Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:10, 18 April 2008

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

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.
If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}}

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

If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message here instead.

Jackmantas

This Single-purpose account appears to have been created with the simple aim of blanking the article Eric Greif. After failed attempts at blanking the article, the user then began a dozen slashing edits in bad faith, without checking references or using the talk page for discussion with other editors. As soon as the account was created, the first move was a blanking attempt. Thanks. A Sniper (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks he decided to move to Chuck Schuldiner, basically to revert and argue your edits there. Notifying him of this thread. Also, doesn't look like anything at Greif is sourced at all. Given that it's a WP:BLP concern, I think that it needs to slashed and rebuilt. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides trolling around other articles I've edited, the edits have now slid into innuendo, attacks, inferences and general bad faith. No longer is it about editing - pleasee see [1]. This is extremely frustrating. A Sniper (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know too much about it, but it would seem there is a huge problem with the user. Needs to be warned or something. They are going on some sor tof crusade trying to mess up certain pages. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a {{npa}} message. -- Agathoclea (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's very important here to keep separate the issues of conduct and content: Jackmantas's breaches of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are unacceptable, but that doesn't invalidate the content issues raised, which others can take up in a more neutral manner. Other context:

1) see WP:COIN#Eric Greif: it appears A Sniper has a strong conflict of interest, so this can hardly be viewed as a disinterested report.

2) While the civility is a problem (on both sides), the actual edits to articlespace by Jackmantas have mostly been endorsed by uninvolved editors. The material on Eric Greif had a long-standing absence of sourcing that needed dealing with. Removing unsourced material is not "messing up pages". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this helps since this thread is active, but I was petitioned to do something about Jackmantas about 10 hours ago, citing a lack of admin involvement. It is possible that this was done by Sniper, considering this modification. Since I have never been involved with this issue, I wonder if other admins were contacted in this manner. Given the location of my user name within the alphabet, I am prone to the occasional blanket plea for help by those who start from the very beginning of the admin list. 52 Pickup (deal) 15:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with Jackmantas no longer is specifically linked to the Greif page, which culminated in a consensus of editors endorsing a complete re-build from scratch, with citations used (and was done by an admin). What it has come down to is the inflammatory personal attacks that continue to be posted at my talk page, on the user's talk page, and on article talk pages. It is the single-purpose account, trolling and personal attack aspects that leave me feeling that this continues to be an OTT problem. Making valid edits is one thing - writing attacks over & over again is another. A quick peak at the user's contributions demonstrates more than just good faith article editing. If these attacks stopped, I would easily and certainly withdraw the item from the Noticeboard. BTW: I have ceased all direct responses to the user as well as they only made the situation worse. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@52 I actually saw the post on your page and assuming you were on wikibreak took a closer look which led me past the COI page to this item, so I don't think there was a shotgun approach in contacting admins. Looking at the issue I found that the COI situtation was dealt with by a number of editors, but the personal attack situation was not. Hence me leaving the template. @Sniper - walking away / ignoring baiting attacks is the best thing you can do and I am glad you saw that. Agathoclea (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm on a semi-break at the moment (or rather, I'm way too busy to do much here right now), so I did not have the time to examine the situation in any detail. I just wanted to make sure that there was no canvassing. 52 Pickup (deal) 21:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought since this whole thing is a complaint about me, I should come on here and tell my side of the story. When I originally saw the Greif page, I saw a lot of problems. We all know what they are, so I won't beat a dead horse as far as that goes. So, seeing all those problems, I decided it was time to become a Wikipedia editor and I opened and account and went to work. Not knowing any better as a newcomer, when I saw absolutely no sources, I thought the page should just be blanked and started from scratch. When that got reverted by a bot, I guess I got a little playful and made a joke entry, kind of just to see what happened. I now know that this was not the right thing to do and I apologize to the entire Wikipedia community for my conduct. Well it got reverted too, but it was about this time that I first encountered A Sniper. He immediately began with the rude and condescending comments in the edit box and calling me "singleuser account Jackmantas." I started to really concentrate on doing some responsible editing at this point, but he just would not let up. He also began to accuse me of being a sock puppet acccount of username: Dissolve, which is absolutely untrue. He was basically doing what I now know to be "biting the newcomer." Well I can tell you this only strengthened my resolve and an edit war began. If he had of been polite to me in the beginning, I'm sure things would have been different. Not making excuses, just stating a fact. I'm a newcomer, he has been on here a long time, he should know better. If anything this is a perfect example of why you don't bite a newcomer. Anyway, I soon discovered that A Sniper was in fact Mr. Grief himself and that also irked me somewhat. The more he called me "single-user account" and accused me of vandalism, sockpuppetry, malicious editing, the more I just wanted to focus on his page. Anyway, to make a long story short, I began making edits over on the Chuck Schuldiner page where I also saw a lot of problems and he tried to ridicule me one too many times over an understandable mix up and I basically just let him have it. He bit me and bit me and bit me and I decided to bite back with a personal attack. To wrap this up, I just think it is rather ridiculous for Mr. Greif AKA, A Sniper to come on here and complain about me, when he was just as guilty of the things he is accusing me of as I was. He is also a trusted member of the Anti-Vandalism Squad and I feel like he abused his position to further his agenda and he should know better. I guess at this point I am supposed to create links to illustrate all of this, but I don't know how to do that very well yet and am kind of tired and I have to work early in the morning. Anyone who wants to check the history of either the Greif page or the Chuck Schuldiner page or my talk page or his talk page will see all of this as plain as day. And while you are at it, check his history and you will see how he has been rude and condescending to people again and again. Even people that were totally polite and helpful to him. If he didn't like the way they were trying to edit a page that he had anything to do with, he would bite their head off. I guess I took offense to this and thought I would teach this guy a lesson. I guess I just have a pet-peeve about people who I see as arrogant and condescending. Anyway, I was sent a very polite NPA notice by a gentleman by the user name of Agothoclea. I really appreciated the friendly, welcoming tone of his notice ( Something I never got from Mr. Greif) and I took his words to heart and anyone who would care to look can see that I have made no further personal attacks. As far as I am concerned I will do my best to maintain my conduct in the future in a way that is in full compliance with Wikipedia Policies. Again, I apologize to the entire Wikipedia community for my conduct and look forward to doing whatever I can to be of service to Wikipedia in the future. Thank you for your time. Jackmantas (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedies decided by the Arbitration Committee, viewable here, instruct Betacommand with regards to the operation of BetacommandBot, including placement of notifications and civility in replying to concerns raised about its operation. Betacommand is urged to be significantly more responsive to good-faith questions from users whose images he tags and either to respond directly to such questions, and also to develop an "opt-out" list for BetacommandBot without imposing conditions on its use.

All editors are advised that periodic review of images and other media to ensure their compliance with the non-free content criteria may be necessary for policy, ethical, and sometimes legal reasons, and are invited to participate in policy discussions concerning this and related areas. Editors are cautioned not to be abusive toward or make personal attacks against participants, including bot operators, engaged in this work. The community is also urged to re-examine our policies and practices for reviewing, tagging, and where necessary deleting images in light of experience gained since the policies and practices were previously developed, including the disputes underlying this case. The Committee listed five specific points in the specific remedy that they believe any review should attempt to cover.

The Committee expects that the disputes and disruption underlying this case will cease as a result of this decision. In the event of non-compliance or a continued pattern of disputes, further review by the Committee may be sought after a reasonable time. In such a review, the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions including but not limited to the revocation of any user's privilege to use automated tools such as bots and scripts, revocation of other privileges, topic bans, civility restrictions, or any other remedies needed to end the disruption. However, please note that nothing in this paragraph restricts the authority of administrators to take appropriate action to deal with any disruptive incidents that may occur.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally. And thankfully, some of the findings weren't about Beta, as there is an underlying good faith problem on all sides. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the length of this so-called "summary" — pulling bits out of five of the longest unique remedies I've ever seen, while still maintaining the original intention as well as balance between the remedies (ie. not to include more about one "side" than another) didn't lend itself to having a short summary. Daniel (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"and either to respond directly to such questions..." or what? :D Happy‑melon 13:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the remedies are useless

Why urge Betacommand to change his conduct and never say what ArbCom will do to punish him if he never changes his conduct? --Kaypoh (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you give him a chance? Don't presume that all remedies are useless; show some good faith. Complaining after the matter is closed isn't going to improve the situation. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 08:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you realise that any remedy other than desysopping Betacommand, banning him, banning his bot, undeleting all the disputed images and changing foundation policy to allow unlimited use of unfree images is useless? Tchah! Oh, was that a bit sarcastic? Guy (Help!) 11:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol nice work decorating this amazingly undramatic thread with your kneejerk blanket defense. is he seriously still a sysop btw? last i heard he was using his bot to spam fifty or sixty msgs on the talk page of a user he didn't like, but i think he'd already been dysopped some time before. Obviously an injustice. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, he was desysopped. I just want the remedies to have enforcement. The remedies must say how ArbCom will punish him if he does not listen to the instructed remedies. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing discussion

One of the remedies is that we're supposed to have a community-wide discussion about non-free image tagging and bots. Where will this discussion be held? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, why not come over to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria compliance? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate incivility from Betacommand following arbcom case 2

