Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Tasks

The following backlogs require the attention of one or more editors.
Transwiki to Wikibooks and Wiktionary

NowCommons, Requested moves, Vandalism in progress, AfD cleanup, Copyright Problems and Requests for page protection

General

Quick selective undeleting and watchlist cleaning

For selective undeleting, this is the quickest method. Create a bookmark, and put this content in the location field:

javascript:for (i=0; i<document.forms.length; i++) { for (j=0; j<document.forms[i].elements.length; j++) { f= document.forms[i].elements[j]; if (f.type == 'checkbox') f.checked= true; } } void 0

Then on the undelete page, click the bookmark to check all the boxes. Then uncheck the ones that you want to remain undeleted. It also works on watchlists. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-6 17:59

Awesome. You get an extra cookie tonight.--Sean|Black 20:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

If you're a Firefox user, you can get the delightful Web Developer Extension. Under Tools → Web Developer → Forms, select Populate Form Fields, and all checkboxes will be checked! —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-07 04:19:43Z

Brian0918, I worship the ground you edit. Ral315 (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

An extra cookie and a one-person cult? Brian's really getting into the big leagues :).--Sean|Black 02:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo's challenge to admins

Jimbo has posted a challenge for admins. See Talk:Alan Dershowitz. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-8 07:29

So can we now remove the rather silly little statement at the top of RfA about adminship being no big deal? Plainly, if admins are to be allowed to edit protected pages specifically for the purpose of the determining what is true, it is a pretty big deal. Until last night, admins had no content review role on Wikipedia. We appear to have been handed one all of a sudden. -Splash^talk 19:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Troll much? Phil Sandifer 01:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

And? It's an interesting task, which nobody is being forced to do. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-8 21:53

Sounds interesting to me. Also sounds like it might be a good way to deal with RV and POV edit wars.--Alabamaboy 22:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

So, when did I miss the announcement that Wikipedia was done & finished, we can scrap all participation by anyone not in the cabal or an admin? I want to know why we are running scared of the media, making "concessions" like blocking anon page creation, and this pilot for freezing pages and letting only trusted users edit them. What are they going to do? Gnaw us to death? Regardless of the whims of the media, we can go on happily editing and improving articles. Why are we jeopardizing our system, which works well! for transient approval we aren't even getting? You realize that these restrictions are blood in the water? I think I've seen more articles battening onto our process changes as evidence that everything our critics say is true than I've actually seen articles on the original criticism! The process works, people! We have hundreds of thousands of articles, with many, many great articles, and only a very few are rotten apples. Don't make the cure worse than the disease here. --Maru (talk) Contribs 22:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Both are experiments. If they are truly as terrible as you say they are that will become evident and the experiment will end. It's good to try something new now and again. Broken S 23:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

No, they are not experiments. That's part of the problem. There is no control Wikipedia running with no restrictions on anons creating pages with which to compare. We cannot know how many people were scared off or for whom this barrier was a sufficient disincentive to not edit, or how many crap articles were not created (proving a negative, anyone?), so we cannot compare it to the more easily gathered data on how much editing time was freed up by fewer articles needing review. --Maru (talk) Contribs 23:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Making a control for this "experiment" (maybe trial or test is a better word) is nearly impossible. Everyone seems to forget how many people there are in the world. We can't be worried about alienating small hypothetical sets of people, when basically any change we make alienates someone. The loss of one person submitting one article isn't so great. Eventual someone else will come along and do the same thing. Still I'm not convinced that the test should be made permanent. Broken S 01:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

My God, you're right! The sky is falling! Phil Sandifer 01:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Slippery slope much? --Maru (talk) Contribs 05:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody ever said radical freedom was the main goal. Building an encyclopedia is. Linux is still free as in libre and always will be due to the license, but you can't edit it's source code. Only a few people can directly. I believe we are well past the point were viscious vandalism is a greater detriment to the project than radical freedom is an attractant. More talented, qualified people (read experts) refuse to participate because of the garbage we put up with here than appear to be attracted to it. - Taxman ^Talk 23:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Taxman. Wikipedia is now instituting new rules so that anonymous users can't create new pages. Personally, I wouldn't mind expanding that to anonymous users not being able to edit article. As long as users are easily able to sign up and take part, then Wikipedia will retain its best aspects. That said, I think it is great to do experiments like Jimbo is doing. That's how we learn. Nothing wrong with that.--Alabamaboy 23:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Seconded, mostly. While I don't think that either of these things is a particularly good idea, there just experiments. The vandals become more and more creative, so we have to to. if they're not good ideas, then they won't last.--Sean|Black 23:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I also agree. The goal is to create an encyclopedia, not to be open at any price. The restriction disallowing anonymous editors from creating new pages is a good example of a reasonable restriction. Thue | talk 17:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Highlighting one article and giving it special attention (viz. announcements here and on the mailing list) hardly reflects the reality that would result from making it an ongoing practice. (See Hawthorne effect.) The half-baked nature of evaluating these experiments is one reason I don't fully trust that a detrimental change would be immediately recognized and undone. On the other hand, the notion that administrators have no greater authority or editorial responsibility has been largely pretense—at least we may talk about such matters more honestly now. --Tabor 23:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, it wouldn't work if used more generaly. Broken S 01:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Alert ! Got a really annoying bug ! Alert!

I've got a bug going on that, when I log on/in, using my online designation, it keeps acting like I have NOT logged on/in. This glitch will cause someone out there to falsely accuse me of being a sockpuppeteer or worse. Told it was a technical glitch in Internet Explorer. This may have also happened to other Users, leading them to be falsely accused of being sockpuppets and the like.Martial Law 22:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, it looks like you're not logged in even when you have? Firstly ensure that cookies are enabled. It may also be due to the browser incorrectly displaying cached content; you may wish to clear the browser cache. Enochlau 22:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Or use Firefox... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I log in as "Martial Law", then browse through Wikipedia, such as the UFO article,etc., then add data(all true),state source of data, conduct other editing business, then use the 4 ~s, only that something like 71.40.123.100 appears instead of Martial Law. Cookies are enabled. Martial Law 23:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The only other thing I can think of off the top of my head is that you've got some app running in the background killing cookies - doing you a "service" by protecting your privacy or something. Yeh, I'd agree with Jeffrey O. Gustafson and see if using Firefox will solve the problem. If it does, then it's IE stuffing up. Enochlau 23:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Known bug. It has been reported with firefox. Soory I don't know what is causeing it but it might be worth makeing sure you clear your browser cache. Switch over to a different skin (I recomend classic) so you know when you are logged out.Geni 23:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Just did'nt want someone calling me a sockpuppet or getting blocked under false pretenses because of some bug.Martial Law 00:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I've got the same problem (man, it's a pain, isn't it?), and I use FireFox. What solves it for me is generally clearing out my cookies, and if that doesn't work, closing FireFox and opening it up again. One of those has always solved the problem. Blackcap (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I had this problem in the past, and if you're on a secure computer, try checking "Keep me logged in" - that usually eliminates the problem. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Chooserr (talk · contribs)

Sorry, not buying it anymore, way too farmiliar with wiki, way too hostile, way too good at gaming the system, has already admited to making sockpuppets after being blocked, who wants to bet chooserr not only has sockpuppets, but is in fact a sock of some other user? Someone want to do an ip check against a few previous problem users?--Aolanonawanabe 01:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Is also essentially spamming the talk pages of random new users with inviations to his BC/BCE revert war--Aolanonawanabe 01:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Look up ^^^^^^^ (although that went kinda off topic), there is also #Chooserr Sortan 01:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• I should point out that this is an on going problem, and that he has literally been at it, since the exact moment that his last block expired--Aolanonawanabe 01:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• I fail to see how he is recruiting users to join his side of a dispute and for your reference checking the newusers log and welcoming users is not spam. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Linkspam?

The whole thing has essentially boiled down to chooserr creating two or three line articles, with no content other than links to anti-abortion websites--Aolanonawanabe 02:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm as pro-abortion as they come, and let me say this: Cool it with the edit warring, now, Aolanonwanabe. His stub pages appear to be relatively NPOV (there's hardly enough content in them for there to be room for POV) and stubs aren't against any policy. If the organizations are notable enough to merit a page, they can have a page. If not, take them to AfD. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Alright, but he just keeps churning these things out every few edits, most look like they were prewritten and copy/pasted in as needed, after the response I've gotten so far, there's no way I'm going to continue to watch over his new pages--Aolanonawanabe 04:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Aidan Work

I think this user is certain to eventually create legal problems for Wikipedia if he isn't dealt with now. Have a look at his contribs (including his assertion that a (now) NZ Member of Parliament "should have been shot for trying to cause a bloodbath". Some of his comments are clearly libelous. I've had enough of trying to get through to him, so is there anyone else who could like to approach him. Moriori 02:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Moriori, it is actually not libellous to condemn some of the worst racists on the planet. Tariana Turia & Gerry Adams are among these, given the fact that their notoriety is very well-known. - (Aidan Work 05:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC))

Well, I've done my duty by warning Wiki, and we will see what transpires in the future. Something you need to learn very quickly is that you cannot accuse people of something that they didn't do -- specifically, "trying to cause a bloodbath". Coincidentally, this very week Wikipedia found that out the hard way. If Tariana Turia contacted Wiki re your statement about her, your comments would be wiped quick smart, and you would be on your bike outta here. And it wpuld be good riddance IMMHO because you are a liability. Moriori 09:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

If any pages are troublesome, just mark them with {{db-attack}} and an admin will come around and assess whether it should be deleted. Enochlau 14:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see the section "People I Hate" on User:Aidan Work's user page. Camillus^{talk|contribs} 23:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I was on my way here to report that section on his user page, as well as talk page comments, as coming in under attacks, and indeed, libel. Mr Work's contributions range from the useful to the extremely legally dangerous, and his user page shows that he is basically incapable of contributing over a vast swathe of articles with NPOV - a user page professing to homophobia, hatred of the leader of a world religion and of a political party in a country he isn't even from. --Kiand 00:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Theres also just been this utter corker of an edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI&diff=prev&oldid=30986588 --Kiand 00:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: For daring to post criticism of Work, Work tried to "report" Camillus on this page. I have deleted what was little more than vandalism. He wrote of Camillus

He needs an eye to be kept on, as he has started to accuse people of promoting racism & sectarianism, especially condemning the Roman Catholic Church's critics, who are only expressing their opinions on their talk pages. - (Aidan Work 07:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC))

Camillus responded

Aidan Work is way off track here. Take a look at his user page - particularly "People I Hate", and then take a look at his Talk page. I have had no discussions with any other user regarding "sectarianism" - so I don't know where Mr. Work gets his plural critics from, and his plural "their" talk pages. Camillus^{talk|contribs} 23:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Clearly given some of Work's abusive POVs posted, and his personal pushing of his hatred of gay people, transsexuals and Roman Catholics, may it is time Mr Work and his opinions were given the Wiki-red card. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Work has now attempted to delete this section from the noticeboard, as well as removing his and others comments from his and others user_talk pages. --Kiand 01:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

He deleted information from my page, and from Camillus's page. Given that he had already received a final warning after other deletions, I have imposed a 24 hour block. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it too much of a bad pun to call this chap a real piece of work? Thanks for flagging this up; no doubt we'll be hearing more of Mr Work in due course. -- ChrisO 23:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

External links in signatures

We fight off link spammers all the time. What about users who link to their site in their signatures? See: Stirling Newberry (talk · contribs). — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 04:26

oh dear that is really not good.Geni 12:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not good. He's been asked to stop; if he doesn't, what then? android79 12:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Any grounds to block him? Enochlau 13:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll wait for a response first. He's asleep or has otherwise taken a break from editing, so blocking now would be rather premature. android79 13:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

See his hostile comment on User talk:Zocky after Zocky explained what the problem was and asked him to remove the link

"On the day that there is policy against it, I will change it. You can read up on my talk page about the kind of people who have complained about it in the past, and why I have zero respect for the suggestion, however offered."

