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. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

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

User: Ctifumdope

I just put up a page about the Chemical Solubility Chart, but I don't know how to create a table for all of the data that I have. Can somebody please help me out?

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)

This subject: User:Beckjord has indicated that he no longer uses sockpuppets,since I pointed out to him that someone else could use them against him in some personal attack, and that sockpuppets would make a attacker next to impossible to find and deal with according to Wikipedia policies. Martial Law 21:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Also reminded this subject that "sneakiness" is considered vandalisim. He stated that Wikipedia was hard for him, and has made a effort at redemption of himself. Told him that if he had questions about Wikipedia, we'll answer them, even reminded him of this by using the example provided by a old TV commercial about Radio Shack: "You got Questions,WE got Answers". Hope this has'nt caused any inconviences, and do apologise if it has.Martial Law 22:22, 19 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)

Out of curioisity, is anyone planning to deal with the continued harassment from User:Braaad and User:68.112.201.90? It seems that he is now starting to lash out at anyone who modified "his" user page (reference User talk:Royboycrashfan#68.112.201.90). See the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Braaad|RfC] about Braaad and 68.112.201.90] for more information on his past behavior. How many more editors does he have to harass before something is done? McNeight 09:41, 19 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)

Has anyone seen User:Deeceevoice 's User page. This was referred to me by another User, stating that User Deeceevoice is offensive. The user who discussed this was User:justforasecond. Hope this has caused no inconviences, and apologise if it has.Martial Law 22:14, 19 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)

I can read nowhere in Wikipedia:Blocking_policy where you are allowed to block someone indefinitely on your own (even if you have a few administrators backing you up). I must ask you to either properly start a request for arbitration or undo the indefinite block. Otherwise I'm going to have to take up this issue. -- Dissident (Talk) 22:48, 22 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)

I blocked these. No such user as "Jimcrocela", I blocked Jimcroce1a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). No such user as "Tobiasafi", I blocked Tobiasfi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I didn't block Mcfly85. -- Curps 06:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Fred didn't list Pwner (talk · contribs) but I blocked for username ("pwn") and blanking vandalism to User:SWD316 user page. But perhaps Fred could investigate a bit further for possible further sockpuppets of that one. -- Curps 06:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Mcfly85's attempt to influence the most recent RfA

Despite his indication that he has quit, Mcfly85 continues to try to vote and add comments to influence SWD316's most recent RfA (which I brought to try to restore some procedural justice). (See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SWD316 3 -- for which I'm myself voting neutral on.) Celestianpower believes that the vote is valid, while Howcheng and I believe the vote is invalid. What's the thought from the peanut gallery?

Also, should Mcfly85 and/or the additional sock puppets be blocked in light of this? Should a WP:RfAr be brought? --Nlu (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Update: Mcfly85 continued to insist on voting/commenting, and I've blocked him for three hours in light of this. Please, folks, put in your comments on this, as I need to know before the block expires whether to:

1. Allow his vote to stand;
2. Strike the vote;
3. Block him for longer period or;
4. Do something else.

I am not sure that I'm handling the situation correctly, but it seems just wrong to allow Mcfly85's vote to stand in light of what had happened. Still, input is requested. --Nlu (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think his vote should be counted or remain on the page even. However as it is generally known that he ruined the first RfA it doesn't do much harm. I'm tempted to just block Mcfly85 indefinitely but it is SWD316's place to make a complaint or Request for Arbitration. Fred Bauder 04:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

His/her vote should not count as per above evidence--MONGO 04:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Update: I've decided to go ahead and bring a WP:RfAr asking for an emergency ruling on this. Obviously, the ArbCom might not make a ruling quickly enough. Mcfly85 has since made an apology to me and to SWD316 on our talk pages (as well as on his own). I've indicated that I do not want to see him permanently blocked, but that I am still seeking a ruling because I am not 100% sure that my actions were correct. Additional comments, folks? --Nlu (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that he should receive a one week block.--MONGO 13:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

One week? After this barefaced lying, the disgraceful attack on SWD316's RFA, and the continued disruption of his new RFA ? I disagree. I recommend a long block of this unscrupulous user. And to my mind, the apologies would have been a lot more indicative of change of heart if they'd come before Fred's checkuser evidence. Bishonen | talk 14:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree, I was actually hoping for a longer block than a week, unless this user can find some way to ensure us that his/her abuse and sockpuppet useage for the wrong purposes is done forever, and unlikly event.--MONGO 08:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it ought to be longer. Mcfly85's sock puppets ought to be perma-blocked, Mcfly85 himself blocked more than a week, and Checkuser should be run periodically over the next few months to prevent more sock-puppetry. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 00:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Node ue

Node_ue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is vandalizing various pages. Someone must watch him. --150.164.52.1 13:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I think Node holds some odd views, often makes edits I radically disagree with, and can be very uncooperative about "playing well with others" in controversial articles, but I have never seen him be a vandal in the narrow sense. If there is a specific issue here, please indicate it. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_dialects&diff=31591845&oldid=31570335

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_language&diff=31591971&oldid=31590919

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raionul_Cimi%C5%9Flia&diff=31543916&oldid=30199603

I can't judge the first one; I've asked someone who was an active contributor to that article to take a look. The second looks to me to be correct, but, again, I'm no expert. The third I'd describe as silly, like writing "42nd Street, also known as 42nd St.…". I see it has been reverted, as well it should have been. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Moldovan raion

Hi Mark. I have a question about this edit you made. In addition to the name of that raion, "Raionul Cimişlia", you added its name in the Moldovan language, you wrote "(Moldovan: R-ul. Cimişlia)". I belive it does not make any sense, as "R-ul. Cimişlia" is just an abbreviation of "Raionul Cimişlia", and not its name in some other language. If you are trying to make a point that Moldovan language is different than Romanian language, that kind of edits, if anything, work against you.

I don't plan to argue with you or with anybody else the issue of Moldovan language, but I belive your edit was not productive. I will keep your talk page on my watchlist for a while, so you can reply here if you would like to comment. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone watch Node_ue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).--194.83.70.20 09:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

CFD vote stuffing

Anyone have any idea how to handle an apparent case of vote stuffing going on at CFD? Please see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 15 (pro-choice/pro-life celebs discussion). I suppose we could solicit considerably more voters in some forum (here, or VPP perhaps), but I'd really like to come up with a general solution for this kind of problem. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

There's another thread at WP:ANI ("Meatpuppetry?") about this.--Sean|Black 06:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

As one of the editors who raised the issue, meatpuppetry doesn't seem to be the right term. The participants are all regular members of the Wikipedia community. It's more of a push voting drive by a couple of editors with a political agenda who canvass talk pages of people likely to share their opinions. On the CfD page it appears the people who responded to the canvass acted in good faith. The AfD incident is somewhat more serious: probable bad faith nomination, several users making false claims about the article's content. I realize these are discussions and not votes. I also realize legitimate users have a right to be heard. Those who canvass this way are gaming the system to create a false impression of consensus. Durova 07:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, with a caveat: It's perfectly acceptable to contact editors with regards to a discussion, it's not acceptable to spam every user in a category to influence consensus your way.--Sean|Black 08:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. Sooner or later we're going to have to stamp on this hard, so that nobody will be in any doubt as to the unacceptability of sabotaging consensus, and maybe now is the time to do it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, what separates the legitimate act of notifying editors that we know would feel strongly affected by a decision, so that the decision isn't made without them, and illegitimate "push voting"? I'm not saying there isn't a distinction; I'm saying that if this is going to be the setting of a precedent, it has to be a precedent based on a principle. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, if the debated entity is associated with a topic pertaining to two or more directly opposing viewpoints, it's inappropriate to only notify users with one of those viewpoints (assuming that the others can be recognized via similar means).

Secondly, if the nominated entity is or has been the subject of another discussion, it's okay to notify the editors involved, but only if doing so indiscriminately; it's inappropriate to select the users based upon the specific nature of their previous comments. For example, when there were polls to determine the style and wording of the merger templates, I notified everyone who had previously expressed any opinion on the subject (including those with whom I personally disagreed). —Lifeisunfair 13:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The unbiased way to make sure editors interested in X are aware of a discussion is to put a notice on X's talk page, which presumably editors on both sides of the issue are watching. ---- RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• This is a slippery slope - contacting a few users is okay but contacting a lot is ballot stuffing. There appears to be no feasible way to deal with this, unfortunately. Nor is it new, I've seen it happen at least half a year ago. Radiant_>|< 21:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've listed category:wikipedians by politics and its subcats for deletion at WP:CFD. Please vote on this (regardless of which way you think it should go), so this CFD ends up with an honest consensus. Please also vote on the pro-life/pro-choice celebrities item (from Dec 15). Thank you. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR on Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org

I have blocked User:DreamGuy for 24 hours for violating 3RR on Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org. Specifiically, for consistently removing the {{proposed}} tag from the article. Full disclosure: I put the tag there, and am involved on the discussion on the talk page. This seemed clear-cut enough to me that I just went ahead and did it. If anyone thinks my enforcing 3RR in this case was inappropriate, please let me know and I'll undo the block (and ask an uninvolved admin to reapply it). Nandesuka 15:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

probably not a great idea.Geni 15:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Concur with Geni. It's not like this was an emergency. Being an admin doesn't mean you should act as plaintiff, judge, and jailer at the same time. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

A suggestion: if you find you need to protect a page/block a user you're in a dispute with, find another Admin to do the deed for you. This not only prevents a conflict of interest, but helps to convince the other side that the act is aganist Wikipedia, not just with you. -- llywrch 20:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Vilerage

Am I allowed to post here? Anyway, this seemed as good a place as any.

User:Vilerage has admitted to launching a Denial of Service attack against http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ using the page http//www.brandt-watch.org/ and his home page http://www.geocities.com/visualrage/. This has been detailed on http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/perp.html . I have sent to him a message on his talk page asking him to prove that it was not him, and he has failed to respond, and wiped my message unread, which I believe is sufficient to constitute an admission of guilt.

Vilerage has done this in the name of Wikipedia, and has given Wikipedia a bad name in doing this. What he has done amounts to the crime of computer hacking. As such, I request that his admin powers be revoked as soon as possible and he be banned from Wikipedia. I feel that if this is not done, then it could expose Wikipedia not only to bad public press, but also to criminal charges in relation to his admitted illegal activities. I am not sure of what the processes are to go about this, but I thought that this was the correct forum to mention this. Do you have to go through ArbCom first?

I don't really want to get too involved in this personally, so will leave it up to other administrators to deal with this properly. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about his admin powers, but we should definitely not block/ban for off-wiki activities. --SPUI (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps we might want to de-OP though (anyone want to ask the ARBCOM?) See also: my post to Talk:Daniel_Brandt#Brandt.27s_views_re_Wikipedia_articles_on_living_persons. Broken S 20:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's totally irrelevant to his admin. privileges and to Wikipedia in general. As long as the Wikimedia Foundation did not encourage it, it has nothing to do with it. What about his (hypothetical) Yahoo! e-mail account? Are they going to cancel it because of independent activity? It's none of our business what Vilerage does in private. As long as he hasn't abused his admin. privileges or violated any policies (which he hasn't), IMO this discussion has no place here and is not our concern. Izehar (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out right quick, that I'm not an admin. [1]. --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 20:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If you think he has committed a crime you should deal with that. I agree with SPUI, what people do off wikipedia should not be a cause for banning or blocking. Are you sure he is an admin? He's only been here 2 months so it is unlikely, SqueakBox 20:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

He is not an admin, SqueakBox 20:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't really understand how Wikipedia itself would be under any risk of criminal, or civil, charges as a result of something somebody, who happens to edit here, did using his own personal Web hosting account, not directly involving Wikipedia at all. *Dan T.* 20:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I wiped your message because it was, in my opinion, harassing. [2] That, and I don't respond to threats. --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 21:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, I didn't launch jack, much less a denial of service attack. This is, in my opinion, just more harassment, from a buddy of w-w. This is probably the last I'll say here. --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 21:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If he says he didn't do it, I believe him. What evidence do you have? Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 21:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

...and at least here in the US we have the presumption of innocence. It isnt up to Vilerage to prove that he didn't do it, it is up to whoever to show that he did...not that I feel it should effect his status here. --Syrthiss 21:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

...and on Wikipedia we have the much neglected WP:AGF. Izehar (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm still not clear on what any of this has to do with my contributions here. But, what do I know? It's my opinion that my contribs speak for themselves. --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 21:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The only immediate problem I see with Vilerage's contributions is his 477 characters long sig which makes it really hard to read the comments in between all the links and HTML. He says he did not launch a DOS attack on Brandt and I have no reason not to believe him.

However, if it is proven that Vilerage (or another user) has taken a petty interpersonal dispute off-site and then implicated or associated Wikipedia with criminal activities, I will personally block their account indefinitely. Zocky 07:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I consider this very serious indeed. Vilerage has made some positive contributions to the encyclopedia, but if he has indeed done this, then in so doing he has defamed the entire Wikipedia community. I have no love for Mr. Brandt, but we cannot tolerate this at all, any more than we would if someone had popped Brandt's car tires or some other criminal, puerile prank. If this is proven (and it seems to be so, though I am no technical expert), an indefinite block is required.--Pharos 08:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I am opposed to an indef block, or even a block for that matter, for something no done on WP. Unless you can find proof that he acted in the name of Wikipedia, your suggestion is close to absurd. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 10:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

To assume good faith of people in an online community is in itself an act of extreme foolishness. Experience shows time and again that the average person is much less saintly than idealists would have you believe. I have no belief in the statements made by either party over this alleged attack. If Mr Brandt can produce evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of any individual person, he should take the matter up with that person's ISP. --Agamemnon2 10:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe people need a reminder of what Wikipedia is and is not? Actions like this add nothing to the writing of the encyclopedia, on the contrary, they are damaging to the public perception of the project, to the community and ultimately to the encyclopedia. Zocky 10:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to any form of block on User:Vilerage, accusations are flying: the recent note left on Jimbo's talk page by Zordrac is (imho) plainly wrong, no proof that "Users" are "engaged in criminal activity in the name of Wikipedia" is given and a further groundless assumption and accusation is made about perpetrating a hoax. Enough now. Alf ^melmac 12:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

In the interest of not making Zordrac unfairly appear as a ranting looney, it should be noted that there was a hoax perpetrated on Brandt by somebody with a Wikipedia account (User:Callum Derbyshire), discussed at Talk:Daniel Brandt, and now archived at Talk:Public Information Research/Archive 2#Daniel Brandt hoaxed. The whole thing was considered funny by some editors. When Zordrac informed Jimbo about it, Jimbo clearly stated on that talk page that such behaviour is unacceptable. Yet, people continued to bait Brandt, and then Vilerage came up with a brilliant idea of setting up brandt-watch.org, which seems to have featured a "tricky" script as the site said earlier today. The site has now been taken down and I don't know how I could confirm how it looked before and how Wikipedia was mentioned on the page with the "tricky script". If there was conclusive proof that he did in fact implicate Wikipedia in his actions, I would have had blocked him immediately.