He's lasted 4 days after the judgement before telling someone to shut up at a bot approval request [2]. I raised this at AN/AE but it appears not to be actionable, despite the wording of remedy 12.3.1.A, so I am bringing it here. MickMacNee (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flashbacks. And you've lasted 4 days after judgment to resume running around posting about Betacommand again. Funny how that worked out. Lara❤Love 20:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a block or other escalation is necessary for that comment - its ill-tempered, and Betacommand is aware that folks are still watching his every comment. I'd advise Betacommand to be more careful, for his own good, and let it go at that. Avruch^T 21:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Betacommand is ... instructed ... To remain civil " - arbcom, 4 days ago. "Shut up" - betacommand to a user, today. MickMacNee (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't nice. But if there were an easy solution, this problem would not have been ongoing for these years. Blocking for this would be excessive. Maybe you could just ignore him? Friday (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom is not an easy solution. MickMacNee (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, speaking honestly here: "shut up" wasn't nice. But it sure doesn't rise to the level of incivility under which I'd take any action against anyone. Let's think about a thicker skin here, okay? I say this as someone who's hardly one of Beta's supporters - in fact, I've spoken out against him several times. It would have to be much worse than that before I'd take action. - Philippe 22:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the general message I'm getting, no matter what cases, judgements or incidents have gone before, people are content to treat this comment as an isolated case. On that logic, he would firmly have to tell someone to F off before anyone even said 'now now' to him. What was the point of any of this? Nothing has changed, nothing, this entire episode literally is a flashback in Lara's own words to the time before the case, and probably before the one before that. And just as before, it should be pointed out, beta hasn't accepted he did anything wrong with this comment (again). MickMacNee (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odd "images"

I've created a list of "images" where the MIME type doesn't match the file extension. The list isn't perfectly filtered, but it's close enough. The "number" column is just arbitrary to give an idea of how many mismatches there are. Some of the them are simple mistakes -- having .jpe instead of .jpg. Others are more nefarious (.txt files being called .ogg, etc.). Any help would be appreciated in either deleting these or fixing the file extension and re-uploading them.

The list is located here. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why bmp isn't one of the extensions supported by the site? Many of these images were merely attempts to get around that problem. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bitmap images are highly inefficient - where lossless compression is needed, PNG can provide that, and where it isn't, JPEG does even better. There's no reason to use them, and some very good reasons not to (they take significantly more bandwidth to serve to users, even as thumbnails). Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediawiki actually has code to verify mime types during upload. Since your list only has 600 items, that may mean that it works pretty well, but doesn't catch certain types of cases. Dragons flight (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started going through and converting some of the bitmap-masquerading-as-JPEG images to actual JPEGs at a decently high quality (95%), as well as tagging a couple of the unused ones for deletion. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it legal to change a fair-use .bmp into an other format, or is it considered a modification to the image? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mu. Yes it is legal, and yes it is a (minor) modification of the image. Modifications, even very major ones, are not incompatible with fair use. Dragons flight (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a perfect opportunity to move the free images on this list to Commons. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't .xls actually the correct suffix for "application/vnd.ms-excel"? (Of course, the issue of whether we should be having Excel spreadsheets on Wikipedia at all is a different matter.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LesTout.com

LesTout.com was salted by user Jossi‎ due to my initial lack of experience adding/editing article in Wikipedia. Admin עוד מישהו requested me to add a separate page for the artice at User:Shivaji Mitra/LesTout.com for him to preview the final article and approve it. Admin עוד מישהו requested me to put it into WP:RUP. I listed my message twice, but I did'nt get any response. So now, Admin עוד מישהו requested me to bringing it up on the administrator's noticeboard. Thanks. --Shivaji Mitra (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your request and to the best of my knowledge the title should be unprotected. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 04:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Shivaji Mitra (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soon after granting permission for the article LesTout.com it is being speedily deleted by (AndrewHowse). I was working with the Audio version of the article and now the article seems gone. Thanks. --Shivaji Mitra (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User who posts nothing but hoaxes/self-promotion

I just recently put up two articles, Akira Tetsugake‎ and Soul Blade (manga)‎, up for deletion. The author of both articles is Kira99er (talk · contribs), who I have noticed has done almost nothing but create articles about made-up anime and manga series and characters for as long as he's been registered here. His various articles have been deleted (see here, here and here for examples), and he has been repeatedly warned about creating hoaxes and self-promoting articles on his talk page, but he refuses to respond to any messages on his user page, removes deletion tags from his articles and just keeps on creating more hoaxes. Of his contributions that haven't been (or will be) deleted, they were spent adding original research to various anime articles ([3], [4])! This user has absolutely no constructive edits to the site and he has not shown any evidence that this will change. Can someone, please, take some sort of admin action on this hoaxer? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty tired and my mind is gone, so maybe I'm wrong, but I second the motion. Per this link, http://comixpedia.com/manga_artist_looking_wrighter#comment-30723, User:Kira99er appears to be using Wikipedia to promote his work. Cheers, and good night. Dloh cierekim 05:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the account, currently set at indefinite since the user doesn't seem willing to comunicate. The talk page, contributions, and deleted contributions speak for themselves. Misuse of the project, adequately warned over the past year. I advised an email to unblock-en if they wish a review. Keegan^talk 06:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse block. GlassCobra 18:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grawp sockpuppet

Please help. See the contribs. Page move-vandalism. Enigma ^message Review 06:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw it and blocked him immediately to prevent any more damage, but could definitely use some help fixing what was done. faithless (^speak) 07:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was using WP:HUG when all those edits started popping up on my screen. Unfortunately, I could not fix them through the program, because Huggle can't deal with page moves to my knowledge. It searches back through the history of the page, and since this guy is the "creator" after moving it, Huggle can't revert to a previous version. Enigma ^message Review 07:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed as Grawp - also the following accounts. I checked as there are always more when Grawp is involved:

Unferð (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wealhþeow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Weohstan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wæls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wondred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Brosinga mene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Gavin the Loser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and

IP blocked - Alison ^❤ 07:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All accounts blocked. RBI now? Keegan^talk 07:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have the talk pages been salted? Whenever a Grawp account gets blocked, he locks it with an ungodly-large table that replicates a certain pic. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v X of Swords)} 07:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have at is, Jéské! Collaboration, after all :) Keegan^talk 07:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid to ask; what pic? - Alison ^❤ 07:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, let me guess .... - Alison ^❤ 07:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the honors and salted all the talk pages, removing those avenues of attack. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v X of Swords)} 07:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like there's a Grawp attack every few days. Enigma ^message Review 07:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've been noticing a pattern recently. Grawp gets exposed and blocked, and shortly thereafter, several users are harass-crapflooded from a certain site (Not ED), which leads to (now-)3-month IP blocks on all participants and constant deletions. I swear, nowadays more than half my IP blocks and almost all my deletions involve such attacks. All the same, I'm preparing. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v X of Swords)} 07:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing we can't take care of (and thanks to Bencherlite, who tagged the userpages). Keegan^talk 07:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you'd better be prepared to delete and restore pages. Keep an eye for a user talk page being blanked except for a short sentence or two, and delete the revision immediately. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 07:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I can handle that. Keegan^talk 08:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all: if you're blocking Grawp socks, it is worth semi-ing your user and talk pages for a while. Black Kite 12:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped caring long ago what vandals do to my userspace. It's a Wiki! after all ;) Keegan^talk 07:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. My userpage is semi'd and I have popups. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 07:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing unblock for RS1900

Resolved

– Unblocked. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 12:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RS1900 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked in October for personal attacks and sockpuppetry. [5] [6]. The threats were against user Nick Graves who has subsequently forgiven him and who sought to have the block rescinded in Decemeber [7] but the consensus was that the user needed to sit the block out for a longer period. The user has now sought unblocking [8] and has apologised for their behaviour and promissed to behave in future. They also understand that their behaviour is under scrutiny and that further misbehaviour will result in an instant and unappealable permanent block. I am personally prepared to unblock this user but am seeking a consensus that this is an acceptable thing to do. The user does not have a record of disruption or poor bahaviour. The sockpuppetry was inept and predated the block and the threats were completely out of character. Examination of previous contributions suggests this user is generally veru polite and careful of other's feelings. With the threat of an instant block/ban hanging over them I would say that there is no risk of long term disruption from the unblock and much to be gained from having a productive user back contributing to the project. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take a very dim view of this kind of thing (admin only). The harassed user accepted the apology and asked for the indefinite block to be removed, so I wouldn't stand in your way if you want to remove the block, but it wouldn't be my first choice. --B (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What B said. Any evidence that the guy is no longer going to behave in this creepy and despicable manner? Guy (Help!) 11:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the user who was harassed by him doesn't mind if RS1900 gets unblocked, I don't mind too. But only if someone explains me what the sock tag on his userpage means. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 11:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He used a sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RS1900. I favor unblocking; the user has promised to behave and has already been blocked for about 5 months, and has a history of productive edits before the incident that got him blocked. I think another chance is in order. Mango juice^talk 14:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a fan of second chances and since even the target of the harassment has forgiven him, so do I. Besides, if he put another toe out of line it will lead to a pretty indisputable indefblock, so there's not much risk here. faithless (^speak) 17:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz asked for my views on unbanning. I still support unbanning, and I think the terms of his return (permablock for any further violations) are reasonable. I believe RS will prove to be a productive editor again. In his unblock request, RS expressed concern about my exposing some personal information in the sock report I filed (note that this was information he had previously shared on his user page and elsewhere, though he later requested a wipe of the history). Out of respect for his wishes to remove that personal information from the "public record," and to erase any lingering ill will, I suggest that that sock report be made an admin-eyes-only page.