It is generally understood that even though something may not be written in policy, it doesn't mean that it is acceptable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 14:08

Agreed, and it's covered by the spam policy anyway. If he refuses to change them a block is warranted. - Taxman ^Talk 14:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I actually don't mind that. It's not as disruptive as some other sigs. Coffee 16:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not the link is annoying to look at. What matters is Wikipedia is being used (intentionally or not) to inflate a website's Google pagerank. Despite the several complaints on his talk page, he is still doing it. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 17:50

Yes, it's certainly not the sig's appearance that I'm complaining about, it's the purpose of the link. People use "external" links in their sigs all the time to point to Wikipedia pages and functions that aren't accessible by an internal link. Linking your blog in your sig is just bad form. We block people who linkspam articles; same ought to go for those that linkspam talk pages. android79 17:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

He's still using the link in his signature. I've temporarily blocked for 12 hours. If he replies on his talk page, stating that he has removed the link from his signature, please unblock immediately. --BRIAN0918 15:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 15:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit war at MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning

Two users are trying to change the spelling of the verb form of "license" to "licence", and claiming that anyone who reverts them is unnecessarily provoking conflict, stating that the c form is the preferred spelling in Britain. And yet, the British-based Oxford, the primary source for all things English, makes it pretty clear:

"Do not confuse licence with license. Licence is a noun which means 'a permit to do something' (a driving licence), whereas license is a verb meaning 'give a permit to someone: allow something' (the loggers are licensed to cut mahogany trees). In American English, both the noun and the verb are spelled license."

I am now being accused of "bad faith edits" and "provoking conflict" for putting in the correct, universally-accepted, spelling of the verb form. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 13:40

Yeh I'm pretty sure the verb form of the word in both American and British spellings uses 's' instead of 'c'. Enochlau 13:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Please post there. These people just aren't getting it... — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 14:05

Hmm, edit waring on MediaWiki: pages is bad and the funny thing is that since it's already a protected page for legal reasons it is impossible to either officially or practically protect the page to give the people a time to cool off on this edit war. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

A developer could technically do it, could they not? There is obviously no convient way to get this done though. -Greg Asche (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Ban them all and let Jimbo sort them out! Yeah! hey, it's practically the only time that that'd be a valid suggestion :-P

Actually, lets's not. I'd better just drop by and see what's up. Kim Bruning 05:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This seems to have been settled, Brian0918's arguments winning out. Thue | talk 15:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Michael Jackson page

The Michael Jackson page was moved to Michael Jackson (entertainer) without discussion. I deleted Michael Jackson without a problem. I then attempted to move Michael Jackson (entertainer) to the now empty Michael Jackson, however I was told that the database was locked. I waited a few minutes and attempted it again and this time was successful. The move meant the page was now a redirect to itself. So I then tried revert to the previous edit without success. I then must of accidentally deleted the page and now I can not restore it. PLEASE HELP!! -- Ianblair23 (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I've done it. I got the "Database locked" message earlier today to, it's very irritating.--Sean|Black 02:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

So did I. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 07:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I did too... I think. Did it work? android79 02:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Works for me.--Sean|Black 02:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah all good now, Cheers guys -- Ianblair23 (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

anon ip can't see catagories

If you try and view the items of a category without being logged in, all you see is the anons can't make articles message, blocking the entire page., if this is to become policy, there are a number of glitches that need to be worked out--Ano0000ddnsidn 05:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't happen for me, when I log out. What category were you trying to look at? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It only seems to happen with categories with no content, since those tend to redirect to the edit box, for instance, were there a Category:Flubernonsense, if you were to click on it as an anon, you wouldn't be able to see this page listed thereCategory:Flubernonsense--Ano0000ddnsidn 05:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

PS. Once you test this for yourself, feel free to remove this board from Category:Flubernonsense--Ano0000ddnsidn 05:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You can see what's in them by stripping the &action=edit from the url, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Flubernonsense. —Cryptic (talk) 08:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Troublesome edit w/ personal info

Well, this is an odd one. Someone seems to have tracked down some of my personal information and posted it on this page. Can we get that wiped from the history? ESkog | ^Talk 07:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. --Nlu (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Username change

I wonder if a request should be made to change the name of this user? User talk:DengXiaoPing - this is the same name as Deng Xiao Ping. --HappyCamper 02:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Changing username.--Sean|Black 03:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess I should clarify a bit. Since we generally block names that are say, similar to George W. Bush, should this name have been indefinitely blocked? What I meant was the following - the username is a well known political leader in China, but it was probably not blocked immediately while it came up in the user creation log because it was not recognized as such. Since this user has already made a few edits, I decided to leave a message on their userpage requesting that they reattribute their edits. Is this preferable to blocking immediately and then requesting the user to make a name change? --HappyCamper 03:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe we block all "well-known political leaders"—just living ones. Otherwise, Bonaparte would have been blocked, for instance. —Kirill Lokshin 05:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

So, if, for example, Fidel Castro were to pop his clogs next morning, it would be entirely acceptable for someone to register as User:Fidel Castro? — JIP | Talk 10:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

That's funny, seems to me like someone already did. But you get the idea anyway. — JIP | Talk 10:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with HappyCamper, DengXiaoPing (talk · contribs) is not an appropriate user name. In addition, it seems to be a sock-puppet, judging by the fact that the person concerned knows how to personalise a signature, but has not added anything to their user page. DMorpheus (talk · contribs) may well be another in-sock-ation. Could an admin with more experience of the Eastern Front take a look? Physchim62 (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi-Protection Poll

The major poll is currently located here[1]. Thank you.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 03:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Mcfly85 sockpuppets

On November 28, I posted here on the noticeboard about Mcfly85 (talk · contribs) creating sockpuppet accounts, namely IP addresses, for making personal attacks on users, mostly me. Now, just a few minutes ago a new user called Sven66 (talk · contribs) wrote on my talk page and insulted me. Sven66 only made one edit and this case of vandalism is his one edit. See My talk page. The message was unsigned and it looked like the style of editing done by Mcfly85. I, at least, suggest we run a CheckUser on McFly85 this time around. SWD316 06:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to note every time Mcfly85 attempts to insult me, he subsequently "retires" from editing as his user page says. Like he did before, when he "retired" then made insulting comments towards me, came back and now retired again. Doesn't anyone think there is something a little suspicious going on? SWD316 06:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I honestly have not a clue as to what this is about. Please leave me alone. Yes, I am trying to stop editing here, but I use the encyclopedia a lot, and if I see a typo, I just have to fix it. I did not do a single bit of vandalizing, and I do not deserve to have these false accusations against me. There are more important matters to worry about here, and elsewhere in life. Mcfly85 09:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

RFC on my deletions for User:R.Koot

Hi, all. I was asked by R.Koot (talk · contribs) to delete his user and talk pages, after I noticed his talk page at CAT:CSD. I deleted both after verifying that his talk page was properly archived and making sure that he understood how deletion works. At the time, I expressed some concern that I wasn't necessarily supposed to do that sort of thing. User:Oleg Alexandrov, someone I have a great deal of respect for, has also voiced some concern that I was not correct to execute R.Koot's request. Any thoughts? If there are specific policies or guidlines on this, I was not able to find them. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-11 06:28:39Z

Just to clarify. My main point was (at least I meant it that way) that it is not a good idea for a user taking a wikivacation to ask his user page to be speedied. But most likely all this is not worth the trouble, and all I succeeded in was making HorsePunchKid worried. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Oleg - let's rest the issue and move on. --HappyCamper 14:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocking

The block user function has developed a fault and is no longer operating. David | Talk 10:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Explained on the village pump this problem has now been resolved. David | Talk 11:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Block

I have been trying to get in touch with anyone who can assist with a block I am currently suffering from! I am an AOL user on 195.93.21.35; I was replying to a question regarding my candidature for the Arbitration Panel when this block accured; I had only just editing the Hemel Hempstead oil refinery blast pages.

I hope this block can be taken off soon - I have never been warned about vandalism before and only edit using my user name; I have never been the subject of any serious vandalism incident. I only mean good, I use Wiki a lot and hope my contributions show I only mean good here. I understand that some anon users do cause problems and AOL IP addresses are a serious issue here, this has happened before. If at all possible, could this block be lifted, could a SHAREDIP template be added to this IP address? As those of you who know me may already be aware, I have contributed to a lot of articles and wish to continue doing so in the future. doktorb 12:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You should be unblocked now. David | Talk 12:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Millwall F.C.

It's getting ugly at this article, there have been a load of reversions in the past few days over whether or not their opponents are relevant in regards to the team's success. I've told both sides to chill out and talk about it, i'll protect the article if that doesn't work. karmafist 18:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[Note: The next two sections were originally posted to Wikipedia Talk:Administrators' noticeboard.]

Far Right Smears

• Your attention is drawn to the pages for Gregory Lauder-Frost, the Conservative Monday Club, and connected groups and people. All have, to a greater or lesser degree, been demonised by two Canadian left-wingers dedicated to character assassination of those concerned. A close examination of the 'edits' they have carried out relentlessly will give a clear indication of how these people are operating. I understand a legal action is to be raised in Scotland (where two of those affected reside) against Wikipedia for permitting deliberate malice to to be placed upon their site. 213.122.32.154 10:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Got any specific evidence there, mate? Enochlau 11:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It is difficult to examine these users edits without knowing who they are. Hyacinth 11:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• I believe this is the passage our anonymous friend objects to:

"Lauder-Frost was once a leading member of the Monday Club, an organization that has been described as "far-Right" by the Daily Telegraph (8 October 2001). He held a leading position with the Western Goals Institute, a group described by The Guardian as "extreme right wing"[2] and by the The Times as "far-right" (4 December 1991, 1 May 1993 and 14 August 1997). He has also been active in the Conservative Party since the 1970s." I suspect he also objects to this passage from the Monday Club article:

"The club has been described by the BBC as a "bastion on the Tory hard right"[3]

• [INTERJECTION FROM ROBERT I] Without knowing who the two journalists in the Telegraph and the Times were I cannot comment. The Guardian and the Independent are established organs of The Left. You may decide for yourselves whether over 40 members of both Houses of Parlimanet might consider themselves "far right". But read Oleg Gordievsky's comment on the BBC: He had a letter published in the Daily Telegraph on the 3rd August 2005, accusing the BBC of being "The Red Service". He said: "Just listen with attention to the ideological nuances on Radio 4, BBC television, and the BBC World Service, and you will realise that communism is not a dying creed.".