The whole Brandt affair is getting out of hand. There is a group of editors who have shown extreme lack of judgment in dealing with the article and the man and who seem to think that defending Wikipedia from criticism requires and allows them to engage in crusades, bullying and other childish behaviour. While that is their prerogative, they should not be allowed to do that on Wikipedia. Zocky 12:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Zocky is 100% correct in all this. We are Wikipedians. To me that means something. We should conduct ourselves with the highest degree of honor and maturity at all points. Editing Wikipedia is not a right, it is a privelege bestowed by the community of good people who care about writing a high quality encyclopedia.--Jimbo Wales 15:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This is what happened: Vilerage, on http://brandt-watch.org, had a link labeled 'Brandt image gallery', or something of the sort. When launching this page, it used JavaScript to load images hosted on Brandt's image server at a high rate of speed. I talked to Vilerage on IRC, and he agreed to remove the page. That's good enough for me. But it's also another important note: As Jimbo said above, Wikipedians should hold themselves to a high standard always. Ral315 (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope and trust that hold themselves to a high standard always refers to activities relating to wikipedia, whether online or offline, as other behaviour outside wikipedia is really not wikipedia's concern. Some argue that if you work for wages it is reasonable for the company to expect certain offsite standards, eg no taking drugs, etc, but wikipedia should not go down that line, IMO, SqueakBox 22:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is talking about checking people for drugs. We are talking about Wikipedians who engage in real-life attacks on critics of Wikipedia, and in some cases, like the hoax mentioned above, directly involve Wikipedia, and even get support from other Wikipedians (see User talk:Callum Derbyshire), including old hands from whom I would have expected more.

Wikipedia does not and can not engage in campaigns to silence or bully its critics. Again, I haven't seen proof that Vilerage directly implicated Wikipedia in his actions, and he has so far not been blocked, at least by me. His actions were in any case highly irresponsable, as the obvious connection between brandt-watch.org and Vilerage's work on Wikipedia implicates Wikipedia anyway. Zocky 23:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Playstation 4

I found this strange article (containing no less than four colored boxes plus a stub tag), which was created by Maoririder (talk · contribs) already with the vfd tag in place. The vfd linked to an already closed deletion debate ("WP:NOT a crystal ball").

I deleted it as a recreation of deleted material; however, it had been edited by another editor besides Maoririder, and while I felt the content was similar enough, I have been out of the speedy deletion loop for a while, and I believe the tolerance to the stretching of that clause has lessened a bit.

I would like for someone who is more active on the deletion front to review my deletion of that article.

--cesarb 03:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

In case you haven't already, see this.--Sean|Black 03:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

What happened to Maoririder's mentorship? His name calling got out of hand and he was permablocked yesterday. Zoe (216.234.130.130 17:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC))

User:GreekWarrior

• GreekWarrior (talk · contribs)

With some regret, I have blocked GreekWarrior (talk · contribs) for twelve hours and protected his user talk page from edits for the duration of the block. The issue concerns that editor's repeated replacing of a xenophobic rant on his talk page, despite clear warnings [3] [4]. The same editor had previously made an edit on Talk:Turkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus titled "Why I enjoy Murdering Turks" [5]. However he is otherwise a good editor. I hope he will recognise that, of all his statements on Wikipedia, those alone are unsuitable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Node ue

Node_ue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is vandalizing various pages. He constantly writes the official names of cities from Moldova (e.g.Tighina) with the wrong Cyrillic script. He was told at least 100 times to stop this (the official script is Latin since many years now) but still he continues like this. Should be blocked for this. Bonaparte talk 19:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

See section below and feel free to ignore the above as I am - David Gerard 13:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:If

In accordance with WP:AUM, and due to the complete obstinance of the template's supporters in the face of the developers saying "Please do not use these templates," I have blanked this template and replaced it with a note indicating that it has been deprecated.

This template was in use on thousands of pages, so please keep an eye out for it so it can be cleaned up. Phil Sandifer 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

IANAD, but I thought the act of editing these templates was the root of the problem by virtue of the server load required to update them. This I haven't understood, since whatlinkshere doens't update until an article is touched. -Splash^talk 23:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I checked with the devs in #wikimedia-tech before shooting. Phil Sandifer 20:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok. -Splash^talk 23:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Still got a bug

Still have a annoying bug that can not only affect me, it could also affect others. I log on AS Martial Law , only something like this appears:123.578.612.45 instead. Enabled Cookies, cleared out my caches as well. This bug can actually have people falsely implicated as sockpuppeteers. Told it was some kind of Tech bug by a admin.Martial Law 21:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

What is the protocol to follow should I be declared to be a sockpuppeteer ?Martial Law 21:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If you're just editing articles, I don't think anyone's going to pounce on you. However, if you try and engage in some kind of a heated debate then others may think that you are trying to impersonate two users. But I'm sure with explanation, that should not be a problem. enochlau (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I've started leaving notes on the user pages of IPs from which I edit through a connection that I regularly use (like my home ISP account) when I'm inadvertently logged out or when I forget to login. The key is to edit the user page when you're logged in as you to state something like "this IP address is known to be used by __USER__" (substituting the appropriate username and link to your real user page for __USER__). I haven't seen others do this yet, but after thinking about {{doppelganger}} and collateral damage from IP blocks, it makes sense to me (perhaps we should make up a template to say something like "The following established editors are known to edit from this IP address..."). Slambo (Speak) 20:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Strange Edits

There's been some strange newbie edits at Cracked: Putting Broken Lives Back Together by Robert323 (talk · contribs). I'm heading back to his talk page to ask what's going on, but I figured I'd let you all know. karmafist 21:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom election

There was some discussion on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005 regarding the upcoming election. Those involved in the discussion agreed on some (rather commonsensical) suggestions, I thought I'd list them here for additional feedback. Of course the above are only suggestions, and if there are other suggestions please mention them.

• Voting should be done on subpages like on RFA, a useful format would be "statement - votes - questions" like on RFA. It would be easiest on the Candidate Question subpages (e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Candidate statements/172) - just paste in the candidate's nomination statement and add a voting section.
• To avoid a Disendorsement Disaster, people should be discouraged to add any comments whatsoever to their votes. Of course, they are free to ask the candidates questions, but not in the voting section.
• The election should be in January to avoid interference with Christmas. Suggested timeframe is Jan 9th - Jan 22nd (which is two weeks, same as last year).
• Suffrage: only those accounts can vote that have been registered at least three months before the election starts (same as last year).

Some people have suggested that one person be formally in charge of the process. E Pluribus Anthony suggested Anthere and/or Angela; Kelly Martin suggested Mark Ryan. Other people such as myself believe this isn't necessary. Radiant_>|< 22:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a few bureaucrats who aren't running? We ought to have someone- Bureaucrats close RFAs for two reasons. The first, obviously, is that they have access to Special:Makesysop. But also, they do so because they're trusted to make decisions on whether a voter is a sockpuppet, etc. It might not be a bad idea to have somebody "watching" the elections. Ral315 (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't Special:ArbcomVote (or something) used last year, and wasn't that a secret ballot? If we do it openly, there'll only be bad blood for months to come. -Splash^talk 23:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course. However that appears to be par for the course so far so far. If you get someone trying to do something they don't really have time for a sub optimum result is to be expected. It should be interesting to see how it plays out. Will wikipedia's more caperble wikipoliticians decide to vote only for safe candidates or not to vote at all. The first as the risk of highlighting potential conflicts with those who may end up in a position of power. The second looks too calculateing. Then you have the fun of when they vote. Go in early and try and appear as king maker, try and tip the balance at the end or try and stay out of the issue by hideing in the middle. Interesting all round. Interesting and very disstructive.Geni 00:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I have to favor the idea of a secret ballot. With Admins and even Bureaucrats, individual interpersonal feelings, bad blood and the like don't matter so much; there are 700-some-odd admins, all free to challenge each other's decisions, and other than closing (rarely-controversal) RfA votes Bureaucrats tend to stay out of things. With ArbCom members, though, you have most or all of them regularly forced to pass judgement on individuals and their entire history with Wikipedia, ending in binding decisions with few places left to appeal. I don't think any of the likely candidates are people who would seriously say "YOU VOTE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I DESTROY YOU!!!1" or anything like that, but it seems fair to me for people to be reluctant to elect a group that is essentially judge, jury, and executioner in an open vote... nobody, for instance, should ever have to be in the uncomfortable position of knowing that everyone on one side of a controversal RfAr voted for the current ArbCom slate, and everyone on the other side didn't. --Aquillion 00:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[mode=cynic]If people will vote for the wrong people.[/mode]Geni 01:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that a secret ballot (Special:Vote stuff) would be preferable. However, Jimbo specifically requested that we use a system similar to WP:RFA. Radiant_>|< 00:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Did he back that request up with a board vote?Geni 01:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to ask - did you mean "using stuff like Special:Vote", or "using Special:Vote stuffing"? The latter would be so much fun to code... Shimgray | talk | 13:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the discouraging comments bit, the comments on RFA, especially the opposes, are often very helpful making up one's mind about a candidate. One of RFA's virtues is that you get to see what other people think of the person. Dragons flight 01:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm very much opposed to holding a public election, to the extent that I might withdraw my candidacy rather than deal with the ugliness that will develop. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually Kelly, I'm not opposed to having a secret ballot, but if we are going to have a public ballot, as Jimbo apparently wants, then I would generally prefer to know why people voted the way they did, even though having comments will inevitably carry some ugliness with it. Dragons flight 02:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

While I don't mind a public election (as opposed to secret ballot), I'd like to see an election without comments. As long as we're just selecting a group for Jimbo to select from, I think we'd be better served with just a straight up and down vote. Once people start making commets in association with their votes, others will feel the need to refute them and then it's off to the races. This is becoming a little unwieldy...WEMs and WEO's, let's just select a group via simple majority, uninvolved bureaucrats can watch over the process and Jimbo can select from the group. With the sufferage requirements involved here I think we can avoid some of the ugliness by editors looking at the record before making their votes. Rx StrangeLove 05:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The chances of people making zero comments are...well...zero. And if they make them, will you remove them? That way lies edit warring. -Splash^talk 05:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I wrote above that uninvolved bureaucrats can be watching the process. So no, I won't be removing comments. If the ground rules are set up to allow votes without comments then they can police that. Rx StrangeLove 06:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• I would indeed be in favor of removing any and all vote comments. People can ask questions in the questions section. That way lies no edit warring if we are clear about it from the start. Radiant_>|< 10:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Validating an ELECTION requires VALIDATING voters. Everyone who wants to give their social security number (or the equivalent) raise your hand. As long as this is a site with unverified contributors, pretenses at true democracy will remain just that. I vote for more honesty and less pretense. I think Wikipedia is moving in the right direction, I just think a little more honesty would help. WAS 4.250 06:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• And by suggesting more honesty you specifically mean what exactly? Radiant_>|< 10:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Alternative to secret ballot

If a secret ballot is not possible - or is not preferable - why not just have only support votes. And require a minimum number of support votes (like 75, 100, 150 or something), as well as endorsement by Jimbo. Same for Jimbo proposed candidates - require a min. number of support votes. That way abstentions or opposes don't have to identify themselves, and hopefully the system wouldn't get as ugly as some of the RfA votes. I see Kelly's point - good people will withdraw rather than have to bear the indignity. Voting isn't a very good way to choose arbitrators, but I don't see a better way yet. Trödel|talk 03:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Could get even worse, since abstaining could be viewed as opposing. Ral315 (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

In what way is this issue specially related to admins? Shouldn't the Village pump be used for discussions like this? Zocky 04:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand how we would determine a 50% support threshold from this scheme. Based on lsat years elections, we'd elect a single Arbitrator if the 50% were measured across all votes. We just need a nice, simple, Support or Oppose in a secret ballot. -Splash^talk 05:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

A nice simple Support or Oppose secret ballot would be fine also, I'd just like to avoid editors refighting old battles.... Rx StrangeLove 06:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• While I would prefer a secret ballot, I don't believe that an open ballot (as Jimbo suggested) would be anywhere nearly as ugly as some people here suggest. If you look at WP:RFA, you'll see that nearly all RFAs are neat and civil. Practically all ArbCom candidates are known and trusted members of the community. There may be a bit of nastiness from a personal enemy or two, but they should be mature enough to deal with that (if not, they shouldn't become Arbs in the first place). If a candidate would really give raise to significant violent opposition, then I would suggest that he is too controversial to become an Arb, and that the voting results would reflect that no matter how we vote on it. Radiant_>|< 10:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Main Page

Do we really need to mention the fundraiser twice on the Main Page? It's on MediaWiki:Sitenotice, so why do we need another template on the already over templated, over tabled mainpage? Does it add anything? -Mysekurity^{(have you seen this?)} 00:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

See MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice ("Bigger fundraising notice"). Basically, Jimbo and Mav wanted a bigger notice on the front page.--Sean|Black 00:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Gotcha. I don't know if they should both be there, but I agree it should be bigger on the front page, and I guess it's a further discussion of whether or not the Main Page should be "Special" (which might not be a bad idea...) -Mysekurity^{(have you seen this?)} 00:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Bad block?

ElAmericano reports that he's been, presumably accidentally, blocked. He tells me that this is because IP address 63.19.162.156 has been blocked, but I see no evidence of that IP address being blocked. I don't deal with blocking a lot, so I don't know what to tell him.

If someone works out and/or resolves what is going on, please follow up with a note here so that others won't redundantly try to pursue this. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• That's odd: it's a non-portable IP. His IP address may have gotten autoblocked when another user on that IP was blocked, in which case, there's no way to know to unblock it without knowing which user it was (unless somebody with user IP lookup access can check it). I'm not sure, but I think that he still should be able to edit from an account if that account hadn't been specifically blocked. – ClockworkSoul 05:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to note that, in my experience, my account is blocked from making any kind of edit (except edits to my talk page) when I try to edit from school, as apparently the school's IP number is blocekd permanently. So as far as I know, Clockwork, your comment in that final sentence isn't current practice (though I wish it were!). Jwrosenzweig 08:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

63.19.128.0/17 is the range used by the "North Carolina vandal" (aka Regara, Jake Remington/Rattlesnakes, Luxembourg, per-capita, etc etc etc). It's occasionally range-blocked to deal with him. I've removed that range block now. -- Curps 07:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

To preemptively answer the question, "Was that range block necessary?" – The North Carolina Vandal is one of our more prolific vandals, creating numerous sockpuppets that begin by making legitimate edits, but then return to the same edit wars on the same articles, Elitism, for example. He sometimes even argues with himself through sockpuppets that take opposing views. It's all very odd, and since he has access to so many IPs, the range block is really the best way to deal with him, as long as it doesn't cause collateral damage, as it did in this case. android79 14:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Accident

Been told that a replica of MY User page,User Talk page was accidentally created. How can I have this replica removed ? Just found out literally minutes ago. Do'nt want to be declared a sockpuppet over this either !!Martial Law 07:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

IF there's no replica, means the newbie got nervous. Am investigating.Martial Law 07:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Appears the guy was nervous. Explained the situation to him. Hope this did not cause any inconviences. If so, I do apologise for this.Martial Law 07:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Node ue

Node_ue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is vandalizing various pages. NOw he started to follow everything that I edit and comes to that page to revert my work. I think he is obssesed with my edits. We did have some problems with his trolling on the Moldovan language page, but since then he trasfered all his hatred also to other pages that I have created e.g. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Romania_to_the_European_Union) Accession of Romania to the European Union. Except for the fact that this demonstrates very clear that all his edits and purpose is just trolling he also demonstrates a bad behaviour. The majority of users there agree with the fact that he is just annoying everybody there with his trolling. He repeatedly engages in revert wars and disruptive arguments on talk pages while ignoring the three revert rule, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Harassment, and Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Most disruptively, he insults fellow editors who disagree with his opinions, often implying that they are "koncenii," or engaging in "abuses of power" with no basis, and drags fellow editors into endless circular arguments on Talk pages, most notably over his personal issues with other editors. I ask for help to deal with this vandal. Bonaparte talk 08:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This is fallout from the flame wars over the Moldovan wikipedia. See wikipedia-l. I plan to actively take no action whatsoever over this message from Bonaparte, and suggest others do likewise - David Gerard 13:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Great attitude: "look, it's the people from Moldova, let's all ignore them". Nice way to go, Mr. Gerard. Why still nothing has been done even though everyone seems to have agreed that mo.wiki should be moved to mo-cyr, why you don't care ? Is that an attitude for an administrator: to not care ? Heh... 212.0.211.204 16:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You should first acknowledge that there ALWAYS was a consensus on the page and ALWAYS Node was against any kind of solution. Instead he just like to make edit war there. Even now, he still continues to make controversial edits. This was not his last page. He made similar with ZLATIBORIAN language of course. So on that page Node has no credibility and you all are pleased to go there and see. Bonaparte talk 14:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

David's point is that both sides are guilty of transgressions on this article. Plus, as I've pointed out to you guys numerous times, you have to do dispute resolution here. I don't see any. I see no requests for comment whatsoever. Blocking users is not going to end this debate. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 18:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, David's remark was about Moldovan wikipedia, and not about the moldovan language article specifically (when it was asked here what to do about it, what was the answer, go to wikipedia-l, now the whole issue was taken there, and what's the attitude of admins: IGNORE). And I sure like your definition of "both sides", Node against everyone else. 212.0.211.204 19:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Who is guilty that he comes to follow my edits and revert my work on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Romania_to_the_European_Union) Accession of Romania to the European Union? Obviously he is. If he has some issue on Moldovan language why can he refrain himself not to do that again also on other pages? Bonaparte talk 18:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Why that person is still let free to vandalize the page that I created? He is obsessed with my edits and he comes everyday now to revert my work on Accession of Romania to the European Union. He made something similar also on Moldovan language. Now he uses more IP adresses. Bonaparte talk 15:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Braaad and User:68.112.201.90... Again

Out of curioisity, is anyone planning to deal with the continued harassment from User:Braaad and User:68.112.201.90? It seems that he is now starting to lash out at anyone who modified "his" user page (reference User talk:Royboycrashfan#68.112.201.90 and User talk:Sputnikcccp#Vandalization). See the RfC about Braaad and 68.112.201.90 for more information on his past behavior. How many more editors does he have to harass before something is done? McNeight 21:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

User:deeceevoice user page

Upfront: I filed an RfAr against deeceevoice a week ago, so am not an unbiased party, but could someone please take a look at her user page -- it is the most offensive page I've seen on wikipedia. There are sexually explicit images, racist images, profanity, a call for editors to abandon wikipedia, etc. I'll skip the details, just go take a look please. I'm not sure what (or if *any*) policies are in question here, but it seems well beyond the norms of a user page. -Justforasecond 23:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

She has posted this stuff in response to your RfAr, and you know that. It's her user page, and if she wants to use it to make a statement about censorship and racism on Wikipedia, that's her prerogative. — BrianSmithson 23:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• This is way across the line. I suggest immediately blanking this user page, and blocking Deeceevoice for at least a day for blatant personal attacks, incivility and spreaking nazi signs. Radiant_>|< 23:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Did you bother to read the page? She is not promoting "Nazi signs", nor is she attacking anyone. And as this is her user page, I'm not sure at whom she is supposedly being incivil. — BrianSmithson 00:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I am now officially on holiday break. I tried to enter my user page to post a notice to this effect, but -- once again -- I've been blocked. Collateral damage as a result of Radiant's block of someone calling themselves Poporopo (or something). I'm not terribly familiar -- not at all, really -- with wiki procedures and timeframes and such, but, presumably, whatever action, if any, with regard to my user page will wait until I return. It is, after all, hardly an urgent matter. Peace. And happy holidays to all (except, of course, my stalkers) :p deeceevoice 16:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Forgive me for jumping the line, so to speak, but I've only just seen this action a few minutes ago. (They never stop, do they? :p) When collateral-damage blocks have expired long enough to me to make edits on this website (there have been at least four or five I've encountered over the last two days on various pages -- and that's a conservative estimate; and even more if I count the last four days), I've been making changes here and there to those pages -- my user page among them and not -- I repeat NOT -- in response to whatever various complains may be here. (Yes, I was blocked from editing my own user page. I had to store the text in my computer so as not to lose it.) I haven't read everything, and I don't intend to. I'm preparing to leave town for the holidays and don't have the time or the patience. Since when did Wikipedia begin censoring valid commentary on user pages? When did it become a police state? Such images are appropriate for article use -- but suddenly inappropriate and unpardonably offensive when used elsewhere to illustrate a point? Comes off like hypocrisy to me! deeceevoice 15:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I find it curious/somewhat amusing that the poster Radiant (and others, as well) objects to the swastikas, but says absolutely nothing about the lynching photo. So, a symbol is more offensive than the photo of a murdered human being? One is somehow more offensive than the next? I guess it depends on who's looking at it -- right? :p Clearly, my point is not to endorse either image -- or the image of the pierced sexual organ, or the naked, seemingly frightened woman in bondage. It is about what I perceive as the incongruity/ridiculousness of certain aspects of wiki etiquette, and the pervasive racism and systemic bias on this website. deeceevoice 15:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • • There's a very simple reason for that. I have images disabled in my browser (for the reason that I have a slow connection). The content of the swastika image is obvious from its title, this is less so for the lynching photo. Radiant_>|< 17:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with BrianSmithson. I know very little about deeceevoice, but it's her user page, and the images and words are put there as protest about how the user feels they have been treated. This is a very different senerio from the racist who had anti-muslim images and statements on his user page the other day, and who was quite rightly blanked and blocked. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 00:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Of course I read the page. Regardless of whether it's aimed at anybody in particular, it is blatantly offensive on purpose, incorporates swastikas, and violates WP:POINT, WP:CIV for foul language, WP:NOT a soapbox, and WP:UP. Radiant_>|< 01:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No. I've placed the images there because they are illustrative and instructive in their offensiveness. They serve a purpose. Further, let me point out again that these images are available elsewhere on this website. (How else could I have incorporated them on my user page?) So, you're saying only some people can use certain images to illustrate a point and others can't? No offense intended, but that sounds rather a bit like fascist control to me. They are, after all, presented in context. deeceevoice 15:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • She wrotes that those were left by various vandals. talk to +MATIA 01:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • And of course the page history proves her wrong. Radiant_>|< 01:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • These are from the talk page 1, 2. talk to +MATIA 01:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"Oh. And did I mention the endless campaigning for more RfA pilers on on article and personal talk pages (including my own)? Join in: Let's have a lynch party! Martha, you bring the picnic basket, Tommy 'll get the kerosene, and Dickie I'll bring the camera."

Is that acceptable here? To compare folks filing an RfAr (which means...me) to a family conducting a "lynch party"?

-Justforasecond 01:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If someone the likes of Clarence Thomas can make such a comparison ("a high-tech lynching," blah, blah, blah) and still get congressional approval to serve on the highest court in this nation (particularly with the questions raised about his conduct), then certainly I'm entitled. It's my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it. I'm not the only one who sees racism in the way this matter has been handled. It's a witch hunt -- and, frankly, the appalling comportment of one of Wikipedia's own sysops would seem to corroborate our worst suspicions. deeceevoice 15:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

PS If you're wondering, I *did* inform her on her talk page that an RfAr had been filed. That is a requirement of any RfAr. I also contacted every user that posted on the RfC who did not know about the RfAr. I did not post it to any article pages. I can't believe anyone thinks those images and indictments are a reasonable response.

The adjectives are "article" and "personal" the subject is "talk pages." And, yes. You repeatedly campaigned for participation in your little cause all over article talk pages and even posted a solicitation to my own talk page -- after being asked repeatedly not to post there. The info is correct. deeceevoice 15:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:User page#What should I avoid?. While this user's page is disturbing, it doesn't really contravene policy, AFAIK. This user is involved in a case before the Arbitration Committee, and rather than starting a separate issue over this page, it's probably best to leave it be for now. Just my $0.02 BCorr|Брайен 01:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Having been contacted by deeceevoice before after reverting vandalism to her user space, she prefers to leave vandalism in place (and here I have to paraphrase) to show others the kind of hassle black editors on Wikipedia get regularly. If you look beyond the past month in the page history, you will note that all that stuff has been added to her page as vandalism, all she has done is restored the vandalism to make her point. -- Francs2000 01:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it doesn't affect only black people. There are a lot of not-good people, who harass others one way or the other here at WP. Yet, I'm not sure about the way she makes her point. talk to +MATIA 01:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it makes her point quite well. It is shocking. I don't know about the kind of vandalism you've had on your user page, but I've certainly never had swastikas plastered all over it. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 01:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Justforasecond has been engaging in a massive pattern of harassment about Deeceevoice (as evidenced by the fact that well over half of his total edits on Wikipedia have been related to Deeceevoice and having her sanctioned). I can attest to the fact that for as long as I've been on Wikipedia Deeceevoice has had a policy of using her talk page to showcase racist vandalism that other users have left there. Personally, I wouldn't leave this on my talk or user pages but she is making a valid point of showing others the racist vandalism that can happen to Wikipedia users. That said, this RfA against Deeceevoice is stirring up major problems between users here. I'm also not alone in believing that racism is at the core of those pushing this RfA.--Alabamaboy 02:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• It doesn't affect only blacks. If you're e.g. white they just call you other bad names, e.g. nazi. And yes, that can also include swastikas. I don't think it's racism even, it's just trolling. Radiant_>|< 02:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Let the Arbitrators examine the RFArb. Hopefully they'll find everything related to the case. talk to +MATIA 02:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree. I left a message on Justforasecond's talk page asking him to let the RfA run its course without continually posting about Deeceevoice all over Wikipedia.--Alabamaboy 02:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Pushing a POV causes reactions that are then explained away as being anti the POV pusher. How is anyone to know if you are short, black or jewish unless that's the POV you're pushing. DCvoice admits to pushing a pro-black POV and protecting her opinions even as trivial as protecting "affect" rather than "effect" just cause she thinks a thesarus is a dictionary. WAS 4.250 02:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

She was correct on affect. Guettarda 15:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

And now the usual POV charges -- and a complaint about a dispute over grammar?!! Thank you, WAS, for illustrating the points I've made on my user page. Insane! deeceevoice 15:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Usernames which promote racial/ethnic/national/religious/ideological/homophobic hatred are not permitted. Personally, I feel this policy should also apply for user pages, since the same rationale applies there IMO. I think this userpage also breaks Wikipedia:Profanity. Jacoplane 15:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe Deeceevoice is entitled to keep her user page as it is. However, I feel the arguments she makes are quite flawed and unhelpful. She confuses Wikipedians and vandals, essentially saying "look at this shocking racist vandalism; therefore, Wikipedia is full of racist bias". That's somewhat disingenuous: it means only that vandals are racist — not particularly surprising or, ultimately, a huge problem. Vandals are not tolerated on Wikipedia, and the racist attacks on DCV would have been reverted long ago if she had not made it quite clear that she wants them left as they are (for whatever reason). Another argument on DCV's page is that Wikipedia contains "shocking" offensive images (bondage, genital piercings); therefore, Wikipedians are hypocritical when they try to enforce Civility or No Personal Attacks policies — an unconvincing non sequitur, presumably to somehow justify Deeceevoice's violations of policy.

Let me state that there is almost certainly racist bias within Wikipedia articles, and we should recognise and deal with it. However, Deeceevoice's inflammatory user page (and her combatative editing style) is hardly the best way to fix it. — Matt Crypto 15:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

As long as she isn't breaking any rules (i.e. attacking users by name, etc.), her userpage should be hers to do with as she pleases, IMHO. While the images on her userpage are offensive, they were retained there to prove a point; beyond which, Wikipedia isn't censored, and as she observed, the images are all available elsewhere on this site. Given that the images can be found elsewhere on Wikipedia, there's really no argument against her placing them on her userpage -- it's the context in which they're presented that makes her userpage offensive to people. Which is precisely the point she's trying to make. I can understand how and why people would disagree with me here -- I was shocked too when I first looked at it. But as I read through it and realized what she was trying to do, I was more dismayed at the how's and why's of how the information got there than that it was there at all. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 16:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, according to Wikipedia:Profanity: Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not. So while those some of those images (the bondage image for example isn't linked to from any article) are allowed in the context of some articles, here they are not appropriate, and break WP:Profanity IMO. Jacoplane 17:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that it boils down to whether the point she's making violates WP:POINT. Basically, is her user page disruptive to Wikipedia? I'm really on the fence on this issue. I don't think user pages should be treated like personal web pages where "anything goes". However, I also don't think offensive necessarily equals disruptive. In this specific instance, if Deeceevoice is truly leaving Wikipedia, it might make sense to blank her user page until/unless she returns. Carbonite | Talk 16:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Profanity really apply here because this is her user page: she's neither disrupting Wikipedia as a whole, nor is this profanity in articlespace pages. Another thing we have to keep in mind is that most (if not all) of the offensive content was placed on her own user page (or talk page) by other users... leaving it in would be bad if it were in the main articlespace, but it's in her own user page, so it's not disruptive. --Deathphoenix 17:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• By reinstating the vandalism after it was removed, she takes responsibility for it. Radiant_>|< 17:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that if this was in the article namespace (or almost any namespace other than user), we wouldn't even be having this discussion; the images would have been removed instantly. It's only because it's user space that this is even being debated. It takes a lot to violate WP:POINT in user space, but the guideline does still apply there. User pages are viewable by everyone and they're intended for assisting the user in their work on the project, not for use as personal web space. I think the material on Deecee's page is borderline disruptive, though I won't go so far as to say it should be removed against her wishes. I do realize that the offensive material was not added by Deecee and she's rightfully angered that the images and text were placed there. I just can't agree that it makes sense to offend others to prove a point. Carbonite | Talk 17:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Deecee's been up against a lot lately and should get the maximum slack possible here. See for example this unfortunate exchange on her talk page. An anon suggested that she visit white supremacist websites, referred to her "tribal mentality," and accused blacks of wanting to commit genocide against the white race; when Deecee responded by calling Stormfront a crew of "inbred, sleazoid, mental-cretin, hatemongers" (pretty near a scientific description, if you ask me), administrator Friday threatened to block her for incivility while taking no action on the anon account. I think Friday's a great user and a great admin generally, but on the other hand, if I had gotten that note, I'd be feeling pretty disillusioned about Wikipedia, too. Let's give her a break for a bit, no?

What's most disturbing to me about all these conversations, though, is... where's the Wikilove, folks???? I can't be sure where the rest of you are, but here in Louisiana, it's Christmastime, and I think it's time for everybody on either side of this to back off and just relax for a while--we're all on Wiki for the same reason, after all, and it makes me sad to see this taking such massive amounts of time away from good editors. For better or for worse, it's at the RfAr now, and anybody who needs to can soon chime in there. Happy holidays to all... --Dvyost 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If we can't enforce some common sense criteria for user pages then what's the point? Are you entitled to libel, slander, or copyvio on your user page too? -- Jbamb 17:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This user is an agressive militant. Logic say to delete his user page exactly like we delete shit in article's area. Yug (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

One has to question how rigid your "logic" is, considering that you can't even get the user's gender correct.