I appreciate the swift and vigilant response of admins and other editors to the original offense, and commend them for their latter willingness to give a promising editor one more chance. Thank you. Nick Graves (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked him, on conditions of good behaviour. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 12:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boldness

There has been an increasingly acrimonious debate over a list of songs featuring "sexual attraction to children or adults". Most of the entries in the original list were not referenced or were apparently about pedophilia or sexual abuse. No unequivocally referenced items about "sexual attraction to children or adolescents" were in the list as of this morning (and yes, it was me who removed all the unreferenced ones a short while back, per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:OMG). I went back through the history and discovered that the original title, which it has had for most of its life, was List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors, and most of the entries were added with this title or something close, which goes a long way towards explaining the sourcing issues - I suspect it would be a great deal easier to source them at the title the list had when they were mostly added (see [9] for example). The article was moved in late March and several times again more recently, which has been disruptive and made sourcing next to impossible as the target keeps moving. So I have boldly moved the list back to List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors and locked moves to prevent further disruptive move warring and see if the list can be adequately sourced at something close to its original title. If we still can't source it, I will take it back to AfD. Since this required use of one admin tool (protecting against further moves) I am noting it here, if anyone feels this is unwarranted they have my full permission to lift that protection and / or implement a better solution to the problem. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the move protection. Agree that AfD should be the next step if no sources can be found. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a very encyclopedic topic. I would support deletion unless there's some referenced things that can be placed on the list. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this. It should have been done a long time ago. -- Naerii 10:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Statistics page

Special:Statistics gets a lot of views. The external link-stats are actually linked to from MediaWiki:Statistics-footer (before that MediaWiki:Userstatstext). For the last year or so, I've added the WikiCharts, then removed them once they stopped working. I added the Wikirage "most edited pages" links, and the http://stats.grok.se page. I won't be editing Wikipedia as much as I have been doing in the past from now on, so perhaps admins here could add these pages to their watchlists and keep an eye on whether the Wikirage & traffic stats pages are still working, and whether there are new pages that should be added. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2008-04-15 21:29

Edit warring, removal of sourced info, personal attacks

User:Noah30 keeps removing sourced info added by me in several occasions: here, here (including a personal attack), here is another example of an offending personal attack. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

one more personal --TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Safe Search" or "Adult Filter" function proposal

Many search engines and websites have something called a "Safe Search" or "Adult Filter" function. Wikipedia does not have such a thing. This causes many parental controls and corporate content filters to block Wikipedia. That sucks. Is there any way we could create such a feature so that Wikipedia would not get blocked? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start by throwing out the obligatory WP:NOTCENSORED, and follow up with a comment that such an idea isn't really for administrators to decide, and would probably do best somewhere on the Village pump. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this would be better brought up at the Village Pump, there is really no admin intervention needed here. Tiptoety ^talk 23:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't for any of us to decide, in the absence of an objective way to determine which articles should not be read by children (other people's children in fact!). As for "corporate content filters", there are easy ways for readers to circumvent (less so for editors). Server-side censorship is something we don't do, but we do have pages offering advice to those affected by client-side censorship. — CharlotteWebb 14:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed unblock of Live and Die 4 Hip Hop

I’d like to propose an abbreviation the block of Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk · contribs), who I blocked as as a block-evading sock of Payne2thamax (talk · contribs). Payne2thamax was originally blocked for gross incivility and personal attacks, culminating in this edit. After being blocked, he used a number of socks to evade this block:

Some of these socks also had civility issues; in fact, he has admitted to me that Payne2thamaxx was basically a bad hand account of Same As It Ever Was.
The user also had a long-running content dispute, the details of which are frankly to arcane for me to fathom, with Tasc0 (talk · contribs). Tasc0 himself was once blocked indefinitely, for incivility and personal attacks culminating in this edit. The indefinite block was shortened to a month by Fred Bauder after Tasc0 e-mailed arb comm; Tasc0 has since returned to Wikipedia at the conclusion of this block and is editing, from what I can tell, productively and within all policy and guidelines.
Tasc0 and Live and Die 4 Hip Hop have a great deal in common in that both are productive content editors with extraordinary incivility in their pasts. Both have been blocked indefinitely, but Tasc0 has won a reprieve. LAD4HH has e-mailed me, taking responsibility for everything and seeking a similar reprieve. Working in his favour is the Tasc0 precedent and the fact that his most recent account, LAD4HH, seems to have edited productively and within policy. Working against him is that fact, while Tasc0 responded to his indefinite block by following proper appeal channels, LAD4HH responded by engaging in block-evading sockpuppetry and occasional continued incivility. Nevertheless, I’d like to reset his block to expire May 1 (one month since he was blocked, during which time he appears to have refrained from sockpuppetry), with the understanding that upon his return he is limited to one account and on come form of civility probation. Are there objections? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that LAD4HH's socks, in addition to being block-evading, were also used to vote-stack (see, for example, here). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A user with that sort of sock history needs to do a lot more to convince me they've mended their ways. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-rhetorical question: what else could the user do to convince you? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A (personal?) note on today's featured article

OK, everybody knows that TFAs are very heavily vandalized, and just as rarely protected. I would, however, like to request that available (i.e. awake :) admins keep an eye on today's featured article and WP:RFPP and please be more lenient in their application of WP:NOPRO and (I can't believe I'm saying this) less lenient in their application of WP:IAR. Although I'm just one guy, I don't think anyone would want to see disrespectful, childish vandalism on this of all articles, on this of all days. I myself am only in favor of protecting TFAs under exceptional circumstances. To me, this qualifies. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on it for as long as I'm here. I know others will do the same. If it gets out of hand, I (for one) am willing to invoke IAR out of respect for the dead and protect the article. I don't pass judgment on others, but that's the moral thing for me to do. If I'm found to be out of step with the community, I'll recuse myself. - Philippe 03:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the most heavily debated issues on wiki. TFA is so heavily vandalized that I think it's embarrassing to call it "some of wiki's best" and have it be one of the first things newbies see, ie an article that's vandalized practically every minute. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All TFAs should be protected on their day, but in this case especially so. It isn't even semi-protected. Everyking (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was semi-protected originally but the protection was removed just before midnight.[10] DrKiernan (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my action. I've been move protecting the TFAs since late Nov '07, and usually do so as soon as Raul schedules them. For this article, I intentionally waited as close to midnight UTC as I could, due to the subject matter (and knowing that I might be away from the computer after that point). I haven't done any statistics or hard analysis, but a quick look gave me the impression this article has actually seen less vandalism than usual. I also noted several constructive edits from IP editors. Of course, the school day in the US is just starting, and vandalism will likely pick up. - auburnpilot talk 12:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your experience indicates that the article should remain unprotected for now - which is different than my initial view. Ronnotel (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban of self proclaimed "Asia Fan Club President"

This is a disturbing tale of abuse. Many, many months of extensivly relentless abuse of wikipedia in order to promote asiafanclub.com and use Wikipedia as a "vehicle for advertising"

Extensive abuse of wikipedia

User_talk:70.188.184.84
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mondrago
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive362
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mondrago
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive366
Talk:Asia (band)
MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February_2008#More_asiafanclub_spam
MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February_2008#asiafanclub.com
User talk:Nakon#Spam blacklist
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/asiafanclub.com (incomplete)
More asiafanclub spam
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive362#Linkspammer issuing legal threats on talk page
- "I have 20000 fans in my newsletter that will come here to edit this. If we meet any resistance we will file a lawsuit for emotional stress and discrimination and deformation (as it was reported that we loaded SPAM by loading the Authorized ASIA Fan Club to Wikipedia) and sue personally those who edited out this important authorized site and this will go to the Arbitration Committee"[11][12]
User_talk:A._B.#Talk:Asia_.28band.29.
Spamed offsite forums including email abuse
User_talk:Hu12/Archive6#Asia__spam_being_re-added_again
MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Request_asiafanclub_dot_com_to_be_removed_from_blacklist
MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Request_for_additional_administrator_input_on_blacklist_status_of_asiafanclub_dot_com
MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Request_unbias_opinion_for_removal_of_asia_fan_club_from_blacklist
".... you think it's over... if you think I'm going anywhere think again, real good."

List of accounts and IP socks

Template:MultiCol

Clear evidence violating WP:DISRUPT, WP:POINT, WP:SOCK, WP:SPAM, WP:CANVASS, WP:NOT and WP:CIV. Multiple spam attacks, edit warring, sneaky attempts to subvert wikipedia policy, creating False consensus through use of mutiple IP's, attempting to circumvent blacklisting by creating asiafanclub.4t.com and worst of all the legal threats made by "Asia Fan Club President". This is a clear case where wikipedia is being terrorized by an individual in an attempt to advance a site owners agenda.--Hu12 (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would endorse such a ban. I initially became involved with the whole Asia Fan Club link issue when the editor in question and individuals recruited from the Asia fan community first started trying to strong-arm the link into the article, in response to which I protected the page. When I attempted to extend the assumption of good faith to this user and (foolishly and naively) removed the URL from the spam blacklist it only served to increase the fervour and determination with which this user assaulted the article. I have stepped back and had no further involvment since my error of judgment but have silently watched the article talk page descend into a succession of threats (some of which he has shown that he is willing to pursue) from the editor in question and it is quite apparent that the individual will never accept the decision based in both wider policy and local consensus and will not cease in using whatever means he can contrive to disrupt Wikipedia. I am under no illusion that a ban will cease the disruption, but at least it will allow his dispution in the Talk namespace to be reverted on sight. CIreland (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorized is probably extreme but this user is obviously pushing an agenda, after all of this disruption I see no reason for not banning him. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse ban proposal. Enigma ^message Review 04:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse This is a whole lot of disruption, I see no other way of really dealing with it. Tiptoety ^talk 04:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: The site's been blacklisted, and the user's request for a "second unbiased opinion" has been declined. seicer | talk | contribs 04:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per the above, and for many, many, many other reasons. Although I am worried that a ban might not work and he'll continue to "recycle" his IPs. BoL (Talk) 04:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) One question: didn't checkuser find that Mondrago (talk · contribs) wasn't the same as those IPs? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those IPs are AFCP (he has a somewhat "distinctive" writing style), most are meatpuppets, probably recruited by appeals to his site's users (he sporadically threatens to use the Asia fan community for just such a puprpose and has followed through with on occasion). CIreland (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and blocked 70.188.184.84 for continued spamming. Notably for this recent edit that included a bit for "exclusive material"... The site must be getting pretty desperate. seicer | talk | contribs 04:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

66.19.204.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was just blocked for the same crap. seicer | talk | contribs 05:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These ranges should take care of the other IP used by AP.

