14:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Blockage

This account was posted on the account blocking page and blocked[1]. I ask that it be unblocked, because it is a normal, proper name and does useful things. I also ask, not for the first time, that you avoid giving blocking privileges to users who are retarded.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.93.84 (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What account? Grzegorz Chrząszcz vel Brzęszczykiewicz (talk · contribs)? Correctly blocked for being too long. Choose a shorter username. Also, insulting other editors is very unlikely to help. Sandstein 21:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, what ever happened to WP:BITE? Seriously, who the hell are we to find a user who created their account on the 16th and then block them without warning 6 days later after they made multiple productive edits? Unless anyone objects very shortly I'm going to unblock the user, apologise, and refer them to WP:NAMECHANGE. Cowman109^Talk 21:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The name is a violation of WP:IU due to the fact it is too long so unblocking may not be a good option, GDonato (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with this one and refused to block it once at WP:UAA. Polish people have long names! Do Polish genealogy and you'll be amazed how long some of their names are. So now we're blindly blocking people who use their own names?! That's awful. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If I may quote WP:IU directly, Length alone is not always enough to forbid a username, however; there are many productive users with acceptable usernames over 20 characters in length, and even some with over 30.. I agree that the user's name is a tad inappropriately long (and uses foreign characters), but when a user has made positive edits for 6 days after creating their account, we don't just go blocking people without notice. We're supposed to ask them to change their name first, not block them and get them rightfully upset as this user is now. Cowman109^Talk 22:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Three questions. First, why even make it possible to create a username that is going to be judged too long? Second, is the name above too long, really? I don't know about everyone else, but I almost never need to type a username to get to their talk page; that's what wikilinks are for. And if you're just going to refer to them, you can always call them GCvB, or if you have to make a wikilink yourself, just copy/paste. And third, does the "you've been blocked for an inappropriate username" template seem a little bitey to anyone else? Not to add another gratuitous layer of complication, but shouldn't we talk to someone who's name just seems inconveniently long more sweetly than to someone with a "badfaith" name like User:I made love to your mother multiple times? --barneca (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I would recommend WP:RFCN as it is certainly not blatant as it is a real name but that is not always enough reason. GDonato (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure if there were some technical reason why long names were harmful, it would be disabled past a certain character limit in MediaWiki. I'm asking user:ST47 to reply here before I go unblock the user, though. I'll still suggest to the user that he should see WP:RFCN WP:NAMECHANGE (woops, wrong shortcut), however. Cowman109^Talk 22:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocking someone who uses their real name is terrible. When I said that above, I didn't realize they had already made good-faith edits to *drum roll* Poland-related articles! Now we're punishing an entire nationality?! Please unblock this person ASAP. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to barneca: there is a technical way to stop long usernames. Add .{x} to MediaWiki:Usernameblacklist, and usernames of x or more characters will be prohibited. The blacklist doesn't affect admins creating new accounts while logged in, so overriding it is possible. In this and other cases, context is an important part of determining what is "too long", but it would be a good idea to have a maximum length of less than 255 (the number of characters the database can store) Gracenotes^T § 00:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the message displayed if someone tries to create a name that is too long? I hope the message is not too WP:BITEy... :-) Carcharoth 00:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Blacklistedusernametext. Looks like it could use a facelift; go ahead and edit it if you wish :) Gracenotes^T § 00:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The honour of updating that (and updating is needed) will have to fall to someone else. Carcharoth 00:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not me. That's good advice, but instead of giving it here, you need to put it on his talk page, preferably being politer than the blocking admin. If the string is short enough to be a name, or a simple phrase, it should be short enough to be his username. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.93.84 (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the name because it was too long and confusing, per WP:U. The blocked template suggests that the user change their name. --ST47Talk·Desk 22:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think we should be telling people that in any form when their username is just their real name. Citizendium insists on using your real name, we don't allow it. Not cool. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

And forget bitey, this is downright insulting to this poor guy. "We don't like your name" is what we're telling him. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked the user and I'm suggesting they see WP:NAMECHANGE. Cowman109^Talk 22:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin-warring is not helpful when you know ST47 opposes an unblock. GDonato (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't qualify as warring IMHO - it's just common sense. Let's hope we didn't alienate a good user forever. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm? ST47 didn't oppose an unblock.. I asked him to respond here, and he did. No harm comes from unblocking the user. If I misunderstood his reply, my apologies. Cowman109^Talk 22:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. GDonato (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I find this particular block reason counterproductive (not in this case alone). Shouldn't simply suggesting that users with overly long or confusing names get them changed be the rule and not the exception? In my humble opinion, WP:U offers plenty of leniency with regard to this particular criterion. (For the record, I have a very, very long name, and it would probably have been blocked if I'd registered under it.) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. If someone is being cute and using an entire sentence as a user name, I would suggest that they change it. But this is the guy's name! We shouldn't even be suggesting that he change his name! Should we suggest he change it in real life too? This is not some odd name either - see here for another guy who apparently can't edit here under his real name. How is it confusing to refer to this user as Grzegorz anyway? Personally, I'd like to see Can't sleep, clown will eat me change his name before this person. I always have to slowly type CSCWEM when I refer to him. (BTW, I don't actually think CSCWEM should change his name but the point remains). —Wknight94 (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

To be brutally honest, I'm somewhat surprised some trigger-happy person hasn't already started an RFCN on CSCWEM. GDonato (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion should be brought to the talk page of WP:IU instead to change the wording of the policy? Cowman109^Talk 22:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you do, please say so here because I want in on that discussion. This is embarrassing and I really hope the guy isn't insulted just at being asked to change his own damn name. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) GDonato, beware of WP:BEANS :) I don't think the policy needs changing; the wording is fine. I think there should be a generally more accepting attitude towards such usernames, backed up by the already generous wording of WP:IU. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