It's a user page: unless the stuff on it is illegal or immoral, it's her call as to the face she wants to show the world. Don't like it? Don't look at it. --Calton | Talk 00:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If we can't call a page full of Nazi flags that has "Seig Heil Motherfucker" on the top immoral, I'm afraid there is no such thing. -- Jbamb 00:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Please explain which of the following definitions of "immoral" is consistent with your example:

1. deliberately violating accepted principles of right and wrong
2. base: not adhering to ethical or moral principles; "base and unpatriotic motives"; "a base, degrading way of life"; "cheating is dishonorable"; "they considered colonialism immoral"; "unethical practices in handling public funds"
3. morally unprincipled; "immoral behavior"
4. bad: characterized by wickedness or immorality; "led a very bad life"
5. depraved: marked by immorality; deviating from what is considered right or proper or good; "depraved criminals"; "a perverted sense of loyalty"; "the reprobate conduct of a gambling aristocrat"
6. with low moral standards, especially relating to sexual behavior ( archaic )

Don't like the page? Don't look at it. No gangs of armed men forced you there. --Calton | Talk 01:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

How about "deviating from what is considered right or proper or good"? -Justforasecond 01:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• I am a white, liberal, middle aged, midwestern guy, and I find nothing whatsoever offensive about the way she has constructed her user page. On the contrary, I find it funny in a certain twisted way. She is wearing the slings and arrows of her persecutors proudly, like any red-blooded American individualist. If some of you find it offensive, maybe because it hits a little too close to home for you, by all means don't go to her page. No one is forcing you to go to her page, you're doing it voluntarily. You all are putting yourselves in the position of "nannies", trying to impose your views on other people. You are the kind of people Alan King meant when he said that, "The world is full of little dictators trying to run your life." Mind your own business, and let others mind theirs. Wahkeenah 05:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Homebrew computer club move to Homebrew Computer Club

Page already exists; need admin assistence to move. Thanks for your time. IanManka 23:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 00:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. IanManka 04:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• For future reference, such requests belong at WP:RM. --Bob Mellish 19:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

MilkMan accounts

Out of curiousity, I attempted to click on "email this user" for a random selection of MilkMan accounts, and to my surprise, these had emails attached to them. Is this something typical of vandals to do? To provide an e-mail address for such things during registration? I would not attempt to e-mail these accounts through Wikipedia yet, but just an observation that I thought was odd and wanted to share with everyone... --HappyCamper 00:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

A month or two ago, when some vandals were creating accounts with the password in them (i.e. creating user names like "Thisaccountspasswordisa" or something like that), I logged in to them and changed the passwords because I had read earlier that indef blocking could contribute to server strain (which, it seems, is false). What I did notice, though, is that the emails were enabled, and though I can't remember the exact email, they were something like "wikipediareallysucksishouldruletheworld @ yahoo . com" or some rant like that. Didn't try emailing, but I highly suspect a false email. Then again, the email may have just been entered because the vandal suspected someone would log-in to that account. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

non-descriptive block summaries

I feel really bad for having to make a minor complaint against a fellow administrator. I don't think it's bad enough for an RfC, so I'm posting it here.

I'll start with the positive comments first. For a few months, Curps (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been blocking many suspected vandal accounts, often before they are used. However, he often uses "user..." as the block summary. That is not descriptive at all, and it can be confusing for new users. But for the most part, the blocks seem legit.

Non-descriptive block summaries make Wikipedia seem less professional than it really is. If a new user gets blocked with "user..." as the reason, s/he will definitely be very confused. Several users have already complained about these block summaries.

Of course, I can unblock the accounts and re-block them, but I don't feel like doing it with several hundred accounts.

I'd like to hear other users' thoughts on this. --Ixfd64 02:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Is this by any chance limited to users with long names? If so it is a software issue.Geni 03:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No, the block reason is simply given as "user...". This is clearly a reference to the "usernames" section of the blocking policy. For the sake of clarity it might be better to put "inappropriate username" or something like that. --bainer (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Aren't these blocks being handled by a bot? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought that his bot was only supposed to block page-move vandals? That is, unless he extended his bot's functions. --Ixfd64 17:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• No, it's not clearly a reference to anything. The easiest way is to put {{usernameblock}} as the block summary, this expands to a reasonable description when viewed by the blockee. Radiant_>|< 12:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Notable Citizens

I have noticed a bit of a vandalism trend lately with the notable citizens sections in the various town pages on WP. It seems like there is a big bullseye on that section where every Tom, Dick and Harry feels like adding in their name and anyone else that catches their fancy. I think that as a guideline -- if someone has a WP page on them they are notable enough to be included in that section but otherwise they should not be there. I am going to go on an editing comb through the page with this thought in mind ... feedback? novacatz 02:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea; if they meet the notability test for an article, then they're probably going to be notable enough for a list in an article. Use with caution though, and read any supplementary text that went alongside it; for example, there is no article on John Fairfax but he's definitely notable. enochlau (talk) 09:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Article on JF? This is WP... sure there is an article....... :) novacatz 09:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Boo, you ruined my favourite example of Wikipedia's incomplete coverage of notable people. :P enochlau (talk) 10:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Important: Special:Unwatchedpages

Currently, 71% of mainspace articles are unwatched. Special:Unwatchedpages has now been enabled, but for admins only. Each admin has to add at least 1500 articles to their watchlist in order to watch them all. Get to work! — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-21 13:03

• um, it lists !! (chess) which is a redirect. Why does it list redirects? Broken S 13:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Because they're in the mainspace. It would be nice to have redirects listed separately, but it's not like adding a bunch of them to your watchlist is going to flood your watchlist with edits, so they should be fine with watching in addition to normal articles. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-21 13:08
  • And also - you never when someone is going to turn a valid redirect to something/somewhere stupid.... novacatz 13:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Wouldn't it make more sense to enable this for all users? Would certainly reduce the workload. Jacoplane 13:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No, because then vandals could use it to target unwatched pages. Radiant_>|< 13:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe then it might be a good idea to add this functionality to the WP:CTP proposal. Jacoplane 13:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Alternatively, it might be a good idea to let User:Cool Cat/IRC Bot monitor these pages. Jacoplane 13:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• This is excellent news! Better start adding some pages to my watchlist. Carbonite | Talk 13:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hold on a second! Avar just did a count of the number of unwatched pages that are not redirects, and it turns out there are only 547! I think he's working on making that list only show non-redirects. In the meantime, start adding a bunch to your watchlist. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-21 13:31

• I think it would also be used to have the ability to filter by namespace or whether a page is a redirect or not. Carbonite | Talk 13:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This list currently only includes pages in the article namespace. I think he has fixed it to only list non-redirects. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-21 13:38
    • I believe it lists pages watched by any user, even if that user hasn't actually logged in for a year. Is that correct? Could we improve on that maybe? Radiant_>|< 13:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, I assume other namespaces will be added in the future. It's important that all pages in the Wikipedia and template namespaces are watched.Carbonite | Talk 13:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It now lists pages that aren't redirects... it looks like there are more than 547, so get to work! — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-21 13:50

• This is a surprisingly good way for finding dubious articles... thanks! Shimgray | talk | 14:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming that pages are still be added. Right now it lists exactly 1000 pages. Is there any count on the total number of unwatched non-redirect pages? Carbonite | Talk 14:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• According to Avar, there's a limit of 1000 on the list, and it lists them alphabetically. I don't know how often it updates, but the only way we're going to see more is to add all of these to our lists. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-21 16:53

• Hmm...that's rather disappointing. There must be some way to get around the 1000 page limit, although it's possible that could be a major code change that might take a while to implement and test. Carbonite | Talk 17:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a bug that has been filed for a while now, apparently. I think someone is going to refresh the special page so that it lists unwatched pages. We may want to coordinate on the special talk page so that we don't all watch the same content and miss other stuff. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-22 00:35
• What would really be useful is a related changes button, so that all admins could collectively check for vandalism to these articles. - SimonP 00:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• I suggest that Special:Unwatchedpages ignores accounts that haven't logged in for over three months, with respect to watching. If a page is only on the watchlist of one or more dormant accounts, it is for all practical purposes unwatched. Radiant_>|< 17:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing

This is a notice that User:Pigsonthewing is banned from editing the Administrators' noticeboard and all subpages of said page, including WP:AN/I for a period of one week. Andy's RFAr has a clause which allows for any administrator to ban Andy from any page for good cause, and as such I have activated the probationary remedy. I have informed Andy of this ban and am asking that all administrators take notice. If Andy violates this ban, he may be blocked for 24 hours. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 13:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

After reviewing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Probation, I've decided that there is consensus for a ban. Pigsonthewing is banned from editing User:Karmafist, User talk:Karmafist and related subpages, untl 0001 UTC January 13 2006. If he edits these pages before then, the enforcement clause will apply, he may be blocked for up to one week. Like Linuxbeak, asking all admins to take note. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 03:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Tab behaviour 138.106.143.116 13:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to suggest a feature that, if used correctly, saves clicks when using Wikipedia.

The key combination Ctrl-Tab takes the user of a browser to the address field. When focus is on this field and the page browsed is Wikipedia, I feel that pressing the Tab key should move the focus to the search field. This has to do with the fact that I use the search field most frequently, but I guess that is only natural since I am looking up meanings of words in an encyclopedia.

If this feature is no good, please explain why?

This isn't quite the place to post this, but I'll quickly explain something. Ctrl-Tab is a little problematic because in tabbed browsers like Mozilla Firefox, that key combination changes tabs. In general, Tab moves you around an interface, but because you can tab around the web page, one needs a separate key combination to get out of the browser control in IE, and I guess they chose Ctrl+Tab. So, Ctrl+Tab doesn't specifically focus on the address bar - the address bar just happens to be the only other focusable control in IE. enochlau (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That may be so but you did write

    "In general, Tab moves you around an interface..."

and I think that the first component focused in that interface should be the search field.

posible problem with classic skin

Classic skin appears to be messing up image deletion. Could someone cheack if this is really the case and not just me. If you are looking for images to use as a test take a look at WP:CP. Thanks.Geni 14:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm using classic (afaik...since I haven't changed it) and had no problem deleting an image. --Syrthiss 14:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

classic is not the default. The default is monobook.Geni 14:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

ah, sorry then. :/ --Syrthiss 14:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm using classic, and I'm not having any trouble deleting images. --Carnildo 01:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo editing Wikipedia article about himself?

I hesitate to bring this us but it's all in the news this morning:

"THE FOUNDER of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales has been tinkering with his own biography to remove things he doesn’t like, and make himself the hero, it's claimed. Technology writer Rogers Cadenhead looking for a Yuletide exclusive, has been digging around the public edit logs of Wikipedia and discovered that Wales has edited his biography 18 times. Though some Wikipedia editors believe that it's always wrong to edit subjects in which you are involved, Wales does not seem to think so, claims Cadenhead. One of the things Wales didn’t like were some phrases describing former Wikipedia employee Larry Sanger as a co-founder of the site. He also tinkered with a description of a search site he founded called Bomis, which included a section with adult photos called "Bomis Babes," it's claimed. In an interview with Wired News, Wales acknowledged he's made changes to his bio, but said the edits were made to correct factual errors and provide a more rounded version of events. He said that people shouldn’t do it, including him and he wished he hadn’t as it was in poor taste." [6]

I figure this merely shows that Jimbo, like all of us, gets carried away with Wikipedia at times. Unfortunately, though, Wikipedia haters are going to use this against us. All in all, Wikipedia is going through some tough media times right now.--Alabamaboy 15:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course what is generally overlooked in the media is that I edit under my own account, widely known, and all edits were made on an equal footing with other editors, and all edits were publicly known and discussed. I regret making the edits now, because I have always thought it in poor taste to edit one's own bio, but I stand by the quality of the edits and by my conduct in the discussion of the edits. I am very sympathetic to those who find factual errors about themselves in Wikipedia, because it happens to me. It's a tough thing to sit on one's hands and do nothing but complain on the talk page, but that's what I plan to do from now on.--Jimbo Wales 15:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I also noticed that the media didn't mention the fact that you edited the article under your own name. The articles make is sound like this reporter did some amazing investigating. The truth is he merely noticed that you had nothing to hide. Ah well. Such is the media. Still, as I said Wikipedia is going through a tough media times right now.--Alabamaboy 15:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

According to Special:Mostrevisions, Jimmy Wales has been edited 1602 times (#283 on the list). So 98.876% of the edits are not by Jimbo. Seems any POV pushed would be quickly swamped! --bainer (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Not that I'm particularly worried that some POV is being pushed, but we should probably take that 98.876% with a grain of salt. I suspect that a very hefty fraction of those 1602 edits are just vandalism and reversion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable for subjects to edit their own biographies if factual errors are there. It isn't infringing the rules on autobiography (I have done it myself a few times). This is a duff story. David | Talk 17:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Jimbo editing his own userpage is totally different to Adam Curry editing the podcast article using an anonymous IP. Perhaps there should be a guideline that specifies the conditions of editing your own bio. Personally, I think there is not problem with editing your own bio as long as the community is aware who made the changes. The problem of course with this kind of media coverage is that the distinction is too nuanced for sites like the inquirer (let's not even talk about the register) to understand. I'm kind of dissapointed that Wired didn't have more of a clue, though. At the end of the day, Wikipedia might be getting a lot of bad press recently, but that doesn't seem to be harming us ;) Jacoplane 18:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I see no harm in editing your own biography if it needs editing and you adhere to Wikipedia policies. It is entirely possible to take a NPOV on at least some aspects of yourself. And hey, all publicity is good publicity. This will only make more people realize the good of Wikipedia. Cookiecaper 19:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I would think that edits to your own bio could actually be helpful. I see a lot of bio changes that are ...well... just strange. If I saw an edit like that, and noticed it was the subject of the bio that made it, then I would know at least that the subject didn't find it insulting, and I wouldn't have to research it to verify it. --ssd 08:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

RachelBrown socks

User:Zordrac/Poetlister (new discussion to resolve issues not covered so far)

A lot of information on this issue can be found here, including some quite shocking examples of use of admin to silence other people involved in the same edit war by User:SlimVirgin, as well as some very dodgy vandalism by a mysterious anonymous IP (example) who may well be a sockpuppet of one of the users involved here..:
User :Zordrac/Poetlister --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 09:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

A checkuser shows Taxwoman (talk · contribs), Poetlister (talk · contribs), Londoneye (talk · contribs), and Newport (talk · contribs) to be likely sockpuppets of RachelBrown (talk · contribs) used to unfairly stack debates; they have been blocked. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What evidence is there that they were used to unfairly stack debates? I thought that "AFD is not a vote" therefore making such a claim irrelevant. It should be logic, not numbers, that wins through. From what I can gather, they edited totally different articles, had different views, and on just a handful of occasions had similarity with votes - less than 5 AFDs. Thus if there is abuse, it is very technical in nature, and an indefinite block is, to put it mildly, an exaggeration. It is very difficult to WP:AGF under these circumstances, especially considering the complaint against 2 admins posed by Poetlister. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

(Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sock check)

How has this been "proven"? You say "likely", but it was established elsewhere that the two are real-life friends... Are ALL edits from the same IP or just a few? It could just be that maybe some edits were made while round the same house, college, university or workplace

I have copied this message for administrator eyes, left on Mindspillage's talk page:

I feel I should join in here, I have been having conversations with these people separately and there is no way that Poetlister, RachelBrown or Londoneye are the same person. While it may be true that they support each other in disputes (Rachel's flatmate did revert on the British jewish page, once logged in on Rachel's account, but otherwise correctly logged out showing as an ip) I don't feel a block is justified at all. Arniep 01:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

--Mistress Selina Kyle 02:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel I should point out here that the user who is protesting these claims seems to know clearly how CheckUser works, because s/he demanded that it be used on me when their user page was vandalised shortly after I commented on a personal attack they made against me, so any claims of not understanding how it works are untrue. --Kiand 02:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Can you clarify which user you are talking about. Me? Yes, I know how CheckUser works, as it was explained to me previously, a couple of times, and I even asked the admin who had CheckUser priveleges how it works. I don't know who else you might be talking about though, as I was the one who first made the protest about this action. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No, not you. Mistress Serena Kyle, who I notice from talk page comments, went as far as to remove the sockpuppet notice demanding "proof" as if they didn't know how CheckUser worked. --Kiand 09:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, then either they were engaging in vandalism or else don't know how CheckUser works. Note that CheckUser isn't something that is obvious to new users. Took me a good week of investigation to find out what it went through. Nonetheless, she is right that there is no proof that they are sock puppets. If there was, it would be presented on a public page somewhere. This has not been done. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

These people are friends (in the UK) who have sometimes supported each other in article disputes or voted the same way in vfds, but actually I think thats a pretty normal thing for friends to do? If it is prohibited for friends to have similar beliefs or to give their opinion in a dispute that a friend has been having it should be stated that friends should avoid voting in the same vfds or joining in the same disputes. All these people have made positive edits and I think it is a pretty bad injustice to continue these blocks. Arniep 02:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Even as friends versus sockpuppet accounts, they would be called "Meatpuppets". See WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets for the relevant description. Basically, meatpuppets act like sockpuppets, even if they are the same person, and the arbitrators, along with most admins, treat meatpuppets the same as sockpuppets. --Deathphoenix 14:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless of course the meatpuppets are on their side, and then they describe them as the "community". -- Grace Note.

Yes, but there is no evidence that they actually acted in the same manner as each other. If you view their contributions, they very rarely combined with each other, and did not make a significant difference when they did. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The checkuser shows that the accounts shared several different IPs; combined with the editing patterns and other evidence revealed in confidence, it's convincing enough to block. If there's a better explanation, my email box is open to hear from the affected user(s). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please can you provide this evidence publicly, as its accuracy is being heavily disputed here. There is quite a lot of evidence that they could not theoretically be the same person, such as the evidence that User:RachelBrown last edited on 10 December 2005, that they edited at the same times and so forth. It is possible that they all use the same ISP service, and that their IP addresses circle through. I am sure that there are several thousand Wikipedia editors who have at one point in time used the same IP address as me, because mine cycles, so does that make them all my sock puppets? It is a great stretch of the imagination, and, as stated elsewhere, the circumstances of this make it highly suspicious. This evidence needs to be made public. I ask that all blocks be overturned immediately pending a thorough investigation in to the matter, and to enable the affected users to participate in appropriate RfCs, RfArs et al that concerned them, which is a large part of the issue here. The link between these users is about as tentative as the link that Lulu of the Lotus Eaters, SlimVirgin and yourself are all the same person, just because you occasionally overlap with opinions. It is, in other words, a nonsense claim. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

CheckUser information can not and should not be made public. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom decisions should be though, and its a lot more than just "are they the same IP?" Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I have reviewed the evidence in this case, and agree with the conclusion reached by Mindspillage. Either all of these editors are the same person, or several people all of whom share the same workplace, residence, and (apparently) a single computer. There is one point in the log where in the course of nine minutes three distinct accounts edited from the same IP, and multiple instances of two distinct accounts editing from the same IP within the space of two to five minutes. We've only heard one flatmate suggested; am I to believe that there are three (or more) people all sharing the same workplace and residence, the same obsession with the same topic, and who carefully coordinate their edits so as never to interleave them? No, the most probable conclusion is that this is a single person. Any other conclusion multiplies entities unnecessarily. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Very bad conclusions there. My understanding is that User:RachelBrown and User:Poetlister are friends, although I gather that they do not live together (they might, I don't know), but they do visit each other. The "IP address" that you refer to is RachelBrown's IP, which was published once because she forgot to log back in, or Wikipedia accidentally logged her out. I shall clarify this for you to avoid confusion. User:81.153.41.72 is the IP that belongs to User:RachelBrown. User:Poetlister visits RachelBrown regularly, and they likely used the same computer. Thus, it is quite likely that these "3" users (really 2 people) may have got on to the same computer. Just to explain this a bit more explicitly here for people who are confused - Rachel Brown was logged in when Giselle (Poetlister - her name does not seem to be Lisa) asked to log in and have a go. Then afterwards Rachel Brown wanted to have a go, but for some reason Wikipedia didn't log her in properly. This is the very obvious explanation which had already previously been explained at the time that it happened. There was no sock puppetry as they never once pretended that the IP address did not belong to RachelBrown. All edits by that IP address were made by RachelBrown. Am I to understand it that it is illegal for an editor to ever accidentally log out? Or is it illegal for an editor to be friends with another Wikipedia editor? As for the other 3, it has been explained to me that Londoneye was Rachel Brown's cousin and may have visited her once or twice, and may have used Wikipedia whilst editing. The other two don't know Rachel Brown other than that they used to know each other at University. I suspect that they just happen to use the same ISP, as if they went to university together then they probably live in the same area. I think that you would agree that all using the same ISP is not a crime. It also should be noted that the above user, User:Kelly Martin is not neutral to this case. Indeed, she was the person to whom User:SlimVirgin made the request to have these people banned. See here: User_talk:Kelly_Martin#User-check_request. Thus Kelly Martin is an inappropriate person to make a review, as she likely simply told Mindspillage to ban them all. Indeed, it seems that Mindspillage's involvement was simply as messenger, as she seems to have no idea of the underlying problems surrounding this. Checking their contributions for the 5 users in question, RachelBrown (talk · contribs), Poetlister (talk · contribs), Londoneye (talk · contribs), Taxwoman (talk · contribs) and Newport (talk · contribs) they edited vastly different topics and acted in completely different, often opposing ways to each other, with no coordination whatsoever. Whilst Poetlister and RachelBrown did occasionally support each other, it was not consistent, and it is incorrect to state that they acted as "one voice". The IP address belonging to RachelBrown did act as "one voice" with RachelBrown, but that should not be a surprise, since RachelBrown was just kicked off Wikipedia a few times. Any other claims about them acting as "one voice" are blatantly false. I have reviewed every edit made by all 5 users, and I encourage everyone else to do the same. Indeed, Taxwoman (talk · contribs)'s edits were so vastly different to that of RachelBrown's that they could more accurately be described as enemies. The exception, however, is that they at one point in time clearly did call each other on the phone to ask each other to vote on the various Jewish lists, something which was likely organised by Rachel Brown. Thus, for those specific AFDs there is a possibility of meat puppeting. Thus, these Jewish lists should be relisted for deletion, with the 5 user names forbidden from voting. I think that this would be an appropriate result. I would also ask you to investigate matters properly in the future, as you seem to have made some grave errors in this case. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You are strongly cautioned not to assume bad faith like this. I did not "order" Mindspillage to do anything; I don't have the authority to do so, and Mindspillage would simply ignore me if I tried to order her to do anything. I did not originally act on SlimVirgin's request (being otherwise occupied), nor did I review the evidence involved until Mindspillage asked me to. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Please elaborate on "strongly cautioned". Are you threatening to ban me for trying to expose the truth of what is going on? I would like you to elaborate on this so that I can take it further if you are. Oh, and no, I was not wrong. Remember no weasel words in edit summaries. See WP:CIVIL. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• To sum the evidence:

1. The accounts shared several different IPs (This really needs clarifying to be meaningful)
2. All the accounts have made very different contributions to Wikipedia, except that some have made an occasional edit to one particular page
3. Many have similar user pages, and seem to puport be similar kinds of people (ie young British females)

This doesn't come close to being grounds for blocking under Wikipedia:Blocking policy, and I've unblocked at once. Dan100 (Talk) 22:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• If we assumed good faith, as the admins in question order others to do, we would assume they were simply young women who knew each other and sometimes used the same PC to edit WP. We would all move on. The "debates" that were "stacked" will be fixed some other way. The people involved don't lose "debates" because they have far too many friends they can call on if they look like they will. So let's leave the accounts in question unblocked, let Slim and Lulu actually prove the merits of their case regardless how many sockpuppets oppose them, because if they're right, they're right and as Zordrac says, we don't decide who's right by numbers, right? And everyone have a happy Christmas. Or whatever you celebrate. If anything. If not, I wish you happiness anyway. -- Grace Note.

• I'd prefer accuracy to greetings. Slim and Lulu have no case the merits of which they need to prove. There's an insanity to this situation, because there is no issue, is no case, is no dispute, and these accounts (two of them anyway) are clearly sock puppets. For reasons best know to him or herself, the operator of the account is pretending to be involved in a dispute, so someone is playing silly buggers, and all I know is it's not me and it's not Lulu; beyond that I neither know nor care. Please check your facts before commenting, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop mentioning my name all over the site, regardless of whether I'm involved in a situation or not. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hm. First off, Kelly didn't order me to do anything. (As a volunteer I don't suppose I can really be ordered to do anything, but sometimes people ask me to do specific things&mdashsuch as looking into potentially problematic situations—that I have volunteered to do in general, and I usually agree to do so.) Someone else asked me (in private, so as not to be harassed) to look at the relevant evidence to see if I thought that it suggested sockpuppets. Their IP evidence (for which the specifics are private) very strongly suggested it, and their all weighing in those AfDs was thus against policy, so I placed the block. (Yes, I am aware the rest of their editing is on different topics: that doesn't necessarily mean anything.) When it was questioned from multiple sources, I asked Kelly to sanity check by reviewing the evidence to see if I had been too hasty, but instead she concurred with it. There's not much more I can say about it; I have no interest in the dispute, and none of the accounts have contacted me to either question or protest. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Multiple Personal Attack Violations Against Several Editors

[Note: The following wildly-out-of-context quotes are from a lying, convicted, and subsequently confessed sockpuppeteer whose sole purpose in life appears to be to instigate trouble. See User:Tommstein/Retcon-Missionary Sockpuppet Evidence for more.]Tommstein 08:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal Attack Violations for User Tommstein contrib relating to three areas of No Personal Attacks Policy

• Negative personal comments & "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."

“stop giving pubescent 15-year olds administrative powers”

"half a day has been pissed away because of administrator laziness"

“punk”

“revert ignorance”

“demonstrating him to be full of crap”

"you're just flinging crap all over the walls"

“Cairoi's dumbass threat”

"Just for asking that dumbass ad hominem question"

“Stupidity is not a defense”

"idiotic, factless, rambling"

"some kind of a degenerate"

• Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult.

“Watchtower Society has told them they are to think is just some stupid dumbass”

“refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as 'ignorant numbnuts'”

"part of your religious shunning bullcrap"

"Go find some old lady to preach to that you can try to abuse into submission like a good Jehovah's Witness, or kick your dog, or beat your wife or kids or something"

• Profanity directed against another contributor

“bastard”

”numbnut”

More examples available upon request — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.40.198 (talk • contribs) 16:18, December 21, 2005 (UTC)

User:Jtdirl

This admin has been most unfair to me; I previously posted a single piece of vandalism, and was indefintely blocked (later changed to 48 hours), see Special:Contributions/84.9.73.251. I came back after my ban (changed to 48 hours) and posted an edit to show that I was back to be helpful (see contributions), and then left a message for jtdril effectively questioning whether he could really have thought my rather light hearted edit summary could really have been considered "[an] implication that [I] engage in sexual abuse, may leave [me] liable to police investigation and criminal prosecution.". For this alone, I was almost immediately blocked again (or at least my previous ip was), for "legal claims". Surely, if anyone, it is jtdril that has been making "legal claims". How on earth is a "vandal" supposed to reform when one gets this sort of treatment? And I wouldn't be suprised if jtdril's actions are endorsed for this, while this ip gets banned for "circumventing a ban" or similar nonsense, but I would at least like a proper sort of justification. 84.9.93.27 00:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

While "defamatory claims" (from the IP talk page) is certaintly the wrong description, jtdirl explains his reasoning here. Given that and the message left with the block, I wonder why the ip edit hasn't been deleted. I think it also would've been helpful if jtdirl had briefly explained that reason before someone else asked, as the explaination isn't necessarily obvious. --Mairi 01:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I am impressed that an anonymous editor with only three edits in total–including the complaint above–was able to correctly assemble such a thorough defacement of Trials of Saddam Hussein, including modification/replacement of several images and correct wikisyntax throughout. Use of an edit summary (I LIKE TO WANK SMALL BOYS - YES I DO - I LIKE TO PLAY WITH THEIR WILLIES) is also commended.

I would like to extend congratulations to the many editors who have assembled and refined our documentation and help pages over the years. If a new user is able to assimilate such advanced techniques so rapidly, the transparency and ease-of-use of our editing tools must be truly incredible. Worthy of mention as well is the anon's ability to find this page for his complaint, and his ability to use a correctly-formed Special:Contributions wikilink on it. Obviously our dispute resolution guidelines are extremely clear and concise.

Such a talented and fast-learning editor should be able to find more productive outlets for his expertise, and will no doubt appreciate that our administrators are very busy and have other urgent concerns. He will surely understand that refraining from doing dumb things in the future is an excellent way to avoid further blocks.

No cookie this evening? A snack for Jtdirl.

Because I suspect that Jtdirl's second block may have been the result of a slightly twitchy blocking finger, I am sending Jtdirl to bed without a cookie this evening. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you, now? All right, here's a little snack for Jtdirl. The absence of any smidgeon of regret for the "single piece of vandalism" (how nugatory it sounds) in the post above is interesting. Bishonen | talk 02:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

How is it interesting? Why should I regret it? If I am to be punished, why should I regret it? Surely if I truely regretted it then there would be no point in punishment. BTW, this claim is absolutely not a notice of intent to recommence vandalising (this needs emphasing in case of more twitchiness).

(and, btw, I am philisophically against regretting things, as I consider life a learning experience; I would go into more detail, but as you chaps know, wikipedia is not a sounding board....) 84.9.93.27 02:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

An experienced editor like yourself probably knows that Wikipedia is philosophically opposed to the notion of "punishment"; that wasn't why you were blocked. I used the word "interesting" as a civil euphemism for "displeasing". And that was when I assumed you did regret it, but merely omitted to say so through social ineptness. Now that you've informed me you don't, I'd use stronger words. Bishonen | talk 02:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I am going to assume good faith and assume that is your real reason for using this, in which case I again point you to my philisophical objection to regretting anything. I must go to bed now, but I shall be pleased to respond in the morning. 84.9.93.27 02:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your sarcasm, but I made no claim of being a new user - I am indeed an experienced editor, albeit an exclusively anonymous one. However, let me state for the record that I have nothing at all to do with the bear fellow. Anyway, I wasn't so much complaining about the initial block, which made sense, so much as the one for making a "legal claim" - I still don't get this point. 84.9.93.27 01:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I take back the "most unfair" thing, I see how there may have seemed to have been a link, but I still don't see my statements as "legal" (other than them being, er, legal) 84.9.93.27 01:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. 84.9.93.27, you're just making Jtdirl look like he was justified in coming down hard on you. So, if that was your objective, congratulations. karmafist 20:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked User:84.9.93.27 for one month for vandalism, trolling and disruption. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Fucking unbelievable ... --84.68.154.13 10:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Melt-Down / User Access DENIED

What is going on ? Almost all site functions cause this site to either freeze up or refuse access to Users. Just got BACK online.Martial Law 06:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, the database was locked for maintenance, or at least that was the message I was getting--Aolanonawanabe 07:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Now I can no longer access other Users, now what is going on ? Tried to access User:Dreamguy just now. All I got was a red mess. Martial Law 10:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC) :( Wikipedia says there is no user w/ this designation. Had access two minutes ago.Martial Law 10:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Indirect access is still possible.Martial Law 10:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You may need to bypass your browser cache, try Ctrl+F5 to force it to reload from server. enochlau (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Singapore Police Force

This was just posted to my talk page by User:160.96.200.18 in reply to a request left at User talk:160.96.200.19 as to why the logo was being removed. The Huai_Wei referred to is user User:Huaiwei. We have both been reverting the logo here until earlier whenit was replaced with a picture from the commons. Any comments?

I refer to your comment dated 21 Dec on the above subject.

I am writing on behalf of my organisation, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) with regards to your webpage posting on the SPF's history. We noted that there were no requests seeking consent for the use of our SPF crest for use on this website. All requests to use the SPF crest will have to be submitted formally, either via our webmaster or in writing, to the head of the organisation. Each request will be assessed on a case basis.

We have previously written to Huai_Wei (the initial publisher of this wiki) on 24 Nov, informing him of the unauthorised use of image (i.e. SPF crest) and likely, information from our publications. We did not receive any acknowledgement to date. We are in the process of checking the content posted on the history of the SPF in your website to see if there are any infringement of published information that is copyrighted.

We will be seeking our legal counsel's advice regarding the unauthorised used of our corporate logo and information published by the SPF. While we acknowledge and appreciate the interest in our organisation's rich heritage, and the promotion of such knowledge in the interest of both academic and personal research, we believe that the individuals who sought to use such information should responsibly seek clearance and consent for use accordingly. Until such time, please refrain from posting the SPF crest on the website.

Regards

Public Affairs Dept

Singapore Police Force

CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, at the minimum there should have been a contact address (e.g. email). In any case, the current pic shows the logo as part of a building, and I believe this is OK copyrightwise, although I am not sure about the laws in Singapore. -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer and do not wish to become involved in this situation, but logos are considered fair use under U.S. law, and the servers are hosted in the U.S. I'm pretty sure they can't restrict people from publishing a photo of their building with their logo once it's been taken. You should probably forward this to Danny, who if I remember correctly, asked that all mailings dealing with legal issues be forwarded to him so that the appropriate people can take care of it. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to clarify, that the logo in question was actually Image:Singapore Police Force Logo.png, which I uploaded on wikipedia claiming fairuse of a logo, although I was unsure if it infringes on Singaporean copyright laws. The logo was displayed in the said article on 18 November 2004 [7]. On 11 November 2005, I sent an email to the SPF to make an enquiry on an unrelated matter. A few emails were exchanged, asking me for which publication I was making my enquiry for. On 22 November 2005, an anon deleted the logo wih no comment left [8], and I subsequently reverted it on the same day thinking it was an act of vandalism [9]. On 24 November, I received an email from the SPF informing me that they have removed the logo due to alleged infringement of copyright, as well as issuing a warning over the unauthorised use of "any images, text and statistics from the Singapore Police Force website and all its publications". Unsure if I had indeed infringed on any copyright, I left the article as it is, and went about seeking a replacement to resolve the issue. No message was ever writtern in wikipedia informing others over the copyright infringement issue, and I admit my lapse in bringing the issue to the attention of others.

Hence almost a month later on 21 December 2005, another anon removed the logo once again [10], resulting in a series of revert warring between the same anon and User:CambridgeBayWeather [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. Finally on 22 December 2005, I ended the edit warring by replacing the disputed the logo with a self-taken image instead [18]. Only when this happen, did the anon finally left a message on the article's talkpage, as well as in CambridgeBayWeather's talk page a few hours after I replaced the logo [19]. Responses to the above message has been made in the respective article's talkpage expressing our intentions to act on any violations of copyright laws.--Huaiwei 13:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Attack of the Rugby Hooligans

There is apparently a concerted effort at the chat forums of http://www.planet-rugby.com to continually vandalize Wikipedia. A post to that forum, dated 12/21/05, entitled "Attn: Girv Gang", calls for comments on Talk:Girvan Dempsey. The articles edited by these folks invariably add nothing but POV text -- either in the form of effusive praise (which may possibly be "taking the piss") or in the form of direct attacks -- to a pre-existing stub about a rugby player. The same post calls for the continual recreation of the Planet Rugby and/or the Planet Rugby Chat Forum article, which was deleted by consensus (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planet Rugby Chat Forum). The text of the deleted article was pasted into the Planet Rugby forum for easier re-creation.

Articles targeted thus far:

• Caleb Ralph [20]
• Girvan Dempsey [21]
• Peter Stringer [22] [23]
• Al Baxter [24]
• Chris Latham [25]

Users apparently associated with Planet Rugby:

• User:Sam Kekovich
• User:Peter Stringer
• User:Girvan Dempsey
• User:Girvan the Swerve
• A brace of anonymous IPs

Currently, the Planet Rugby and Planet Rugby Chat Forum articles are protected and have a big ol' {{deleted}} template slapped on 'em. I'm a little unsure about how to deal with the rest of the mess. My gut instinct is to protect all the articles currently targeted by these folks until they get bored and go away, but I have not yet done so. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 11:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this doesn't look like vandalism to me. This looks much more like newbies not knowing how Wikipedia works. Protecting the deleted pages was a good move. It solves the recreation problem without fuss. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so sure[26]. It looks to be over but if not it might be worth trying a bit of diplomacy.Geni 18:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Maybe I've been living under a rock for the last couple of hours, but I just realized that Semi-Protection of articles has finally been enabled. Since I didn't see an official announcement anywhere and more or less accidentally stumbled over the new feature, I thought it might be a good idea to drop a note here and let everybody in on the fun. Relevant policy page is at WP:SEMI, all our high-profile vandal magnets seem to be semi-protected already -- Ferkelparade π 12:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

According to the mailing list, it not entirely functional yet, in that new users aren't blocked from editing (anonymous contributors are, however). --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 14:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

From my tests, it looks like it's preventing new users from editing semi-protected pages (list here). --Interiot 08:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Something is dreadfully wrong here

I just noticed that my account already has pagemove permisions, except I only registered my account about 30 minutes ago, the waitlist for pagemove permissions seems to have vanished, probably after the last server crash, perhaps someone wants to recreate the waitlist before other people notice this, the vandals could have a field day with this bug--1 use 17:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• If I am not mistaken, it is based on a specific percentage of the number of users who are new, rather than an actual time limit. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• This is presumably a side-effect of requiring people to create accounts to create new articles - many more accounts per day. Unless someone knows better. Rd232 ^talk 21:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No, he's right. Earlier on December 22, pagemove was available immediately after registration, which Guillermo_con_sus_ruedas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) took advantage of. It seems to have been a software misconfiguration issue, and has hopefully been fixed now. -- Curps 08:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Wrongfully accused of vandalism

I had technical difficulties with my computer that would delete sections of the King Kong (2005 film) article every time I would try to edit, which I did not intend. All I tried to do was move an image. My edits should not be considered vandalism, as the changes other than the image placement alteration aforementioned were completely accidental. Eliezer, an administrator, wrongfully accused me of vandalism and left a warning message. I apologize for the confusion. --24.253.120.206 12-22-05

Thanks for the note. You should probably be very careful in your edits then, knowing that you are having a technical issue. I would reccomend also using the Preview function before you post an edit, to make sure that the edit will not have any unintended effects. Thanks, and please do continue contributing. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 21:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Dreamguy

My one and only complaint against this user is this:

I had set up in the Article:Bigfoot a section indicating where readers and others should go to if they have seen these things. Already one Wikipedian has reported one encounter with this thing. All it stated is this: "REPORTING A BIGFOOT (section title) Those who have seen/encountered this creature should go to a reputable Bigfoot website, data site to report the encounter." User:Dreamguy says that is "nonsense" in the Edit Summary section. How can this be "nonsense" ? Millions read Wikipedia, and how many of these people are using it to find a means to report a encounter with paranormal phenomena ?Martial Law 22:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Content disputes should be discussed on the article talk page. Friday (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

My complaint has been settled. Appreciate the assisstance.Martial Law 23:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Possible plagiarism by newspaper

I ran across what may be plagiarism by a newspaper entertainment reporter of a good chunk of a Wikipedia article. In an article in the Honolulu Star Bulletin ("'243' is horrific Aloha flight story" by Tim Ryan, dated December 22, 2005) a solid 138 of Ryan's 456 words (30%) appear to be nearly identical to our article on Aloha Flight 243.

I've put together a side-by-side comparison of the remarkably similar sections at User:TenOfAllTrades/Aloha Dupe. The passages in our article were added by at least four separate editors over a five-month period, so I consider it unlikely that the Star Bulletin reporter is reusing his own work. The last duplicated section was added to Wikipedia six months ago–in May of this year–suggesting that our article is the original source. (A quick search reveals no other online content from which both authors might have drawn the passages in question.)

I have a few requests.

• Please don't send angry frothing emails to the Star Bulletin until we've figured out what we want to do here.
• Is there a plausible alternate explanation? (Is our article 'clean'?)
• How should we handle this? Whom should we contact, and who will be our spokesperson?
• Have we run across this phenomenon before, and how was it handled? How did it work out? Should we (or do we already?) have a standardized process?

Comments or suggestions? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Posibly a shared PD source but I doubt it somewhat.Geni 23:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Should we maybe be offended that they only used 30 percent? Is our writing no better than that??? Wahkeenah 23:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The very POINT of Wikpedia is to inform as many as possible. We should THANK him for helping us inform as many as possible and ask if perhaps he might help even more by mentioning us as one of his sources. WAS 4.250 23:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand the definition of plagiarism? — Dan | talk 23:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The article is not realeased under the GFDL and does not give credit as requied by the GFDL.Geni 23:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

If they use our material, by the GFDL, the have to credit The Project. Their failure to do so is a violation of our copyright here. That they copied material, period, is a shocking lack of journalistic integrity that needs to be called on as a service to the readers of that paper and the paper itself, which is the bigger deal, frankly. The editors of this paper must be contacted, so that they can look into the author of the article. And if they willfully participated in this, then some other media need to be informed. Ten, since you cought it, I think you should put together an email with what you have cought and email the editors and see what happens. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with plagiariam; rather it's a straightforward copyright matter. A polite email to the newspaper telling them that they can use our copyright material freely subject to the GFDL would be enough. Possibly a sub-editor or reporter has copied our text without acknowledgement, in which case a bit of re-education is in order. But it's also possible that one of the authors of our piece submitted his own work to the newspaper and to us--which he's perfectly entitled to do as far as the GFDL is concerned. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with plagiariam. Uh, no, it's exactly plagiarism: copying material without attribution and passing it off as one's own, and copyright status or licensing or other hoo-hah is utterly immaterial to that act. And in the (in my opinion) unlikely case of Ryan having written it an contributed it to Wikipedia -- well, it's not his to contribute, it's the Star Bulletin's. --Calton | Talk 08:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

At least fourthree editors contributed to the duplicated material in the Wikipedia article. (One of those was an IP, so there might only be threetwo unique editors.) Unless they're socks of the same meatspace person, I would tend to discount the theory that the same person wrote both the Star Bulletin story and the Wikipedia entry. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I've notified Jimbo of this thread, per a suggestion from Jeffrey Gustafson. If there's worthwhile PR mileage to be had from this incident, there's nothing wrong with going for it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

What is the evidence it is not covered by "fair use"? Copyright only covers acts of creativity. Not any old bland putting together of facts. What creative use of language do you assert was apropriated? And why do you feel it is not covered under fair use? WAS 4.250 03:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

"Fair use" normally requires proper attribution, precisely what is lacking here. DES ^(talk) 08:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

On the theory that a writer is never caught for their first act of plagarism, I went googling on other Tim Ryan stories, and found one where he apparently lifted 5 paragraphs from a Sacremento Bee story. This has be added to TenOfAllTrade's dupe page. Dragons flight 06:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

To not inform the editors of these transgressions provides an extreme disservice to the paper, the people that have been plagiarized, and the people of Hawaii that read that paper. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

First stop, Ryan's editor at the Star-Bulletin; second, maybe a letter to Romenesko (an American media-watcher's website)? --Calton | Talk 08:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Taking a tip from Dragons flight, I found stuff about Queensland (from about-australia.com) used to pad a travel article. I found multiple sources for the text, which seems to be from some Queensland government factsheet. Not a great transgression, but you're still supposed to credit sources for verbatim or near-verbatim 'grafs. --Calton | Talk 14:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Why not contact the author directly and see what he says? There may be another side of the story we are unaware of. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that some of the other stories are verbatim (or near-verbatim) extracts from a press release that both writers were given, rather than copying of the other writers' work. While such behaviour is lazy and dishonest and does a disservice to the reader, it's seen by many journalists as 'acceptable' plagiarism.

The last story–about cellist Matt Haimovitz–is very troubling if it was lifted straight from NPR. Unless it was Ryan who did the interview for NPR, there would seem to be something funny about the telephone interview he describes in his article.

What would we ask him? And is there a good reason not to cc: his editor on it anyway? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, we could write and point out that we noticed the similarities in writing, and ask him to comment. If his reply is unsatisfactory, then we could check with his editor. It's always good to get the "other side" to the story; we could be missing something here, for all we know. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

For the purposes of continuing this discussion in a single location, I suggest making any additional comments at User talk:TenOfAllTrades/Aloha Dupe. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

vandalism at Islamic Human Rights Commission

I don't agree with admin Ulayiti's decision to handle the ongoing edit war at Islamic Human Rights Commission as content dispute, I feel it's vandalism by 86.130.63.21 and should be handled as such. --tickle me 01:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:POV Cleanup

The POV disputes list is immense and just skimming, many are old and already resolved disputes... would I be stepping on toes forming a project to clean it up? -- Jbamb 00:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• No, you would likely be barnstarred. Excellent idea. Radiant_>|< 01:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikistalking personal attacks and sockpuppet slander

Yuber is calling me "chaosfeary" in every edit he makes to me and every time I make an edit he doesn't agree with he pulls on his friends to start revert wars.

He seems to think I'm a sockpuppet and has got Jayjg to do a user check (without asking for my permission or respecting my privacy at all..) which proved I wasn't.

Can someone please tell him to stop him to stop following me around making stupid allegations? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I never got Jayjg to do a "user check" on you, but I did request one on Chaosfeary's account to see whether or not he was Enviroknot, and this was all a long time ago. I think you're confusing your own accounts here.Yuber^(talk) 02:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

your friend anonymous editor and Katefan0 did though. Jayjg is all too happy to use his admin powers to violate others' privacy for you and your mates it seems.

And yes, please stop the stupid baseless whining or you won't have a foot to stand on if I make personal attacks back at you. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 04:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

If you start making personal attacks, I'll block you regardless of what Yuber's doing. I may block him as well, but that's beside the point. --Carnildo 08:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Just butting in here. Jayjg did ask for a CheckUser on whether or not you and Chaosfeary were the same user, and the conclusion was that you were not. You should ask User:Jayjg to comment further, I have misplaced where I saw that listed. Jayjg is not against you in this, and in fact proved your innocence. There is no reason to attack him. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Liel copy & paste merge to Liel Kolet

Liel had some two edits before this. I know copy & paste moves are generally frowned upon, but in this case I am not sure what needs to be done, if anything. Would appreciate an admin's assistance. Thanks pfctdayelise 02:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Copy and paste moves are very frowned on since the history is lost. On the other hand, copy and paste is pertty much how merges have to be done. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a trick to merge edit histories though.Geni

This was talked about yesterday, and Liel Kolet was the more appropriate article. No problems since Liel is still there as a likely redirect unless i'm mistaken.karmafist 04:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

karmafist, I am not complaining about the move being made. I have no opinion about that at all. I am checking if something needs to be undone/redone by an admin to preserve the page history to comply with GFDL. pfctdayelise 04:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Gotcha, I'll check it now, although making a page into a redirect doesn't do anything to edit histories. karmafist 04:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There we go.[27] karmafist 05:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

... so, in this case (since the redirect will carry its own history) it's sufficient to simply merge. There should be a reference to the pre-redirect history of the other article from the composite article's history (it's sufficient to note this on the talk page). If one of them were being deleted, the story is different (procedure is described at Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves). -- Rick Block (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have fixed this. All edits on the topic of the musician have been moved to Liel Kolet. Liel is now a historyless redirect, and thus not a cause for concern if it needs to become a disambiguation page later. Please refer other incidents like this to the Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:42, Dec. 23, 2005

Template:User democrat

Ok guys, we've got a minor issue. There's been an rfc on the template above at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Democrat userbox, consensus was reached, but today a few people have been ignoring it. Can we get some assistance here? Copyright isn't an issue since it's a promotional image. karmafist 04:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Special:Unwatchedpages updated hourly

Avar has set this to update hourly. The only way we are going to see items further down alphabetically is to watch all of the earlier items. So please, watch them, even if you don't know anything about them, especially if they've only had 1 edit in the last 6 months. You'll never notice them on your watchlist (unless, most likely, they're vandalized). — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-23 04:33

Closing Old Vfd

The vote of GH avisualagency™ finished a while ago but no one has closed it - it was raised here yesterday but seems to have disappeared - can someone who knows how to close these votes deal with this? It was heavily infested with sock-puppets but the clean vote seemed to be to vote for deletion. Thanks Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 09:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

on it --Doc ^ask? 09:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Annihilated with prejudice --Doc ^ask? 09:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

How to deal with self-repairing vandals?

Every once in a while, I see a pair of edits from a new user, in which garbage is added to an article, the quickly removed by the same user. For example, [28]. What's the best way to deal with that? Hitting them with a {{test}} doesn't seem right, since they've already cleaned up their own mess. Just give them a {{welcome}} and let it go at that? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Exterminate! (revert the vandalism warn the vandal, repeating offensises are punishable by blocks)--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Some vandals think they can get away with vandalism if they vandalise wikipedia nd cleanup after themselves. It falls under both WP:POINT and WP:Vandalism. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Just ignore it. What's happening here is that people are saying "wow, can I really make edits?" and then realise "oh, bugger, yes, I can" and get embarrased and remove it. They've already realised they did wrong, so no need to tell them not to. If they keep doing it, that's another matter. Morwen - Talk 16:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

If you really want to drop something on their talk page, we've got {{selftest}}. —Cryptic (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• If you drop a scrap of paper on the sidewalk, and then pick it up and put it in the trashbin, should you still be hassled about it? If you think so, then...
• Threaten to boil them in oil. Then cheerfully remind them that the oily boid catches the woim and revoits. 0:) Wahkeenah 16:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• My personal opinion is to ignore it. I guess that the only possible reason to take it further is if you are concerned that it might be picked up in the edit history sometime later. If so, then perhaps delete it from the edit summary. Depends on how bad the vandalism is and if its something that could have legal repercussions. (Note: Seigenthaler etc). But ordinarily, ignore. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'd agree with Cryptic here. If you want to let them know in a friendly way that yes, we saw that, use {{selftest}}. More stern warnings would be appropriate if they're obviously repeat offenders or if they've left something particularly nasty in the edit summary field. As Morwen says, usually it's just someone who can't actually believe we would let just anyone edit Wikipedia—and someone who is mortified to discover that we really do. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to drop a note here that I have occassionally seen a vandal insert a bunch of trash and then remove most of it, in what might be an attempt to sneak vandalism in past the RC patrollers. So one does need to be careful in watching these in and out vandals as well. Dragons flight 21:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• It's probably best to just ignore it the first time, or maybe put a "selftest" template on the user's page. Get "tougher" if repeat offenses occur from the same user. *Dan T.* 21:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Am I the only one that thinks the answer is obvious? Say something on their talk page and then IMMEDIATELY revert what you did on their talk page:) Or ignore it (don't you have better things to do?) WAS 4.250 22:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:82.19.186.45

User:MARMOT's IP indef blocked, I suspect its a shared IP. Since MARMOT himself is unblocked, much to my regret, I do not believe the indef block on that ip is necesarry. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have shortened it from an indef. block since indef. blocks are against policy, the current block will expire on January 1, 2600. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 17:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

MARMOT is unblocked, and it may be a shared IP...why would we block for 594 years, 8 days, 2 hours, and 9 minutes? Ral315 (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

IP addresses should never be blocked long-term (apart from open proxies) - even "static" IPs get re-assigned. That's why the blocking policy says what it says. Dan100 (Talk) 23:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

IP

Can you tell me please the IP of user:ßonaparte? -- Bonaparte talk 16:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That would be a violation of checkuers policy and wikipedia's privacy policies. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 17:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Same for your attempts here to get the IP of the Node_ue impersonator. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 17:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I just want to be sure that was not Node ue. He comes from Arizona. Can this be checked please? Bonaparte talk 17:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

From what I gather from the discussion it has been checked by a person with checkuser and it isn't node_ue, your just going to trust whoever did the checking's word on it. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 17:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I am interested to know the area from where is the IP. It may be very well from Arizona and this may be an evidence. -- Bonaparte talk 17:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Can be checked if IP of user:ßonaparte is from the Arizona area?

If it is against policy to reveal the IP adresse can someone tell me if that IP of user:ßonaparte is from Arizona area? Because if it is it may be the hand of a certain user. -- Bonaparte talk 17:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do you care? What does it matter? Userpages get vandalised all the time, we just revert and block if appropriate. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Because I have to know. If it is from the person who I suspect it is I can start the procedure to block that user account. -- Bonaparte talk 21:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You already have your answer: it was not the user you would like to believe it was. Let it go; this is looking like harrassment. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hacking?

I noticed that someone recently used my account to vandalize Jimbo Wales' user page, and create an article called Wikipedia is Poop. Is my account being hacked? Macintosh User 16:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a bad idea to change your password. Also, if you have an e-mail address entered in preferences, change the password of that as well. Ral315 (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, if it's someone at your own place who's using your browser, you might want to turn off the "Remember me" option when logging in to Wikipedia. --Deathphoenix 22:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

If you've logged in recently on a public computer (eg an internet cafe) your details might have been captured by a keylogger. Rd232 ^talk 23:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Beware the Stanek

Robert Stanek has found Wikipedia, woe is us. He's a (self/small-press)-published author who's written a bunch of generic fantasy novels such as Ruin Mist (along with some computer-related non-fiction).

He's slightly (in)famous for what some people claim is the use of sockpuppets to prop-up his Amazon reviews (e.g., see: [29]), along with some mysterious reviews that appear of other, much more popular fantasy books, that in effect, say, "A wonderful book in the tradition of the giants of fantasy fiction, like Tolkein, George R.R. Martin, and Robert Stanek!". This sort of thing has been noticed by SF-commentators like David Langford ([30]).

Of course, none of this can be proven: Jnb27 (talk · contribs), Henrydms (talk · contribs), 24.18.60.159 (talk · contribs), and Cwnewma (talk · contribs) may just be tremendously enthusiastic fans of his. So far they've done nothing actually wrong or against WP policy. But it might be worth watching for Stanek-reference creep in other semi-related articles (e.g. Troll, Elf, Wizard, Dragon) and also some quite-unrelated articles Chess, Literacy). Editors might want to keep an eye out. --Bob Mellish 17:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Special:Whatlinkshere/Robert Stanek is certainly an education; we've already had the reference creep in three of the six you mention! The temptation to copy these comments to Ansible is strong... Shimgray | talk | 01:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• • ?I just went out to clear out a bunch of these. I think this was the diff that actually put me over the edge, and killed me. Nandesuka 05:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • I thought Bob was joking when he mentioned hitting literacy... sheesh. Shimgray | talk | 14:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Ignore button

Hi. I have someone who keeps writing me threats on my talk page, and when I remove them they keep reverting them so that the threats stay there. I would like to prevent them from being able to edit my talk page. Is there a way to do this? Alternatively, I would like for them to be asked to stop stalking me. The user concerned is User:Antaeus Feldspar. Thanks. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Two words: Dispute resolution. Get a mediator and work things out. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Ask the cabal for help :-) Dan100 (Talk) 23:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Seigenthaler 2 prevention

Ummm... I just stumbled on something and was wondering if there are more instances of this type of thing. I know this isn't exactly the right forum for this, but thought it might need a little attention. My removal. Is this even relevant? Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

To my eye, it looks suspicious...and its unsourced anyhow, so out it goes. I'll keep an eye out for similar things. --Syrthiss 18:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[31] sources it, and they're reasonably reliable. Shimgray | talk | 18:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd take anything that the spartacus site said about the JFK assassination with a couple shakers of salt. Double check anything they say about it. Gamaliel 18:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Use Google, then either delete or add a source. WAS 4.250 19:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Do not delete it - move it to the talk page (with an edit summary to that effect), and ask people to source it before restoring it. Dan100 (Talk) 23:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Given what happened with Seigenthaler, I'm worried about leaving in sentences like "X was rumored to be involved in the JFK assassination, but nothing was ever proven," even if a source is provided. And before you say it, yeah, I already fixed it. Gamaliel 05:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached final decisions in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor cases. Raul654 18:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:AustinKnight

AustinKnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked with an expiry time of indefinite (Making nasty threats to another user (as discussed on WP:RFAR); repeatedly warned and is unrepentant.) according to the Blocklog. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AAustinKnight

Austinknight has sent me the following email requesting to be unblocked, I just became an admin so I don't want to unblock without the advice from some fellow admins. Here is the email:

If it wouldn't be too much trouble, would you mind unblocking me? An Admin who gave no warning (at all) blocked me this morning for a past 'offense' (currently in ArbCom...with 0 votes for and 3 against even hearing the matter in the first place). This same Admin is completely new to the issue, and apparently is just emotional for some reason. She is also a *former* member of the ArbCom, and so my guess is that she disagrees with all of the votes against (and...yes!...none "for") even hearing the matter. An ex post facto ArbCom 'vote' is apparently where she's coming from...but clearly and highly inappropriately.

Perhaps most importantly, the ArbCom has cleary stated in its comments that there should only be a warning to me, and no block unless there were a second offense...and there certainly has been none.

--Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

He sent one to me as well, and probably numerous other admins. Note that the Arbcom has said no such thing since the Arbcom hasn't even accepted the case. I as an individual AC member said that I would warn first then block if he ever did it again. I do not speak for the whole AC.

I have replied to the email he sent and told him that i would be happy to unblock him if he agrees to make amends by striking his threat to the anon. I am waiting for his reply. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I am the once-anonymous (or not so anonymous) user threatened by AustinKnight. I thought I would drop you a line to give you my two-cents worth.

I think that AustinKnight was trying to shut me up because whenever I clarified the applicable law, it undercut his POV. He really hated that. So, he targeted me, the editor of the article with (arguably) the most legal knowledge, so that he could shut me down and go back to pushing his POV. Well, mission accomplished, via the personal attack. It was a doubly irresponsible personal attack in my case. After tracing my IP, AustinKnight knew I worked in a court. He knows, or should know, that we get (death) threats from kooks all the time. These can't be brushed off, at least since Judge Lefkow's husband and mother were murdered. I have a panic button in my office that will summon armed marshals to burst into the room, precisely for that reason.

Of course, he didn't threaten violence, but he made it clear that he hated me for what I was doing and was unscrupulous enough to make threats against me. That's enough to put my nerves on edge.

On another note, is it just me or are some of AustinKnight's comments very misogynistic? (e.g. "fearful woman response", "she is acting emotionally for some reason") I fear that this editor may have some problems with women editors (and particularly, administrators) on wikipedia in the future.

Sorry for causing a stir, though. Have a super day and happy holidays.Ulpian 19:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I followed this incident very carefully after stumbling upon it by chance. I feel that AustinKnight has not only been obnoxious, xenofobic and mysoginistic but also made Personal Attacks against Ulpian (Then an anon user), threatening him with going to his employer. After being called on it, AK not only defended his position, but he proceded to attack the people that confronted him. I think he shouldn't be unblocked, especially after pulling a very sneaky (and unethical?) move trying to get admins to unblock him by providing them with a very biased view. AK displays blatant disregard for WP policies and shows that he is in fact a person who is more interested in looking for trouble than in contributing valuably. For more information, please go to his talk page where you'll see that shortly before this incident he goes on and on ranting against Jimbo and the evils of WP. I think that since he was so annoyed by our policies and procedures (and showed it by ignoring them blatantly), he deserves the block until he truthfully apologizes. Then he should be put in probation until he proves he can contribute within WP limits. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Those looking over AustinKnight's edits should be aware that he edited for a long time as unregisterd 66.69.219.9 (talk · contribs). Among his contributions were complaints at Wikipedia:General complaints (unresolved)#Wiki Administrators: Systemic Left/Liberal Bias, and this uncollegial comment, arguably a personal attack: User talk:Rangerdude#The Willmcw Virus. -Willmcw 22:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

As the blocking administrator, I stand by this block. AustinKnight was making serious threats against another contributor who disagreed with him, and his comments on his talk page were very clear that he was completely unrepentant and would do it again - despite having been warned and asked nicely many, many times. The arbitration committee quite clearly felt that there was no need to hear the case because the community could deal with it with a ban by acclamation. I then proceeded to do so, and I note that as of this moment that block still stands. Ambi 00:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly support this block Fred Bauder 01:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Me too. I've been reading User talk:AustinKnight. If the user recants his threats and personal attacks, fine. If he can show that he is as superior to women, wikipedians, Australians, admins, Europeans, and lefties as he thinks, even better: then he must be a real asset to the project. If neither, why keep him around? Bishonen | talk 01:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Anti-lawyer POV poster

An IP-shifting anon has been posting anti-lawyer rhetoric in Adversarial system, Lawyer, and Criminal law (including adding some statements that are flat-out inaccurate and removing statements that are accurate). Several editors, including myself, have tried to reason with him, but he responds with the claim that "The lawyers are sanitizing these pages" (even after I added a criticism section to Adversarial system that included his original poorly placed claims, and some additional criticisms he had not mentioned. As a frequent editor of pages relating to these topics, I don't feel that it would be appropriate for me to deal with them as an admin, so I'd appreciate if someone else could step in and have a look. Thanks. BDAbramson T 23:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have posted {{welcomeip}} templates on a couple of these IP addresses. Sometimes teh best course of action is to provide newbies about how Wikipedia works. Sometimes, these early "vandals" become useful contributors. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Well said. I don't think POV-pushers require administrator intervention; or at least this one doesn't seem to, yet. -- SCZenz 00:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

My concern was that he might continue to add his views to the articles, which might then require protection. It seems, however, that he would now prefer to press his points on the talk pages, which is fine with me. BDAbramson T 01:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

He appears to have registered as LegalEagle1798 (talk · contribs) and is still POV-pushing. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

File:Satan as Lawyer.jpg - 'nuff said (also Image:Movie poster the corporation.jpg)

What? I don't like lying even if it helps win a case/get money. :) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 09:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Mass-watch tool for Special:Unwatchedpages

For those who would like to help, but don't want to click a million times, you can use this new tool to add X articles to your watchlist at once, using only 2 mouse clicks. Please note: to split up the work of watching all unwatched articles, each admin needs to add at least 1500 to their watchlist.

Add this to your monobook.js (e.g. User:ABCD/monobook.js)

/**** handy watch ****/
document.write('<script type="text/javascript"' +
  'src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:R3m0t/' +
  'handywatch.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

/* This is to keep track of who is using this extension: [[User:R3m0t/handywatch.js]] */

The script will trigger automatically on Special:Unwatchedpages. It will prompt you on whether you want to active the script. r3m0t ^talk 04:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

— ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-24 04:12

Profanity confusion

When and where is profanity appropriate ? I am confused. Martial Law 05:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Profanity? Does this help? -- Rick Block (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Does help. Seen it all over the place. Is it OK to use it on a User's Talk page ?Martial Law 05:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Use your fucking common sense. Phil Sandifer 05:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

A user you somewhat know? Or a random stranger? I wouldn't on a random stranger's page, but with someone you know do whatever the hell you want. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Why would you feel the need to do so? User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't say so, but the policy is referring to profanity in the article (or "main") namespace. Using profanity in comments on a user's talk page is likely to constitute a personal attack, despite the jokes posted here. --bainer (talk) 05:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Still confused. Heard I might have some problems for using profanity on a User Talk page. A admin told me this, a User says it is appropriate to use profanity on a User Talk page. Whos right ? Martial Law 06:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

If I told another User where to place something, would that be offensive ? Martial Law 06:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I would certainly consider it offensive, as I consider Snowspinner's comment above offensive. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but offensiveness isn't the criterion. Never has been. The criterion is, basically, civility. So, for instance, if I were to object to your removal of my comment above by saying "It was a fucking joke!" this would probably not really violate any rules. If I were to tell you to go fuck yourself for removing it, that would be a problem.

Incidentally, it was a fucking joke. Phil Sandifer 06:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

New Wikipedians may want to know this. Martial Law 06:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

To some extent, yes, but I really do think that the policy is ultimately silly - we are an encyclopedia, editors are expected to take the project seriously, and, for the most part, professionally. Profanity, generally speaking, does not contribute to that, although there are circumstances in which it is merely not good as opposed to bad, and these can generally be figured out by anyone with a modicum of social intelligence. Phil Sandifer 06:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

So, If I'm discussing Johnny Paycheck's song Take This Job And Shove It, I'm not being offensive, and if I "cuss" out another User, this is considered offensive ? Martial Law 06:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Basically, yes, though I'd still use "incivil" over "offensive," just because offensiveness is ultimately a matter of personal taste, whereas civility is more objective. Phil Sandifer 06:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

So, if I am referring to a article, profanity is OK, while it is not OK to use on a User Talk page, even if two or more users are ticked off @ each other ?Martial Law 06:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

you're right. no mater how ticked off at each other, WP:CIVIL holds as it's official policy. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast rules, but common sense suggests that when users are ticked off at each other that's the worst time to user profanity. -- SCZenz 06:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

So, if I told someone what he/she can do with himself/herself, and where at, this is considered offensive/uncivil, and if I had done this while referring to a article, such as the Johnny Paycheck's song, it is not ? Interesting. Martial Law 06:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in the first case you're being uncivil to an editor, second case you're talking about an article (which may conttain profanity) ut you're doing so in a civil way. uncivility not the same as profanity, you can e uncivil without cursing. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

As stated, New Wikipedians should know this. I've found a Wikipedian who may be a newbie who is using more foul language than a USMC Drill Sergeant. Martial Law 06:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Where are Wikipedians like that are reported, dealt with ? What is the disciplinary protocol ? Martial Law 06:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

If someone is being uncivil in a continually disruptive way, you could report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and an admin might intervene (most likely by talking with the user). Come to think of it, you should talk with the user first if you think there's a problem. If all else fails, there's the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. -- SCZenz 07:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. New Wikipedians should know this. However, if they do not, it is not our failure for not telling them the obvious - it is their failing for being idiots. Phil Sandifer 07:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Penalties for this ? Martial Law 07:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

We don't do penalties here. We do what, in our judgement, is most likely to make the encyclopedia as a whole more productive. In most cases, this will involve encouraging a user to change his behavior. The most an admin can do, without broad consensus among other admins, is apply a short block. -- SCZenz 07:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Martial Law 07:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Heard about Users being banned and the like. These rumors true ? Martial Law 07:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more helpful if you pointed to the situation that's prompting you to ask these questions, and an admin could have a look at it and take appropriate action. Phil Sandifer 07:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Being banned is possible for very substantial, persistent disruption of the encyclopedia (or in certain specific cases like usernames that impersonate real people). This is only done (outside those specific cases) by the Arbitration Committee, User:Jimbo Wales, or the Wikimedia Board of Trustees. (See Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Bans.) It will certainly not be done because of profanity alone. -- SCZenz 07:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

No situation. IF I did'nt ask, someone else might, and NOT be so polite about this matter.

Appreciate the assisstance. Martial Law 07:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

POV Cleanup, Changing POV Templates

In the process of cleaning up old and stale POVs I thought of something that could help. The cleanup-date tags allow for sortinf by month and year. Would it be acceptable to do this for POV? That would help at least identify when POVs started and easily identify stale POVs, or POVs that really need to be moved along via another process. If I just went ahead and did this, would it make people cry? -- Jbamb 14:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Special:BrokenRedirects

I'll be spamming speedy getting this cleaned up... I sent about 50 so far, if that's a problem let me know and I'll stop. -- Jbamb 15:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I see no problem with it. (On an unrelated note, Special:DoubleRedirects is active as well). Ral315 (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

User Check ?!

User Check ?! Can this be explained ? Martial Law 21:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC) :)

And simulated emoticons ? :) Martial Law 21:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC) :)

Would you mind clarifying what you mean? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Santa on Sleigh

I am suspecting (based on user name and edit pattern) that this is a Willy sock, but no true vandalism yet. Should this user be blocked? --Nlu (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

If this is Willy, then I say all the more power to him. He's doing something that's nice, not naughty ;-) Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 00:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, he's sending christmas presents to all the good little editors so I see no need to ban even if it is WoW, though after tommorow someone should ban the account for their own good until 00:00 25, December 2006 Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey! What about Chanukah, there are many Jewish admins like User:Eliezer :D (But I don't think they would like Spam Presents for 8 days) Obvously without the "xmas" part. 220.233.48.200 14:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like Spam (& otherwise) Presents for 8 days! El_C 14:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

K, you can have 8 dreidels, I'll take an XBox 360. Redwolf24 (talk) 14:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh I'd like to see that ban summary...but looks to be a nice account so no harm done — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Ban Summary: Block enforced vacation for Santa Clause until next Christmas. 69.182.48.34 03:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

He can't edit until he's finished making all the toys, I'd say. -- SCZenz 04:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Done [32]. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 13:59, Dec. 25, 2005

Pssh. I do know I see a lot of good admins in his contribs, I'm proud to be in such company myself. It's just a nice bit of wiki-fun, no need to cry "omgwillyohnoezzz!" unless there'd evidence of wrongdoing. If there's no vandalism, the more power to him/her. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I was watching Image:RacingBicycle-non.JPG to make sure it was still a bicycle, but I've decided to assume good faith / Christmas miracle. :] --CBD _☎ ^✉ 04:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

And we have our first bah humbug --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, whatever template he's been using appears to have malfunctioned. I got a Merry Christmas wish for Voice of All. Silly Santa! android79 04:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL, so did I. Lucky Voice of All! -- SCZenz 05:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think that any mass spamming of talk pages, for whatever reason, is a problem. In this case, some non-Christians may object to the message, and even some Christians may object to equating Merry Christmas with materialism. Scrooge, aka ^BlankVerse 06:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

They can grow up. --Golbez 11:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'm jewish and I don't really care. If anyone objects to something as nice as that I say they can...well perhaps I ought not to finish that setence. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 19:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Those offended by it can add themselves to Santa's No Spam list (at his talk page, you can create it). Though most people I know can tolerate it. Redwolf24 (talk) 12:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

please check this ip against User:RK

66.155.200.129 that made this change http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad_Lubavitch&diff=29940179&oldid=29902552 aginst User RK at the same time about 15 minutes later. Thanks. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

What I can say is that I am not certain it is RK - in fact, there's a LOT of users I recognise on that IP - but I cannot say it isn't. And the edit summary and edit content style is certainly enough to make him a highly plausible maker of that edit. RK, was that you? - David Gerard 00:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I find it interesting in that edit, it starts off by using "hasidim" then moves onto using "Chassidim" yet it uses "Chosid" as the singlar form. Who ever this 66.155.200.129 is he managed using all three versions of the spelling.

It is weird that RK calls the reverting of an IP edit as vandalism.

• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=active&sa=G&q=%2266.155.200.129%22 shows that the IP is envolved with a scam (http://www.voy.com/190449/9.html and http://www.voy.com/8191/38.html) the second link has the name "Mohamed Delhoum."
• He has visited http://moe365.org/ according to the site's logs.
• According to this sites http://www.emmersonnet.com/htdocs/ logs, he visited that site with the referral of http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=salary%2Finternational+marketing with MSIE6.
• According to another wiki http://www.biocrawler.com/encyclopedia/Biocrawler:Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200410#66.155.200.129 he has vandalise their wiki 3 times in one day before getting banned.

There is a lot more that you can find in the google search. The IP should be banned for life, wether or not it was used by RK.

Ah, no. It's a widely-shared IP and should not be blocked for more than a very short time to deal with vandalism in progress at the actual time. Do a whois and see who it belongs to. And we do have quite a lot of editors, good and bad, who come in through it - David Gerard 18:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Everyking arbitration violation

Not wasting any time after the expiration of his agreement not to snipe at Snowspinner, Everyking decided to take another potshot, in violation of the recent Arbitration decision. Raul654 01:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Describe how that was a violation. I was very careful in how I wrote that. I actually removed the first paragraph one minute after I made the edit, so you can only judge the second paragraph. Everyking 05:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It still shows up in the edit history. I will also note and should especially not confer that trust to someone who many people feel is usually wrong—perhaps they have a good reason for feeling that way? from the second paragraph. It is in the policy/guidelines regarding NPOV to not use many people/some say in articles as it is merely a crutch to not have to cite actual sources for facts and to push a particular POV. This is followed by a statement that Everyking should have special trust granted to him as his views are in general accordance with those of the broader community. Is there any evidence to back up this claim? It seems to me that this was a major issue in the cited Arbitration decision. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 06:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

What difference does the history make? I decided it might get me in trouble, decided "better safe than sorry", and removed it within one minute. Also, I don't know where you're going with that NPOV business, since of course my comment represented my POV. NPOV is for articles. Everyking 06:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you removed it should count for something, but taking back your word after you posted it doesn't necessarily reflect well on you. In the future, I suggest using the Show preview button and doing something else for a while to cool down before clicking Save. Zocky 11:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I think I remember reading somewhere that Snowspinner also promised not to bait Everyking (or maybe that's just WP:C). On the mentioned page (a community project talk page from which he has not been banned that I know of), Everyking at first left a reasonable comment, which was not addressed to Snowspinner and did not mention Snowspinner or allude to Snowspinner [33]. Snowspinner responded with What a shock, you've shown up on yet another page shortly after I edited it [34]. I don't see this as any better than what EK is doing. Zocky 11:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

User:24.6.35.54/User:Vitaphone

This guy is vandalizing several aticles on cartoons (Flip the Frog, Beans (Looney Tunes)), Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, and my talk page! Can someone please block him? --FuriousFreddy 02:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I blocked 24.6.35.54 (talk · contribs) for edit-warring and general disruptiveness. They have immediately returned as 212.112.232.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Jkelly 02:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I blocked 212.112.232.175 (talk · contribs) as well. Jkelly 02:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

And now 213.249.155.239 (talk · contribs). Sigh. Jkelly 20:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, Admins! For all to share--Santa on Sleigh 22:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Am I allowed to have some? —Guanaco 02:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess, since you're an admin. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Not since before last Christmas (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus vs. Guanaco). That's why I asked. —Guanaco 03:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You can have mine :-) Dmcdevit·t 05:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I stoles some from the admin noticeboard omg STUCK IT TO THE MAN ^_^ --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 09:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Mistress Selina Kyle has been blocked for 82 years for confessing to theft. Redwolf24 (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

eep. :o

Happy Christmas ;) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 09:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

*snarf* --Maru (talk) Contribs 15:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

fundraising adverts

Last night I decided to implement this for myself and I know some other people have done this as well but I have been reluctant to publicly post this due to the fact that people might get rid of the notices without donating which I think is wrong but if you want to hide both the main page fundraising box and the fundraising box on the top of every page go to your monobook.css file at User:USERNAME/monobook.css where USERNAME is your username and edit in the following.

#siteNotice { display:none; }
#mpbanner { display: none; }

Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

But, if you do, remember you are hiding the sitenotice, which is also used for important announcements. --cesarb 19:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Expected Edit Wars:

UFO and The Roswell UFO Incident

Found two users who wish to make these articles reflect the "Skeptical" view. When the "Pro-UFO" editors, the "Pro-Roswell/Alien" editors see this sort of thing going on, there will be a Edit war going on. I've had to help settle a Edit war that had taken place in the Bigfoot article. That was a real bloody war. Told both Users this: The object is NOT to prove or disprove these matters, only to be encyclopedic.

Will investigate. Am trying to prevent two edit wars. Martial Law 03:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Any Administrators who are knowledgable about these matters out there ? Martial Law 03:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

This is important. No use starting the new Year with two edit wars. Martial Law 04:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that there is a current edit war, and as such no administrator action is required. If your worried that one might errupt, perhaps you should speak to the potential warriors to encourage them to start discussion. It might help if you could be more specific about what you would like someone to do, who the potential warriors are, and what they did to draw your attention. If an edit war does in fact occur you can report WP:3RR violations at WP:AN/3RR. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Administrator abuse????

Administrator mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had blocked me illegal for so-called vandalism. Actually he's doing vandalism with his buddy Node ue. Someone can unblock me to defend myself and to ask de-adminiship of mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ? -- Bonaparte talk 08:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Next block

Blocked for 1 week for persistent and fully aware distortion and deletion of official info, e.g., in Republic of Moldova, Tighina and in other places. This is considered persistent and malicious vandalism. Persistent removal of Cyrillic spelling of moldovan toponyms is an intolerable censorship of information. mikka (t) 21:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Read here very careful mikka: I was just reverting Node's edits which are considered persistent and malicious vandalism. So you have to block Node, not me! And your persistent adding of Cyrillic spelling of Moldovans toponyms is also persistent and malicious vandalism. Moldovan (Romanian)'s official spelling is in LATIN ALPHABET. So, block yourself! Bonaparte talk 08:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's try to relax a bit. Don't make me bring my comrade, Santa. Unlike moi, he knows when you've been naughty, and when you've been nice. El_C 08:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

NoMultiLicense template update

Please update the protected Template:NoMultiLicense with

I am content with licensing my contributions only under the GFDL. I believe that introducing other incompatible licenses complicates the legal situation of Wikipedia, so I choose not to do it.

This is User:squell's version, see Template_talk:NoMultiLicense --logixoul 13:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

And please add this icon: [[Image:Heckert_GNU_white.svg|30px]]. --logixoul 13:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Signa Vianen, Journalist

Can someone take a look at this page please? Kappa 17:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedied. You still sure you don't want The Buttons yourself? —Cryptic (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Boy, today is sure my day

I've got people making threats all over my Talk page and I get an email threatening to get me fired for posting from work because they don't like my edits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

They know where you work!? enochlau (talk) 05:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

They only know that she posts from work because she edits as User:216.234.130.130. In any case, I wouldn't worry about it- people make stupid threats all the time, although it's unfortunate that your talk page seems to be filled with said stupid threats at the moment. --Sean|Black 05:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You sure can pick 'em Zoe. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is this:

Why are these facts not allowed on the Bigfoot article ?

1. People will shoot at anyone,anything that is considered a threat. 2. Hoaxing a Bigfoot is not only a criminal offense, it can get the hoaxer killed. 3. Some people, especially those in Rural areas, don't like intruders and will kill them. 4. Three of the crimes committed by the hoaxer are Felonies. 5. Several states in the United States allow the landowner to kill tresspassers.

This has been removed by User:Dreamguy as being "nonsense", worse.

Any regulations exist that do NOT allow this ? I'm NOT trying to prove, nor trying to disprove the existance of this creature, just stating these verifiable facts. Martial Law 07:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

So long as sources outlining the above are cited, that's fine. Policy tends to encourage the verifiable rather than the truth (Original research could, of course, end up being true). But all of that belongs on the article's talk page, not here. El_C 07:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and you may also wish to place a notice at WP:RFC/SOC. El_C 07:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Can't cite specific police related incidents, since in the case of a Bigfoot hoax shooting, who wants to report that they've been shot committing at least 3 felonies, several misdemeanor offenses ?

Who answers these questions on WP:RFC/SOC ? Martial Law 08:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

That page is designed for content disputes. Many editors have it on their watchlists or browse the page occasionally — they are the ones who read and respond to notices placed there (meaning, they respond on the respective article's talk page, and so on). Hope that helps. El_C 08:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Marsden again

I'm repeating my assertion that the indefinite blocking of Marsden (which goes way beyond a simple enforced cooling down period) was a violation of Wikipedia's blocking policy and should be undone. If anyone is convinced the punishment was appropriate, I'm sure there will be no problem of going through the official channels, in this case by starting an arbitration request, if not an earlier remedy. -- Dissident (Talk) 14:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)