32.138.216.0/24 [13]

32.140.14.0/24 [14]

4.238.124.24/31 [15]

4.238.124.0/24 [[16]]

70.167.100.0/24 [17]

Blocked--Hu12 (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<--- Exit stage left. We aught to be protecting the article and (possibly) the talk page for some lengthy period of time so they don't return. MER-C 06:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Exit stage left"...actually, that was Rush, not Asia. ;) Banninate with extreme prejudice. We don't need this.Gladys J Cortez 15:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone mind using one of those nice collapsible boxes to inclose those IPs? I don't know the template and that could use some tidying up. Keegan^talk 07:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So done. If Hu (or, for that matter, anyone else) finds the boxing to be problematic, he should, of course, revert me. Joe 08:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that a page protection is needed, as the site is blacklisted. They are now aware of how to attempt to get it removed, which of course, will be denied every time (or deleted). seicer | talk | contribs 12:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can safely call this one banned, I don't see any likelihood of unblocking and the game of whack-a-mole is also showing no signs of abating. Site is blacklisted on enWP, and I'm now checking for cross-wiki spam. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link info follows. MER-C 09:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

asiafanclub.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
asiafanclub.4t.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Endorse ban. Indef any non-indef'd accounts, tag the pages, list at WP:BANNED. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect sockpuppet allegation -- in response to Sarcasticidealist's question above: I blocked one of this user's accounts as a Mondrago sockpuppet after another editor tagged him as such. A subsequent checkuser indicated no connection to Mondrago, so I goofed in using that reason for blocking him. However, by that time, there were a zillion other reasons to block him starting with incivility and legal threats. Besides open proxies, I don' t block many editors but I'd block this guy again in a heartbeat, just with a different reason.

Endorse ban. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

66.19.205.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Another IP, another block? These guys are relentless to get their web-site spammed. seicer | talk | contribs 21:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

66.19.201.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) yet another..--Hu12 (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone feel like chiming in on MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Time_for_discussion, I've had to close 4 threads by these meatpuppets, yet they continue to tendentiously repost in an obvious pursuit of a certain point, despite months of discussion and opposition from multiple administrators, including those here.--Hu12 (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I closed that one also along with a list of vio's. Further posts campaigning for Asiafanclub will be removed immediately, with little or no warning. --Hu12 (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse community ban. Looks like a case for which WP:MEAT was written for. I've semi-protected the article for 2 months as well. Blueboy 96 22:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also semi-protected the talk page to prevent their "fan club" from ranting about. If they continue to abuse the blacklist-spam forum, I'll just wipe their comments. seicer | talk | contribs 23:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

66.19.204.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Another--Hu12 (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep an eye on these two accounts

Shubopshadangalang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bondegezou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They both have been "campaigning" for "AFCP" tendentiously since january and both appear to be editing on behalf of "AFCP" and have acted as proxies for asiafanclub's interests in the past.--Hu12 (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP addresses at least are becoming more predictable. seicer | talk | contribs 00:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continued WP:MEAT by Shubopshadangalang (talk · contribs) on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.

Seems to be a case of this user's Refusal to 'get the point' and is repeatidly editing on behalf of a banned user and acting as a proxy for "AFCP" interests--Hu12 (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice allegations have been made about my behaviour in this case. May I comment? I think some of Hu12's initial allegations against AFCP are mistaken, but, by and large, I think the admin action against AFCP is appropriate and welcome. S/he has been a most difficult and disruptive character. Interacting with AFCP is an exasperating experience, so I quite sympathise with Hu12 if s/he is frustrated with the case! However, I am taken aback by Hu12's comments as to my own behaviour. I have in the past sought to treat AFCP civilly under WP:AGF and to encourage him/her to behave better, but I strongly disagree that I am editing on behalf of AFCP. I have never had any communication with AFCP outside of Wikipedia Talk pages. If I may blow my own horn, I have a good record of behaviour on Wikipedia and only the other day was being thanked by an administrator for my patience and restraint.[18] What I do believe is that there is a valid case under WP:EL for including the Asia Fan Club website as an external link on the grounds that the Fan Club is officially authorised (as attested by reliable sources) and thus, arguably, it constitutes an official site (from WP:EL, "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any."). As I understand it, Shubopshadangalang and some further editors believe similarly. My concern is that consideration of the website's merits has been entirely overshadowed by AFCP's behaviour as an editor. I implore you all here to recognise that discussion of the merits of linking to the Asia Fan Club site may be valid and is separable from the issue of AFCP's behaviour, and that one can support such a link as an individual editor without acting as a proxy for AFCP's interests. That said, if the community is tired of the issue, with no consensus apparent, I will not seek to add or unblacklist the site in question. Bondegezou (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It becomes rather apparent when the same editors continue "campaigning" for "AFCP's" site despite the evidence of abuse and clear statements of policy. This has passed the point of reasonableness, and it has become obvious that there is a willful refusal to 'get the point'. Wikipedia is not a platform for pushing adjendas...
Self proclamed "Asia Fan Club President's" banning is a direct result of his 3 months of relentless spamming, promoting and disruption under 61 doccumented IP's and accounts for the single purpose of using Wikipedia to advertise Asiafanclub. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising".
Wikipedia is not the only victim of this persons spam attacks, he has also spammed the yesfans.com forum and email spamming its members
Asiafanclub.com is simply a privatly run site which obtains its 'official' content from the Official Asia Fan Club site originalasia.com. It is neither owned by or qualifies as ASIA's official site. While some external links may be permitted by the External links Guideline, they are in no way required, guaranteed or mandated by any Wikipedia policy to be included.
As stated above and as a multitude of other other administrators repeated Ad nauseam to you and Shubopshadangalang on the asia talk page, it does not meet inclusion criteria nor is it welcome on Wikipedia. Links to this site were repeatedly added despite the obvious community disapproval. Rationale for placing the link becomes quite secondary to the behaviour, when it reaches this stage.--Hu12 (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Threat of violence at George Bernard Shaw

Resolved

An anonymous user made a threat of violence at the George Bernard Shaw article in which they stated "fuck cypress creek high school i hate everbody that school is going to blow up at 10:26 wednesday 04/16/08". Although I believe it's just a case of vandalism, especially since they had previously vandalized the article, WP:VIOLENCE suggests that such outbursts be reported here, so here 'tis. María (habla conmigo) 12:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 31 hours for now, schoolIP. I can't call Florida from here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll send them an email...hopefully it gets there on time..though this most likely is a prank. Rgoodermote 14:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email sent waiting on reply. Rgoodermote 14:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is way past 10:26 and no-reply has come and I do not think this is serious so I am going to call this resolved. Feel free to go against me.Rgoodermote 14:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usernames

Resolved

Hello

As you can see User:Police, Mod, Jock is obviously trying to tarnish my accont by using this name in the hope that the two will get confused, quite a few months ago I made another report on this exact thing where someone had copied my username for trouble not so long ago. Please see to this that the account is blocked like the last persons, thank you. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 14:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC) (The genuine one)

Blocked Rgoodermote 14:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Agreed, this account was created to impersonate you (edited the same article immediately after you). I have{{usernamehardblocked}} it. --barneca (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, appreciated. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 14:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Kathleen21503

We seem to have a well-meaning user a bit unclear on the concept of this site who is insisting on writing, expanding and defending a seriously POV and OR essay. I'm trying to help keep her from wasting her time, but she just keeps on. Would someone else step in and have a gentle word with her? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide links? Thanks, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: See User talk:Kathleen21503. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a speedy deletion, try prod (likely to fail) or AfD if you think it should be deleted (probably). Try not to use your teeth too much. WilyD 15:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is potential for it becoming a legitimate article, it even has some references already. However, we should tell the user that articles are not to be self-referential, and if she has things not ready for publication to keep it in her userspace. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MovieZen "borrowing" our content

Resolved

– Reported to WP:MIRROR. --Yamla (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A website, moviezen.com, seems to be using our content for all their articles on celebrities. For example, here and here. Their copyright notice makes no mention that their content is available under the GFDL, nor does their terms of service. It appears to me (but I make no direct accusation) that the content is or was automatically pulled from Wikipedia in bulk rather than submitted by individuals, given that every single celebrity article I went to was taking content from Wikipedia. As such, I believe they are violating Wikipedia's copyright and/or the copyright of Wikipedia contributors. I'm reporting this here because I can't personally be bothered to take any action against them myself, but someone may want to draft up a polite letter informing them of their legal obligations under the GFDL. --Yamla (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia itself owns no copyright, it's just the contributers that do. There's a noticeboard around here somewhere ... Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks maybe? WilyD 16:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MIRROR goes into the details of handling such situations. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Unblocking of User:ElisaEXPLOSiON