WT:U, thread started. Fvasconcellos, yes, of course, if anyone think about doing that in the immediate future I will be displeased. GDonato (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I found where I originally refused to block this name after it was bot-reported. Maybe the problem is that there's nothing to stop people from reporting names over and over until someone blocks them. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The block was not needed, in my opinion, and was severely counterproductive. Several important points need to be made here (and over on WT:U):

• (1) Grzegorz Chrząszcz vel Brzęszczykiewicz is a real name. Username policy primarily applies to silly-sounding names and offensive names. This is neither.
• (2) "Correctly blocked for being too long" - as has been pointed out, it would be preferable to have the underlying software limit the length of the username, rather than have both the user, and those upholding the letter of law, waste their time worrying about length of user names. I swear I've seen someone running around with a ruler measuring the length of names... (that would be the bot, then).
• (3) The WP:BITE points are extremely important. Any admin or other user who sticks to the letter of policy and guideline while failing to see that their actions are alienating new users is a detriment to the project. I don't normally put things as forcefully as this, but new editors are the lifeblood of Wikipedia, and treating them with respect cannot be emphasised enough.
• (4) This thread was started at 21:33, an hour after the block at 20:26. It took another hour before the user was unblocked. The unblock should have taken place straightaway, followed by an apology. Thankfully the user's talk page is now a bit more welcoming, though the editor has yet (as of the time of writing) to resume editing. If this editor doesn't edit again, I, for one, will be kicking up a huge fuss.
• (5) "I blocked the name because it was too long and confusing, per WP:U. The blocked template suggests that the user change their name." - Hmm. Let's have a look at what the first part of the template says, shall we:

  "Your account with this username has been blocked indefinitely because the username may be rude or inflammatory, be unnecessarily long/confusing, be too similar to an existing user, contain the name of an organization or website, refer to a Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation process or namespace, or be otherwise inappropriate (see our blocking and username policies for more information)."

  Not very friendly, is it? Imagine what your reaction would be if the above was the first message you ever received on Wikipedia? The template gives a list of possible reasons for the username block, but the underlying message is "work out for yourself why your name is inappropriate, because I can't be bothered to tell you".
• (6) Some of the other attitudes in this thread beggar belief:
  • (a) "unblocking may not be a good option" - um, the editor was making good contributions! Unblocking would not have done any harm, and keeping the editor blocked could potentially have lost us a new editor.
  • (b) "Admin-warring is not helpful" - again, this completely misses the point. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that an unblock does no harm in this case, and that the original block was a misguided application of the letter of the policy. It would only become admin-warring if the block was put back in place.

Apologies for bringing up all these points, but it is threads like this that make me seriously worry about the future of Wikipedia. Unless people who apply the letter of the law without regard for the spirit of the law, are told in no uncertain terms that they got it wrong, and learn from their mistakes, then there is no point in having pages like WP:BITE. And if people try to defend such blocks, that is almost as bad. Carcharoth 23:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Agreed 100% on every point including that I will throw up a fuss if the user never returns. I do want to mention that ST47 should not necessarily be singled out because I know many admins would have applied the same block - but they would have all been equally wrong IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well summed up Carcharoth. I think this is one of those times where WP:IAR should be applied. · AndonicO ^Talk 00:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Carcharoth 00:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Another point, the bot reported the name as being 41 characters long, but I've counted several times, and I can only find 39 characters (including spaces). Do "ą" and "ę" count twice or something? Carcharoth 00:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The user name is 39 characters long, and 41 bytes long. (See Unicode#Mapping and encodings.) The bot should probably use characters :) Gracenotes^T § 00:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Latin characters with diacritics (like the ogonek) use two bytes in UTF-8, I think. Gimmetrow 01:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Would it be sensible to ask the operator of user:HBC NameWatcherBot to increase the length limit by a few bytes? Cardamon 08:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that this is sorted out. Now, is anybody going to warn the original complainant about using uncivil comments such as, "I also ask, not for the first time, that you avoid giving blocking privileges to users who are retarded" as being in possible violation of WP:NPA? I don't suggest that we should block, of course, this being an isolated case. LessHeard vanU 10:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking more of a barnstar for pointing out the inappropriate block (spirit, remember, not letter). But as it is an IP address, I find warnings and barnstars a bit pointless in this case. You could go and chat to the IP address on their talk page if you like. Carcharoth 11:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not retarded people at all, it's retarded polices. Wikipedia:Username policy is one of the most moronic, screwball things about this place. Who knows how many potential good contributors we lose because of it? I left a rant about it on the village pump a while back here. Sad to see the same problems still persisting. Moreschi ^Talk 12:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice points in that village pump post. You almost inspired me to MfD the username policy, but then I saw that it is an official policy. Maybe a "disputed" tag? Carcharoth 12:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: the timer is still running. Grzegorz Chrząszcz vel Brzęszczykiewicz (talk · contribs) has not edited since he was blocked around 18 hours ago. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he stopped editing about 2.5 hours before he was username-blocked. It is not even certain if he is aware that he was blocked. The only way to know for sure is to ask and hope he is still around. Carcharoth 13:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Could there be some advantage to modifying the template so it requires the blocking admin to include a specific reason? I think the point above that we are essentially asking users to figure out why their name is inappropriate is an important one, especially since the current template doesn't even list all the possible reasons. What I'm thinking is that we change the template so it's like CSD tags and has to include a specific reason, which I think will go a long way to making the whole blocking experience better. Natalie 14:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree 100% w/ Natalie. --barneca (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There already is a reason tag with {{uw-ublock}} (e.g., {{UsernameBlocked|reason=being Polish}}). It has been there for some time. However, it is not required. The problem with making the parameter "required" is that some admins might not be aware that they have to include it, or may forget it. And, the only way to "edit" a block summary is to unblock and reblock (messy). If we had a block reason blacklist, this would be a piece of cake (great example of creeping featurism, too). Gracenotes^T § 17:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think requiring something on the block message is likely since, as you've said, the only way to change it is to unblock and reblock and that's just annoying. I see what you're saying about people not being aware, but try tagging something for speedy deletion without adding a reason. You get huge read letters read "This must be replaced with a specific reason" or something similar. The same thing happens when people attempt to add the "hangon" tag to talk pages. Feature creep it may be, but that isn't always a bad thing. Natalie 17:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Big red text doesn't work here: the blocking admin would just see ({{uw-ublock}}) as a summary. It is possible to make a bot that annoys admins who do username blocks without a reason. (Not sure if it's a good idea, but it's possible.) Gracenotes^T § 17:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about the message that's left on the user talk page, and I can only assume that you are talking about the message in the block log. The admin would see the message on the talk page, because when you press submit the current page loads. But yes, it wouldn't work in the block log. Natalie 18:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

For general interest

Those who have commented here may like to check out this discussion concerning fixing the username "policy". Moreschi ^Talk 17:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

While this username may be a real name indeed, it may also be a reference to "Grzegorz Brzęczyszczykiewicz", a fake name the protagonist of Jak rozpętałem drugą wojnę światową used when interrogated by a Gestapo officer (see the trivia section of the article). Both "chrząszcz" and "Brzęczyszczykiewicz" are also polish tongue-twister words. Миша13 22:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The user may be named Grzegorz Chrząszcz or Grzegorz Brzęszczykiewicz, not both (vel is similar to aka). He should chose one name/nickname, not two, for reasons discussed above.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandal on my wiki

Hey, I have an Ace Combat Wiki [2] and a vandal with a dynamic IP hit it. (Followed a link from my userpage) How do I do a range block? The IP's I want blocked are:

88.155.6.43

88.152.104.98

81.155.60.78

Thanks, Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how WP:AN can help you, but my guess is that you don't want to range block that since it's too much an area to range block. (You'd be looking at something that's bigger than /16). - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But could you tell me how to do it? For more, see [3] [4] [5] I've got to do something, this my website on the line here. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

mw:help:Range blocks Cowman109^Talk 04:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The MediaWiki software won't support blocking anything larger than /16 . Unless you want to do a lot of those blocks (to block everything from 81.0.0.0 to 88.255.255.255, you would need a /4 or 4,096 /16 blocks), you'll have to protect the pages or the whole wiki, block them as you see them, and/or file an abuse report with the ISP. Mr.Z-man 05:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that those same three IPs have also vandalised the English Wikipedia, and since there are targets in common we can assume they are controlled by the same person. Can someone check if they're open proxies? If this is the case, the solution for the original poster might be to import Wikipedia's list of open proxies periodically. Range blocks aren't going to work in this case; the first two IPs are in Israel, and the third in the UK.-gadfium 06:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

They do not appear to be open proxies at this time. --ST47Talk·Desk 14:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nartopa

Can someone with a little extra time take a look at this article? I think it's a real place, but the article is a true mess and definitely needs tags and probably some serious pruning. Thanks. --MZMcBride 05:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you need Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup and choose the appropriate templates. Also, see if there is a Pakistan or similar WikiProject and ask for assistance there. LessHeard vanU 10:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like there was a good version a while back[6] so it might be just a matter of bring that to the surface as a starting point and adding in the new information. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Review of deleted US Civil War generals pics

Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Examples of OK images orphaned and tagged for deletion by bots. In particular look at the upload log of Robert Luna III, and his talk page that is full of warning tags left by bots (and, rarely, by humans), but no welcome message, and a contributions log that shows no sign of noticing or being aware of the talk page. A look at one of the images marked PD-US by age shows that in some cases other humans have come along and added a license tag. I've gone through this upload log, and picked out the US Civil War pics. Can admins help out by undeleting these pics and adding at a minimum {{non-free historic image}}, and probably {{PD-US}}. I'm also mystified as to why these pics were deleted like this, without any sort of effort to salvage them. Could the deleting admins clarify this? I understand it was probably part of a "clearing the backlogs" effort, but still, it is a lot of effort to undo all this and restore the links on the articles. Of courser the original uploader should have done better, but why is it still possible to upload without a license tag? At the very least, admins looking at these pics should do better than the uploader and take more care than the uploader did. And a general plea: when you see an old B&W photo in a 'speedy deletion' category, please stop and think "hang on, this might be an old public domain picture - it is probably worth changing the tag on this so someone else can investigate this if I don't have the time". Carcharoth 12:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, the images in question are:

• Image:Bishop Ellison Capers.jpg (Ellison Capers)
• Image:Charles M. Shelley.jpg (Charles M. Shelley)
• Image:Daniel W. Adams.jpg (Daniel W. Adams)
• Image:Ellison Capers.jpg (Ellison Capers)
• Image:James Craig (Missouri).jpg (James Craig (Missouri))
• Image:John Bratton.jpg (John Bratton)
• Image:John Bullock Clark, Jr..jpg (John Bullock Clark, Jr.)
• Image:John Bullock Clark, Sr..jpg (John Bullock Clark, Sr.)
• Image:John Wilkins Whitfield.jpg (John Wilkins Whitfield)
• Image:M. Jeff Thompson.jpg (M. Jeff Thompson)
• Image:Marcus Joseph Wright.jpg (Marcus Joseph Wright)
• Image:Otto F. Strahl.jpg (Otto F. Strahl)
• Image:Pinckney D. Bowles.jpg (Pinckney D. Bowles)
• Image:Robert B. Vance.jpg (Robert B. Vance)
• Image:Sam Jones.jpg (Sam Jones (Confederate Army officer))
• Image:Stand Watie.jpg (Stand Watie)
• Image:Thomas J. Churchill.jpg (Thomas J. Churchill)
• Image:William Henry Carroll.jpg (William Henry Carroll)
• Image:H. L. Hunt.jpg (H. L. Hunt - could be a pic of this person's father?) valid I2
• Image:Lloyd J. Beall.gif (Lloyd J. Beall) corrupt
• Image:Robert Hall Chilton.jpg (Robert H. Chilton)

Thanks. Carcharoth 12:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to help with this. And I agree absolutely with the plea. Also remember that simply scanning a public domain image does not give the scanner a copyright on it. If it's public domain, digitizing or otherwise changing the format does not restart the copyright timer. Natalie 14:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Working on this right now. I'm also going to archive all of those old warnings and leave a welcome message in their place. If the user does return and check their talk page, the warnings may confuse them and/or freak them out. Natalie 14:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for doing that (and others who helped as well). Much appreciated. Carcharoth 18:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this thread is nearly resolved now. Only outstanding issue is whether the deleting admins need to take more care, or just to chalk this one up to experience. I would say the bots need to take more care, but they are only bots, so we should pity them for not having human brains. What do people think? Carcharoth 18:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Deactivate

Resolved

 – Image and user talk pages have already been deleted, as per the user's right to vanish. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Please deactivate my talk page and this image because I'm gonna leave Wikipedia. Rafünümän 15:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so the image and my talk page have been deleted. Thanks a lot. Best wishes and enjoy Wikipedia, bye. Rafünümän 15:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise abusing his power to impose his way

Administrator User: Future Perfect at Sunrise is using his admin standing to impose his way of 'looking at things' on the Wikiproject Republic of Macedonia which allegedly is using for pushing POV, which could not be further from the truth, as the project page is just a mean for coordinating efforts concerning articles that deal with Republic of Macedonia, there is nothing POV on it, and there are Greek and Bulgarian users there which can offer a balanced opinion on all matters. He went even further and proposed the whole project for deletion as his 'authority' was not respected. Capricornis 19:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject ROMacedonia. I don't see any problem with Fut.Perf's actions here, considering the abuse of the WikiProject system outlined in that nomination. There's already a strong consensus to delete, and for good reason. Seems to me some of the WikiProject participants need to be censured as well. — madman bum and angel 19:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Not just censured...probably some bans are in order. Future Perfect has done everything right in trying to restrain an mischievous little nest of POV-pushing. Moreschi ^Talk 19:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And filing an MFD is not an abuse of adminiship tools; it doesn't require that bit to file any sort of deletion case. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree. Read all the refutals on each an every of Fut.Perf. arguments on the MfD page. His case holds no water whatsoever, he hasn't proven probable cause nor any of his claims are beyond reasonable doubt. He has exhibited conflicts of interests and personal bias.This notice is not for his reporting of the wikiproject to the MfD, but for all of his 'acting as a higher power' by unilaterally deleting parts of the wikiproject without discussion, deciding what constitutes POV without discussion, imposing his opinion without hearing other arguments, etc, etc. His last MfD application was the last drop in the ocean, where he presents only one side of the case, withdraws facts, and misrepresents information just to prove his points right. The people who agreed there are either notorious for their hostility to anything Macedonian like NetProfit (check his contrib history and how many edit wars he is involved in), or the others who probably didn't even bother to check the validity of his claims. I could garner just as many votes against deletion if I alerted many pro-macedonian users who don't spend each and every day (or week) on wikipedia. But that is of no consequence, if he gets his way and this project gets deleted (not that a new one cannot be created within minutes), it would be a final proof of how much wikipedia is fundamentally flawed. Capricornis 19:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Potential vandal?

I don't know if I've brought my concern to the right place, so feel free to redirect me (nicely please) if I'm in the wrong place. I occasionally look in on the help desk to see if I can help out. Today, I came across Hello, I am a reformed vandal... and my first thought was... "I know how to get unblocked automatically. Would you like to know?" sounds more like a vandal's challenge (something I've seen before) than an attempt at rehabilitation. What do you think, am I being paranoid? Astronaut 19:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't unblock, sounds shaky to me.Rlevse 18:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Block review (possible conflict)

I have blocked a user that I was involved in a dispute with six months ago on the same, or similar, topic. I had forgotten about the incident and was reminded of it reading through their talk page. As such, I am posting the block for review here, to ensure it is appropriate. IAF (talk · contribs) engaged in serious edit warring/disruption at Indian religions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A user asked I review and/or intervene due to the repeated reverts and related issues. I blocked IAF for one week.[7] This is based on repeated behaviour, multiple revert violations in the past few days and a 96 hour block for similar issues last month. Please let me know if this block is appropriate and if I should have refrained from acting directly. Thanks! Vassyana 19:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This fellow is a right troublemaker, unrepentant edit-warrior and POV-pusher. The block is fine, and is even more fine if his accusations of sockpuppetry are without merit. Moreschi ^Talk

To clarify: IMO this should be his last block of limited duration. Next time he should be permanently removed from the site. Moreschi ^Talk 19:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand bot and a larger environmental threat

I commented above that I think Betacommand bot's over-reaching is symptomatic of a larger problem at Wikipedia. My comments got no reply there--I think they may have been lost in the middle of a discussion that had already moved on--so I'm going to take the liberty of re-posting part of them here, because I think the issue is important to the future of Wikipedia, and I'd like to know whether the admins here (or whoever else is looking in) share my concerns. Here's what I wrote earlier: I think there's a serious problem that is damaging Wikipedia and is not limited to the issue of this bot: people whose mentality is oriented toward rulemaking and law enforcement are making the environment inhospitable to people who are interested in creating high-quality article content. Those who are primarily interested in writing and research are unlikely to spend their time in policy and procedural discussions. The more heavily bureacratized and legislated Wikipedia becomes, the more mechanically and aggressively the laws are enforced, the less attractive this environment is for those interested in writing articles. You personally may not be as interested in the nuances of the writing and illustrations as in the efficiency of the programming or consistency of policy, but surely you recognize that the article contents do matter at wikipedia, and that the interests of volunteer writers (and contributors of relevant images) should be a consideration in all administrative matters. End of self-quotation. Do you agree with my characterization of this issue? If so, are there mechanisms in place to correct for this tendency? BTfromLA 20:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the The Free Encyclopedia; that is one of its core goals. BetacommandBot, and all of the other image patrollers, do us a great service by ensuring that Wikipedia stays a free encyclopedia, composed of free content. --Haemo 20:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's the argument, exactly... indef blocking anyone who ever uploads fair use would technically help us be the free encyclopedia, but some ways of enforcing the philosophy are just obviously bad ideas in the long run, if we want to continue having contributers. There is a long, long record of people who otherwise would be fine with policy getting really angry because an (often malfunctioning) bot is enforcing rules, and anyone who complains gets accused of being against Wikipedia's core goals. --W.marsh 20:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about malfunctioning bots here; we're talking about them doing a job which we, as a free encyclopedia, need done. Users who are "fine with policy" should be aware that said policy extends to images, just like any other contribution. Blanket accusations of being "against the encyclopedia" are, of course, silly, but all too often I've seen comments that simply misunderstand what image use on Wikipedia is all about — accusations of "vandalism" to image patrollers, of "ruining other people's work", and outright bad faith all around. People on both sides of the "argument", though there isn't one here, need to understand that everyone is doing it for the good of the project and that bombastic accusations on either side are totally unproductive. --Haemo 20:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Where do you see bombastic accusations in the present discussion? BTfromLA 20:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

From Haemo, I think. I read your post and thought: "fair comment". I then read Haemo's comment and though: "that's missing the point". This is about civility and WP:BITE, not WP:NFC. Carcharoth 21:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is if you're going to use other people's property for free (non-free media), you're going to have to take the time to learn about the necessarily complex rules and procedures that allow you to do so. Any article writer who doesn't want to deal with this is welcome to use only free media in their article, period. - Merzbow 20:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

BTfromLA makes some good points. What he writes, however, has nothing to do with fair use rules or Betacommandbot. Moreschi ^Talk 20:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. While I am trying to address a larger issue than BetacommandBot, I think that the bot is related to (and symptomatic of) this problem. Take a look at the example of the bot's behavior that brought me to this page in the first place ("my 2¢...," above.) If that doesn't make the connection clear, I can try to spell it out in further detail. BTfromLA 20:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(To Moreschi) Agreed, which is why we need more content-oriented admins (which I know you already know ;-), so the people with the sysop bit aren't completely clueless as to what editors need or want. --Iamunknown 20:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

BTfromLA is right, it is an important point, and an inherent achilles heel of the wikicracy that needs to be counteracted consciously. It is not entirely unrelated to betacommandbot, as the huge discussion above shows. That we need to get rid of unfree content is undisputed. The debate above is surrounding particulars of how this is being done. It boils down to this: admins need to remember that they are here to serve the project, not to build a watertight bureaucracy. We need the bureaucracy to be able to deal with the sheer scale of the project, but whenever bureaucracy is in the way of improvement of the pedia, we will bend the bureaucracy around the pedia, not vice versa. dab (�) 20:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Carcharoth 21:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Dab misses an essential point here. The present consensus is that Wikipedia content is as free as possible -- that is, due to copyright laws & prior art, Wikipedia will never be 100% free-as-in-speech. On some points, I think the community is in practical consensus (e.g., "No, you may not have a free-use image of your favorite acress on your user page"); but on many, either there is currently no consensus, or the consensus exists against removing free-use content (e.g., the use of logos to help identify corporations or brands). But he is correct that the emphasis should be on the "how" -- not in building a powerful beaucracy or seeking "diktats" to effect these changes. -- llywrch 23:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of this, and do not quite see how I am missing anything. I granted we need to remove blatant fair use violations, but this wasn't the point I made. --dab (𒁳) 08:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

We really do seem to be spending a disproportionate amount of time these days on images, rather than text. Neil ム 09:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we will continue to do so as long as we allow fair use images. Patrolling hundreds of thousands of images for adherence to our non-free content criteria is quite difficult. I don't think any rule that is more complicated than "you can upload anything you like" or "free content only" is going to be enforceable without really large effort. For the record, I think we should move to "free content only" (good reasons for this move can be seen on Angr's userpage). Kusma (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, with a bit more organised effort, with proper use of categories and tags, it should be possible to get the non-free images under control and see the real scale of the problem and some of the details and proportions of different types of images. Just looking at the overall number and going on a case-by-case approach for each image, was never going to be very informative or efficient. A breakdown into different types is a much better way to approach the matter, and this is what has been happening and what is currently being made more efficient. Then more effort can be devoted to examining the free images and making sure they have sources, and making sure they really are free! In other words, even if all images are "free" we still trust out uploaders to be truthful, or we still have to carefully examine thousands and thousands of images. No different to the case with fair-use, except for some small proportion of the fair-use image (by no means all of them) there is some unknown chance of legal repercussions. Carcharoth 09:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Raven-Symoné

Resolved

In the creation of this page, editors have created pages listing every episode in which this actress has appeared (example: List of Raven in TCS episodes). Incidentally, they have been copied and pasted from IMDb. What to do, what to do? AfD? CSD g12? Or am I wrong in assuming they should be deleted? — madman bum and angel 20:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, your example was deleted. Are any others still there? Someguy1221 23:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. They're linked to Raven-Symoné#Television; another example is List of Raven in KP episodes. — madman bum and angel 13:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the two others I've found and left a note on the creator's talk page. -- Merope 13:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.  :) — madman bum and angel 13:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what speedy criteria would something like that fall under? A friend of mine was asking me about whether he could tag them for speedy, but I wasn't sure what criteria to suggest he use, so suggested a PROD instead. It'd be good to know if stuff like that is taggable easily... Tony Fox (arf!) 15:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, since it was copied and pasted from IMDb, criterion g12 could apply. — madman bum and angel 16:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Aha. Makes sense to me - I'll remember that for next time. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Help Sought

I added some scholarly information to these articles Hurrians, Armenia (name), Proto-Armenian language, Armenian language, Graeco-Aryan language. These two users User:Ghirlandajo and User:Dbachmann, have changed them without any rationale, they have not given any reason, nor do they attempt to talk about in the talk page. I really need an Administrator to look into this for me, also, I suspect that User:Ghirlandajo may be trying to start a 3RR war, he has been blocked for doing such a thing in the past. Please look into this issue, thank you!--Moosh88 23:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You may be well served to heed Dieter's advice on your talk page and also familiarize yourself with the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This board is not for disputes, so this should be taken to WP:ANI. However, I did look into this and what I did not see was any evidence of your trying to contact either of these users yourself, nor do I find anything but 1RR by these users against your edits. Please try to ask these users for their reasons yourself, and please try to assume good faith and not accuse others of vandalism when they appear to not like your edits. If they continue to revert and not discuss or provide meaningful edit summaries despite being politely asked to, then repost this on WP:ANI. Someguy1221 23:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to {{PD-Art}}

Hello I have proposed a change to {{PD-Art}}. At the moment the template ignores one of the basic property laws, by making it sound like if the uploader is in the USA, they may release a work into the Public Domain, even though the copyright is legally detained by a person in another country. If you are interested in discussing please see Template talk:PD-art#International issues, Thanks. Jackaranga 02:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

My comment on there was too long, sorry, so I reduced it to 3 lines 3 line version, please read if possible, PD-Art on wikipedia and on the commons are almost entirely different, needs to be corrected. Jackaranga 04:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:67.192.60.213

OK, guys, just a heads-up. Please be careful when blocking this IP, as you'll cause massive amounts of autoblocks if you do block it. See the above talk page. From a concerned student, --HurricanVest 09:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we confirm this with the district? It seems an extremely inefficient setup, given the size of the region. I'm not saying the anonymous editor who added the caution is spreading misinformation, but he may be misinformed. — madman bum and angel 13:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, blocking the IP shouldn't trigger autoblocks (since most blocks are soft), only blocking accounts will. Since we don't know the underlying IPs of named accounts there's not much to be done... -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 13:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Both this IP, and the newly created account HurricanVest, are acting very much like socks of a troll, including goofing around with sock notices of other users. An admin might want to look at the contribs of both and see if they think my hunch is right. --barneca (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice catch. I've reverted the problems I've seen, and I'm keeping a close eye on them. Thanks! — madman bum and angel 17:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Further comment: The IP might be a sockpuppet of Bugman94. [8] — madman bum and angel 17:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely; this is clearly not a new user, was devoted to monkeying with shared-IP templates and sockpuppet tags, and seemed not to be contributing to the improvement of the encyclopedia. MastCell ^Talk 17:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved.  ;) — madman bum and angel 17:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggest keeping an eye on 195.188.50.200 (talk · contribs). Odd situation. User:HurricanVest was there earlier this morning. Per user and talk pages, long history of sockpuppetry and claiming to be unfairly blocked on a shared IP that Cyde said (back in August 2006) isn't really shared. 6 month block expired 7 months ago, with what appears to be a mixture of legitimate and vandal edits from there since then, and one vandal edit earlier this month. Still not shared? --barneca (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The IP referenced is on a server for Webhosting. Very likely an open proxy.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think 195.188.50.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an open proxy. It may well be a public terminal IP per this diff - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:195.188.50.200&oldid=159978063

Sefton Libraries do have a contact form here, select Technical Services and they should be able to confirm or not if their public terminal IPs are 195.188.50.200 or not. Hope this helps. --Solumeiras ^talk 09:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Request temporary undeletion

In Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/R 2‎, 2 deleted pages, which seem relevant to the discussion there, should probably be undeleted for the duration of the RfA discussion. The pages are: User:R/Rant (deleted under CSD U1) and User:R/Single Letter Group (deleted and undeleted several times). Although these pages are covered by CSD U1, I think they should be available for public viewing during the RfA. Od Mishehu 09:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we get some action here? I think it's important for people to be able to see this. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 20:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe post this on WP:DRV/CR? - Alison ^❤ 20:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if I were in a position to decide, I'd keep the pages deleted. I saw WP:SLG, and truthfully, it wasn't so interesting. I think people can discuss the candidacy without seeing every deleted contrib that "R" has offered. Shalom ^Hello 21:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the RFA instead, several users have raised those pages as issues. I would consider it appropriate to undelete these pages for the duration of the RFA. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If I remember right, /Rant is only a line or two. Someone asked me to come here for my "permission" even though you don't really need it. Anyway, you have my permission to undelete. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 21:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Restored per user's request and author's permission. Let me know if there are any revisions that should not have been restored. — madman bum and angel 21:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Err, what exactly was your reasoning behind protecting it? -- John Reaves 22:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It's stated in the protection summary. Is there a reason it should be edited? It was my impression it was restored merely for RfA-goers to review before voicing their opinion. — madman bum and angel 22:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying "Restored for review" was your reason for protection? "It doesn't need to edited" isn't a reason for protection. -- John Reaves 22:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. It should not be edited. — madman bum and angel 22:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a short explanation at the top of each page so anyone who comes across them will know why they've been temporarily undeleted. Newyorkbrad 22:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

QQ MORE NOOB

A "new" user insists I reverse my speedy deletion of this article, as CSD A7 doesn't cover phrases. While I have a small amount of sympathy with the wikilawyering logic, this is one of the first times I've applied IAR to my use of the tools. I believe that without any references to support the contention that it is notable, this is a speedy article - it just seems plain daft to take it to AfD. But, as I am using IAR in support of CSD and in case I have misjudged the case, I am happy for other admins to review my action here. If I'm wrong, I'll reinstate the article, list it for AfD and apologise to the article creator. --Dweller 09:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I have no sympathy for a new user, User:QQ MORE NOOB, that knows so many policies and how to Wikilawyer. If Dweller hadn't deleted it then I would have. Wikipedia ain't phrase of the week. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what he said. The Rambling Man 10:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G1 (no meaningful content) would have covered it. It doesn't have to be gibberish. Or A1 (no context). You did the right thing. Neil ム 13:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Obvious troll, sock. I suggest someone block him ASAP: knows a bit too much about policy. The Evil Spartan 16:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a block is in order. He hasn't done anything wrong. "Knowing too much about policy" is hardly grounds for blocking. Neil ム 17:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a ground for blocking if you're a bad-cop sock account. As for "not doing anything wrong", I can't imagine how you don't see this user as a troll. User comes here, creates crap pages [9] (good enough reason to block), removes speedy tags (good enough reason to block), jumps into wikilawyering about how it's not speedyable (how'd he know that?), complains that he can vandalize his own talk page if he wants (and does so), and uses breathtakingly good edit summaries (I hardly can use ones so good), clearly showing he's a sock - good enough reason to block. Sheesh, this is the kind of wikilawyering and bowing to trolls that makes Wikipedia often so useless. The Evil Spartan 17:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I blocked indefinitely. Can't see how this person could be acting in good faith. Grandmasterka 17:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

All of this discussion -- to a conclusion I agree with, BTW -- & no one suggested we tell this guy "QQ MORE NOOB"? Maybe everyone else decided to assume good faith -- or demonstrate some maturity -- except for me. -- llywrch 19:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Shared public terminal IP

This is a shared public terminal IP. Do not block for long periods. Be careful about blocking, see the talkpage. --67.55.48.34 14:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Only two edits other than ones publicising this notice, so not exactly an major source of edits. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 15:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and both of those edits have the same tone as the person putting up the shared public notice. Hmm, sounds fisy. The Evil Spartan 16:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at contribs; obviously same user as User talk:67.192.60.213 three sections above. We're being trolled. --barneca (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Both IPs have expressed the same views on communism. — madman bum and angel 17:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, that led me to a ton of blockable accounts. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're being facetious... there are other obvious correlations we've already made between those two IP addresses. — madman bum and angel 23:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The IP is an open proxy belonging to Canaca-com Inc. The user claimed to be from Liverpool.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Need Admin to LOCK Plácido Domingo article asap

Resolved

To admin, please look at the revision history on the edit warring. The anonymous editors have getting out of hand, it is hard for us to protect the article day and night. We would be appreciate if the article could be locked from anonymous editors, at least for a week. - On behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera- Jay 15:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism is going now as I am writing this, can someone lock it now. Thanks - Jay 15:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sprotected. In the future, please place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.. I appreciate it very very much. - Jay 15:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

e-pol.org, UNNET and Peter Lundgren

A while back, User:Durin got a legal threat which caused him to leave Wikipedia. The organization claims to be www.e-pol.org, an arm of something called UNNET, headed by someone named Peter Lundgren in Sweden. I asked User:Davidgothberg, as a Swedish editor in Sweden, to look into Mr. Lundgren. Despite several attempts to reach him, User:Davidgothberg has been unable get Mr. Lundgren to return his phone calls. I think we can close this entire episode as a really bad hoax, and hope that Durin may come back some day. I am sure that he is not going to have to worry about real litigation any time soon. Corvus cornix 15:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion

Tweety21 was indefinitely blocked 14:22, 22 September 2007 and is now editing from an anonIP (one of a number she's used, see: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tweety21). If there are intermediate steps I need to take before reporting this, or if there's a more appropriate forum, please leave a comment either here or on my talk page. Thanks. Precious Roy 18:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

==Tweety21== this is not an evasive measure just one to stop Precious Roy from his stalking behavior of all my articles. If you look at his history of edits this will prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.203 (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me that I neglected to include the IP you were editing from. Precious Roy 18:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Now this editor has gone through the list of WP:AFC articles I created (on my user page) and tagged 5 of them as AfDs. If that's not harrassment and disruptive editing, I don't know what is. Precious Roy 18:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Has broken WP:3RR now (see this edit history). Precious Roy 19:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Special:Log broken

The Special:Log page seems to be broken; the "user rename log" option is, for some reason, displayed as "<renameuserlogpage>". (Is there a problem in the Mediawiki namespace, or is it a software bug?) - Mike Rosoft 20:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There don't appear to be any changes to the MediaWiki namespace that would cause that problem. (The edit history of MediaWiki:Renameuserlogtext is empty.) This is a MediaWiki bug, so file it on BugZilla. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

ITYM MediaWiki:Renameuserlogpage. But yeah, looks like rev:25997 is probably to blame. I'd revert it, but I'm not on my home computer right now. Might want to ask someone on #mediawiki. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, submitted as bug 11446. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

LOVEHATE

Could somebody check something for me? LOVEHATE is a newly-created article, but it was created with an {{unsourced}} tag already on it, with a date of March 2007. This indicates to me either that it was a recreated previously-deleted article, or it's been copied and pasted from somewhere else. But there's no prior edit history. Any clues as to how to research this? Corvus cornix 21:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• The page log doesn't say that the page was ever deleted, and the log doesn't show any deleted edits. It's possible that the user who created the article just copied/pasted an infobox from somewhere, including the {{Unreferenced}} tag, without knowing what it was really for. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Impersonation

It has been brought to my attention that someone impersonating me has got themselves blocked and their user page is the first result on a Google search for my name and "wikipedia", User:Mr. Thomas Dalton. Could someone please delete that page, and the associated talk page? In the interests of transparency, I won't do so myself. Thanks. --Tango 22:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Alabamaboy 22:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Brought to your attention"? I'm not ashamed to admit I sometimes google for my own name. ;-) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, anyone who doesn't occasionally Google their own name is asking for trouble. Never know when someone might impersonate you (or worse, write nasty things about you in their blog :-).--Alabamaboy 23:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:SNOW

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mastereditor101. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not even transcluded yet. It may never be. Isn't it a little early for WP:SNOW, and for the oppose? --barneca (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if an RfA hasn't been transcluded onto the main RfA page, it's a non-issue. Don't need to comment on them until they are live. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Just experimenting with the "Nominate yourself" button I guess. — Edokter • Talk • 00:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well probably got it wrong, there are other errors on the page too. Secretlondon 00:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's most probably a test/mistake. Maybe someone could delete it and leave a (nice) message on his talk page? -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 07:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Norval White

This article is up for deletion, but looks like it will survive. My question is this: I've been working with the author on a single point, whether or not White lives in France. The author tells me that he has met the subject at his home village and has pictures. I've advised the author that this could be seen as violating WP:NOR. I have faith that this is a good faith editor trying to create an article on an undoubtably notable subject. Suggestions?--Sethacus 01:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Subpage of Elaragirl:

I came across the retired editor Elaragirl's subpage User:Elaragirl/Teacup, which has a distubing entry User:Elaragirl/Teacup#Elaragirl_is_not_a_gangbang. It seems to be implying that the editor Gracenotes is either attracted to young boys or a paedophile. This is a serious accusation which should not be taken lightly. It is both a personal attack and if I were Gracenotes, I'd be deeply hurt by the comment. Seeing as the user is no longer active, and since it could be potentially upsetting to other members, should this text be removed? I'd have done it myself, but I wanted the communeity to develop consensus first. Elaragirl was a (Wiki)friend of mine, but still, I wouldn't want anyone to have their feelings hurt. A similar thing happens in the section User:Elaragirl/Teacup#Elaragirl_is_not_here_to_discuss_bullshit, where from the looks of things Elaragirl attacks Daveydweeb's site after discussing Citizendium - however, my browser couldn't access the page, so this is just hearsay. Anyway, just thought I'd bring this to attention. Cheers, Spawn Man 08:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

To me, this reads like "I only flirt with Gracenotes and hate it when others flirt with everyone". English is my second language, so I'm probably overlooking something, but I can't find the personal attack or accusation of pedophilia that you see. Could you explain? Kusma (talk) 08:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The text was "And while I'm sure this is going to piss a lot of people off, I'm not going to act like some females on Wikipedia who have to constantly flaunt the fact that they're a woman, flirting with everyone and making vague, slightly creepy overtures to young men. The problem with this is that there's only one reason to be doing it, and we don't need to go into that on wiki, do we? I limit that sort of shit to Gracenotes ... but alas, my pining is for naught. :p" I read that as "Some people on here make passes at young boys, which is slightly creepy and Gracenotes is one of them..." or something along those lines. The term paedophilia doesn't occur anywhere, but it could take that way and I think it is meant to be taken that way... Spawn Man 08:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I read it the other way: "I am not like some woman flirting with young boys. I only flirt with Gracenotes". But English is not my primary language either, so... -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 08:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is humorous :). But you might want to ask User:Gracenotes first. -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 08:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd already asked Gracenotes, but she hasn't replied yet. Agreed, the rest of the page is humorous to a degree, but it could be offensive to some people and hurtful to Gracenotes. Anyway, just wanted to discuss it with you guys. :) Spawn Man 08:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's humorous. I think it's an IRC in-joke, but yes, you're best off asking Gracenotes. Will ^(talk) 08:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, the quote says "young men". How do you go from that to "young boys"? And I interpret the comment at saying that Elaragirl pines for Gracenotes. Note the humourous emoticon at the end of that sentence: "alas, my pining is for naught. :p". Carcharoth 09:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm yes, but Elaragirl is a girl... I think...? I've been wrong before... Young boys, young men, all the same really, but we shouldn't be arguing whether or not it is offensive until Gracenotes comments... If she does... Spawn Man 11:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Then why did you bring it here? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Because, I thought it might be offensive to Gracenotes, so wondered if it should be deleted. I couldn't just bring it to Gracenotes to delete because then that would be a COI and I couldn't just give it to any old admin because I wanted there to be consensus. Every time I post here, I either get abused for bringing up a potential problem or get thick resistance even after the problem has been resolved! have you even read my post below before you made a comment asking why I brought a potentially hurtful piece of text to an admin's board?? I'm not going to comment any further, but let it be noted, that admins on this board have a bad attitude and out of the three times I've used it, I've been harrassed three times. If Gracenotes and Elaragirl hadn't been friends, then it would be a different story. I'm not supposed to keep up with all the cliches on Wikipedia - I saw a possible attack and I reported it. I really don't know why I'm getting slack for it. Frankly, I don't know if I want to use this feature again... Spawn Man 11:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a joke, Elaragirl and Gracenotes were friends, it's all good. --CBD 11:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. Flirting with Elara? At your peril, my friend. I've always hoped she comes back, she was a legend who really spiced the old place up. It can get a bit stuffy sometimes, Elara was a great antidote. And yes, Carcharoth's interpretation is correct...but did we really need to have Elara's pining, or lack of it, all over AN? Anyway, if you're reading this, Elara, we do want you back. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 11:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

False alarm then people - Sorry, just being cautious; I'm not up to date with who's friends with who on Wikipedia and was just looking out for another's feelings. Hopefully you'll understand. Anyway, thanks for clearing it up... And yes, I'd love for Elara to come back to Wikipedia... Spawn Man 11:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Route 1/9 Truck

• In Wikipedia:Requested moves ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=160225616 as at this edit), someone called for the move U.S. Route 1/9 Truck (Jersey City, New Jersey) → U.S. Route 1/9 Truck which needed admin action. I did the move, but it left about 40 double redirects. Must I wade through them all manually, or is there a bot that routinely clears up double redirects? Anthony Appleyard 11:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's a bot. Neil ム 11:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)