The playwright David Edgar sarcastically described it in an academic essay as "proselytiz[ing] the ancient and venerable conservative traditions of paternalism, imperialism and racism." [cf.Levitas, p.60]* Harold Wilson, also speaking sarcastically, described it as "the guardian of the Tory conscience"."

and does so despite the fact that one of his friends (or possibly 213. himself) added the Edgar quotation though in a misrepresented and distorted form.

Given that the statements are all direct quotations and that sources ranging from the Conservative Telegraph and Times to the neutral BBC to the liberal Guardian all describe the groups in similar terms, it should be clear that our anonymous friend is blowing smoke in the absence of any actual flames. Homey 17:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Obviously these apparently offended persons are in need of our article on Scots law: when they have finished consulting M'Learned Friends, maybe they could help to improve our article on delict as well. Physchim62 (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, the "Canadian left-wingers" might like to post a complaint to abuse@btinternet.com.... Physchim62 (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I may take this offer up. In any event, I completely reject User 213.122.32.154's interpretation of recent events. Readers are directed to Talk:Gregory Lauder-Frost for my assessment of the situation, in a section marked "Observations". I invite readers to compare my behaviour with that of my interlocutors. CJCurrie 21:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Falsifying quotations

In a related matter to the above, User:Robert I made a fraudulent edit of Monday Club by inserting a quotation, altering it, and completley misrepresenting it[4]. The act was so flagrant and his response on being found out was so obnoxious (see Talk:Monday Club) that I tempbanned him for two weeks for vandalism by means of deliberately making a fraudulent edit. Since I'm involved in the dispute and thus should probably not have acted myself I lifted the tempban after 18 hours. I'm wondering if other admins would like to review Robert's behaviour and see if a lonber tempban is justified. Just to note, he had also made veiled legal threats and vandalised other people's contributions to Talk:Gregory Lauder-Frost, in both cases I warned him over his behaviour but did not tempban him. Homey 19:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• I did NOT falsify anything nor did I personally make any legal threats, nor did I vandalise anyone elses contributions. I resent very much how this matter is being turned against me by these characters as though they are perfect and unquestionable. It is a total disgrace. I wrote several articles which were systematically attacked by these people with a very clear left-wing agenda, attempting to hide behind a transparent veil of acting in the cause of 'neutrality' whilst at the same time blatantly altering entries which very clearly demonised individuals and groups and placed them in an unsavoury and generally accepted left-wing light. To cap matters they quoted journalists from two well-known left-wing newspapers which is hardly objective. At the same time they treated with absolute contempt the official description of these groups themselves, preferring to take as biblical the views of journalists. When I complained about their activities, they must have spent a very considerable amount of time ploughing through newspaper references until they found two more similar references in centrist papers. People with such agendas should have their wings clipped. This simply is not good enough. Anyone can see that by their relentless attacks and their very careful consistant, daily, and obvious editing of words, sentences etc that they have a clear agenda to demonise and smear people they perceive as being right-wingers. I have done my best to argue with them but have been treated with increasing amounts of bile and contempt and arguments which did not address the fundamental issues concerned: their vandalising of numerous subjects, removal of facts, even unediting words which had been mis-spelt and which I had corrected! They seem to think that they are above censure and ALWAYS right. Frankly this is a sad day for Wikipedia.

I see no similar attacks upon the home page for Karl Marx or a whole range of personalities of not just the left but the far left. It seem fanatical bias is OK only for those perceived to be on the Right. Well, thousands of people supported the groups and individuals in question and they were not all fascists or nazis but thoroughly decent people who were simply pleased that someone was enumerating their point of view when the politicians were refusing to hear. This entire business on Wikipedia is a scandal. Robert I 21:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

(i) Actually, Robert I did falsify a quote (see Talk:Monday Club). He can justify his actions however he wants, but there's no getting around the fact.

(ii) To favour criticial interpretations over official manifestos is usually regarded as a sign of objectivity. In any event, I quoted media sources from the left, right and centre.

(iii) Readers are directed to Talk:Gregory Lauder-Frost (a section marked "Observations") for my assessment of events. CJCurrie 21:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• I DID NOT falsify anything. These people have no remit to dictate how long or short a quote may be, a page, a line, a word. Let us be clear about this. This has been a campaign of denigration by user CJCurrie and his pal to smear people in the most malicious manner. These are the facts. He can dress them up as much as he likes but the clear evidence is not on talk pages but on the endless edits he and his pal have carried out right across a whole range of people and groups, most things changed to represent their sole opinions without any evidence to support the changes. It is revealing that CJCurrie is intent upon putting all his thoughts and opinions on Lauder-Frost's Talk page. This is a further deliberate effort against L-F and to make sure that his views go out on the internet. I think the entire business is an absolute disgrace. Robert I 21:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

"I did NOT falsify anything"

Compare Robert's edit:

The Conservative Monday Club is a right-wing pressure-group in Britain described as "an organisation which proselytized the more ancient and venerable conservative traditions of paternalism and imperialism" [cf.Levitas, p.60] [...]

with the actual quote:

"And there were groups -- like Aims of Industry (founded in 1942) and the Institute of Economic Affairs (1957) -- which advocated economic liberal ideas, and others (like the Monday Club, founded in 1960) which proselytized the more ancient and venerable conservative traditions of paternalism, imperialism and racism"

Moreover, by taking the quote out of context, Robert was implying that it was a favourable comment on the Monday Club, wheras in reality he knew full well that the author, as he said later "Edgar is very left-wing" ie he was speaking sarcastically.

Robert's subterfuge was discovered when CJCurrie looked up the book by Levitas from which Robert extracted the quotation. His response when his subterfuge was discovered is telling by its absolute gall:

""Only someone on the left would have Ruth Levitas's book so you have revealed you true colours" (made at Talk:Gregory Lauder-Frost

Homey 21:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC).

• The fact of the matter is that a writer decides upon how much of any quote he wants to use. Newspapers and the BBC take things out of context every single day of the week. The first two lines of the above-mentioned quote had no meaning regarding the Monday Club so it was not necessary to mention them at all. However, whether or not Edgar was being sarcastic or not (another debateable point of opinion only) the fact is that the Monday Club DID proselytize the more ancient and venerable conservative traditions of paternalism and imperialism, and that is a fact. Its that simple. Quoting the same does not necessarily mean that it was a "favourable comment" (doubtless in the eyes of the left it was not) but it was an accurate comment. As I have said before, these total nit-pickers have absolutely no right whatsoever to dictate to people what constitutes a quote. By raising this little item time and again they hope to obscure all the demonising exercises that they have been involved in for over a week. It is here that people should look, not at trivia like this. Robert I 21:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

If you were in a university setting you'd be facing charges of academic dishonesty right now. No doubt you'd respond by calling it 'nit-picking' and accusing the faculty of being Communists. Homey 22:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• It is difficult to believe that someone can be as rude and offensive as you. Your very high opinion of yourself defies description. You have tried throughout to obfuscate readers on all the various talk pages. But your agenda is plain for anyone to see. Thank you for your email advising me that your pal CJCurrie is presently writing an article to do with the Communist Youth group and that he has a particular "interest" in fringe groups - right or left. I established that considerable time ago. It is this bias that I am attempting to have addressed. Robert I 09:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Man, if there weren't Wikipedia rules against self-references, the above would be a BEAUTIFUL example of whatever rhetorical fallacy is encapsulated by the expression "the pot calling the kettle black."

• • Guy, you are -- and I think I'm on fairly firm ground with this adverb -- literally fooling no one with your bluster. Sputtering is no substitute for basic intellectual honesty. --Calton | Talk 10:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for those helpful comments. It is clearly a matter of opinion. If you were quoting Cicero you might have some difficulty citing him if you did not lift a quote of your own choosing and size out of one of his endless speeches. By the rules laid down by CJCurrie etc., I would have to put in the entire speech. I lifed an accurate comment. Robert I 10:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• • It is truly galling that in a discussion accusing you of deliberately distorting comments in order to twist their meaning you would deliberately distort comments in order to twist your meaning. For the record, you sent me an email which said, in part:

" I see he's writing an article for the Communist league of Canada. What a surprise."

My response was:

Another example of your intellectual dishonesty. CJCurrie is not writing an article *for* the Communist League of Canada, he's editing an article *about* them. He has an academic interest in political fringe groups and candidates whether they are on the far right or the far left hence his interest in both the Communist League and the Monday Club.

Robert, your capacity for intellectual dishonesty is truly amazing. Homey 13:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Naruto jutsu

Something very funky is going on at Naruto jutsu. Some editor under several ids is endlessly "reverting" multiple fake editors. Take a look here. HGB 06:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

So far is using the following usernames (all created only to do this weird thing on this article) to constantly revert (though the reverts are not really reverts, just various nonsense text): User:Crosspointma, User:Smoothadopti, User:Copiesantici, User:Halperncheer, User:Aptblaring, User:Paddinganato, User:Surveyeddisc.

All users blocked and article protected temporarily. Thanks!--Sean|Black 07:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

And thank YOU and others who helped take care of it!! HGB 07:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Something similar was also happening on John Seigenthaler Sr.. As an aside i like the "various nonsense text", being that they appear to be *nix man pages... --pgk^(talk) 07:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

User:AskMySite

I know we allow a lot of latitude to pages in user space, but User talk:AskMySite looks like a new type of spam. Is this allowed? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Spamming, terminate. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 09:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Done.--Sean|Black 09:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Readylube

Looks like another spamming-advert case - I've already had a run in with him - so someone else might want to look at this! Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 11:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted his user page and left a note on his talk page. If he keeps recreating the spam he should be blocked. — JIP | Talk 11:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 11:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

User:mickmouse

There is a strongly worded commentary on the Wikipedia in the London Times (dated 9 December). In the article, the author briefly mentions creating a user account, mickmouse (talk · contribs), That account is a real user name. I've left a {{welcome}} message on the page, but the account should be watched for vandalism. ^BlankVerse 15:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The piece begins by seeking to establish some sort of imagined link between lobotomizers and Wikipedia (apparently the "front" of a globe is equivalent in the author's mind to the frontal lobes), and the author seems to have forgotten that her piece would be published on a page that includes the link to the Time's own disclaimer, which included this gem: "We make no representations or warranties about the accuracy, completeness or suitability for any purpose of the content published on the Websites.". She decries the lack of applicability of the Trade Descriptions Act to Wikipedia, as though Wikipedia had been deceptive in what it is offering, and as though it were conducting trade. Yup, Rosemary, somebody better get on the job of regulating speech, and quickly. Good plan. She doesn't seem the vandalistic type, more the "peasant with pitchfork" clamoring for the authorities to do something. But keeping an eye out is probably a good idea.- Nunh-huh 02:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I probably should have been clearer. What I meant to say is that the user page and talk page should be watched for vandalism. Even after her vitriolic screed, I don't expect her to do any inappropriate edits on the Wikipedia. On the other hand, I can easily imagine some of the more vocal Wikipedia partisans leaving inappropriate messages on those pages. There is already one rather snippy comment left on the page. ^BlankVerse 12:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Snippy? Measured I thought! Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 13:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Sex and the City