I think that this user should be unblocked because of the fact that she didn't do anything!!!!The sockpuppets she was accused of were not her and were indeed her brother. She needs to be unblocked so she can start editing on here.Mr. Green^chat 17:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given your statement that you don't know this user, why should we believe your claim that the sockpuppets were indeed her brother? --Yamla (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because why would she create a number of seperate accounts for vandalizing and one for editing.If she was going to vandalize he would just do it on her page.Besides just because she doesn't know me doesn't mean I don't know her.By that comment I meant that she doesn't know who the owner of my page is.It could be any of her friends.The point is that I do know her, and I do know that that was her brother and not her. Mr. Green^chat 17:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob, is there something more to be said? Anything you wish to reveal about a user you supposedly do not know anything about? But as I am at work, I'll just say that I am endorsing the block for obvious sock abuse. seicer | talk | contribs 18:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is awfully bizarre when coming from an account that is less than a month old. Jacob have you seen the concept of "Good hand, bad hand" accounts, that summarizes Elisa's pattern. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what was so obvious about it.Just because it was the same IP address doesn't mean it was her.Anybody can use any IP. As far as you know it could have been me.Mr. Green^chat 18:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you think that I'm her? No I'm not.Tell me a way to prove tht I'm not and I'll do it.I'm not her.I just support her case.Somebody has to.Since everybody else is against her.Mr. Green^chat 18:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you her brother? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty certain that the above user is a sock. And an awfully bad one at that. The user has now resorted to spamming various talk pages in request for assistance: [19] [20] [21] [22]

Jacob really has no real contributions to speak of, outside of comments on various talk pages. seicer | talk | contribs 18:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Account created not long after the block was assessed, two inconsequential userspace edits, and a whack of myspace-ish chatter elsewhere. Something smells here, indeed. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was my point exactly, usually if you are a univolved party that is asked to help someone you begin the unblock argument with something like: "The user claims that s/he deserves to be unblocked because..." you don't go directly to the relevant noticeboard screaming that "this user should be unblocked because of the fact that she didn't do anything!!!!", the sense of desperation in that message seems to illustrate some kind of involvement. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa hold on a minute. I've been talking to Elisa and Jacob, and it's obvious they are completely different people. Jacob goes to a boarding school. They are two completely different people i would know more than anyone else! Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Do you care to explain, or shall we come to a similar conclusion as with the other socks? seicer | talk | contribs 22:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser should be able to verify if the IP address Jacob is using is from a boarding school. NOT asking that they reveal the information, just to check to see if the contention is true. Corvus cornix_talk 23:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was also good to see I was informed of this thread. *cough* Daniel (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They talk in a different way. Even small things like putting a space after the dot such as elisa does, but jacob doesn't. Its these small things that make people the way they are. Jacob gave an accurate description of what he does at the boarding school, or whatever it is. Also why would Elisa choose to immatate a guy...seems kinda strange. I don't know what a checkuser is but try it..Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop, you look more ridiculous the harder you try. JuJube (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, i don't really care about what the look like...Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this user can get the point without something as harsh as a two month block. I support making the block shorter. -- Ned Scott 11:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed blocking of an IP user (62.64.200.158)

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

Would any member of the community disapprove of a block on the name IP for edits like this? I'd suggest a 24 hour block for disruption, but I am open for disapproval. Rudget 18:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also: 62.64.201.155 (talk · contribs) and 62.64.213.157 (talk · contribs). - auburnpilot talk 18:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. seicer | talk | contribs 18:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like an anon upset about an admin making a ruling on a debate in which they are involved. That seems like a legitimate concern, what am I missing here? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a follow-up from here and all these IPs are rather obvious sockpuppets of Smurfmeister (talk · contribs) --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block review please?

Resolved

Hey there admins, I don't do a lot of blocking, but I stumbled into one just now that I'd like a review on. I recently blocked Fieldgoalunit (talk · contribs) for attempting to out another editor, namely User:JamesJJames. (Check fieldgoalunit's contribs to JJJ's talkpage, as well as this diff and immediate withdrawal. Those two diffs piqued my interest, and once I saw Fieldgoal's contribs to Usertalk:JamesJJames, I blocked indef. Please review for me? Permission to reduce/remove block if warranted. Consider this prior discussion, no need to discuss further with me before unblocking. Thanks! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the example you linked, the user just said he knew the other user in real life, he didn't post a phone number or anything. An indef block seems like overkill. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read a couple of diffs (In Fieldgoalunit's contrib history, I hesitate to link here) with Fieldgoalunit taunting JJJ and calling him by a different first name, attempting to out him. I have no problem with a reduced block, hence my post here. I'd just like to see a few more eyes on this, as it may very well be I'm overreacting based on my own strong need for privacy. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would agree that an indef is overkill. Would recommend downgrading to 48 hours or so with a strong warning. Stifle (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block reduced to 48h, additional warning left on usertalk. Thanks for the input AN Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block review and contributor discussion: Pixelface

Pixelface (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Pixelface (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

I have enacted a 12-hour block on Pixelface, further to a aiv report, for his repeated revert warring on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Latest examples: [23], [24] (today, 19:17, 19:51); [25] (earlier example: 7 April). I would like some feedback regarding this block, and furthermore, the long-term response to Pixelface we need to take. Some formal response regarding the necessity for discussion may be necessary here; I suspect an underlying lack of understanding of the general requirement for consensus-building through discussion, rather than through forcing one's changes via reverting.

I also fear there may be underlying issues here; it may well be that Pixelface is upset, or having some RL problems. She or he may simply be angry at the project. We don't know what's going on behind the computer screen, but regardless, we need to reach out somehow. Iif we don't, further restrictions and/or an indefinite block may be up-and-coming, and we don't want to lose an editor who has made a moderate amount of article contributions. Anthøny 21:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelface is an established user with a couple of recent blocks. Is there a way to reach out to this person? Durova^Charge! 21:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally and as was said on his talk page I think that Pixelface is dsrupting the project to prove a point, in the past he has strongly defended some fictional articles in AFD and to me it seems like he wants to downgrade WP:PLOT from a policy such as WP:NOT to a guideline in WP:WAF in order to be able to debate how legitimate the guideline is in AFDs, this was a situation that was seen with WP:FICT before. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is instructive to read todays postings on Pixelface's talkpage, in lieu of what Caribbean H.Q. just said - the interpretation of the meaning of consensus and the removal of text is slightly alarming, but not as alarming as the threat of leaving if they don't get their way. I wonder if this is a case of burn out, and that an absence from WP may be of benefit to all concerned? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to strongly suggest that this block was inappropriate. Pixelface was not engaging in as much discussion of the issue as he should have been, but I am confident he was acting in good faith. I saw insufficient attempt to engage Pixelface in discussion (aside from reverts saying "take it to the talk page"), followed by a warning template from a user who had previously butted heads with Pixelface, and a posting by the same user to AIV, reporting Pixelface for vandalism -- which his actions were categorically not, yet resulted in a block.

Pixelface's main point as concerns the dispute -- that the passage in question does not necessarily represent "a broad consensus", as is required for policy pages -- is valid. The "downgrade" of WP:PLOT from policy to guideline status has shown a measure of support. However, Pixelface should have been making this point predominantly on the talk page, not through reverts -- but the same goes for those who reverted him.

Pixelface's choice to "leave Wikipedia" is representative of anger at being blocked for reasons which I must agree were inappropriate. This is of benefit to no one.--Father Goose (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it had been one or two reverts, I'd have agreed with you, but look at the history of WP:NOT - he'd unilaterally removed that clause SIX times, being reverted by four different users, three of whom were admins. I don't believe that he genuinely doesn't understand the concept that you need actual consensus to alter existing policy (not just "a lack of conensus for it to stay the same") - it's been explained to him multiple times - which only leaves the option that he's being disruptive. Perhaps a good idea would've been a conditional unblock on the condition that he doesn't edit policy pages, but that's moot now as the block has expired. Black Kite 09:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I count five reverts over the course of three weeks, plus the initial removal, which doesn't count as a revert. That's an edit war, but a slow and low-grade one, and the block strikes me as much more punitive than preventive. I feel it would have been much better if Pixelface had been warned by an uninvolved admin (AGK or anyone else) than blocked abruptly. Sceptre's template-scold toward an established user he was already in conflict with hardly counts. At least some attempt to communicate with Pixelface about the reverts would have been far more appropriate than jumping right to a block.--Father Goose (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user who "reported" Pixelface to AIV is now exulting over this outcome: [26]. I do hope that I am not the only one who finds this entire incident disquieting.--Father Goose (talk) 07:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt Pixelface was being GF; he's been edit warring in this scope for a long long' time. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Pixelface has been generally disruptive in this whole domain of fictioncruft. Endorse block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) here we go again..everyone line up on opposing sides again....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, he's been rather disruptive. His actions caused the Episodes and characters 2 case. (Specifically, edit warring on Scrubs episode articles). Him saying there's no consensus for PLOT is just wrong - only he agrees that it should be removed. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"His actions caused the Episodes and characters 2 case." - this is unfair. it takes more than one person to edit war, and other people engaged in that conflict and helped bring it to the level where arbitration was needed. Sceptre, how would you describe your role in the events that led up to that case? From what I can see, you don't seem entirely objective here. Carcharoth (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Scrubs articles already had a consensus to merge. Reverting them all and knowingly violating the consensus was the action that spilled to AN, then to ARB. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block is appropriate. Pixelface has a history of peculiar behaviour in addition to that on display on WP:NOT. I vividly remember him trying to suggest merging all of our articles on Haydn's symphonies into one list in a classic case of WP:POINT - largely because I was the one who rolled back all the merge tags. Moreschi2 (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was wrong of Pixelface to edit war. It was wrong to report it to WP:AIV which is for clear-cut unquestionable vandalism, and not edit disputes. It was wrong of Sceptre to gloat over Pixelface's departure with a "Good News" headline. This is not the first case I have seen the term "vandalism" been thrown out liberally, and I seriously think ArbCom ought to consider whether their admonition in the last E&C is being heeded. In my view, people on both sides (perhaps mostly on the pro-fiction side) have been guilty of edit warring, and people have been guilty of stupid vandalism accusations. This has got to stop. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only said "good news" because I thought TTN would see it that way. Besides, it's appropriate to call the edits vandalism; he'd been warned several times that removing the section would be edit-warring-if-not-vandalism without a clear consensus. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre, you, like me, was an admin once, and people who hold or have held that position are expected, if not required to know what vandalism is and especially what it is not. Straight from the vandalism policy, we can see the excessive stubbornness is not vandalism. "Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such." Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the "removing content for no reason", not "stubbornness". Sceptre ^(talk) 11:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He had a reason. You may not agree with that reason, and he may be wrong, but he still had a reason. It wasn't "vandalism", that is a term that should not be thrown around inappropriately, especially at established users. And your gloating over his leaving is absolutely unacceptable. the wub "?!" 11:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A user who puts "is gay" on a BLP and saying "adding a fact" isn't adding a fact. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, unless the subject is gay and has said they are? You could ask for a reference, but without the reference it should be removed. Does that count as vandalism, though? Surely that depends on whether or not a reference can be found. If not, then it probably was. If yes, then it was adding unreferenced material to a BLP. Is that in the vandalism definition? Carcharoth (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's Wikipedia for you: use a common example of vandalism as an example and you get people asking if it really is. And yes, BLP vios are covered by vandalism. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Define BLP vio. Carcharoth (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced/poorly sourced contentious material about a living person. Besides, even were it not a BLP vio, it's silly vandalism. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't be contentious on Ian McKellan would it? It would be poorly sourced, but surely not contentious? Unless you view all poorly sourced material as contentious (and there are good arguments for doing that on BLPs). Carcharoth (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. McKellan's homosexuality is quite well known. Besides, second sentence of my last post "if not a BLP vio, it's silly vandalism". Sceptre ^(talk) 15:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the worst of the problem as the message. Yes, the ed. it was sent to might well have thought it good news, (and apparently did [27]) but WP user pages aren't private--sending a message like that might give reasons to suspect something in the nature of a joint concerted effort at trying to get an opponent to leave WP. Perhaps he needed a short block--he did not need being insulted in such a way as to make him feel the best course was to leave the project. We're not supposed to be enemies here, only opponents over particular issues, & when it does degenerate into personal enmity, we should at least have the decency to keep it private. Following the thread there, though, the subsequent discussion did seem much more appropriate. Sceptre, you might helpfully ask TTN to refactor. DGG (talk)

Whether the block itself was appropriate or not, calling what happened "vandalism" in the edit summary is certainly inaccurate, and that bothers me more so than the block itself. Wizardman 03:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, after reviewing some others' actions post-block, I change my stance to one admonishing the block. Bad move. Wizardman 04:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should never have been reported to WP:AIV in the first place, as the board is for reporting instances of obvious vandalism. A dispute over policy may be many things, but this was not a case of vandalism. Pixelface should not have been blocked by labeling it as such. R. Baley (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metaphysics

If a vandal updates a vandalism counter, does it count as vandalism? :-) Classic paradox territory. BTW, if someone wants to deal with the IP vandal? The IP was blocked for a week, but started vandalising again once unblocked. It also has some notice on the user page about reporting abuse to the ISP. Is that only for severe abuse? Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the only paradox. J Milburn (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Poochiedontsurf

Resolved

– attacks deleted

On Poochiedontsurf's user page, he makes a truly libelous attack on another editor: "After a long break from Wikipedia I decided to use my intelligence and resources ridding this Wiki of pedophiles."

Pedophiles links to User:Freechild, a longtime editor and proponent for youth rights, which has absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia. I don't want to start an edit war on someone's talk page, but this has to go. What should be done? (edit: sorry, forgot to sign)J0lt C0la (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I unlinked the personal attack. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 00:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I really should have been bold, but I've never been one to edit userpages except for vandalism reverts, as people are very touchy about that. J0lt C0la (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These edits suggest serious WP:POINT and WP:SOAP. Shame it went unchecked for so long. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the offending diffs on the user page and on Youth rights. Black Kite 10:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni33 blocked for sock puppetry

Could an uninvolved administrator please review the unblock request at User talk:Giovanni33 after viewing the evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rafaelsfingers and discussion at Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Rafaelsfingers. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 01:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a valid block. The history of sockpuppetry and extensive block log shows that he has clearly been using socks before. Nakon 01:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided Giovanni33 the names of three Checkusers and suggested emailing one of them to discuss the matter confidentially.[28] Perhaps Giovanni33 can provide some sort of explanation. Further opinions are welcome here. Jehochman ^Talk 01:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited with Giovanni in the past on the Allegations of state terrorism by the United States (there's 10 versions of that title) where I was generally in agreement with him. I can see why Jehochman decided to block in this case, but I'm not at all convinced by the evidence presented. It would very much surprise me if Giovanni started using socks again. The other accounts, from a quick scan of some of their posts, tend to post very short notes that don't sound like Giovanni at all (I'm familiar with his writing style). Giovanni is extremely loquacious as most who've seen him around the wiki would know, whereas User:Rafaelsfingers starts out with this and this on an article talk page. Sure, Giovanni could have adjusted his writing style, but if he was smart enough to do that, why would he not have made some dumby edits using those accounts instead of jumping right into the conflict? He sockpuppeted before, and I doubt he would do it so sloppily if he did it again. But I really don't think he would start up on this again, and would ask others to note that his past sock activity is well in the past and that his block log is misleading (many of the entries there are wheel warring over blocks, or blocks followed by unblocks - though he still has been blocked a lot obviously).

The main evidence here seems to be that these accounts are interested in the same topic as Giovanni and they edit from Northern California. Honestly, if I had to pick one geographic region in the United States where it was likely to find a lot of folks who agree with Giovanni's views on the article in question, it would be the Bay Area. Thus I don't think the geographic closeness tells us much of anything. I can't help but think that the evidence here is about ten times less convincing than the evidence in the Mantanmoreland ArbCom case, and that an analogy between the two is appropriate in that in both case we are dealing with established users who have socked in the past (though Giovanni's block log is much worse than Mantan's, and that is an important difference). I'd like to see a more careful review of this situation, perhaps by comparing contributions, and an openness to the possibility that these other accounts are really run by different people.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Sorry for this petite drama. I have too many doubts to let this stand, so I have unblocked Giovanni33. Jehochman ^Talk 02:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I think we would get along with so much less drama if we saw more of this sort of willingness to review from people. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD

For those interested in copyright issues, I have proposed a change to {{PD}}, a deprecated tempate, in which new images uploaded with this license tag after 1 May 2008 would be eligible for speedy deletion in accordance with {{nld}}. I think this is necessary because the template has been deprecated for over two years and we still get new images with this license tag. This may be controversial due the fact of this template's usage on hundreds, if not thousands, of images, and I definitely welcome any comments on this approach, which is similar to the one which was used for {{Military Insignia}}. Any comments or feedback are welcome. If this announcement was more appropriate to another forum, please feel free to move it there and let me know. Kelly ^hi! 01:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you make this proposal? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:PD. Kelly ^hi! 03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be slow to implement this. For one thing, people might delete images older than it by mistake. Perhaps we could batch migrate {{PD}} images to {{PD-deprecated}} (or some other template to be created) and then make new {{PD}} images subject to deletion. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried the approach of getting a group of people together to clean-up the images with old PD tags instead of using the deletion process to clear the backlog? A good start would be doing the work needed to find out how many of these images there are. Category:PD tag needs updating has 11,888 images in it, but we really should be wary of throwing out potentially free content. That would actively harm the m:mission. Carcharoth (talk) 10:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to fragment the disussion at Template talk:PD#Edit request; I had really just posted here as an announcement in the hope of drawing the opinion of knowledgeable people. I have been working my through these images to try to fix the bad licenses. But new ones keep getting added faster than I can clean up old ones. Kelly ^hi! 11:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on that category (and images in general) quite a lot in yesteryears (I seconded the edit request that added the category) and, I must say, it is difficult work. I was not collaborating with anyone, or having anyone check my work, so naturally it was exhausting and stressful.