An external website that monitors the Wikipedia, usually critically, is concerning themselves with wikipedia's (mis)use of fair-use images. They appear to have decided to test Wikipedia's processes on the Sex and the City's talk page. Could somebody who knows more about when fair-use images are appropriate address the concerns on the talk page and alter the article appropriately. Dmn 17:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see any fair use issues with the images on that page at first glance, but IANAL. If this article is being scrutinized by an outside source, we need someone who IAL. Paging Dr. Abramson, Dr. BDAbramson ... android79 17:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Help from fellow admins

One of the less pleasant things that I do on Wikipedia is work on issues related to the Holocaust. There is quite a bit of vandalism, as you might guess, but it is usually one-off stuff. Every once in awhile, an editor comes along pushing heavy Holocaust denial material, and decides to fight it out. The issue with Holocaust deniers is that they are often quite difficult to reason with, no matter what evidence you produce, it is part of the cover-up. Most recently, a new user User:Mark twain, who also posts as User:65.12.194.210, started putting Holocaust denial material in various articles, including links to one of the more over-the-top hate sites I have seen. When I reverted his change (and explained why in great detail on both his user page[5] and on Talk:Treblinka extermination camp), he immediately filed an RfC and an RfArb(here). There is no doubt, as every other editor who has encountered this so-called "dispute" has agreed, that this guy is just pushing hate sites and denial material. I am not a big player on the Wikipedia meta discussions, so I don't know if there is any way to better deal with this sort of disruptive editor than the current approach (watch him, revert edits, ask others for help so I don't mess with 3RR, post info on why he is wrong, even though he won't read it, etc.). It is kind of tiring. Are there any other approaches that might help and be less exhausting? --Goodoldpolonius2 20:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

As you might have noticed from my copious reverts in Holocaust and Judaism related articles, I feel the same way you do. Unfortunately I don't know a better way than what you already mention, but I think that it's best not to engage with them since that only encourages them. Revert, ignore their rants and hate-spews, recruit help when you're feeling tired. Btw there's one active on David Irving today. Hope this helps, Antandrus (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Alas. Well, if anyone has any ideas on how to address this issue more constructively, I would appreciate it. It is so tiring to keep fixing, but the most canonical example I hear of Wikipedia "upsetting" someone (Jimbo even gives it in his talks) is the parents of the kid who prints out Holocaust denial vandalism as part of a school project on the Holocaust. I guess vandal patrol continues.... --Goodoldpolonius2 01:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

More Seigenthaler fallout

User:146.6.110.149, which tracks back to UT Austin, left a message on my talk page claiming to be Gary LaVergne, a UT employee and author of a book on Charles Whitman entitled "Sniper in the Tower". He was complaining about some content about him, presumably at Charles Whitman.

Mr. Sigenthaler's recent experience has encouraged me to send you this note. As you know, I have been the subject of some discussion in one of the pages you administer. Some of those comments I consider libelous. I strongly suggest that you, as the party responsible for this article and discussion, and/or Wiki executives take immediate action to purge such false and irresponsible statements, and block such from occurring in the future. Please forward this to Wiki executives. I look forward to your speedy response. Gary M. Lavergne

I'm a relative newcomer to the Charles Whitman page, having gone there a couple days ago after being asked to review some rather disruptive behavior and inappropriate editing by User:Subwayjack, who I blocked until this evening for 3RR, vandalism and disruption. I can only guess, but I assume that this person is referring to Subwayjack's rather convoluted assertion that Lavergne's book was biased and that he published it in collusion with the University of Texas somehow to support their position on Whitman (it was published by UT Press).

The article doesn't contain this speculative information currently, although at one time Subwayjack did insert it and it was summarily deleted inserting edit. It does remain on the talk page, and I suppose in the article's page history. What's the general feeling about how to proceed? I don't think a person's comments on the talk page can be considered libellous, but maybe it's advisable to delete that edit from the article itself's revision history. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 22:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

IANAL, but I would suggest that, for starters, he be asked to identify what he considers libelous. It may be uncited crap, in which case it should be removed. On the other hand, if it is duly cited from a reliable source, he probably doesn't have a leg to stand on. In the U.S., unlike the UK, truth is a defense against claims of libel. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it wasn't sourced at all, just a rant. This is what he said: LaVergne writes an intellectually appealing book 31 years later, omitting and editing to support his POV and the book is published by The University Press, who stands to garner public empathy and profits from a biased source (LaVernge now works for UT, was the book a factor to the job?)68.187.194.251 19:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Subwayjack (inserted wholesale into the article, including the signature). It's since been removed, but remains on the talk page and, of course, in the article's edit history. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 23:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say remove it from the talk page only. I don't quite like the idea of tampering with the edit history - just see what happens first. Enochlau 23:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Bluemoose

Can someone put a leash on Bluemoose, please. I have been attempting to add the Template:Lifetime to biographical articles for some time now, as I come across them, and I have found on occasion that Bluemoose has been around and removed them. Of late, he has been doing this more agressively, so I have had to go around those articles to which I have added the template to put it back. There has been no recent discussion on the talk page about deleting this template; and it has in fact survived a deletion attempt in the past. If Bluemoose wants to delete this template, he should go about it in the same way that everyone else does—by listing it on WP:TFD. (I have had occassion to have some conflict with the way that Bluemoose was running the Bluebot without full disclosure, before.) Until that time, it is extremely bad form to delete templates without any form of announcement on the talk page of the template. I will be reverting Bluemoose's deletions until he conforms to convention and announces his intentions in the appropriate place so that the community can decide on them. If you have comments on his behaviour, I would be very interested, and can I please ask you to keep an eye on him. Cheers. User:Noisy | Talk 23:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This is dicussed on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Martin 23:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Plus I have told you multiple times that I have 'never removed a template, rather subst:'d it which is a good thing, and have absolutely no intention to delete any template, nor have i ever indicated so. Martin 23:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Moriori.

Moriori has been put here because he has accused me of making libellous statements, & yet, his remarks about me are starting to take on a very racist overtone. What an idiot he is! - (Aidan Work 03:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

No offence, but reading the above section about you, I think few people are going to have sympathy for you. In any case, would you like to be specific about your claims on User:Moriori (providing diffs, etc)? Enochlau 05:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You may want to check his talk page, under the header "no personal attacks". In other words, I asked him the same question with no response.--Sean|Black 05:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Beckjord

See Special:Contributions/Beckjord. Nothing overtly vandalistic, but continues disruptive, disingenous, and attention-seeking messages on various talk pages. Would a long block be justified? --Nlu (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Has also been e-mailing me (outside the Wikipedia e-mailing system; I'm going to guess he spoofed another user in e-mailing me initially) with messages in the same tenor. I've intentionally ignored his e-mails. --Nlu (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

See also Special:Contributions/205.208.227.49. Has, by his own claim, at least two other sock-puppeting IPs (although he vehemently denied this behavior to be sock-puppeting), although I don't know what those IPs are. --Nlu (talk) 07:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

After his latest call to User:Martial Law to "sneak[ily]" edit a number of paranormal-related articles (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beckjord&curid=3342813&diff=31156974&oldid=31156497), I've blocked him for 48 hours. Please, someone more experienced, review the situation and see if this is appropriate. --Nlu (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Żydokomuna

The word Żydokomuna has a clear political flavour and may be regarded as disparaging which is against Wikipedia:Username policies. Alx-pl D 17:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

What does it mean? --Nlu (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

A shame that we don't have an encyclopedia handy.  ;) I do think that User:Alx-pl has a point. Jkelly 18:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, the definition of the word on the Polish Wikipedia says: Pejoratywne określenie stosowane w kręgach antysemickich:. Which can be translated as: A pejorative term used in anti-Semitic circles. Alx-pl D 19:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The user seems to have apologized at the bottom of User talk:Balcer, and said that he/she'd get a new user name. Let's leave it at that, I suppose, unless edits appear under the current account. No need for a block- that'd create trouble when they created a new name. Ral315 (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it just me or does that sound like someone needs some cough syrup? =) — JIP | Talk 19:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Braaad and User:68.112.201.90

After agreeing that this individual will quit vandalizing articles as well as my user and talk page, he seems to be fascinated with trash talking me on his talk pages (at User talk:Braaad and User talk:68.112.201.90). I'm trying to turn the other cheek, but this seems like a clear violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, among many others. McNeight 21:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed the personal attacks from User talk:Braaad. You might try ignoring him -- adding the tool probably just fueled the fire. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 21:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There's still User talk:68.112.201.90, and I'm working on an RfC right now. Thanks. McNeight 21:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Simon Wessely

Can somebody tell me what's going on with this article? It has an npov header on it and back in November, Jimbo went in and deleted almost the entire article. We now have a fork at Simon Wessely/Simon Wessely, which needs to go away. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

That's odd. But if Jimbo Wales blanks an article, it's probably because someone threatened him with a legal fist? Enochlau 23:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems there was an edit war and a lot of libellous POV inserted, so Jimbo blanked and protected. The fork is a NPOV rework, which seems ready to be moved to replace the main one. --bainer (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This is correct. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Human World

Can someone look at the deleted history of World (of Humans) and tell me if Human World is a repost? AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World (of Humans). Thanks - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not the same article. It is not obvious to me that it is on the same topic, but it might be. Jkelly 22:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It looks a bit OR-ish, but let's see how it develops. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Apology

I (Willy on Wheels) am here to apologize for my actions in the recent past. I have been vandalizing simply due to the fact that I was a previous user here, and I was quite bitter about the permanent block that caused me to have an early exit. I now realize that my actions have not solved anything, and I hope everyone here can accept my apology. Most important of all, I promise to stop vandalizing the Willypedia.

- DrZoidberg 01:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually posted by Willy on wheels (here to apologize, please do not block) (talk · contribs). Blocked for impersonating another user. -- Curps 01:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, if the WoW vandalism stops, maybe that will be a good sign. To the user who posted the above, if you are Willy on Wheels, and you do wish to make amends, contact me via e-mail, and we can discuss your options. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 16:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Incivility on Islam-related pages

The tone on Islam related pages is getting out of hand. I just came from Talk:Ali Sina where I was told I should not attempt to resolve dispute because I cannot be impartial. The user then asked me what I would do, "Ban me? [him] By doing so you will confirm the fact that Muslims kill their opponents and where that is not possible censor them." This is not atypical of Islam related talk pages. I am not a Muslim but I imagine if I held Islamic beliefs dear that working on these pages would be rather intolerable. Such blatant incivility makes it more difficult for other users to remain civil. Many of the good long time editors have left because the situation on these articles is so bad. This is on many of the Islam related talk pages (Template_talk:WivesMuhammad). Something must be done to make working on these articles tolerable. Any suggestions? gren グレン 01:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

In a related move I blocked User:OceanSplash for 24 hours for being repeatedly disruptive (see Talk:Ali Sina) despite my telling him to cease antagonizing Muslims and making being a Muslim an accusation. I am more likely to see notice concerns about this issue on my talk page. gren グレン 04:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Jtdirl.

User:Jtdirl's name has been placed here for vandalising my user page. Since when does he have the right to delete information from anyone's user page? Whatever has happened to freedom of expression? Down the pan, I think. Boy, I am really fed up with the politically correct madness that is going on. We have more than enough of that over here in New Zealand. - (Aidan Work 02:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

No. The user posted serious defamationary comments on his user page concerning prominent figures. When challenged, the user not only stands over the comments but seems to want to push the issue further. I deleted the libels and protected the page to prevent their reinsertion. Work's behaviour, his attacks on people, and his clear attempts to use WP to defame named individuals, are all the subject of a RfA. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. I asked him to do it yesterday, but was stonewalled. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aidan Work.--Sean|Black 02:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I think User:Jtdirl's decision makes sense. WP:NOT a soapbox, free web host, etc. If someone feels a pressing need to have their homophobia / hatred of whoever web-published, we're not obliged to do it. Jkelly 02:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

freedom of expression? You entered private property that isn't yours.Geni 02:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Bollocks. The property is Wikipedia's, not an individual's. Moriori 02:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That was my point. If you are on your own propert or on property belonging to the goverment you have the right to free expression. Otherwise no.Geni 02:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Oooooops! Mea culpa Geni, I thought you were inferring that Work's user page was sacrosanct. Apologies. Cheers. Moriori 02:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[6], I'm not going to get directly involved in this but you might want to add racist attacks to your list of complaints as well. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Jtdirl.

User:Jtdirl name has been placed here because he unfairly blocked my account Bill_the_Bear he accuses me of being a sockpuppet but I am not. He then blocks my new IP address when I ask him to unblock Bill_the_Bear. The guy is totally abusing his power.

Actually, you are User:Karatekid7 who was blocked by me and reverted by others for repeatedly inserting an unsourced unverified sex abuse claim to an article as well as other continuous vandalism. Your "pal" Bill then suddenly appeared and reinserted the claim while acting exactly as K7 had done, posting the same allegations on the same pages and showing a "curious" knowledge of WP and interest in alleging child abuse for a newbie. You were blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of K7. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not involved. I've reviewed the case. The block appears legit.Geni 02:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

(Un)deletion of GWB

Can I wonder aloud at the purpose of deleting and restoring the browser-breakingly massive history of this article twice in one hour? All it does is move the Jimbo stuff to the deletion log, where it remains visible by virtue of being in edit summaries. I do not know, but I presume that the 26,000 (yes, really) revisions cause strain on the servers in both the deletion, Special:Undelete view and in the restoration, for little actual purpose. We should leave such massive operations to the devs. (Plus, it might encourage them to nobble the underlying IP if it is not dynamic.) If people are going to do this, might they at least leave a note on a protected version of the page, rather than a rather unfortunate editable redlink? -Splash^talk 03:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, trying to view the Special:Undelete for that page caused Safari to crap out. Please don't do that.--Sean|Black 03:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, this is presumably true (although I didn't notice it), and would explain the brief database lock earlier on too. It's just vandalism, people. Nothing special. -Splash^talk 03:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

What the heck is GWB? Use wikilinks people. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a who. George W. Bush. ;) NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 04:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Who the heck is George W. Bush? ;p Coffee 20:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

How I wish that was a reasonable question. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

Banned user editing?

Recently posted at Talk:Rajput -- "btw, if somebody needs a little help in how to continue editing wikipedia even after getting banned, do drop me an email. I am as usual permanently outlawed by wikipedia and I keep coming back despite pakis crying to all those goras to keep me away. -- sisodia the outlaw." See at [7] Dunno if he really IS banned or whether he feels it's dashing to be an outlaw. Worth a check? (BTW, "gora" means "white") Zora 05:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Tarrant84

User emailed me about a block... but I can't find it under his username nor his current IP. So I'm assuming there is a range block, or he goes through an open proxy since he can't say when the block expires; or there is no block? Don't know where to go from here. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be resolved. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2005

Just a friendly announcement: Jimbo has announced that the ArbCom elections procedure will be his second proposal, a hybrid procedure, after closing the straw poll. I'm not sure that people have the page watchlisted, so I thought I'd bring it out here to gain more attention. As usual, turn to the Wikipedia Signpost on Monday for complete and comprehensive coverage. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Jimbo has requested a process similar to RFA. Discussion as to the specifics (e.g. timeframe, suffrage) is being held on the talk page Flcello mentioned. Radiant_>|< 13:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Harry Potter

Did Harry Potter really remain vandalized for more than half an hour? [8] The IP in question was in the 61.10.7.* range which has been a source of vandalism in the past.

The reason I bring this up here is that I recently noticed that the Special:Recentchanges page occasionally skips past a few entries when you click on the "Show new changes starting from..." link (reported here). If RC patrollers are using vandal-watching software that relies on the IRC feed of recent changes, and if that feed reads by continually refreshing Special:Recentchanges via the "Show new changes starting from..." link, then perhaps it would miss some changes, and perhaps this is what happened here. -- Curps 16:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah; that's 43 minutes of vandalism. I'd like to see an addition to current vandal-fighting tools, that checks the history of frequently vandalized pages every 5 minutes or so, to see if any edits were lost in the shuffle. It'd be tough, but would really help when the RC bot misses edits. Ral315 (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

What would really be nice would be an API available to admins that would allow direct querying and interacting with the database. It would be nice to write a bot that checked every single recent change for, say, "Image:Human feces.jpg" but the bandwidth and server load would be prohibitive and it would be too slow to keep up with the pace of new recent changes (about 1 per second). Instead of downloading a page in order to examine its contents it would be nice to use an API to query it "in place". -- Curps 20:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That's what Roomba does against the toolserver database. See #wikipedia-en-suspectedits --pgk^(talk) 22:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Suspicious deletions of "skinhead"

An editor is deleting "skinhead" from many pages. I do not think this is a content dispute. The user has been here for only a day and seems to have an agenda. Technically, it is not vandalism, but it is hardly a content dispute, either. I am not an Admin, and am requsting an Admin look at this situation, as suggested on [WikiEN-l]. Thanks.

User: [9]

diffs: [10] [11].--Cberlet 18:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Left a message at User talk:70.50.15.50. A quick glance through the contrib history suggests that the edits have been reverted. Jkelly 18:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Test5

An anon added a link for a vandal to check the expiry time of their block. That in itself indicates to me this is something the vandals want to have, hence we shouldn't give it to them. I think it would merely encourage them to come back sooner. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

As it clearly is controversial I have removed that edit and returned the template to the original format. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master parole extended

The parole placed on Zen-master by the Arbitration Committee has been extended from articles "relating to race and intelligence" to all articles, following a request and acceptance by a majority of the Committee.

James F. (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide direct links to these darn things when adding them here. That can really save some time on slow connections. Thanks. - Taxman ^Talk 22:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

IP range block

This was sent to the Help Desk via email: On 12/13/05, Doug Childress <dchildress@iipc.com.au> wrote: Help Desk,

We are a newly formed Service Provider with an IP address range (125.63.0.0 /19). It appears this address range used to be included on the BOGON list and has caused issues with numerous sites, which are statically blocking this address range on their border routers.

Please confirm you are not blocking our address range and/or forward this request to the person responsible for Internet access/routing/firewall services within your organisation ASAP, as we need to ensure our clients can access your site.

Regards,

Doug Childress Director Intelligent IP Engineering Services Level 10 (contact info removed for privacy) --WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 01:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Nature's results examined

Somewhat offtopic, but anyways: I've looked closer at Nature's results: WP averages about 1 error every 2 KB, and the average article size is 6.80 KB. Britannica averages nearly 4 errors every 2 KB, and the average article size is 2.60 KB. See also: table of data. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-15 05:45

Chooserr / Aolanonawanabe disputes

Anybody want to clean up his mess?--Aolanonawanabe 05:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not cleaning up his mess anymore, you're all going to have to deal with him from now on--Aolanonawanabe 06:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Thank you Aolanonawanabe,

It is appreciated that you can remove yourself from such a situation, I just hope that you have more resolve than you did the first time you made such comments. Chooserr 06:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• And I hope they block you longer the next time you spam/troll/etc....--Aolanonawanabe 06:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• I would appreciate it if you were just to let me alone, and refrain from name calling. I think it's a rule to be civil on wikipedia making it easier for all involved. Chooserr 06:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Aolanonawanabe has recently made several edits to the Fetal Pain page which I personally consider vandalism. The problem arrose when he added a POV tag without any discussion with other users, meaning he is trying to speak for the community. I didn't like this and tried to reason it out on the talk page, but he soon changed tatics and reworded the whole article changing the first sentence to something along the lines of "it's never debated due to it doesn't exist". My line before that was that it is heavily debated, which came from the original before I reworded it. I hope someone will help to stop this from escalating further. Chooserr 05:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

He also is insisting life direct directly to Life magazine despite the fact that there are now two articles with life in their name which would require one of those joining page things that are used quite frequently. Chooserr 06:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Get a life, blatent troll/sock--Aolanonawanabe 06:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Now all can see that he has insulted me publicly. Which isn't a good debate strategy. Also while I personally wouldn't have recommended him blocked before I looked at his above section I will now add a Special:Blockip/Aolanonawanabe Chooserr 06:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh boy. Let me make some comments which, unless I state otherwise, apply both of you:

1. Admins don't use their powers to intervene in content disputes.
2. Neither of you is a vandal, but you both push it sometimes.
3. Please review WP:NPOV! Carefully. What you're interested in writing about is one thing, but you shouln't write in a particular POV or remove material because you find it "offensive." (You can, of course, remove it if it's inaccurate.)
4. Don't bring your arguments to this page. Just the facts, please.
5. Aolanonawanabe, you should stop marking Chooserr's articles as non-notable or deletion-worthy because of the political views expressed by the subjects alone; many of them seem to be on notable, verifiable subjects.
6. Chooserr, we can find the block page ourselves if we need it, thanks.

I hope this helps, gentlemen. Please be nice! -- SCZenz 06:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Good luck with that (hum), oh and do you mind deleting my user/talk page, I added the speedy, but it's taking forever--Aolanonawanabe 06:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you--Aolanonawanabe 06:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  Don't think me too much. I've elected not to delete your talk page, so that people can find the material that was on it; per Wikipedia:User pages, I think it should be retained in case needed in the future. -- SCZenz 06:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Borderline legal threat...

It's been highlighted to me that this could be a legal threat. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 06:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

seems more in the category of "unfortunate edits" to me: we wouldn't, efter all, class it as a death threat... Physchim62 (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

please help, vandalism at wikibooks!!!!!

I don't know where to ask the question but could someone urgently help fighting vandalism on wikibooks by ip-adres 68.215.139.117. Thank you! Donar Reiskoffer 15:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is the same vandalism, but for some days, there's a link spam vandalism targeted against romanian wikibooks, too! --Vlad 15:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

How do I deal with harrassment of a user?

As a newer admin, I have a question: How do I deal with possible harrassment of a user? User:justforasecond is a new user (joined on Oct. 30, 2005) who appears to have a vendetta against deeceevoice. I say this because nearly 2/3 of User:justforasecond's total edits on Wikipedia are against deeceevoice, either on talk pages, in an Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Deeceevoice, or in a new Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Deeceevoice_Civility the user just created. The RfC was stopped early because of personal attacks and b/c it was not achieving consensus or compromise. I'm also bothered by the fact that justforasecond is bringing this new RfA even though this justforasecond has had no new conflict with Deeceevoice. I'm aware that Deeceevoice can cause personal conflict with some of her comments to other users but I feel she is a good editor with a track record of quality edits to articles. Is there anything I can do as an admin to stop this harrassment (aside from pointing out that the new RfA is not valid because the RfC failed to achieve consensus and was ended early due to personal attacks?--Alabamaboy 16:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe there is some legitimate complaint against Deeceevoice (who is, as I need to point out, otherwise a good, valuable and competent editor, who has to put up with a lot of nasty racist nonsense from trolls and vandals). I do not know what User:justforasecond's motives are, and whether an RfAr is the best way forward is debatable, but the fact that Deeceevoice refuses to take any part in dispute resolution reduces the available options. You ask what you can do as an admin to stop harrassment. I would suggest you encourage Deeceevoice to discuss the issue with others, and to otherwise abide by the Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks policies. If she did, I suspect you'd find that a lot of the complaints against Deeceevoice would die down. — Matt Crypto 16:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

While I strongly disagree that filing an RfAr was necessary, I would like to point out that an RfC is not a prerequisite for filing a case. There's no requirement for consensus to be achieved in an RfC, nor can an RfC directly result in punitive measures (for any of the involved parties). An RfC is basically a more formal forum for discussion. In this instance, I believe that the RfC was well-intentioned and could have proven to be very helpful. For several reasons (including the fact that Deeceevoice declined to participate) the RfC was closed once it was clear that it could no longer be productive. As for justforasecond's behavior, a good next step would be to provide some diffs of harassing edits for review by other admins (WP:ANI might be the best place). Carbonite | Talk 16:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the RfA states "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried." While the RfC was started, it failed due to personal attacks and such. In my opinion, if the personal attacks had been left out the RfC could have been useful (as you say) even without Deeceevoice taking part. However, since it failed that is an issue. What really troubles me is that justforasecond is pushing this RfA b/c his edit history is showing a serious pattern of going after Deeceevoice, a pattern that appears to violate Wikipedia:Harassment policy, especially the no Wikistalking section. justforasecond's lack of edits outside of Deeceevoice have me wondering if this is another user's sockpuppet. Is there a way to check this? Bringing in other admins on this issue (as you suggest) would also be welcomed. --Alabamaboy 17:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:CheckUser. — Matt Crypto 17:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks.--Alabamaboy 17:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Belmont

There seems to be two or three people who are persistly adding silly edits to the

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belmont%2C_Mississippi

page. In the notable citizens page, they are adding adding nn people with stupid titles. Can an admin come have a look and do something. novacatz 16:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked the two IPs involved, for 3 hours (uni connection) and 24 hours (professional connection): that should at least give you a rest. Physchim62 (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

SWD316/User Page Comments

Hello, on the user page of SWD316 he has left some very unfounded comments that are in poor tastes and is attacking specific users, namely myself. I would like the references to myself removed, as I feel it violates various guidelines on here. It also makes the said user look bad and tarnishes his reputation.

Again, I just want the references to me on the page to be removed, nothing more or less. Mcfly85 19:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The comments were all true. Your sockpuppetry has been exposed. Complaining on the administrator's noticeboard will not help you. I suggest you strikeout your comment here and place it on SWD's RFA. If any user has made a specific, untrue personal attack towards you then point it out and I will deal with them. freestylefrappe 01:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Michelle Smith (author)

Could an admin go into the history of this article and remove the edit which included the author's home address? Thanks. Zoe (216.234.130.130 19:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

The deletion guide states that version removal is warranted for "personally identifying information that has been deemed inappropriate by consensus. I'm a relatively new admin who hasn't done this procedure before, and I don't want to mess things up. I'll leave it to another brave soul while trying to start a consenus by stating that I do think that it is warranted in this case. — Kbh3rd^talk 20:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Done, modulo some fumbling. I don't think leaving an exact street address visible to the world while we discuss the matter is quite appropriate. If... somehow... it's later deemed appropriate, the revisions can be restored. —Cryptic (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Admin who abuses powers because of policy misunderstandings

I recently had a conversation with a fellow admin who seems to have overzealously blocked a new user. In the course of the conversation with him/her, it became clear to me that (s)he did not understand some core policies, like WP:BITE, WP:AGF, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, and the definition of vandalism from Wikipedia:Vandalism. The user also seems to misunderstand the role of administrators itself, in particular in regard to making exceptions to such policies because of personal views on how vandalism should be handled. I would like to know what I ought to do about the situation, aside from suggesting those policies be reviewed, which I have already done. Opinions? -- SCZenz 21:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Since I know who your talking about, and several people have mentioned it to him, I'd say a WP:RFC/ADMIN is the way to go.--Sean|Black 21:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Since my conversation was starting to be included in a pre-existing RFC, I figured I should just add my account there. To remove the shroud of mystery, the user/RFC in question is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Freestylefrappe. -- SCZenz 21:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/SCZenz was a dead giveaway anyway. :) -Splash^talk 22:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that it's impossible to hide things from people who want to look, by the very design of Wikipedia; I thought it would still be nice not to name Freestylefrappe explicitly on this page if people thought no further action was necessary. As it is, well, hopefully some good will come of this RfC; I genuinely don't think any action is necessary except for Freestylefrappe to take criticisms to heart, educate himself on policy, and agree to change how he does things in the future. -- SCZenz 22:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Wonderfool again

Wonderfool (talk · contribs) was blocked from editing Wikipedia for repeated insertion of nihilartikels into Wikipedia, until such time as he identifies all those articles. Based on the name and edit history, I believe Onoredwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Wonderfool, and have blocked him indefinitely. In particular, this series of edits to Wonderfool's user page and creating Blood storm citing The Onion as a source are suspicious. I haven't checked the rest of his contributions for problems. --Carnildo 22:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• *sigh* There are lots of productive edits in there. It's too bad that Wonderfool did some stupid things (the nihilartikels) instead of sticking to those good edits. Oh, well, can't win 'em all, I suppose.--Sean|Black 22:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Wonderfool is banned by the arbitration committee though. Not blocked. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 12:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Note also that "Onoredwolf" is an anagram of "Wonderfool". Maybe we need an anagram checker function ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 11:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Feel free to block reincarnations of Wonderfool (talk · contribs) as he is indeed indefinitely banned by the Arbitration Committee. However, absolutely report all such blockings on WP:AN/I. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Please note that on User talk:Onoredwolf, Wonderfool has stated that he has told an editor the name of the final nihilartikel. Xe has also attempted to talk to Jimbo, as apparently desired. Uncle G 16:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd be more willing to believe it if he hadn't created an article citing The Onion as a source. --Carnildo 21:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Help!

The backlog at WP:RM is becoming unmanagably horrible. I'm doing what I can to weed out simple requests that don't need admin help, but the earliest requests date back to one month ago... Help? ナイトスタリオン ✉ 23:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that that page's mission statement is hopelessly tangled. At the top, it mentions voting (and even gives a suggested percentage needed to close a move!) I think it's fair to say that that is out of line with effective policy; the votes rarely occur, and aside from the occasional local straw poll or when it comes up as an option on AfD I don't think we normally vote on moves anyway. The page doesn't really distinguish whether it's supposed to be a place to discuss potential moves, or a place to request deletion to make way for a move... Probably the original intent was to have it be both, but just as clearly it has failed on both counts. Honestly, is that page even needed any more? I suggest eliminating WP:RM entirely, replacing it with an instruction telling people to (1) get consensus for the move on the page being moved (and the target page if one exists and requires deletion), and then (2) tag the target with an A9 speedy if necessary. There's no need to have another page in the broken AfD style to handle something that can be easily handled on a page-by-page basis under the existing rules; WP:RM is entirely obsolete and should be phased out, starting with a notice at the top telling people not to add requests to it anymore. --Aquillion 00:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Marsden

User:Marsden has been blocked, because Wikipedia does not need trolls with nothing better to do than accuse Jimbo of stacking the arbcom with Zionist Randroids. Phil Sandifer 23:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Antisemitic troll targeting User:Violenciafriki

• See history of GISM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• See history of User:Violenciafriki (edit | [[Talk:User:Violenciafriki|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ugly language.

Anon IPs seem to be all over the map. Open proxies? Perhaps someone can check the histories systematically and block any open proxies (I no longer do this). -- Curps 23:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Multiple reverts on Republic of China

User:Jiang has implemented several changes to the ROC article and both User:Jiang and User:Blueshirts appear to be tag-teaming "reverting" to Jiang's so-called consensus, though his position is new to the article. Could someone see if they are really the same person. Many thanks.--140.112.185.129 08:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism Blown Off as Content Dispute

• Missionary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I just listed this guy that has committed the trifecta of user page vandalism, link vandalism, and abuse of tags in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, only to have it all dismissed as just being a content dispute. See the history in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for more details. Maybe someone here will care, maybe not, who knows.Tommstein 10:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Firstly, I noticed you've vandalised Missionary's user page. I've just rolled that back, don't do it again. Secondly, if you're going to make claims of vandalism, please provide diffs (and provide them on the pages for reporting vandalism, not here). All I can find on the information given is what looks exactly like a content dispute. --ajn (talk) 10:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • But, but, Sean Black declared that user page vandalism is just a content dispute. While I didn't provide diffs, I provided enough information for any non-lazy administrator to be able to easily find what I was talking about. Regarding the link vandalism, I mentioned that it was right before I gave him the test2 (which he removed), and I put the warning in the edit summary for a reason. Regarding the abuse of tags, I gave the exact page it happened on. Regarding the user page vandalism, I again gave the exact page it happened on. If administrators are too lazy to spend more than three seconds investigating vandals, they should say so. I would put the diffs up there now (although I've never seen anyone have to do that, including me when reporting other vandals), but what's the use, they'll probably say they're too old now (now that half a day has been pissed away because of administrator laziness) and there was already enough information there anyway if anyone cared about the vandalism. Apparently, all you have to do to get away with vandalism is also make non-vandalism edits, and/or just get into an argument with someone. Thank you for the information.Tommstein 00:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

A case

I'm wondering what should be done about this case. Please take a look at this diff. As you will notice, Borgy (talk · contribs), wanting to write an article about a CD named "Trapped", found an article about a 2002 movie at the location (then, now it's a disambig page). He then proceded to blank the article about the movie to write in the CD information. You might think: newbie mistake, but by his list of contributions, you see that he wasn't really all that green when he did it. And then, the final coup: he proceeded to the image page of the DVD cover for said movie and uploaded, over it, the image of the CD cover. I can't wrap around my brain an explanation of "distraction", or "newbie mistake", this just strikes me as utmost selfishness, with complete disregard for the content and, why not, other people's work. In the case of the image, specifically, it's unbelievable that he couldn't just have uploaded it with a slightly different title, as everybody does, all the time around here. It strikes me as: he just wanted the image to be at "Trapped.jpg", just like he wanted the article about the CD to be precisely at "Trapped", and didn't hesitate to obliterate content in order to get his way. Problem is, I had just returned from a Wikibreak when he pulled that stuff, and only now did I catch up with it. It happened on October 30, which makes it somewhat "old". Still, it seems to be clear vandalism to me and I do belive this guy should be blocked for it, even now. But I thought I'd get some insight on this, especially given the passage of time. And plus, if he is to be blocked, I'd request that someone else does it, since I'm the author of the article he blanked and the uploader of the image he wrote over.
Incidentally, I've fixed everything, restoring the content for the movie at the new location and restoring the image for the DVD cover (without writing over the CD image, btw). Thanks, Redux 14:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Has behavior of this sort persisted since then? We shouldn't block anyone for something that happened a month and a half ago unless they have kept doing it. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. See how he responds to your comments on his talk page before doing anything else, I would say. android79 15:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Naturally, I would not have blocked him myself for this particular one, because I'm directly involved with the article/image he vandalised — and the thing about too much time having passed, does make it inappropriate to block him for it now. Still, something like this... a user who shows a disposition for this kind of action... it just gets me on yellow alert, you know? Jimbo has said it himself: we tend to put up with far more than we're supposed to. As I said, this was no honest mistake, at least I don't think so. Redux 17:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It depends. Our policies aren't exactly clear...if the user was new, perhaps he wasn't sure how to upload a new pic, clicked the existing one, and it said "upload a new version", so he figured that was how... Ral315 (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Gibraltarian and his sockpuppets

Gibraltarian has been terrorizing the Disputed status of Gibraltar and History of Gibraltar articles. He has a Arbcom case against him. Well the personal attacks have increased (basically any edit he doesn't like is labeled as "vandalism" and he likes to call his opponents "trolls" and be completely uncivil). I finally blocked him 6 days ago. Blocked him for 48 hours. Well now he's using socks. He's used various IPs in the 212.120.*.* range, including 212.120.228.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 212.120.229.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 212.120.229.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 212.120.228.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and many others. They are all tied to an ISP in Gibraltar. Gibraltar is a very small place, so it could be someone else but I doubt it. He's violating the 3RR literally every day. We've now had to protect both articles just to stop him. Could I get some advice? I'd like to block him indefinitely and then treat the socks as socks and ban them for an hour or so apiece as he uses them. If anyone else has any better ideas, let me know. Obviously, we don't want these 2 articles protected forever, so something has to be done. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Just thought I'd include some of his edits to show that this is the same dude. This and this are Gibraltarian removing the disputed tag. Here and here are him doing it as the anons. You can look at his edits to see the other matching patterns. Again, any advice would be helpful. If I don't hear anything by the end of the day, I'm going block Gibraltarian permanently and start blocking his socks for an hour at a time (or maybe half that) since it's a dynamic IP. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If that doesn't work, I'd suggest a range block. --Nlu (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. That's an idea. I will go ahead and block Gibraltarian indefinitely and then watch the sockpuppet activity. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Systematic vandalism on Wikipedia:Fancruft

A number of anonymous vandals are attacking Wikipedia:Fancruft today. I suspect they may be coming from the Penny Arcade forums, since a lot of them have been leaving messages like "Penny Arcade rules!" and the like, and the page has not been a major vandalism target prior to today. I've been leaving the standard one warning, two warning, block messages, but this seems to be orchestrated to some extent. Can vandals be blocked for things like this on the first offense? — BrianSmithson 17:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• There's a mildly amusing Penny Arcade comic today about Wikipedia, with the associated news post that complains about some stuff being deleted as fancruft. I doubt it's orchestrated as such, just a reaction from the viewers. --Bob Mellish 17:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That said, PA has a lot of readers, and this will continue to get hammered until Monday, when a new news post is made. I suggest page protection. (On He-man, proabbly, too.) android79 17:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've protected it - but not sure if {{protected}} is the right tag to show on the page as it refers to disputes - is there a better one? I don't do much protecting! Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 17:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm unprotecting - external links are, except in extraordinary cases, not reasons we protect pages. Phil Sandifer 17:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There's good reason to believe this will be an extraordinary case. Hopefully Tycho reads reader email... android79 17:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

To date, the only extraordinary case has been CNN. We have routinely not protected from Slashdot, which has many, many more readers than PA. Phil Sandifer 17:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

This is what watchlists and rollbacks are for...oh, and have the CVU add it to the 'bot watchlist, too. -Splash^talk 17:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The question remains: Is it okay to block anons who vandalize the page on the first offense, or do we still need to go through the one/two/three strikes you're blocked procedure? — BrianSmithson 18:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd wait for a second offense. Most of the vandalism is link-through vandalism, which rarely sticks around to see how long their change lasts. Phil Sandifer 18:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well plenty more "activity" since it was unblocked! Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 21:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"ROHA" and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

The anonymous IP (ever shifting) that calls himself "ROHA", who had previously unilaterally imposed changes on Adolf Hitler and Bob Dylan, is back and doing the same thing to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Since I am unfamiliar with the subject matter, can someone monitor the situation and take appropriate action? --Nlu (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

On it. ROHA is not wrong about Hegel, but is also not NPOV, and is making a claim that really deserves its own article on Hegel's influence in German philosophy. Phil Sandifer 17:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Mcfly85

I have informed all the users with the checkuser ability under advice given by Celestianpower to run a CheckUser on Mcfly85. As you all know, this user "claims" to have NEVER once opened an IP address to vandalize; list of IP addresses that vandalized my user page are suspects. I also suspect he created/opened accounts to vandalize too. A few days ago I was running for adminship and he got on there and edited. Mcfly85, Rock09 and Sigma995 all voted oppose when well noted administrators and others voted support. I suspect Mcfly has vandalized my user page 9 times. You can see conflicts there at my talk page, my RFA. I posted these accusations here at the Administrators' noticeboard and nothing was done because of lack of evidence and supporting vandalism. Well, today Banes noticed something interesting. He posted:

You may want to look at the history of Frank Beard. And, less interestingly, the history of Wayne Newton. I just thought this might interest you.

It was where Mcfly85 and Rock09 edited the same articles simultaneously. Rock09 vandalized the articles and Mcfly85 does clean-up. Suspicious that an article like Frank Beard, an article with 11 edits has edits by Rock09 and Mcfly85 simultaneously. I dont propose a block on Mcfly85 since he technically never vandalized anything but a ChechUser to see if he created sockpuppets for vandalizing. Can anyone please run a CheckUser on him?

SWD316 19:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is also a list of "accused sockpuppets" created by Mcfly85: Rock09, 4benson3, Capnoh, Oneandon, Sigma995, Sven66, Pwner, 63.18.246.17, 63.18.172.52, 63.18.172.52, 72.225.138.173, 63.18.252.148 and 63.18.234.145

Leave me alone, I am possibly through editing here. I am sick of the drama and I don't deserve this treatment. Don't waste your time on this issue. Life has better things than this waiting for me. Mcfly85 19:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Mcfly85

Checkuser show that one of the ip addresses used by Mcfly85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was used to create Petergrif (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Rock09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Barkman34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Belligto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Manyana555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sven66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Salian45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Capnoh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jimcrocela (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Loolooloo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Oneandon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sigma995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Tobiasafi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 4benson3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Mcfly85 also used 13 other ips, many in the 63.18 range. Fred Bauder 19:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Now if someone could do the honors in blocking them? SWD316 19:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

An additional sockpuppet Ebrockline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created today Fred Bauder 20:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The -Anus personal attack vandal

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this user (most recently noticed at 151.203.204.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), but he/she has been in revert wars under other ips (which I cannot find in my watchlist atm). Usually signs their edit summaries and comments with "-Anus" (yes, linking anus). Uses reasonably harsh language there and their talk page comments, what I would classify as personal attacks.

At the moment this particular user is sitting out a 24h block, but I wanted to see if anyone else has encountered the other socks of this user and has an opinion about a longer ban for disruption. --Syrthiss 19:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Bahá'í thingy

User:Jeff3000 contacted me on my talk page. He's having a revert war with another user on Bahá'í persecution and has asked me for an impartial opinion. Unfortunately, I don't know squat about Bahá'í, in fact Wikipedia was the first place I heard about it, and I'm unused to reading and reviewing such controversial articles. Could someone more familiar with Bahá'í, without prior involvement histroy with either party in the revert war, have a look? — JIP | Talk 20:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

In the talk page I have documented the differences between the reverts. I would welcome anyone to please review and give their comments so this reverting can stop since I doubt discussion between the two parties will work. -- Jeff3000 23:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Admin is vandalising (Not really says someone)

Jeffrey_O._Gustafson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Changed comments of mine on a user talk page (User_talk:207.255.133.142), deleted content on my user page, and deleted the warning on his talk page within five minutes of warning. Daviddec 00:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC) I posted this at the vandal location as well but since he's an admin I figured to do it here as well. Are user pages allowed to have any content on them? I thought so but Jeff must not think so. Daviddec 00:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Your user page consisted of "vandalism" repeated about 6 million times. Get over it and do something constructive. Jgritz 00:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any basis to the charge that Jeffrey_O._Gustafson (talk · contribs) changed any comments at User_talk:207.255.133.142. User:Daviddec is a page full of the word "VANDALISM", which has been recreated after being deleted. Jkelly 00:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently all started with a deletion of a vanity article. See also User talk:Steven Rollins, unsure if they're the same person (CheckUser anyone?) NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 00:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed that Jeffrey O. Gustafson has done absolutely nothing wrong here. Whereas Daviddec is skirting very close to a block for disruptive editing. David | Talk 01:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Steven Rollins and Daviddec are not the same person. Davidec has been repeatedly adding a vanity article on his nn band, which I had deleted, repeatedly. Steven Rollins is an unrelated case of someone making legal threats and personal attacks, who I banned. Deviddec is a continuing problem, though. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The censoring has seemed to stop. Good job guys. You ROCK! I Love you all. Keep up the good work. Do you need more vaseline? I'm not even going to ask you any more questions because they won't even be answered. It's only fair that admins can disruptively edit but low peons like myself can't. I love you. Daviddec 01:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Daviddec has recreated his "vandalised" user page - which I have re-deleted. Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 08:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Posted to my (Brookie's) Talk Page:

The BIG V - So you have deleted my user page. Why? I have been told that I can put any content on my user page if I wish. I wrote what I wrote for an art project. You said that I wrote the word vandilism over and over. Not true. Each word was different and had different meanings, without and within the surrounding words. Please feel free to warn me next time- sort of like you are supposed to do before deleting content on a user page. If you could send me an email of the original content that would be great. Daviddec 09:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Nobody said anything concrete or refered me to policy that made sense as to why my user page should be vandalised. Help me out here. Why can't I put what I please on my user page? The original content is still missing. Daviddec 10:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

So Brookie has decided to ignore me. Great. Who can help me figure this out? When admins go and vandalise my user page (something nobody is supposed to do) and I ask why, they end up ignoring me. I don't mean to generalize all admins and I apoligize for doing so (I'll try not to do so in the future), but it's happened twice now. Shouldn't admins be leaders and show us how to properly act on wiki? The guidelines say you should warn people of deletion of content, this has not happened on my user page. All these questions go unanswered, that's why I wrote what I did further up, and certain people ignore me. I've included the rest of the conversation between him and I since brookie has deleted it from his talk page.

The BIG V

So you have deleted my user page. Why? I have been told that I can put any content on my user page if I wish. I wrote what I wrote for an art project. You said that I wrote the word vandilism over and over. Not true. Each word was different and had different meanings, without and within the surrounding words. Please feel free to warn me next time- sort of like you are supposed to do before deleting content on a user page. If you could send me an email of the original content that would be great. Daviddec 09:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC) +User page

You are well aware of the discussion of this on the Administrators' user page and I would direct you back to that. Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 09:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody said anything concrete or refered me to policy that made sense as to why my user page should be vandalised. Help me out here. Why can't I put what I please on my user page? The original content is still missing. Daviddec 10:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do admins ignore simple questions? Delete and run is the only thing I've seen them do. Maybe they're talking amongst eachother to figure out the best plan of attack. Or maybe they're re-writing policy as we act. I know they have a tough job of weeding out unnecessary content, but I have had much more productive talks with users regarding wiki policy than the admins, the people chosen to do the job, have. Please return my original content from my user page as you so gratefully offer on your user page. Thanks Daviddec 10:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It also says, "Note that using the text to recreate the deleted content is speedyable, and using it to keep it hanging around in your userspace has gotten editors penalized before. But that's your problem." - as it has been speedied twice already it's best it stays that way. Why not put something less controversial there instead? Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 10:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC) + Your new user page looks a lot better - well done! Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 10:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I read that. That still does not matter because there is no reason why (esp. since I haven't even recieved the content back and you don't know what I intend to do with it [I assume you are assuming what I'll do with it]) it should be deleted from my user page. Why haven't you posted this on the admins talk page like the other conversations? Daviddec 10:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC) +

I'm bored with this nonsense - which is now at an end. Any more postings from you will be ignored and deleted. Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 10:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Daviddec 11:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Look Daviddec, this blatant trolling has got to stop - make a reasonable userpage and we can all move on. If you keep on nagging here, you are simply trolling and wasting everyone's time. Izehar (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Where is the appropriate place to talk about admins who ignore genuine debate, or make personal attacks, or who delete content from my user page? This wiki thing is relatively new to me and I think it's unfair to label me a troll when you can see I am genuinely interested in getting straight answers or understandable actions. Please help me out with some facts as to why my chosen user page was deleted, why people choose to ignore me, and why I have to hear personal attacks from an admin. Daviddec 21:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Jgritz is not an admin. My apologies as he was the one to personally attack me. Daviddec 21:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush edit history

Vandalism-related (red), Non-vandalism-related (black), perecent vandalism-related (green)

Looking at the full history of the article, which I wouldn't recommend anyone else do (my browser was taking up 480MB of memory after the page loaded), I counted various vandalism reversion terms, and came out to just over 6,000. Assuming that each vandalism consisted of only one edit, that comes out to be (after some tedious calculation) over 12,000 edits related only to vandalism. This article has nearly 26,000 edits to date.

Additionally, over 10,600 edits were by anonymous users, leaving 15400 for registered users.

More fun facts: 249 edits were made in 2002, 555 in 2003, and 5533 in 2004. In 2005, we're up to 19,630. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 22:44

Hell freezes over, or Linuxbeak and Daniel Brandt resume diplomacy

Yes, you read it right. Don't faint, and don't adjust your TV/monitor.

I just got off the phone with Daniel Brandt. After thinking about this, this entire thing with his article and with his Hivemind thing has become nothing more than a slugfest that neither Wikipedia nor Mr. Brandt should be proud of. I personally said some things to Brandt on his user page that were not becoming of an administrator or of my own personal character. I apologized for some nasty things that I said to him in retaliation.

Mr. Brandt and I had a conversation for about an hour (or so). On the phone, Mr. Brandt was, to my amazement, very reasonable and civil. He presented his side to me in a very clear, concise and polite matter. The fact that he and I talked on the phone as fellow human beings and not as robots made things oh so much better.

Brandt and I have worked out what I think is a very reasonable compromise. Let's face it: Daniel Brandt really is not that notable. Yes, he should be mentioned for what has happened with the entire Seigenthaler controversy, and he should be mentioned with NameBase and/or Google Watch. People know of Google Watch but not of Daniel Brandt. Instead of deleting the article Daniel Brandt, we can instead redirect it to either NameBase, Google Watch or whatever, and have a relevant bio on Brandt there. In return/for the sake of repairing relations, Brandt is willing to take down the "Hivemind" page that he has put up. He said in effect that if that has been the wedge that prevents people from being reasonable, then he can take it down. He expressed his concerns about the probability of my success of being able to make this happen, but personally, I think we can make this come true.

Please, Wikipedia. This can be big for us. Let's be willing to make a compromise and put an end to a rather hostile and controversial feud. If I, an administrator who has been put on Brandt's page, am willing to talk to Brandt over the phone, have an hour-long conversation, and end hostilities towards each other (not to mention I have declared myself in the past to be a sworn enemy), then so can we all.

We brought JarlaxleArtemis back and we brought MARMOT back. Let's assume good faith again and bring Brandt back. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 00:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm slightly weary of redirecting and merging the article without consensus, but it seems like a good solution.--Sean|Black 00:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Do it. Not worth the fuss to keep the article. --mav 00:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed! NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 00:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hold on a sec, i'm gonna give Willy on Wheels a call ;-) Good job with the peace treaty, Alex. karmafist 00:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Daniel Brandt will be unblocked now? Izehar (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

So we get to keep the bio and simply merge it into another article (and then redirect)? I don't see any downside to this. Carbonite | Talk 00:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge/redirect is an editorial decision, unrelated to deletion policy, so the previous AfD can be overriden. Go for it. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 00:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, and since Brandt has agreed to this solution, it works out for everyone involved. Carbonite | Talk 00:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Strongly endorse this solution--FRS 00:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• W00t. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Strongly endorse. Praise be unto Allah. George Copeland 00:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I unblocked User:Daniel Brandt as a show of good will and so he may comment here, if he wants to. Broken S 01:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strongly endorse. Linuxbeak, you really are amazing. Ambi 01:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• As I already told you, and demonstrated by editing Daniel Brandt: fully support. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 01:07
• Wow. I knew this would create a noise, but I didn't realize how resounding this would be. Is it fair to say that we have a... consensus? Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 01:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • We had a consensus as soon as you got off the phone with Brandt. Show me the Britannica article on Wikipedia and all of its faults. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 01:18
    • I'd wait for a couple more hours, some people are still sleeping right now (But feel free to be bold and do whatever you want). Personally, I don't feel entirely comfortable "trading" our article for his. We should do what's right whether or not he removes his page. I mean, let's say he betrays us [hypothetically] would we unredirect in retribution? That would be improper in my opinion. I am for it as long as it's clear this is not a trade, but a group decision. Broken S 01:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that whichever you redirect it to will end up contianting an incomplete bio since it would make little seince to mention the google watch stuff on the namebase article and the reverse on the google watch article. People who don't know about the agreement are liekly to take it as another chance to knock wikipedia because without that information it doesn't look good.Geni 01:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's been done. Daniel Brandt redirects to Public Information Research, and I will work on expanding that article. Brandt has sent me a nice amount of information regarding PIR and I will be using that to expand that article. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 01:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

And the chart is gone!!! Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 02:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Should we delete the content of the original page then? It seems to be the appropriate thing to do if the content is not relvant anymore. If this is done, I suggest we do this without placing it through AFD - this is a very special situation which I think warrants special treatment. Thoughts? --HappyCamper 02:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Extremely strong support of HappyCamper's suggestion. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 02:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the spirit of it, but does the GFDL let us do it? Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 02:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Extremely strong object. We should not be deleting histories because of back-room deals like this. We should not also be protecting his article as a redirect. --SPUI (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not approve of allowing ourselves to be held to ransom. We don't care about the hivemind stuff, but we do care about the encyclopedia. My finger is hovering on my rollback button, and I will undelete the article if it turns red. -Splash^talk 02:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Since when do we negotiate about the quality of the encyclopedia? He's notable, and a public figure; too bad for him if he doesn't like it. — Dan | talk 02:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose such a cop-out. Any external bullying for the removal of an article is not a valid reason to remove information. There is no such policy which says we should remove a person's article simply because they would like that.

Brandt's chart was obviously a scare tactic to encourage the deletion. I'd like to see him sue for such petty things. "These meanies called me names on the internets and made me real sad :(("

Linuxbeak, doesn't that violate WP:NOR? EndAnonDiscrimination 02:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• No. Daniel Brandt is supplying him with the information for the article. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 02:18

  Yes, but will it be cite-able? EndAnonDiscrimination 02:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

  Yes. It's official history from the source. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 02:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I am disgusted that someone protected that redirect. We are not for sale. I have lifted the protection. -Splash^talk 02:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody called up Daniel Brandt, hat in hand, begging him to let Wikipedia out of the doghouse. Linuxbeak called up Daniel Brandt because he thought he personally had been an asshole to Brandt unnecessarily, and wanted to mend fences and build bridges. The article compromise was simply an outgrowth of the conversation that followed. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 02:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Jolly good job. Well done Linuxbeak. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Visual aid for perspective: Daniel Brandt: . Rest of world: O.

Compare these relative sizes to the relative amount of time everyone, and in particular YOU (the reader), are spending on Daniel Brandt. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 02:21

This argument is specious. Saying "it doesn't matter" doesn't help anyone toward a solution. — Dan | talk 02:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it does help. It tells you that nobody should even notice what happens to the Daniel Brandt article, in the same way nobody notices what happens to Edward Ord. Instead, everyone notices it, everyone makes a big deal out of it. Get some perspective. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 02:34

Did NO ONE read what I wrote here? Does ANYONE know what actually happened, or did everyone who said that I was "ransoming" Wikipedia just kneejerk? >:-( Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 02:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You said "Let's be willing to make a compromise". And then you made your personal apology to Brandt by taking specific action on Wiki. -Splash^talk 02:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I've never heard of negotiating a compromise, however well-intentioned (or, as ExtremeUnction has it, unintentioned) with someone about what appears in "their" article. There's a good argument that neither PIR or Brandt are that notable, or at least, that all the picayune detail that appeared in his article is. However, I don't like the idea that if someone causes us enough heartburn, they get their way: in particular, I think it's reasonable to have a biographical article on Brandt, with some of the information that's been erased. However, as we discuss this here (and I'm sure there will be more to come) let's not play silly buggers with the article. Demi ^T/_C 02:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...it looks like this conversation degenerated right after my post. That really wasn't my intention. If that isn't they way to go, then it isn't the way to go. Simple as that. I really don't want to see tensions built up over this here, I'm sorry. --HappyCamper 02:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

A solution to what exactly?

I'm about a nanometer from saying:

"If this happens, I'd quit." (explitives pre-removed)

Blackmail is a bitch, ain't it. Hey, Linuxbeak... you may have been a jerk, and you felt a need to soothe your WikiSoul; I applaud that and way to go for being the better man. If there is something specific and actionable we can do to remove personal info from said article, we can and should be accomodating.

But Daniel Brandt needs a wake up call, and Wikipedia is as good a place as any for him to get it. Privacy, ain't what it use to be, Daniel. Hey, that's my name... nifty. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Chooserr, sockpuppets

Hi. I'd like to request a CheckIP to determine if User:Pitchka and User:Chooserr are editing from the same IP addresses. Both have recently been going around changing date formats, and I have noticed disturbing similarities between their grammar, particularly in their edit summaries. Maybe they just think alike, and I'm being too suspicious. But it can't hurt to check. Thanks. Nandesuka 01:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

And, as long as I'm asking, User:Puca, too, which account has been inactive until just yesterday. To keep things even, I have no objection if someone wants to request a CheckIP to see if I'm the same as some other user, too (oh my god -- maybe I'm Hermione1980!) :-) Nandesuka 02:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)