That said, I think it would be feasible if there were several editors working in collaboration. It would be ideal if there were some way of "tagging" that the images had been reviewed and/or checked by someone else - I don't mean tagging as in adding a template, I mean purely meta-data, stored (for a hypothetical example) on the ToolServer. Then if we could get editors willing to collaborate and learn copious amounts of copyright law (;-)), I think it would go a lot quicker. :-) --Iamunknown 14:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tankred

Resolved

– Closing duplicate thread. Discussion continuing at WP:ANI#User:Tankred. --El on ka 10:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tankred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Multiple personal attacks on his userpage against various users, currently edit warring on at least 30 pages (see edits). When runs out of reverts, goes IP[29]. Blocked multiple times for edit warring (see block log). Also warned multiple times for edit warring as well as refraining from false edit summaries (latest warning:[30]), wich he freqwently uses to delete things he personally dislike. Last such edit (false edit summary to remove content he dislikes):[31] - the "forum":[32] is a leading national newspaper in Hungary). Does anything else needed? --87.97.111.140 (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tankred. --Onorem ♠Dil 01:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:AIV. --El on ka 01:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRV backlog

There is a backlog at DRV. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluding CSD

Lots of editors have recently started transcluding User:Cyde/List of candidates for speedy deletion to their userpages (see, for example User:Malinaccier, User:Gb, User:Hennessey, Patrick/Desk, User:GlassCobra, etc - just click on any article on CSD and check its "whatlinkshere"). This makes checking Whatlinkshere a nightmare when speedily deleting articles, as every article in C:CSD now has many many links. I am inclined to just remove the transclusions, but is there some kind of cunning way these transclusions would not be included in "Whatlinkshere"? Neıl ☎ 10:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there was, it would be classic WP:BEANS. You could filter by namespace, or you could ask for the developer who recently changed how "what links here" works to find some way of marking not only transclusions, but links that result from transclusions. Ultimately, that would only work if a page that was both linked, transcluded and "transcluded-linked" appeared three times in the "what links here" list (marked differently each time). If it appeared once, that wouldn't really help. Carcharoth (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figured as much. I am de-transcluding all the links to Cyde's page and pointing people to this thread in the edit summary. Neıl ☎ 10:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that - that's not really a new issue, though - I recall raising it with my nom the day after I got the mop and started cleaning out CAT:CSD. It got to where I recognised the usual suspects (ie. the admins that had the CSD tracker on their "desks" and mentally ignored those when dealing with links to soon-to-be-deleted articles. _{The public face of GB}^T/C 11:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle does have an option to "unlink" (remove backlinks) automatically, either generally or when speedy-deleting, if that helps. —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a helpful feature anyway? De-linking would only need to be reverted after a successful DRV, or if a higher-quality article is created from scratch. This "feature" should be used very sparingly if at all. — CharlotteWebb 13:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-program the bot to link like to [[:en:Foobar|Foobar]] rather than just [[Foobar]]. Do it this way and no page using Cyde's list will appear in "Whatlinkshere". — CharlotteWebb 13:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Let's test ... User:Neil/quack. Neıl ☎ 14:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, doesn't work - ([33]). Neıl ☎ 14:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[{{fullurl:Foobar}} Foobar], however, does seem to work; see User:Iamunknown/sandbox & Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Neil/quack. Of course, utilising this code would require Cyde to re-program the bot; a MediaWiki software solution (such as filtering namespaces, as mentioned above) would be more desirable. --Iamunknown 15:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[[w:Foobar|Foobar]] also seems to work (example: User:Ilmari Karonen/sandbox/quack). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious fix to me seems to be to remove all of the transclusions. When I was making the list, I never envisioned that as anything anyone would ever want to do, and I still don't see why one would do it. --Cyde Weys 01:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, seems much simpler just to bookmark CSD and look every once in a while. DGG (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impartial closure of a poll requested

I wonder if any uninvolved admins wish to review the poll here (the discussion is quite long though, with a long history too), Template_talk:Infobox_Football_club#Opinion_poll_for_the_clubname_infobox_parameter, and wrap it up in the way they see fit under the 'Conclusion' section. I set the poll up, as a way to end a mass article edits from early this year. I suggested a week long run and it appears to have reached the starting to go round in circles stage, but I would rather see someone uninvolved judge it, I don't want the result becoming 'my view' as it were. MickMacNee (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mirrors and talk pages

What is my talk page doing in a medical library?? :-) Are they really supposed to be doing that? Carcharoth (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mirror. — Edokter • Talk • 15:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:CorenSearchBot#Medlibrary.org for a bizarre encounter with that site. MickMacNee (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It's a mirror" - didn't I say that in the section header? :-) What I am saying is why are some mirrors so utterly indiscriminate. Silly. Carcharoth (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might as well ask "why is the sky blue", except that someone's likely actually answer the question. Some mirrors are indiscriminate cuz their operators don't care. Others because the ops are clueless. And still others because... well, any number of reasons. :-) - Philippe 16:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did they actually copy the content of all these talk pages to their website, or is their website simply showing pages from our site surrounded by their frame? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that's strange, I've seen my name pop up on process pages like TFD or AN (translated into another langauge too). Why they'd want to scrap the inner bowels of the administrative side is beyond me. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the blue box in my User page. You might want to add something like that to your User page to let people know what's going on when they stumble on the copy in a mirror. Corvus cornix_talk 23:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bot or not a bot, that is the questions.

Okay, I need some help here. I know zip, nada, nothing about bots, and only a tiny bit about hoe the whole approval process works. I ran across this “bot” while working over at WP:UAA. I was unable to locate the approval request so I asked the user who stated they ran the bot, they pointed me here which clearly does not look approved. After looking over the bots contribs it appears that it was already live, and when I tried to ask the operator I got no response, so I went ahead and blocked the bot account for the time being. Then I started looking over the bot operators contribs to find edit summaries that looked like in fact his account was also a bot. There is nothing on the users userpage to indicate that his account is a bot, nor can I find an approval request. Will someone with more bot knowledge help me out. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 16:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

user and bot need blocked. that is not approval. β^_command 16:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. When the user was asked by Tiptoety, he first created the "Requests for approval" then directed Tiptoety to it.

14:53, 17 April 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:VictorAnyakin‎ (→Unauthorised bot)

08:52, 17 April 2008 (hist) (diff) N Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MrVanBot‎ (←Created page with '3}} ==User:{{subst:#titleparts:Administrators' noticeboard== ...') (top)

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/VictorAnyakin

Great job Tiptoety. MatthewYeager 16:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably easier just to remind the guy to (1) get bot approval and (2) use the bot account for bot edits. Unless he's causing harm, I would give him a couple weeks to remedy the situation before blocking. Remember that the bot policy differs from wiki to wiki, so the interwiki people may not realize what is required here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth remembering that there are lots of interwiki bots (at least, I think they are bots) that edit using IP addresses and don't even have accounts. In general, unless they cause actual harm or edit on a large scale, I just ignore them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the user did not appear to not understand the bot approval process here, they clearly tired to cover up their tracks by creating the bot approval request after I asked, and made it out to be no big deal, like they had made the request a while ago. Either way having a live bot with out approval is not a good thing, and that is why I blocked the bot account. There is nothing saying it can not be unblocked once the approval request has been excepted. Tiptoety ^talk 18:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim has retired

Maxim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has retired, citing User:Togepi 987 as one of the reasons. I can see his point: this guy seems somewhat disruptive. He has vandalised a number of userpages, simply because the associated wikipedian has undertaken an action he did not agree with (for his vandalism of Maxim's page, it was because Maxim had deleted an article he was working on). I have left a final warning on User talk:Togepi 987; I'd also encourage any passing-byers to leave a note on Maxim's talk page, to let him know he doesn't need to worry about this sort of thing. Cheers, Anthøny 17:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Maxim didn't cite User:Togepi 987, User:Togepi 987 cited himself and added the retired tag. See [34], [35], and [36]. I undid all this (I think) with this and then (when I realised what had happened) this. Not sure if this was after the warning, as I don't have time to check. Can someone else deal? Carcharoth (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Togepi needs a stern warning. I don't think it's suitable to be bragging about driving Wikipedians away (yes, the irony) Sceptre ^(talk) 17:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also removed some fair-use images from his user page & a sub-page. My impression is that this user is disruptive, however, let's wait and see. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone should talk to him.... A lot of this stuff seems awful disrptive.

March 16, 2008 Vandalises Woohookitty's userpage
March 30, 2008 Vandalized maxim's userpage again (deleted)
March 31, 2008 Added a protected template to maxim's userpage (deleted)
April 3, 2008 Marks FuriousFreddy retired
April 11, 2008 Marks Sticky_Light retired
April 14, 2008 Marks brokendownhondaaccord retired (admin only -- deleted)
April 15, 2008 Marks Circus206 retired
April 17, 2008 Marks Maxim retired
Others have tried talking to this user about it, without much luck, [37] [38] [39] Most of it seems vengance-based, after a couple deletions. SQL ^{Query me!} 17:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check his deleted contribs too. I deleted a couple cases where he created userpages for indef blocked users and an IP address. Mr.Z-man 18:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Amended. SQL ^{Query me!} 18:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed a retirement tag he put on User:Cirus206 (which was reverted by another user, who he then reverted) and deleted a blatant copyvio. Did we lose our spines or something? Block him forever and move along; I can't speak for everyone, but I know for a fact that I've got better things to do than hand-hold some kid that thinks its fun to stay just this side of an indefinite block. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Jehochman ^Talk 18:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow, I feel like a one-man cabal. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - , When in doubt EVula works it out. teh sh*t. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object, but of course, we must assume good faith. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No we don't. You can, but I will dispense with good faith when it is demonstrably shown to be a faulty assumption. --Golbez (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think we cling to AGF far, far too much. Someone who is so obviously disruptive deserves very little in the ways of good faith assumptions. Either be a constructive member of the community (contributing either to the encyclopedia, the framework of the project, or even the community around either/both) or go somewhere else; that would be a much better attitude to take, in my opinion, than constantly hoping for the best despite the evidence at hand. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. How many times do you AGF on a user before you accept that they are only there to take advantage of it? The only thing assuming good faith out of users with consistent patterns of abusing that good faith accomplishes is the kind of drama we are seeing. This project would be better served by spending less time coddling such users, and more in assisting those that are valuable assets to it. Reso lute 19:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good block. There are times that talking gets things only so far. Pastordavid (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For those that are interested, this thread prompted me to write a quick little essay (that I'll expand on when I'm not at work) about AGF, merging my comments here with something I posted over at m:Global blocking. Check it out at User:EVula/opining/on the Assumption of Good Faith, and feel free to make suggestions on the talk page; I'd love to make it a working example for new administrators (gotta make 'em jaded early on!). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golbez, I've learnt first hand that knowing policies means shit all if you don't dance around the Maypole. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well determined block. Disruption was the only agenda for this user. Rudget 19:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One day, we'll get our collective heads out of our collective asses and realize that Assume good faith is named that for a reason: good faith is an assumption, and can be rebutted by evidence. AGF only stretches over behavior that can be reasonably attributed to misunderstanding or lack of knowlegde— someone who persists in improper acts after having been told to stop is demonstrably not acting in good faith anymore. — Coren ^(talk) 23:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I would have blocked here, for a month or longer, up to indef, but was just leaving the computer at the time, so I left it for others to deal with. The warnings were not working, so a lengthy block was needed. Question: is it acceptable, if you don't quite want to go for indefinite, to block for a month and say in the block log "please extend to indefinite if disruptive activity resumes", or should block log summaries be kept as short and factual as possible, rather than used to talk to future people reviewing the situation? If I ever used such a block log summary, I would repeat it on the talk page. Though I must admit that this case is one where I would have blocked indefinitely and left it to them to negotiate the appeal process. Carcharoth (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have a problem with a block log like that but I think it would be better to let the next admin decide. Who knows, he could have come back, acted well for months and did a little disruption, and an indefinite might seem extreme. Here, he's blocked, and already listed one pretty silly unblock request. It's obvious what he's here for. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denshaw

Resolved

– Done. Rudget 18:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A semi-protection for Denshaw wouldn't go amiss. It's been in the national news today for having a silly Wikipedia entry and is recieving high ip-vandalism. --Jza84 | Talk 17:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

user Jagra

User Jagra has removed POV tag unilaterally, without even entering into a discussion with other user over what caused the tag to be placed in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.102.112 (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome would suggest that there's been no real reason to affix the POV tag put forward. I'd suggest explaining the reasoning, with references, there. Otherwise, you want dispute resolution; there's no real admin action required here. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the tagging isn't justified, of course it should be removed. So... where's the justification for the tag? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politically-motivated systematic edits

Dale-DCX (talk · contribs) had been making various edits to many articles systematically changing "American" to "from the United States of America", causing the text to become stilted. In the articles that the user had edited, there isn't confusion as to which meaning of "American" is meant, and the word "American" is already wikilinked to the United States article. Efforts to resolve this with the user didn't seem to go anywhere. DHN (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using "American" to describe people from the United States does seem to be a common practice, but there's no harm in responding to this person's concerns. I've solicited some comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#American and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#American. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please. How many times does this dead horse have to be beaten? Corvus cornix_talk 23:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this horse keeps getting beaten due to cultural differences, for example in Spanish the term used is Estadounidense wich would be "United State+ sian or tian" for most Latin cultures it makes no sense to call any of the American countries "America" since America is often used to describe the entire "new world" and the term Americano/a is usually used when referering to something belonging to the entire region, Norteamericano (North American) is often erroneously used when referencing something originating from the United States, in Spanish calling someone a "American" is more of a generic term simmilar to European or Asian. Then again this is mostly my own personal experience with both Puerto Rican Spanish and communication with other Latinos, the definition may vary per region as is often the case between dialects. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the MoS, the relevant cultures usage of the term would be preferred - while not strictly accurate (and when considering the rest of the America's, very ambiguous) most citizens of the United States of America refer to themselves as "Americans". This is the English Language Wikipedia, and the other English speaking nations generally mean the United States when referring to Americans. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog at WP:UAA

Resolved

It's pretty heavy over there. Could a few more admins head over? Malinaccier (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was actually pretty bad. Either way it looks like it has been pretty much cleared. Thanks guys! Tiptoety ^talk 22:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cafe Nervosa

This page was just created and would appear to be on the same subject as the prodded article Café Nervosa. Would it be possible for the old article to be restored behind the new one so that all possible information is available to those who may wish to improve or evaluate the article. Guest9999 (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have restoired the page with the accents which was PRODded above, and redirected the new page and added the one line of information in the new one which was not in the old one. I guess an AfD is in order as this page has been recreated numerous times. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing, it appears to have been the subject of a cookbook:

Cafe Nervosa: The Connoisseur's Cookbook Oxmoor House ISBN 0-8487-1550-0

Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. Guest9999 (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Robinson (disambiguous)

Please move Peter Robinson (disambiguous) over the existing page Peter Robinson (disambiguation). Almost all content is mine and the one pair of edits that aren't are duly noted on Talk:Peter Robinson (disambiguous). Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done and the histories are merged. WODUP 00:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What in God's name?

I just found Talk:Satellite (disambiguation) created as apparent nonsense, and marked it for speedy. The author's user page and talk page, as well as this page and its 'archives', appear to consist entirely of nonsense. What's going on? The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a consequence of this user's editing. Apparently he has to use a non-traditional interface for his computer than results in the odd formatting. (I think it's been mentioned on ANI in the past). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still fail to understand how this:"And, I do need to ask this someplace, about last night's Philadelphia debate: My impression: Hillary Clinton speaks, they show us Chelsea Victoria Clinton. Barack Obama speaks, they show us Chelsea Clinton. Repetitively. And, various other persons in the studio, were lit blue. Was the American Broadcast Conglomerate, Disney channel, denial channel, the blue network? Is it a purple city? Is it a blue party?" has anything to do with satellites, to me it looks like a very botched edit. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is a long one. Someone is going to come in with links and history and whatnot eventually. Last I recall there was some thought that Hopiakuta may have some mental barrier of some sort; his edits don't seem to be aimed to be disruptive most of the time, though they can turn that way. As far as I know, no one has really made out the nature of the situation with any certainty. Also, many odd userspace pages. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's bizarre formatting has come up on ANI at least five times in the past; it's caused by a screen reader. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that that's altogether clear; although one ANI thread suggested that the user confirmed that he was using a screen reader, another noted his profession that his primary disability is not visual in nature and that he does not use a screen reader (other relevant AN and ANI threads may be found here, here, here, here, and [at least in part, I gather] here). In any case, it is apparent that there exist issues here that are other-than-technical in nature (as well outlined by L'Aquatique, who is, I imagine it is fair to say, amongst our most dedicated accessibility advocates, in the latter ANI discussion and in an October 2007 extended colloquy undertaken amongst several editors interested in helping Hopiakuta to edit more constructively, in order that his presence here might benefit both him and the project, and in order that disruption should be reduced sufficently that we might adjudge the net effect on the project of Hopiakuta's presence to be positive—to be sure, there is no particular harm in his editing incomprehensibly in his own user and user talk pages [except, perhaps, to the extent that collaboration with other editors is impaired], but some of the style, formatting, and substance that he introduces in userspace would not be well situated in mainspace), and it remains for the community to determine whether there Hopiakuta's presence has a deleterious effect on the project; on that I, having looked into the situation only cursorily, have no opinion, and I mean only to note that a broader community discussion might, at some point, be appropriate. Joe 08:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say five or discussion in the almost 18 months seems like a small issue. Hell, I think I've been complained about on this noticeboard more than that, and I hope nobody has a problem understanding what I'm doing. I just wish someone could help him with his signature; that's the biggest headache to dealing with him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something strange on the Main Page Talk Board

Talk:Main_Page#Role_of_Effective_Communication_in_Distributed_Software_Development

(insert question mark here) --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, someone deleted already. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that Grawp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is notable enough to have imitators?

I recently filed an abuse report on all of the IPs listed as sockpuppets of Grawp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but according to the user who is handling the report, they cover multiple ranges. Do you think that this means that Grawp has imitators? Grawp doesn't seem like a very notable vandal to me.--Urban Rose 09:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he does, or at least folks here label some vandals as Grawp who are not, which amounts to the same thing. Thatcher 10:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree he probably does. After seeing one of his attacks live the other day. But is could just be him using proxys e.t.c. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 11:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Panel 2008 3RR

Extremely minor, I know, but User:Panel 2008 appears to have broken 3RR at Central Europe and is persistently refusing to recognise consensus, a short block would serve as a great wake-up call - if any admin is not busy. Cheers. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 13:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kiezuko

User:Kiezuko has created an account with a username almost like mine except for switching two letters. He has vandalized my user page twice already by adding insulting and/or controversial content ([[40]], [[41]]). Is there a way this vandal account could be blocked? Thanks. Keizuko (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 682: / Line 682: @@
 Extremely minor, I know, but [[User:Panel 2008]] appears to have broken 3RR at [[Central Europe]] and is persistently refusing to recognise consensus, a short block would serve as a great wake-up call - if any admin is not busy. Cheers. +[[User:Hexagon1|Hexagon1]] <sup>([[User talk:Hexagon1|t]])</sup> 13:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
+== [[User:Kiezuko]] ==
+[[User:Kiezuko]] has created an account with a username almost like mine except for switching two letters. He has vandalized my user page twice already by adding insulting and/or controversial content ([[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Keizuko&diff=196282424&oldid=101168742]], [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Keizuko&diff=204793019&oldid=202847828]]). Is there a way this vandal account could be blocked? Thanks. [[User:Keizuko|Keizuko]] ([[User talk:Keizuko|talk]]) 13:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards