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.
NPOV disputes, Images on Commons, Requested moves, Overpopulated categories and Copyright Problems.

General

Block of User:62.38.117.6

This user has vandalised several times Olympiacos

• The first time instead of the usual page he wrote "Ηλίθιοι και αργόσχολοι γαύροι "which means: Stupid Olympiacos Fans"
• The second time and after User:Quaque reverted the page, he again vandalised the page by writing "...Vlaka" which means Stupid.
• The third time and after User:Quaque reverted the page, he wrote "..Ilithie.." which also means dtupid.

I have already warned him, but he continues to vandalise the page. Please help

Blocking over fair-use image disputes

Input would be appreciated regarding when it's appropriate to block over a fair-use copyright disagreement (text or images).

On January 11, Alkivar added to Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "Jimbo has stated that any user with a repeat history of copyright violation can and should be blocked. The blocking admin should use their best judgement regarding the prior giving and heeding of warnings as appropriate."

Some admins have interpreted this to mean that they're allowed to block an editor who restores an image that they have removed, which is getting close to using admin powers over a content dispute. I would therefore like to word the section so that it offers more protection to editors who are acting in good faith, where the copyright status of the material has not been established. The suggested compromise on the talk page is:

Editors who repeatedly add to articles text that has been plagiarized, or images the use of which would clearly amount to a copyright violation — or where a formal complaint from the copyright holder has been received by the Wikimedia Foundation — may be blocked under the disruption provision of this policy. In cases where an editor is acting in good faith and the copyright status is unclear, the editor should not be blocked. However, when a formal complaint has been received by the Foundation, and the editor is aware of it, the editor's attempts to re-insert the material shall not be considered 'in good faith' even if the editor believes the material to be acceptable.

The above is being resisted by Kelly Martin, Gmaxwell, and Tony Sidaway, who argue that it would give too much leeway to copyright offenders. Comments would be appreciated either here or at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If someone's acting in good faith, they shouldn't be blocked except in the most extreme circumstances. I believe this applies to all policies, from Wikipedia:blocking policy to WP:3RR. There's no need to block unless someone's acting in bad faith. [[Sam Korn]] 21:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The above version seems fair, I would add that an emphasis on the word clearly is put in the first sentence. Copyright law is filled with grey areas, and I don't trust any grey areas to the current state of mob rule many editors try to impose on others around here, good faith or not. Karmafist 21:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would attempt a block where the user was acting in good faith. You can't act in good faith and knowingly upload a suspect copyright violation at the same time. They're mutually exclusive. [[Sam Korn]] 22:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. You can easily be acting in perfectly good faith and be blatantly violating copyright. Believe it or not, most people don't know the first thing about copyright law. Also, in many cultures copyright is so diminished that no one even thinks about it (say, in China). You would have these people blocked because they're ignorant of our laws regarding copyright? I think that's a bit extreme. --Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 14:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No-one should ever be blocked without a warning first. If someone is warned that they're breaking copyright rules, then continue, they're acting in bad faith. Hence my word "knowingly" above. [[Sam Korn]] 14:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The compromise passage seems reasonable to me as well. FeloniousMonk 22:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's been a good chunk of discussion at the talk page, but we're mostly going in circles- new comments would be appreciated. Thanks.--Sean|Black 22:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be that everyone is in agreement above! --Rebroad 15:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking should clearly be used exclusively in cases of bad faith editing or uploading. If the actions are in good faith, just undo them and explain why. They should get the point. If they disagree, well, they're entitled to voice their opinion at every deletion vote for their images. Deco 22:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Deco -- unless the actions become truly disruptive -- in whcih case they are n't really in good faith anymore. DES ^(talk) 22:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to add here (as I did there) that the suggested text looks good, and that what's currently at Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Copyright infringement is embarrassing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with the suggested text. Ive seen and been involved in cases where the admin threatened to block me for images where not only the copyright status was not "unknown", but was in fact clearly known, and the admin resisted accepting the status, dismissing the abundant evidence provided.--Zereshk 23:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• I hate to parrot, but support. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 00:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• If we're voting, put me down for support, with a side of fries. Tomer^talk 10:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• I support the blockquoted text above. --Rebroad 15:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, everyone. There's a version on the page now that's a mixture of the above and a version written by Fubar, but both contain the qualification that editors acting in good faith where the copyright status is uncertain (i.e. where it's uncertain whether there's a violation and there's a good-faith dispute) shouldn't be blocked. Many thanks for all the comments. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Official complaint to the BBC

I have made the following official complaint (this is somewhat misleading... what I really meant here is that I made a formal complaint. It's been pointed out my sig maybe somewhat misleading, however it is not: I am a Wikipedia admin) to the BBC (form can be found here, I recomend that as many people as possible fill this out so they will know our disgust at such irresponsible behaviour: UK people are especially encouraged to fill this out):

I wish to make a formal complaint in regards to your radio show "The Scott Mills Show". On January 19 they made various edits to the free online encyclopedia, Wikipedia that were false and/or ridiculous (for instance, they wrote "Edith has been romanticly linked with an ironing board." on the Edith Bowman article).

I can provide exact links of where they did this, we maintain an audit log of every change that we make. They also had to create an account "Joshworkinghard". When they log in to the site, they are expected to follow certain site policies: these can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines One of the policies is our policy on adding absurd or ridiculous information, which we class as a form of vandalism. They appear not to have followed this policy.

My complaint is that a media organisation appears to have decided that it is OK to vandalise our website, with the participants seemingly paying no thought to the consequences of their actions, or the reputation of the BBC. After all, I was not aware that the BBC, a respectable institution, condoned and encouraged vandalism!

Would Scott Mills and Mark Chapman create an account on Kuro5hin or slashdot and then proceed to add malicious or ridiculous information? There are similarly easy ways of gaining accounts on these websites, methods in which you will not be identified. The point that Scott and Mark were apparently trying to make was that anyone can edit the website with impunity.

Perhaps I should put this a different way. You can go to a public space where there is no surveillance underway, grab a can of spraypaint and then vandalise the wall. You would do this with impunity. Does this mean that the DJs of radio shows should broadcast that they are vandalising public property because they can get away with it? I think that the answer here is fairly clear.

So, to summarise: I would like to make a complaint about the conduct of your employees, Scott Mills and Mark Chapman when they vandalised various pages, of which I can provide detailed evidence. I would like to know what the BBC's position is on the deliberate vandalising of Wikipedia, or of any other website that are publicly available. Does the BBC encourage or condone such actions?

Finally, I would like to request that you cease and desist from such actions. We provide a valuable service to the public, and while we have some issues of vandalism from individuals, we NEVER expected to see such an august institution as the BBC participating in such petty and irresponsible actions.

Cordially,

Chris Sherlock

Wikipedia Administrator

I was not aware that the BBC condone vandalism. Does this mean that Scott Mills and Mark Chapman will be creating a slashdot or kuro5hin account to deliberately vandalise those websites? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia and the BBC are both in the information industry, this could be seen as anti-competitive behavior on the part of the BBC and might even be illegal in civilized countries like the UK. (It matters not that Wikipedia is non-profit.) Is it more than the miscreant's jobs are worth? Hu 05:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I am more concerned that the media thinks it's OK for them to vandalise pages. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That's the point, of course. It doesn't matter much what the motive is. Not much excuse for it. Hu 07:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide some more details? If, on the one hand, journalists were trying a breaching experiment to understand and report on how Wikipedia deals with vandalism, and they repaired everything when they were done, I wouldn't really be bothered by it. But if they were just messing with us for the sake of messing with us and getting some laughs, then I would agree that it was entirely inappropriate. From the summary you give above I can't really tell what they thought the purpose of their actions were. Dragons flight 07:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like vandalism to me. [1] If they wanted to understand wiki all they needed to do was watch recent changes, or ask someone. It's not like we don't have enough vandals already. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they continued to vandalize after being reverted several times in the span of a few minutes. I think what's worse is that they (either indirectly or directly) encouraged other anons (and a few users) to vandalize those pages. — TheKMan^talk 07:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think anyone but the Wikipedia board can make an "official" complaint. The BBC's facilities have previously been used to create hoax articles (see Jamie Kane), and the BBC was quick to attempt to dissociate themselves from them. [2] Jimbo seems to have a good relationship with them, and I would suggest that perhaps an approach by Jimbo might be a more productive avenue to pursue. - Nunh-huh 07:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think writing as "Wikipedia Administrator" makes it looks like you are writing on behalf of Wikipedia, when you are not. It's not up to you to complain to large outside organisations, seemingly on our behalf, without discussing it first. Secretlondon 07:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

What are you on about? I am a Wikipedia administrator, and that is how I will continue to sign my emails. It does NOT mean that I am a paid employee of the site, but nonetheless I am still an administrator, and will continue to be an administrator doing admin tasks for the foreseeable future. My admin status is not in dispute, and in fact never has been. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

When you sign a letter Wikipedia Administrator you are writing on behalf of the organisation, or so it appears. Offline, Administrator can be the title of the senior member of staff, certainly in the voluntary sector. No-one is denying that you have the post of administrator within Wikipedia, what you don't have is the authority to speak for Wikipedia. I'll try and give an example to make things clearer. If one is elected as an officer of a trade union for example - you can support a campaign without the permission of the Union by signing it (Personal Capacity). If you'd signed your email Chris Sherlock, Wikipedia Administrator (Personal Capacity) I would have no problems with your conduct. Secretlondon 15:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, point taken. Apologies for getting snippy, there probably wasn't an excuse but rather my over defensiveness (I can be a spiky bastard sometimes). I will do that in future. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Are we 100% sure that Joshworkinghard was from the BBC? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If we need to, we can request that the IP address of this user be cross referenced to the BBC netblock. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. But what I meant was how do we know that they did it? Did they admit to it on air? Regards, Ben Aveling 05:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/19/wikipedia_radio_one_fun/  — TheKMan^talk 06:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess that's good enough to proceed on. I won't do it now, but something like "Dear Mr BBC, I am a volunteer at wikipedia. I believe that on <date> two of your announcers commited deliberate vandalism at wikipedia <details> and encouraged other people to do likewise. Thanks to considerable effort by other volunteers here this damage has been undone. Does the BBC acknowledge that the vandalism occured? Does the BBC condone vandalism? Will SM & MC apologise to wikipedia readers and volunteers? Regards, Ben Aveling" Having just seen An Inspector Calls, I'm not of a mind to call for anyone to be sacked, but I think that mainstream media organisations ought to be discouraged from this sort of stunt. Has anyone had a response yet? If not, how many complaints do you think we'll need to raise for them to understand that this is not a good thing for them to be doing? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I wish to make a formal complaint regarding your radio show 'The Scott Mills Show'. On the 19th January, Scott Mills and Mark Chapman made various edits to the free online encyclopedia, Wikipedia that were false and/or ridiculous. For instance, they wrote 'Edith has been romantically linked with an ironing board.' in the article regarding Edith Bowman). The Wikipedia has a number of policies to help guide people towards producing a better encyclopaedia, when logging in it is assumed that these will be followed. A copy of these policies and guidelines can be found at this url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines. One of the policies relates to adding plainly ridiculous, insulting or obscene material to articles. This is described as vandalism and is not allowed. In the process of their editing they ignored this rule. Logs are kept of every change made and details can be provided of exactly when, where and from which IP the vandalism was made. Presumably if they are editing the encyclopaedia whilst working at the BBC, they are editing it in a professional capacity. I would assume that you have some clause in their contract which explicitly forbids them from certain actions while working as they are your representatives. I would like to know what the BBC's position is on the deliberate vandalising of Wikipedia, or of any other website that are publicly available. Does the BBC encourage or condone such actions? I'm sure that the BBC would not be particularly impressed if a 'hacker' were to vandalise the BBC home page to make a point. While editing false, misleading or obscene content into Wikipedia is not illegal in the same way as 'hacking', the principle is the same, disrupting a website in order to make a point. I would appreciate it if the stars of your radio show would refrain from vandalising the Wikipedia and also refrain from inciting others to vandalism.

Yours,

Francis Tyers Wikipedia Administrator (writing in a personal capacity)

Your help is appreciated

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

Hello all. Sorry to have to call in the cavalry, but (pursuant to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irismeister 3) I thought I’d point out the following diff. [3] Assuming I am reading the ruling correctly, if an admin believes I am being legally threatened or personally attacked by this comment, the AC authorizes a ban of between one month and one year, at your discretion. If you don’t, that’s fine: we can try waiting and see if he’s learned his lesson. Given the diff is one of his first ten edits back after a year’s ban (and I’d encourage you to review the others if you want to see how else he’s spending his time), I feel as though his meaning is pretty clear. Thanks in advance for any help you care to offer (and any advice you may offer, if you think I’m overreacting—I would be open to hearing such an argument). Unless/Until he's banned, I'd humbly suggest somebody keep an eye on Irismeister's contributions: having played that role twice to the limits of my ability to handle stress, I doubt I'll be as proactive this go-round. Jwrosenzweig 07:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I find that statement "And you thought you can spread lies and libel endlessly, without yet another judicial procedure and without your being personally and financially accountable in a court of law..." a blatant threat. I have blocked for three days, to give us time to discuss block duration here (meaning I'm not saying I think it should necessarily be three days). I have a further question though, and it's this: why is Irismeister back? This case is from a while back, but looking at the history of User:Irismeister, where the log of ban resets was being recorded, I find that the ban was reset in March of this year [4] by Theresa Knott, and as such Irismeister should still be banned. In fact, any of these edits he's been making may as well reset the ban another year, and considering the immediate legal threat, I don't see a great reason why not to. Thoughts? Dmcdevit·t 07:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well earliest should be 5th March 06 as that's when the ban was last reset. However considering his behaviour I'd have no objects to extending it further, if not indefinitely. Secretlondon 11:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a blatant legal threat and seems clear grounds for another reset of the ban for a year from now at least. - Taxman ^Talk 16:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. As an administrator I consider that to be a legal threat. I also believe that he is currently banned from editing Wikipedia until 5 March, 2006 as his ban was last reset on 5 March, 2005. I am therefore resetting his ban from today for a year. Secretlondon 16:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

He should be blocked indefinitely, until he disassociates himself from wikipediaclassaction.org. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked him with an expiry time of indefinite (blocked, not for a period of time, but rather until legal threats resolved). ➥the Epopt 16:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested unblock of Bonaparte

As a member of the AMA, I am appearing on behalf of Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked indefinately for "malicious sockpuppetry and running a botnet." While this block was justified, he has since recanted his poor behavior, seen the light and is sincerely eager to rejoin the community and edit in an appropriate and civil manner.

As an example of the kind of editor that he has been and is eager to be again, he has made some excellent contributions to Wikipedia in some very obscure areas that most users know nothing about. He is not your typical useless troll; he has actually contributed something to our community.

• • Examples:
    • Accession of Romania to the European Union
    • Arvantovlaxika
    • Romance plurals
    • Dinosaurs of Romania
    • Andrei Pleşu
    • Intellectual property in Romania
    • Religious education in Romania
    • South-East Europe Regional Energy Market

• He has expressed regret for trolling and is willing to apologise and never use sockpuppets to troll ever again.

• In a similar cases, where a user was using *many more sockpuppets than Bonaparte and was doing the same thing as Bonaparte with them, he got blocked for 48 hour whereas Bonaparte was blocked indefinitely and has already served more than 48 hours for fewer sockpuppets.

This user has been reformed and he is formally requesting that he be unblocked and given a final chance to prove that to you. Thank you for your time.Gator (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I would not be overly concerned at his return. However, I would demand that he undertakes not to attempt mediation, whether formal or informal. I would also like to see him submit to a period of mentorship. I am not sure as to the specifics of the case, so I don't know whether I'm being too lenient. I am sure, however, that I'm not being too harsh. [[Sam Korn]] 16:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds more than reasonable. I am sure he would not object.Gator (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

He got banned indefinitely only on the 11th Jan 06. However I can't see any explanation on his talk page or elsewhere. All we have is "malicious sockpuppetry and running a botnet". He got banned earlier for repeated attacks on Node over the Romanian/Moldovan dispute. He clearly has a history of edit warring but this is a controversial and heated issue. The fact that he's made useful contributions isn't in doubt. I'd like to know what the details of the "botnet" were before we unblock. This probably wants to go formal - we may want to stop him editing articles on Moldova for example. Secretlondon 16:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I will speak up for Bonaparte here; I think he is not malicious, he is just very passionate about his subject. The closer he gets to Moldavian nationalism, the more worked up he gets. I would offer to act as mentor but I know next to nothing about his chosen subject areas and don't speak Romanian, so that would be hard since many exchanges are in Romanian. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've asked the blocking admin to comment here. There are comments on the admin's page that Bonaparte has been problematic on ro.wikipedia too. I don't think we should unblock until we get more info - one problem with admin blocks like this is that we don't have enough info - unlike blocks from the arbitration committee. Secretlondon 17:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte was trolling as hell all this time on Moldovan wiki and continues to this day. It was on account of his sock puppets that Wikipedia lost one of its most precious contributors, User:Mikkalai. It is worth pointing out that running a sock puppet farm is just a fraction of Bonaparte's offenses. He will be more careful when vote rigging in the future and will post from different computers, so you won't catch him again. If the troll sneaks back, more valuable contributors will leave. People who have commented on the issue so far seems to have had very little experience with this archtroll. --Ghirla | talk 18:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It was Ronline that made Mikka consider to leave, but in the end, Mikka did not leave Wiki. He' still around, tho not as much as before. --Candide, or Optimism 06:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

If it weren't for User:Node ue and the Moldovan conflict, Bonaparte would have been a normal contributor, as would I have been. But it's not a perfect world. --Candide, or Optimism 17:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Anittas, you will comment on your interactions with Bonapatte when your own case reaches ArbCom. There you and Bonny will have to explain your concerted homophobic attacks against Node. If things don't go his way, Bonaparte already promised to us that "Anittas and me will come and turn all them to dust. Let them disappear from there...". --Ghirla | talk 18:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive64#Sockpuppetry_by_Bonaparte_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs_.E2.80.A2_page_moves_.E2.80.A2_block_user_.E2.80.A2_block_log.29 pretty much says it all about Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If he is unblocked, it would be a piece of cake to make a case to have him banned by ArbCom in view of the evidence. The only problem with unblocking him is a giant waste of time that ArbCom will take from us and arbitrators and another giant waste of time to deal with his trolling in the meanwhile. --Irpen 18:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

From reading over the information here, I'd want a lot more evidence of reform and a lot more time with no disruption. What this sounds like is a disruptive user who when sanctioned is loudly promising to be good next time. That's not very convincing and we should be careful unbanning and wasting everyone's time. - Taxman ^Talk 18:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with all the above. I am just saying that I think the whole stupid escalation was not malice, much of the blocking was done by Mikka and even Mikka's friends have said that he did not exactly improve things, which is a shame because Mikka is a good guy and this made him look bad. I don't think Bonaparte is a saint, but I do think that he has trouble with strong opinions, and I think he has at least some justification for feeling aggrieved since nine of the blocks were by an admin with whom he was engaged in a content dispute; my problem is that I don't honestly believe in his ability to stay calm if provoked, and some people deliverately provoke him because they know this. I do not know if he was placed on probation before and violated it, I do know that the reason he wants to come back is not just to fight the same battles, it is that he is actually interested in contributing to the encyclopaedia. Which is not to say that, if unblocked, he won't get straight back into a fight. Feel free to ignore me, I am notoriously naive. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a fair summary. Certain people take advantage of their ability to provoke Bonaparte, and also me, and then when we react, we pay. The provokers never pay, because some admins are simply blind. --Candide, or Optimism 06:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

As a Romanian-speaking Wikipedian who knew Bonaparte rather well, both on Wikipedia and through email contacts, I must say that I would be very very doubtful of his desire to reform. Bonaparte holds very ultranationalistic beliefs, and has been known to use any means to advance them. That being personal attacks, either logged in or anonymously, the abovementioned botnet, revert wars, trolling, etc. I don't believe he does it maliciously, that's who he is, and these things don't change easily if at all.

I believe he will be a lot of trouble again if he comes back. I would like to see a written statement on his talk page promising to not do revert wars, no personal attacks, no multiple accounts, and be constructive on talk pages before even considering that. And I would support an indefinite block the first time he violates any of these. Bonaparte is one of those users who are a drain of energy and puts strain on others editors. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: His abysmal performance as a member of the Mediation Cabal might be something to toss into the mix of things to weigh and consider. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

As the blocking administrator I have been asked to comment so I will briefly comment here. I blocked Bonaparte for being blatantly disruptive, being repeatedly rude towards other editors, edit warring relentlessly, using a number of sockpuppets to violate policy (especially 3RR), also for running a malicious bot net which is grounds for an immediate ban. I am opposed to any unblocking of him until a clear and concise case can be made that he will not continue his previous behavior even if that means him staying away from certain categories of articles and certain users. If he were allowed to continue now I feel that he would continue to edit war on articles, be incivil and this would just give him a chance to do a better job in the future of hiding his edit warring and bot nets. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Much as I like Bonaparte, it's hard to argue. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Let him in guys. He is not much worst then the user Node ue. But I did not see him getting blocked. In any case I think he has learned his lesson. Plus he DID make good contributions too. It's not like he is a troll or something.Constantzeanu 22:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear at all whether he learned his lesson. It is unfair to compare Bonaparte with User:Node ue. Node ue is a 16 year old kid who has a lot more common sense than Bonaparte and who got verbally abused in many ways by Bonaparte. I sympathize with Constantzeanu who is Romanian, like Bonaparte, but I don't find his arguments convinsing. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey folks. I'm not sure if I should be divulging this, but I was corresponding with Bonaparte via email on & off during the past two months or so, and in one of his last emails some days before he was blocked he indicated that he desired to leave Wikipedia because, according to him:1) he had more pressing matters to attend to 2) he had already accomplished a lot of what he aimed to achieve 3) he never intended to be a contributor over the long haul. I will email him again & inquire about this some more. Besides the emails he sent me, which indicated clearly that he planned on leaving the English Wiki, does anyone have a shred of evidence that Bonaparte wants to return/be unblocked? Alexander 007 22:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Last I heard he was off to complete his PhD. Silly thing is he's been unfailingly polite in dealings with me, so he can do it if he tries. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about Bonaparte's Ph. D. but voting four times (with socks) to disrupt an RfA, trolling there in full-throttle and turning and RfA of an unquestionably worthy and decent editor into a circus (with the help of a couple of buddies) and, ultimately, through gullible unsuspecting Bcrat achieving the goal to make the RfA a failure is enough, it seems to me. If others think they need to see more reasons, read above one more time. --Irpen 00:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I have talked to Bonaparte in e-mail correspondence, and he has been very polite, moderate and overall a nice person to talk to. For this reason, I don't think Bonaparte would be a danger to the project if he is unblocked. I support his unblocking. Ronline ✉ 00:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that Bonaparte is quite capable of good edits. He can be very rational and polite when he wants to be, and I wouldn't be opposed to his return, but if he comes back, we'd have to ensure that "he wants to be" all the time. He has a history of trolling and harrassment, and has been warned more times than many of us can count without taking our shoes and socks off. As someone else mentioned above, if he went up before ArbCom tomorrow it'd be a dead cert ban even without Jtkiefer's evidence. If Bonaparte returns, I don't think the rules can apply to him anymore. He knows what he's doing, and following procedure — dispute resolution, warnings, etc. — just gives him extra opportunity for trolling. If he returns, he's on permanent probation. He's wasted the time of too many editors. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

After he used sock accounts on two RFA's: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Juro...my answer is no way.--MONGO 02:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with an unblock here. If he has repented and will not be disruptive again then he should be allowed to resume editing Wikipedia and I counsel my fellow editors to grant him some space to do so, while not relaxing vigilance against possible recidivism. We only block editors if they are a net detriment to Wikipedia. If Bonaparte will not be such a detriment then he should not be blocked. This goes for any editor who has been blocked or banned in the past. Blocking and banning are preventive, not pre-emptive or punitive. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any unblocking of Bonaparte. It's a very bad idea with no real benefit to the community. Bonaparte has a long history of supporting troublesome and abusive editors and created a large number sockpuppets, not just a few, and knowingly used them to rig votes among other things. All while he chose to participate as a mediator in resolving disputes, most of which were very poorly executed and likely done in just as bad faith as his sockpuppetry. His actions are by definition acts of bad faith and significantly abused the community's goodwill. Claims that he "is willing to apologize and never use sockpuppets to troll ever again" raise new questions. What will he use sockpuppets then for, if not trolling? An apology and promise is woefully insufficient for the community to again trust someone who so knowingly and repeatedly betrayed that trust for months already. Unblocking Bonaparte now is a slap in face to every good faith contributor whose vote or contributions were discounted due to Bonaparte's bad faith acts. FeloniousMonk 17:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought that Christians - especially monks - are supposed to be willing to forget and give people a second chance. I'm guessing that after your wrong usage of your tools on me, you are different kind of monk. --Candide, or Optimism 17:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't be rude. [[Sam Korn]] 17:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Anittas (aka Candide, or Optimism) was one of Bonaparte's pet projects. He was always there to excuse this sort of trolling. That's one reason I oppose unblocking him. FeloniousMonk 17:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You are trolling right now and you accuse others of trolling? If you're not familiar with the situation, why speak out? And I was Bonaparte's pet project? What exactly does that mean? As far as I know, I joined Wiki a few months earlier than he did. --Candide, or Optimism 17:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Since Bonaparte only seems to have problems with Romanian-related articles and mediation, how about we unblock him with the promise that if he edits any Romanian-related articles, he will just be blocked again? Talrias (t | e | c) 18:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

His problems go beyond just "Romanian-related articles and mediation." For example he also cast RFA votes with socks. For a full accounting, see: [5], [6], and [7]. FeloniousMonk 18:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's just do a community probation on him. Prohibit him from editing anything related to Romania, including articles, talk pages and discussing contributors from Romania. Block him for 24 hours if he breaks it once, 48 if he breaks it twice, 1 week third time, and so on. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea, just like your serial unblocking of Marsden forcing Jimbo to step in. FeloniousMonk 18:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

"Block him for 24 hours if he breaks it once, 48 if he breaks it twice, 1 week third time, and so on..." What overwhelming need is there that requires the community to risk going through that much disruption and extra effort on someone who has already sufficiently proven his contempt for the project's aims to earn a indefinite block that had very wide support [8]? Please explain that to us. FeloniousMonk 18:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not explaining anything to you until you remove your personal attacks first. I came to discuss this sensibly and I was most surprised to see your previous comment. I would like to discuss this, but only in a civil manner. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I've made no personal attacks. I've merely said that that your doggedness in repeatedly unblocking shortening the block of Marsden required Jimbo's intervention to correct [9]. That unblocking shortening the block of Marsden was a poor idea was apparent to Jimbo, it seems. FeloniousMonk 18:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, I find your comments to be utterly irrelevant to this discussion. They were also incorrect - as shown by you having to correct them. I also initiated a request for comments specifically about this issue, as you well know as I told you on your talk page. You did not comment on this RFC. Since you did not participate, I believe that your comments here about me are bordering on disruption. I believe you are attacking the person presenting a suggestion, rather than constructively criticising the suggestion itself. I would like you to apologise and withdraw your comments. Talrias (t | e | c) 04:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As one who was once actually nominated for Adminship by Bonaparte once, I can say that for a while, my impression of him was that as a user, he could be both constructive, active and kind, as long as he wasn't provoked (or dealt with provocative subjects). He also seemed to have good relations with many Wiki contributors (and not just Romanians). When provoked he would indeed react in an objectionable way, but as time went by, he seemed to learn that there was some subjects he should avoid in order to not damage the Romanian cause unwillingly (Anittas for one gave him some advice of this kind).

However, the sockpuppetry activity on multiple RfAs was far more disturbing, and gives me second thought about speaking in favor of having him unblocked. If he could be placed under some sort of probation in which he would be closely watched, and banned for any kind of offense, An unblock might work in a positive wat, but I don't know if he himself would accept such a deal. Anclation 18:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

His extensive history of being blocked before his sockpuppetry and running a botnet would indicate otherwise [10]. Temporary blocks didn't make much of an impression on him it seems. FeloniousMonk 18:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

His sockpuppetry alone does not mandate an indefinite block. I actually feel that his persistent edit warring, personal attacks, and hamhanded attempts at mediation have been far more damaging to the community. While it is undeniable that he has made significant contributions to Wikipedia, it is questionable in my mind whether his readmittance to Wikipedia will do more good than harm. If he agrees to stop pursing the "Romanian cause" while on Wikipedia, an unblock contingent on supervised probation would seem reasonable. Absent such an agreement, I feel no strong desire to unblock him. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Just like unblocking User:MARMOT this will only server to exert stress on good contributors. I have no idea how many people MARMOT harassed (aka vandalising wikipedia by using their ips) and scared away. MARMOT was able to evade blocks as if they never happened since he could tell wikipedia servers which IP he wanted to pose as. See User:Brion VIBBER/Cool Cat incident report for the marmot incident report. People will be less hesitant to use sockpuppets and vandal bots if they face serious consequences. Sweet talk of "ex"-malicious users dont warrant my or yout attention. I oppose the unblocking of any user blocked indefinately unless it was an automated block. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why MARMOT's failure to reform should mean that no indefinitely blocked user ever can. [[Sam Korn]] 19:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte has been notorious for his returning to various sorts of malicious activities every time after his promise to be good next time. He got the idea that this tactics work and he needs finally to be taught a lesson. I see no better lesson than a block for several months, at least, so that he knows that his behavior brings some real consequences rather than the counter having been reset every time he promises to be good next time. The main goal of the punishment in any society is to serve a deterrent from the potential malaise. There is no reason to believe that Bonaparte will reform only because he promised to. Only after he feels the consequences (that is forced to wait a long time) he may loose the desire to resume his trolling. After his unblock, he needs to me vigorously watched and still I think that unblocking him is a bad idea although I see, in view of the prevailing sentiment here, that sooner a later he will be unblocked. --Irpen 21:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, as Bonaprte's advocate here, I have quietly watched the discussion and was impressed with the dialogue. I understand the hesistancy, but formally move that he be unblocked, be carefully watched by multiple users and that a zero tolernace policy be adopted, whereby his indefinite block will be replaced if he reverts to his old behavior. Thank you again for your time and thoughts on this matter.Gator (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I will repeat what I wrote above, and specifically note I am against unblocking at this time. It's not that hard to edit constructively and follow the rules and anyone that has repeatedly shown they are unable to do that and is willing to disrupt wikipedia is a net loss to the project even if they make some good contributions. I don't see the value in wasting so much time having several users babysit a known problem. - Taxman ^Talk 15:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Just like Mikkalai, I never received apologies for having been blocked when I tried to fend off Bonny's socks from vandalizing an article, although that block violated both WP:BP and WP:3RR. But when I see the tolerance demonstrated here towards all the trolls and POV pushers who are allowed to roam freely on Wikipedia, awaiting their reform to become good and productive editors, it makes me think about reconsidering my own membership in this Wikipedia. --Ghirla | talk 16:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking this person is absolutely out of question. there was quite a profound amount of his disruption of wikipedia. If he wants to start afresh, he very well register a new account. Reinstating him after all his trolling would mean to endorse his behavior. mikka (t) 00:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC) As for the mentioned "good relations with other wikipedians", I suggest you to read this article VERY carefully (and many other useful pages there). Bonaparte perfected his ass-kissing strategy. As for his supposedly useful contributions, they constitute about 3% of all his edits. mikka (t) 00:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Questionable user creations

WOW: User:WhiteOwlWho ??? Just thought I'd mention it. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Highly doubt it's Willy on Wheels since his only edit lists his e-mail address at the bottom of his contribution. Since Willy is known for high-speed page moves, it's probable that it's not him. Willy would have vandalized by now. :-P SWD316 ^{talk to me} 04:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Except moves are restricted when the name is first created. And I wasn't saying for sure it was Willy, but I think we need to be aware of WoW names. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the name means that this user's contribs should undergo some scrutiny, but let's be careful not to give this user the same welcome we gave to WoWjUnKiE7290. :-P --Deathphoenix 04:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't advocating anything but a watchful eye. Doesn't hurt to be alert. Wow, I just frickin' rhymed. Awful. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 05:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Tis a danger to rhyme when on wheels

for one might become someone who feels

so overwhelmed by the power

that it all might go sour

Playing tactics like a card-player who deals.

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 06:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• If that's supposed to be a limerick, you seriously need to work on your meter :) Radiant_>|< 12:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I dropped what I intended to be a friendly greeting on the userpage, so if it isn't Willy on Wheels at least he'll know why people are giving him funny looks. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this an error?

I just noticed -- on this page [11], when you hit edit there is some nice red text on the top which says the article can only be edited by admins. But this isn't true! I just edited the page. Unless I have been promoted without anyone telling me -- looks like there is something wrong with the wiki softare/ page. Could someone check it out novacatz 10:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be semi-protected, which means that anonymous and very new users can't edit it, while everyone else can. --Carnildo 10:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that too. Might MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning be modified to cover sprotect as well as full protection? (or otherwise make the message less confusing?) --Interiot 11:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it'd be better if we had a seperate warning for semi-protection. For what it's worth, I've made the same suggestion (as well as suggested messages in the event a semi-protection warning message is added) at MediaWiki talk:Protectedpagewarning. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This is related to bugzilla:4667. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 17:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo on userboxes

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Proposed policy on userboxes and various userpages:

Note from Jimbo

I wonder if you might consider...

I wonder if you might consider simply removing your political/religious/etc. userboxes and asking others to do the same. This seems to me to be the best way to quickly and easily end the userbox wars.

Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian.

I think rather than us having to go through a mass deletion (which is what is likely to happen if the userbox fad Jtdoesn't go away), it will be better to simply change the culture, one person at a time. Will you help me?--Jimbo Wales 10:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

In three years I have found the people who are easiest to work with, and most honest to deal with, are those who are totally open about their viewpoints. It didn't matter whether they were liberal or conservative, Catholic of Jew, pro-life or pro-choice, being open about who they are and their viewpoint enabled a reasoned, intelligent debate to ensue and meant people knew what viewpoints x or y would add into an article. I have found userboxes a godsend in that regard. Rather than having to write a long explanation of who they are, they can communicative their viewpoint quickly and effectively using a userbox. Others can use them to A line has to be drawn but most user boxes IMHO are perfectly valid. The genie is out of the bottle on userboxes. They cannot now be deleted without provoking a Wikipedia civil war. All we can do is try to ensure extremely offensive users (eg, This user hates queers, This user wants Israel wiped out, This user hates blacks) aren't used. The last thing WP needs is about outbreak of political correctness on WP, whereby users are banned from saying what their political or religious identity is. Allowing people to state their preferences also would enable WP to disprove claims of bias by showing that it has conservative users and liberal users, pro-israel and pro-palestinian users, pro-life and pro-choice, etc. Imposing censorship would frankly be a disaster that would drive many users away. Already the forced deletion by a cabal of a reference to a pro-life group on users has offended many and driven away some of our best contributors. People should be entitled as of right under free speech to say who they are and what their views are. Either user pages are deleted altogether or people should be given the right to reveal as much as they wish about their views. Free speech in a free encyclopaedia demands no less.

FSThis user is believes in FREE SPEECH
in a FREE ENCYCLOPAEDIA

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Why presume that people only edit to add their POV? I know userboxes make me feel hostility to some users - I'd rather deal with their behaviour rather than their support for things that I hate. I see a userbox and I think POV warrior. Secretlondon 20:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It you feel hostility because of a box, then you have the issue. People are perfectly entitled in an open society to express their opinion. Saying you oppose Bush, the House of Saud, abortion, Scientology, or whatever is your right. Saying Bush should be killed, the House of Saud all massacred, that pro-choice people are child killers, that scientologists are a threat to mankind, etc moves from free speech to incitement to hatred. That is unacceptable. Most of us much prefer knowing that 'User:v' is right wing, 'w' is left wing, 'x' is pro-life, that 'y' is pro-Bush and 'z' is anti-Bush, to not knowing. Professional editors can factor in a sensitivity based on knowledge. It is harder to do if they don't know the legitimate viewpoint of the person they are debating with. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree as a general rule it's not the editors with an admited POV who are the problem. It's those who claim the be neutral.Geni 20:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well put, its a recurring theme on Intelligent design. Jimbo seems to have uncharacteristically missed the mark, userboxes haven't changed the culture... it merely more clearly labels the pre-existing (sub) cultures in Wikipedia. Thus it encourages summary (encyclopedic?) transparency, which is the core of Wikipedia culture. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

To give a practical example, three editors I can think of hold strongly republican viewpoints on Northern Ireland. One is up front and honest and is respected by all sides for his honesty he strives to use neutral language in all his edits. Two others never declared their POV but spend their time sneaking into articles to change NPOV language to pro-republican language, deleting links that don't support their agenda, all while pretending to be neutral. So while when the first guy enters, Irish users (a) know his viewpoint, and (b) know his trustworthiness, when either of the other two edit the edits have to be checked line by line to see what little barbs and POVs have they sneaked in this time. The first guy has never been involved in an edit war, even though he holds strong views. The other two, who feign neutrality, provoke edit wars everywhere they go. I am always happy to see POV userboxes on pages because it tells me the person is being upfront and honest about any agendas or viewpoints they have. It is when I see no userbox explaining their views, yet find they are engaged in heavy POVing, that I get suspicious about what is going on. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't users just tell people about themselves on their talk pages, without having to use userboxes? Do we need such rapid characterization of users, or are users so lazy that they can't write a little about themselves and have to resort to userboxes? "I'd like to tell other editors I hate Eskimos, but I'm just too lazy." ;-) But seriously, you'll be able to tell whether they are biased by their edits. Having a userbox just tells you their beliefs or where they're from, not whether they will add NNPOV content. All content should be checked, regardless of who it comes from. Userboxes should not be used to identify which users may be biased (by their presence or absence). Who the content comes from does not matter. What matters is the content and whether it is verifiable.

WP:AGF means that if someone claims to be neutral at least intialy you have to act as if you think their claim might be true. Someone who doesn't admit thier POV is a pain to deal with since they can of course point blank deny that they are pushing thie POV.Geni 03:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, userboxes make it look like Wikipedia supports the user's beliefs because the template makes it "official looking". If someone just stated their beliefs on their user page in text, it would seem more like their individual beliefs. -- Kjkolb 21:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with this. When I first created my userpage, I thought I had too many userboxes as it was, but I've seen other users just go overboard with them. It reminds me of those cars that just have way too many bumper stickers. — TheKMan^talk 03:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has replied on his talk page with this edit - [12].--God of War 03:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser lite

Since it involves admins in gereral, admin opinion on this is more than welcome. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 12:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Samscone

The only edits this account makes is to vandalise the Sam Sloan page and to remove references to Sam Sloan in other articles. Isn't this the kind of impersonating account which gets blocked from Wikipedia? Surely, it's just been made to rhyme with Sam Sloan's name? - Hahnchen 17:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a block is justified yet. I left another warning on his talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't mean blocking for general vandalism or anything, he isn't that prolific. I thought that this was a candidate for one of those "username blocks", like Jimbo Whales, or when people replace an l for a capital I to impersonate people. - Hahnchen 18:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I just blocked him for twenty-four hours. I'll look into permanently blocking. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Anon problem

There has been a very disruptive vandal IP Address, 165.247.83.151. He has been repeatedly readding personal attacks/nonsense on his talk page and yet he has not yet been blocked. SWD316 ^{talk to me} 00:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the anon for 24 hours and sprotected the talk page. Canderson7 ^(talk) 00:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

user:Iron Jew

Iron_Jew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created a nonsense article, father mcginnisberg. When I listed it for speedy delete, he removed the speedy delete tag twice without comment. He then removed two afd tags and vandalised my user page twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamdaly620 (talk • contribs)

This sounds like an imposter/sockpuppet account of User:Ironbrew. Not only did he vandalize and possibly create a imposter account, but it looks like apossible usernameblock could be in store for "Iron Jew". SWD316 ^{talk to me} 03:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see on the user contribution pages about deleting the AFD, maybe becuase the article's gone now. He has an apology posted on his page after two warnings. Further vandalism should be dealth with swiftly, without a doubt. -Husnock 03:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Curps blocked him indefiently for vandalism, well, I guess the apology was no good. :-D SWD316 ^{talk to me} 03:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think his apology was an idle one, since I think he kept vandalizing after he posted it. Anyway, he kept removing several speedy tags and AfD tags that were posted on the patent nonsense/attack page he created. — TheKMan^talk 03:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Living people

Ok, I just stubbled upon this category. This is probably the most broad category ever made on Wikipedia. Do you know how much of a hassle it's going to be to list EVERY single person who's alive. That's a pretty useless, if you ask me. I don't think we need a category to help us divide the people who are alive. I think Categories should group people/things that are unique. Unique in bieng able to list a few people/things into a category of something specific that not everyone has. Something that broad like if their alive or not is hardly useful. IMHO, I think this should be deleted, but I wasn't sure if everyone would agree with me or not so I posted the message here. SWD316 ^{talk to me} 06:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Related discussion may be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disrespect of community opinion from an admin. — TheKMan^talk 06:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The category will exist, by fiat from Jimbo, as a way to avoid another Seigenthaler incident. I think the idea is to form a "bio patrol" to ensure that living peoples' WP entries are up to snuff. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 06:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Also see discussion on wikien-l here. --Interiot 07:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

But listing people who are alive is useless and time consuming. Placing all of those categories by hand is just wasting time. I think users can keep articles up-to-date without the use of a mass category. SWD316 ^{talk to me} 07:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but what can we do about it, the almighty Jimbo has spoken. The best thing to do is just ignore it and ignore articles in it. That's what i plan on doing to show my opposition to it. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 07:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

How very mature and helpful of you. — Dan | talk 18:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, what I did about it was send Jimbo a message and see if he will respond. I proposed deleting the category Living people and expanding on Category:Births by year. I don't think avoiding the articles are going to help Jtkiefer because it basically is every article. :-D SWD316 ^{talk to me} 15:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it has to do with automation. A number of tech geeks have spoken up and noted that the catagory is the best way to handle it.--Tznkai 17:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

There is also the (vague, rumoured) possibility of providing an optional filter for RC. Bios of living people account for less than 10% of our articles but much more of our legal risk. Physchim62 (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The Most Noble

Please note that discussion has moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#The Most Noble

Is this the right place to have a moan? I keep being reverted here. [13] Is it really true that Wikipedia policy says all articles about British Dukes dead and alive have to begin "The Most Noble" Tarquin Chinless-Wonder? as most of them recently seem to do. Because in 2006 it does sound (to my ears) really rather silly. For example Andrew Russell, 15th Duke of Bedford , Murray Beauclerk, 14th Duke of St Albans and David Somerset, 11th Duke of Beaufort. What about Spanish and Italian dukes can they be noble too? Thinking about this matter some more are any of the above (live) dukes notable anyway, apart from possessing their own names the same as anyone else. what have they done to be here? - but just for the moment let's consider "The Most Noble" Giano | talk 17:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You're being reverted because you're acting against the Manual of Style. Please see here: [14]. Mackensen (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This also covers The Right Honourable for members of the Privy Council, The Most Honourable for Marquesses, and so forth. Mackensen (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• I see nowhere there that antiquated terms should be used - are the married females who have an article on Wikipedia to be change to Mrs. John Smith or whatever their husband's were called because that was etiquette some time ago? Giano | talk 18:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

(sigh) That's because we didn't bother to spell out every single honorific prefix that exists. Honorific prefixes are included in Wikipedia articles, whether they refer to peers, priests, or politicians (with the exception of monarchs and popes, for whom we have different rules). Mackensen (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• ::::::(big sigh) you talk to your fellow countrymen in these terms (bigger sigh) that's terrific is it for the tourists? Giano | talk 18:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm an American, and if I appear short it's because I remember that long weeks of debating which lead to the established of the policy in the first place. I highly encourage you to read the manual of style before making changes which are simply going to be reverted. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd also note that this is a content and policy dispute, which is better suited for the policy pages in question. Mackensen (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As someone involved in sorting out the mess on royal styling I have to say that Mackensen is correct in interpreting WP policy as regarding peer's styles. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The complaint about admin behavior is relevant here, though

I don't understand this reference to MOS at all. Mackensen,have you reviewed the MOS section you link to recently, are you sure you remember it right? As far as I can see, it shows that there is no policy, and no recommendation, for such cases; it says "The inclusion of some honorific prefixes and styles has proved controversial". That's it. How do you figure Giano is "acting against" that? The only actual policy mentioned by the MoS is that for royalty and popes we don't include comparable honorifics. That obviously doesn't mean that we do include them for nobility; theoretically it's not relevant at all, and insofar as it's a hint, it implies the opposite.
OK, this issue should go to the policy pages in question (where, again, are they?), but Giano's "moan" is appropriate on this page in regard to the behavior of User:Proteus, who has been persistently reverting him over many pages. Proteus isn't — just — in breach of the 3RR (it takes 4 reverts within 24 hours to be that) but he's certainly keeping just inside the 3RR[15], reverting the same change persistently on a number of articles, referring bad-temperedly to policy[16] without saying where it's to be found (apparently nowhere, so I can understand that), and some of the time using admin rollback to revert[17], implying that Giano's edits are vandalism. Oh, and I see a strong protest on User talk:Proteus against earlier such misuse of rollback ("at least 19 admin rollbacks to well-meaning edits")[18] — —I can't find any response from Proteus to it. None of these actions are appropriate admin behavior. Bishonen | talk 19:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC).

I would disagree with your interpretation. Unexplained deletions from articles, when there is strong consensus that they should remain, is hardly the way to go about things. The manual of style notes that such usage, while not universally accepted, is common. That's pretty solid for the MOS. I would also note that WikiProject Peerage, which does its level best to keep articles on peers, baronets, and British politicians in order, regards the use of honorific prefixes as standard practice. Giano's complaint against these prefixes seems to be that of many Americans; he regards them as antiquated appendages. That may well be, but they're still in use today. If he wants to get ride of The Most Noble then he's going to have to delete The Right Honourable as well. I think Proteus was perfectly justified in reverting these unexplained deletions. Mackensen (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The Manual of Style doesn't force you to do anything, but stand this on its head: nowhere is there justification for just removing honorific prefixes. Mackensen (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm strongly against the use of these prefixes. I have checked all the main encyclopedias and biographical dictionaries and they are not used in these so I don't see why Wikipedia should use them. Arniep 19:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Because the community reached a consensus on this matter about six months ago. I would stongly advise you against reopening the issue. Mackensen (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no rational reason why we should use the styles for Dukes but not Monarchs, therefore I think this should be reconsidered with wider community involvement. Arniep 19:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, try to understand that it was considered with wider community involvement, and this was the compromise that was reached. Mackensen (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to me above, Mackensen. I'm glad to see you back-pedalling on the claim that Giano's "acting against the Manual of Style". Looking for the "wider community involvement" you mention: I see a very modest discussion on the Project Peerage talkpage, under "Honorific prefixes", dating from last summer and with four (4) users taking part, wherein Proteus suggests honorifics be used, the others appear well enough pleased, and Proteus dismisses a question from one of them about how/when to decide on this "proposed policy" by saying: "We don't normally have a formal approval process. As it's been here for a while and no one seems to have objected, I suppose it could now be considered an acceptable policy." Is this the consensus you refer to ...? Then perhaps you need to bear in mind that consensus is subject to change, especially if it consists of four users on an, uh, not high-profile talkpage. Style policy, AFAIC, is the MoS.

On the rollback issue: Giano removed the honorific with in every case an at least somewhat explanatory edit summary[19], [20] , [21] (A fuller argument by Giano on talk would have been better, I agree. Note that Proteus, an admin, never once used or suggested using the talkpage either.) Proteus rolled him back without any explanation at all. [22], [23]. [24]. Are you defending the position that Giano's edits were vandalism and therefore rollback was appropriate? I'm not talking merely about reverting them (though I personally have some doubts about that as well, with so much reverting) but using the admin rollback button, which is only to be used to revert vandalism. Do you have any comment on the talkback message that I linked to, protesting Proteus previous misuses of rollback ? Or on the low information content and poor courtesy of Proteus' edit summaries on those occasions that he didn't use rollback? (I won't offer any diffs here, since the histories of the pages I've already linked to are easily viewed). Is this "perfectly justified" admin behavior? I'd be grateful for a bit of feedback from other admins, and other community members, here, if possible. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC).

Actually, I was referring to this set of archives:[25] [26] [27] [28] [29]. That's by no means everything that was said on the matter, just what I was able to find. Styles have been in the MoS for a long time. They are frequently removed by users who are either unaware of this fact or who do not approve of them. I would note that it is not yet accepted that rollback can only be used for vandalism, and that said discussion is still on-going (I myself try to only use it thusly, but there's no requirement that admins do so). I can say that I would have reverted Giano myself, but Proteus beat me to it. Mackensen (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the general consensus, as well as the general feeling, is that use of rollback ought to be restricted right down to cases where it is obvious as to the reason for the reversion. First of all, rollback is not a simple revert, so you need to understand that it's all too easy to do some serious damage. If you try to revert a single edit with it, depending upon the pattern of edits, you may end up reverting a whole string of them. Second, rollback provides no scope to give a summary, leaving only the daunting X rolled back edits by Y to last version by Z - the preferred option is to use a manual revert and provide at least some sort of summary, if only to avoid being damn rude.

Misuse of administrator-only abilities will lead to their revocation in short order, so please check your facts and make sure you want to continue on that pattern. At the least, I would advocate that you stop using rollback, and avoid any revert warring which may spring up. Rob Church (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah I bet you would strongly advise - Incidentally I am not American, and I may know a great deal more about the peerage than you. so please do not be patronising. British Dukes do not refer to themselves as Most Noble or expect others to do so. Most Noble is only used today in documents issued by Buckingham Palace when conferring even greater honours of chivalry on an existing Duke. Or in the very rarified language of the courts of Heraldry. It was used in the House of Lord's on occassions, but they have now expelled Dukes, si it will not be happening again there. At Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington after being reverted I changed to "The late and most Noble" which incidentally was the correct term for a dead duke when "Most Noble" was in common parlance has again been reverted - very odd. Dukes no longer even have Most Noble placed on their own tombstones. So there is absolutely no reason for an international encyclopedia to use these antiquated and near obsolete terms of deference. If the Pope cannot be His Holiness how come the distant (and sometimes dubious) descendents of British heros and King's bastards can be " Most Noble". Giano | talk 20:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you found my tone patronizing, let me back up and try again. What you are describing here is a content dispute. The issues you have raised were raised six months ago and hashed out in what has become know as the "Style Wars." I'm not sure where the relevant talk page archives have ended, but I'll start looking this evening. Incidentally, the Duke of Montrose still sits in the House of Lords as an elected hereditary peer, and there is no bar on Dukes now entering the House of Commons. If you want to re-ignite the Style Wars, a good place to do so is Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). I remind you again that this would also cover The Right Honourable, which is hardly antiquated and indeed in almost constant use. The Manual of Style, in my view (and I'm not alone in this), as presently written, backs up Proteus's version of the article. Perhaps he could have been friendlier about it, but consider his actions in light of the above. Mackensen (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• We are not discussing "Right Honourable" but "Most Noble". Please let me assure you of one thing for dead certain without debate or confusion, the British House of Commons will never, has never and never will refer to any of its members as "Most Noble". The Duke of Montrose may well sit as an elected peer, but I suspect he is not about to begin a campaign for the return of "Most Noble" - not if he wants to remain in the House of Lords. The term is antiquated, it is dead, it is gone, only on Wikipedia does it seem to remain. Giano | talk 20:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't think we should use Right Honourable either. The only prefix that does seem to be used in mainstream encyclopedias and biographical dictionaries is Sir. I think the point is those styles are only meant to be used when addressing a person formally not in an encyclopedia article. Arniep 21:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Quite right! Giano | talk 21:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a shame that no one (excepting a few individuals) on Wikipedia seem to realise that this is the case. Arniep 21:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It is policy and like other policies remains so until WP users (plural), not just one or two, decide otherwise. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl, it differs from "other policies" in not existing. At least no one has been able to point to this policy, to link to it, or to quote it. Unless you mean to repeat yet again Mackensen's claim that this is a policy in favor of using honorific prefixes? I'm baffled to hear anybody say that their "interpretation" allows for such a random, contrary-to-the-words-on-the-page reading — I don't know how to respond, really. Dear reader, please click on the offered MoS link — here it is again — as Sannse did. Read all about it. It won't be policy until you can show us a policy that says so, Jtdirl; that one ain't it. Bishonen | talk 00:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

Look, I just don't see what you and Sannse are seeing. I see two groups excluded: royals and popes. They are clearly and explicitly excluded from having styles included in articles. Nobles do not belong to either of those two groups. Mackensen (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

...Abusing admin privileges, such as rollback, for content disputes or edit wars, is not only incredibly wrong, but also just as stupid and immature as edit warring in the first place. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 21:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, I refer you to the discussion above. This is a policy question, as Jtdirl rightly noted. Mackensen (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a settled policy question. Additionally, the use of rollback to revert non-vandalism IMO contravenes our policy on Civility, since it provides no edit summary and implies the user's edit was pure vandalism. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

My two penn'orth: Proteus's position, as a matter of English usage, is ludicrous. However the first of his reverts seems to be this one, which does give a reason for the revert. If you revert for the same reason twenty times, I don't see any need to do it the slow way after giving a reason on the first occasion. Mark¹ 22:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The policy as written does not say what is claimed here. It lists some that are "viewed by many (but not all) as acceptable", and lists some that should not be used. It does not say "these titles must be used". I can see that the dispute over this was heated and can understand that everyone involved is sick of the whole argument - but that doesn't change that the quoted link does not support the change. I've looked at the links provided to old discussion, and it's a complete mess that seems to lead nowhere. Unless there is an agreement to change the Manual of Style, then there are no grounds to insist on one form or the other. Certainly there are no grounds to use rollback - as said above, for a non-vandalism edit, that's just plain rude. -- sannse (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and those it lists are royals and popes. Only royals and popes. Those were the only ones excluded. Mackensen (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

However, note that the users above would remove The Right Honourable, which is one of those listed as acceptable to most users. That would definitely be against consensus. Moreover, it's clear from the wording that while you do not have to use styles, there isn't support for going through and taking them out. The peerage project, for one, has a made a point to use them, because it aids in describing historical figures. My impression, unless someone inserts diffs which prove otherwise, is that Proteus didn't use the rollback button until the removals continued. The matter of styles is settled at the present. The usage of The Most Noble and The Most Honourable was never explicity stated because it did not appear necessary to do. The distintinction in the MoS at present is between royal and papal styles on the one hand and all the rest on the other. While examples are cited they are by no means inclusive. Mackensen (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• I see you have just reverted again at 1st Duke of Wellington [30] - amazing. Whatever the rights or wrongs of roll back (I don't know what that is incidentally or that he had done it) that if three or four admins can decide on a obscure talk page that a living human being, who has often done nothing more than be born (remember even today a baby can be a duke) has to be referred to in 2006 as The Most Noble, then the whole encyclopedia looks sycophantic and ridiculous - and that definitely should be discussed here. Giano | talk 22:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's my first revert on any article in this matter, and it was done in response to a revert by Arniep, whose reverts I can't begin to count. If you would please look at the links I posted above, you would see that the style policy was hashed out by dozens of editors, many of whom were not administrators. I would also remind you of WP:NPOV; your personal views on the relative importance of dukes shouldn't enter into this. Mackensen (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I love titled people - quite a few of them. I merely point out that they come in all ages, shapes and sizes. Some even do noble and heroic things, and some lie in their crested cribs and scream but by describing them all in a medieval term in 2006 makes them and more importantly Wikipedia ridiculous, and it should cease now, before the place becomes a laughing stock. Giano | talk 22:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you know that Queen Elizabeth II still styles herself "Duke of Normandy" on her official website? If the title is official, then we should use it in the article. Otherwise, I support Giano in this dispute. A note to admins: please remember that rollback is intended for reverting vandalism. If you enter a content dispute, please revert the ordinary way and explain your changes in edit summaries. Otherwise, your rollbacks may be interpreted as rudeness and arrogance towards other editors. Take care, Ghirla | talk 09:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Disruption

I would like to draw everyone's attention to this edit here, [31], in which User:Arniep removes the style from Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington with the edit summary "removed most noble style in keeping with all other modern reference works". Such a justification is neither here nor there. It is done without reference to the manual of style, accepted practice, community consensus, or even the discussion above. Other encyclopedias do not dictate practices here. Mackensen (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I refer you you my edit immediatly above (almost a conflict) Giano | talk 22:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it. That edit is skating dangerously close, in my view, to disruption. Mackensen (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I only reverted twice, and secondly these prefixes are only meant to be used in formal spoken addresses, not even Burke's Peerage uses them!!! Arniep 22:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

And yet, interestingly, inserting the title isn't part of the Manual of Style, either. Thus, removing it isn't a violation of the Manual of Style, and inserting it isn't a violation of the Manual of Style, and there isn't policy to insert or remove it. How about that? Seems like a content dispute. Also, Arniep is correct that this particular title is spoken, not legal, so perhaps what we can do is have the audio version employ it, in a "Masterpiece Theatre" imitation, and the written version not? Geogre 12:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal

At this point, what we have is a policy dispute. Policy disputes don't belong here. Before this degenerates into a revert-war (moreso, at any rate), let me try to state the situation as I see it and suggest a way to handle this.

A number of Wikipedians, particularly those active in articles concerning the British peerage or British government (and the two do overlap quite a bit), are in the habit of including styles and honorific prefixes in articles. These range from The Most Noble and The Most Honourable, which designate nobles only, to The Right Honourable, which can refer to both nobles (e.g. Earls) and commoners (members of the privy council). Furthermore, these Wikipedians believe that the Manual of Style backs them up, to say nothing of common practice. Other Wikipedians dispute this interpretation, or, more broadly, do not agree that styles should be included in articles. The Manual of Style does not seem to support their interpretation, but that matter is not entirely clear. The Manual of Style is silent on removing styles, but the which styles are approved may be an open question.

Two things need to happen at this point. One, I think we need to agree that Proteus could have been kinder about his reverts, but that from his point of view they were entirely justified (and he did give reasons in the beginning). We've ceased to discuss him in all of this, at any rate. Two, we may need to re-examine the policy on styles, but that's something that should be done at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Mackensen (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a matter that belongs here because it is making Wikipedia look ridiculous - you want in the civilized western world Wikipedia to call certain human beings Most Noble and such like when even their own stud books do not. The peer project crowd seem to have made a right antiquated hash of it so far - so lets sort it here in public. Giano | talk 23:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Mackensen, your summary is hardly fair. The MoS is silent as to whether these styles should be used. It simply notes that some people consider some of the styles to be acceptable. Mark¹ 23:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Nor did I say that it did. I stated that a number of Wikipedians belive that it says that, but the matter is not entirely clear. Therefore, I invited Giano to take the matter up in the proper place. Mackensen (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You also said the MoS "does not seem to support their interpretation". You're entitled to your view, but don't try to pretend it's a neutral summary. Mark¹ 23:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What I mean by that is that it doesn't say that you should remove them, and in fact gives examples of styles that are often used. I've rewritten it a little. Mackensen (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me help you out a little bit here. At the top of the page there is the following clause: Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour. This is a content dispute. I suppose we're heading towards mediation if you keep making rather offensive remarks like the one above, but I'm not one to go round quoting WP:NPA at people. I encourage you to read up on how policy is made, and also have a look at WP:NOT, when you get a chance. Thanks in advance, Mackensen (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC) (Your helpful representative from those worthless fellows at WP:PEER).

Mackensen, I realize people post in a hurry sometimes, and can feel beleaguered sometimes. May I ask if you stand by the above message with its sarcasm, self-praise, false "helpfulness", and paralipsis ("a rhetorical figure or figure of speech in which one emphasises something by pretending not to mention it") today, after sleeping on it? Bishonen | talk 04:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

Mackensen, where's the best place to discuss this, would you say? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I should think Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) would be a good place, since that's where the disputed words lie. Mackensen (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I can see there's a lot to read. There would be, wouldn't there? ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Is there any point continuing this discussion anywhere. As far as the noble peer pushers are concerned grey is both black and white, and it does not really matter if it isn't as a noble admin can come along and use magical tools. No where else in Wikipedia would such a ridiculous charade be tolerated. Quite rightly Kings, Queen, religious leaders etc all have no honorifics, (no disrespect intended to them, just a level playing field) yet somehow it seems on Wikipedia the British monarch's "support cast" can have all kinds of Ruritanian prefixes, not given them elsewhere. A limited discussion on the subject seems to have started at this popular debating forum Talk:Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. This is an admin or higher administration matter as it makes the whole project look toadying, pretentious and daft.Giano | talk 08:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Mackensen, I know this is completely off topic, but was your section title (A Modest Proposal) a coincidence, or was it an allusion to either the term or the essay A Modest Proposal? Just curious.... Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The latter, although it was a serious proposal :) --Mackensen (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• For anyone interested in defining future policy on this subject in a clear and definitive way I have instigated a debate here at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#The Most Noble Giano | talk 10:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It may be worth pointing out that our written policy is a crystalisation of community consensus: it is not fixed in stone, and if the consensus changes then the policy needs to be updated. Besides which, one of our most treasured principles is Use common sense (which, you may note, is a redirect to the, IMHO, misleadingly named Ignore all rules). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

One Modest Proposal would, of course, be to eat the peers. However, arguing that "there is no law against calling them by honorifics (where there is for Popes and Kings), so there is a law calling them by honorifics" is the worst kind of offense against logic and common sense (something that Swift's Projector would not do, as he is entirely logical and thoroughly immoral). We call saints saints only if they are known as saints primarily (e.g. if Mother Theresea gets the nod, she won't go in as Saint Theresea of Calcutta, but rather Mother Theresea, saint, as a job title). In the cases of kings and popes, the job title is included ("king" and "pope"), but not an honorific. If the honorific is an indication of job title ("sir" or "knight"), then it should be present. However, an article that honors its subject by using exaltation in its description violates NPOV. I don't get to say that the 3rd Earl of Sandwich was honorable (or honourable) or noble or pure of heart. I get to say that he was an earl. Anything more than that implies my encyclopedic value and my desire to stroke his vanity. Well, he's long dead and has no vanity to satisfy, so there's no need to please him, and NPOV prevents my flattering him. Geogre 12:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, members of the privy council are also styled The Right Honourable. That being said, I've no more desire to flatter the departed duke than the next man, but was concerned to prevent a gigantic revert war from breaking out. That object being achieved, there's a good discussion on the Manual of Style, which I've linked to at the top of all this. Mackensen (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich

Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) has been warned a few ties about civility; this [32] seems to me to be unacceptable. Any reason I should not issue an npa3 warning, and act on it if he continues? I have an ongoing dispute with Gastrich (see also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich, which shows some history of attacks) but this is neither to or about me, so I see no reason not to issue a formal warning, but I want to do the right thing. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion about this fellow on WP:AN/I plus a RfC at the obvious place. I blocked him for 24 hours earlier for various stuff. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think a block now would hinder the RFC process. I will leave a not on his Talk page to that effect. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to give Jason a short leash at this point. We've indefinitely blocked users (BigDaddy777 comes to mind) for far less than what Jason has done. So right now I say let RfC work and see what happens. But there has to be a point where we say "enough". --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Need my user pages rescued

My user and user talk pages were moved around by Voterrightsparty (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), I could use come assistance getting them back in the right places. Thanks! — TheKMan^talk 19:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think I fixed it. android79 20:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Mcfly85?

I think everyone might think I'm paranoid or something but I think:

165.247.83.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

is Mcfly85. Evidence may prove in the last few edits by the anon linking my less than popular rant about Wikipedia to his talk page (if you look through the history you should see it). I don't how an random anon IP address would know about that if he wasn't involved in the earlier mishap. It's nothing really but it does show similar connections, don't you think? SWD316 ^{talk to me} 22:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible admin meeting and mailing list

User:Danny has been kicking around ideas on the wikien mailing list about an IRC meeting for admins and a mailing list for admins. [33] [34] - Haukur 22:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, admin behavior needs to have greater transparency to regular users, not less. Why isn't this page, communication on talk, and the existing IRC channel if necessary, sufficient? Superm401 - Talk 22:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear. My sentiments exactly. Bishonen | talk 01:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

• Hey everybody, please look the other way for a moment, we're trying to form a cabal here. Radiant_>|< 23:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ugh, not more mail. The stuff I get from the vandals is bad enough. Mackensen (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree. I'd rather spend the time editing than reading through yet more emails, and I don't like the hysteria that seems to come from the current IRC channel. Secretlondon 10:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• I prefer that all Wikipedia "business" take place on Wikipedia, it is public, open and accessible by all. For that reason I do not participate in IRC or the mailing lists. Paul August ☎ 00:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  I prefer it too, by much, but it seems to me more pious than useful to eschew IRC and the Mailing list to that end, and encourage others to do the same. If there were no IRC and no Mailing List, editors would surely simply e-mail one another through the "E-mail this user" feature even more than they do now, and they would continue to discuss Wikipedia business in these mails. Would you disable the e-mail feature? And also, how hard would it be for users to find other real-time internet venues? I don't believe it's anyways possible to stop Wikipedians from talking Wikipedia business privately. IMO it's a little better that they do so on IRC and the ML, where there is at least continual open discussion which reminds people of the ethical issues involved, than to be driven wholly underground (or into venues that only the techiest among us can find). Let's avoid separating the admins off into special channels, let's keep them visible to at least those non-admin who do choose to frequent the same spaces; I think that's the best we can do. Bishonen | talk 01:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

  Well, I disagree. I'd blow up the IRC channel in a minute, if I had the chance. For every piece of business done there that couldn't be done on the project (VIP, DR, AN, AN/I), there are ten pieces of distortion, chat, and piling on. If I go to IRC, I chat, as, other than emergency issues, it's fairly useless to actually unlimber an argument. Geogre 14:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  Which is exactly why I created WP:AN. Apparently this isn't enough. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Bishonen. It's too cabal-ous to form communication channels that are solely for the use of admins. Joyous | Talk 01:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate, the only possible reason to do something like this is to have a page protected so that only admins can discuss (still readable to public) is to help reduce the signal to noise ratio (if there is any). — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 04:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• -I have access problems with IRC so i never use it. I strongly object to policy discussion taking palce ther unless it is at least copied to the wiki. I alo think this is mostly a better forum than the amiling list, to which i don't plan to subscribe, but at least the archives are avaialble via a web link. DES ^(talk) 18:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyrights

I and several other people have posted comments to Wikipedia talk:Copyrights only to have them be totally ignored by administrators. You mustn't forget that only you have the ability to edit protected pages. Superm401 - Talk 22:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• You must not assume that every talk page is actually watched and read by anyone. That's what we have public noticeboards for. Radiant_>|< 23:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the shortcut, the other things probably should be breached in a more public forum. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 04:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view recent edits

All -- there have been some questionable edits going on recently at WP:NPOV, with some concomitant edit warring. I'd encourage everybody to stop by the page and weigh in on the debate over these changes. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 01:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Messing around like this with the key Wikipedia policy is blatant disruption. I've blocked Bensaccount for 48 hours and locked the page; experienced admins are invited to try to fix the page. If any admin feels this is an egregious block or protection, you childmind him - David Gerard 18:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Block of Dyslexic agnostic

I have blocked him for 24 hours over a dispute over at Talk:Enemies of Batman between him and T-man, the Wise Scarecrow. Benon tried to mediate, and it appeared to be working, but then Dyslexic agnostic personally attacked T-man, calling his T-man edits "a waste of everyone's time." T-man may have been guilty of personal attacks earlier, but to me it seemed that he was trying to be civil and cooperative, so I didn't block him. A review of my actions would be great.--Shanel 04:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

hi ive been trying to mediate this with some help from shanel, howver im uncovering disturbing evidence of a "stalking" of t-man by dyslexic anyone care to comment??Benon 04:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA explicitly says that one should comment on the content, and not the individual. I really think that the statement is about the content, not the user. That being said, T-Man and DA have been going at it for a few months now. I would point out [35], [36], [37], [38], etc (I would suggest taking a look at that archive and seeing just how many threads are between DA and T-Man). This is from earlier today...[39]...which caused this [40]. This prompted Steve block (talk · contribs) to suggest an RfC [41]. (I can't say I'd certify it, but I'd certainly endorse one)

I don't think DA is an angel, I've seen him violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA before (Just not in this case), on a few pages. I think he was lashing out in frustration, as in addition to the Enemies of Batman article, T-Man was partially responsible for creating a few forks on List of limited series. Unfortunately, it seems like you've hit one of those little feuds that keeps going between everyone.--Toffile 04:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

yes but da seems to be appering on every unique article t-man is editing with a couple of hours, often blind reverting, now that is most defintly not acceptable, ive tried to mediate this dispute out but it seems to have proved rather fruitless :-( Benon 04:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be because of this. [42]. Not acceptable behavior by any means.--Toffile 04:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

While I do not disagree with the DA block, I think that T-Man should just as equally be blocked for provoking him in a multiplicity of instances. I don't think "stalking" really is made out - it's simply that T-Man and DA both tend to watch the same pages and this almost inevitably puts them in conflict. I've "clashed" with T-Man before over his Bat-Embargo edits, and have tried to give him advice which he ultimately rejetced as unhelpful (which is his right), so he's probably going to say I'm biased, but my assessment of the situation places the cause directly on T-Man. His sub-standard command of English, his verbosity as opposed to encyclopedic style, his insistence (as a self-proclaimed expert) on POV-pushing and speculative info is all producing high levels of tension on the various comic-related pages. It's nearly impossible to sift out and copyedit the good stuff from the dross when sometimes it it hard to tell precisely what he means in the first place. T-Man has also derided, insulted and outright abused people other than DA. By only blocking DA, you're sending the message to T-Man that he has done nothing wrong; and that is a wrong message, not to mention an unfair one. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

t-man has been warned, we havent just let it slide, and i gave a stern warning to both parties during mediation Benon 05:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I left him a stern warning on his talk page warning him against such behaviour. I did not know the extent of his disruption before, but he's on very thin ice as it is with me.--Shanel 05:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

ive requested an rfc, if anone wnats to give there input on how to proceed it would be very welcome Benon 05:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

T-man, the Wise Scarecrow is now blocked for 24 hours as well.--Shanel 05:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

this behaviour goes back so far and so deep its been referd to the arbitration comitte Benon 06:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

While I do forsee an RfArb coming up in future, I don't think an RFC has even been filed yet. The ArbCom traditionally rejects RfArbs that have not at least gone through the RFC stage first, so I think an RfArb is premature, and a user conduct RFC should be filed first. I'll happily endorse it if someone will write it up. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

rfc had alredy been filed Benon 06:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see you filed a content RFC. I was actually thinking that a user conduct RFC would be more appropriate. In either case, you should let the RFC run its course before filing the RfArb. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise this was being discussed here as well as at the RFAr. I'll paraphrase my thoughts over:

I would question the block on a couple of grounds. Was dyslexic properly warned that he would be blocked on grounds of personal attacks? I still fail to see evidence of a clear warning that either party would be blocked for personal attacks. The best I can find is from Benon who states it is not nessasry to stoop to the level of a personal attack so please don't do, i dont want to but anymore personal attacks and i will be asking admins to impose sancations on either of you. This prompted the reply from Dyslexic that saw him blocked, namely: Benon, it's not a personal attack to say that T-Man's edits are bad, a waste of everyone's time, and that he only knows the animated series, not the comics. These are obvious facts. They affect our ability to edit and spend time on other important matters.

I've been wary to block either user on grounds of personal attacks because my reading of policy was that it wasn't implicit that such blocks are allowed in said policy. I'm also unclear on which user is stalking which, both having claimed the other as stalker. I also have to question why one user is blocked for a personal attack which comes during a period which the blocker in question agrees has been inflamed by personal attacks from the opposite direction. I certainly agree with Khaosworks that you're sending the message to T-Man that he has done nothing wrong; and that is a wrong message, not to mention an unfair one. It also sends the message to Dyslexic that he is unfairly singled out.

Now, taking all things as even I think this initial block was therefore somewhat ill judged. There should have been at least one more warning stressing that the language Dyslexic had used did indeed constitute a personal attack. Steve block talk 16:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voicing your concerns. Looking back, perhaps I should have given Dyslexic agnostic one more warning before blocking, although in my defence I did not know the extent to which T-man provoked him (at the time). I'm also not sure who is stalking who; they both seem to be following each other. Since blocking them both, they have both emailed me. Dyslexic agnostic, while scarcastic, admitted his frustration. And T-man seems to have realized that he should not respond to personal attacks in kind. I hope they can sort their differences out once their blocks expire.--Shanel 22:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Fair play, it has been a hard situation to follow, and I probably should have posted my concerns here, so I'm probably a bit to blame, I was hoping they were going to resolve it amicably, there seemed a period just after New Year when they were treating each other fairly well. I agree it is impossible to tell who is stalking who. I've certainly learnt from this one, and I apologise for being somewhat harder on you in the above text than you deserved. If the case does get accepted by arbcom and resolved, it'll be because you got involved, so that's certainly a plus. Steve block talk 19:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Categories -- How big is too big?

There's a discussion happening here about re-populating profession categories that have been depopulated when split into subcategories by nationality, especially when the nationality has little to do with the profession (like actors and film directors). I'd invite anyone interested to take a look. -- Samuel Wantman 08:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Last time I heard a dev speak about it, the opinion given was that any category with more than "a couple hundred" members should be considered for subcategorizaing. Radiant_>|< 09:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Was that before or after we had Category TOC's? the latest software version? -- Samuel Wantman 09:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That concerned the version of about a month ago, which I believe is still current. Radiant_>|< 10:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Brion Vibber about this and his comment about this was "THERE IS NO ISSUE WITH THE SERVERS DUE TO LARGE CATEGORIES". For the complete conversation see his talk page. --Samuel Wantman 07:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning

Since I suggested that admins wishing to make changed to Mediawiki: space pages should run them through here, I thought I'd do so.

All of a sudden, a couple of days ago, MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning began being very confusingly displayed on semi-protected pages, which people can and are encouraged to edit. Presumably the devs tweaked something for us. Anyway, it needs rephrasing until the problem is fixed. So I'd suggest some phrasing like:

Note: Editing of this page is currently restricted. If you are an administrator and this page is fully protected, please be sure you are following the protected pages policy.

I'd also suggest it no longer be coloured red. It's longer than ideal, but then it's not our fault that the message has come to be used in this way. I think this should be changed post-haste given that I've now seen at least a handful of confused editors around, particularly on George W. Bush. -Splash^talk 12:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, with no responses despite activity elsewhere above and below my post here, I'll go and make the change. I hope that we don't need a massive to-and-fro over the exact words that are used. This should be temporary anyway, I hope. -Splash^talk 22:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Images uploaded by User:Norum

I suspect that all images uploaded by this user (see [43]) are copyright violations of one sort or another. I've started working my way through the list of about 10 images. I've completed 4, but would like help with the remaining images. Note that the user removed a nosource tag from an image [44] without providing a source. --Durin 15:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think they're all taken care of now and tagged as no source or no license where appropriate. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi Protection tags

On semi protected pages, when I click on edit this page, as a non-admin it says WARNING: This page has been locked so that only administrators can edit it. Be sure you are following the protected page guidelines. Any way to fix this? Its VERY misleading, and some editors wont edit the page because they dont think they can. Mike _{(T C)} 17:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Look two threads up... let's get discussion going in one place please. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Cooler heads

We have the makings of a wheel war, or atleast some uncool heads. Template:User freedom Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 22#Template:User freedom Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Template:User_freedom.--Tznkai 17:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

My head is perfectly cool, thank you. I do however welcome broader input. Having once undeleted, i will not undelete this again any time soon, so no wheel war will result from my actions. I would argue that deletinmg things out-of-process does tend to spark conflict and not infrequently wheel wars, but then so does undeleting out-of-process deletions, as I did. Of course, i instantly reported my own action at WP:DRV which i think is the proper forum in such a case, and also mentioned it in the WP:TFD discussion on the above tempalte. If anyone thinks my actions or statemetns were improper, i would be happy to hear it and am open to considering views that differ from my own. DES ^(talk) 18:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

... I really wasn't attacking you, or even indicating you. I'm involved, you're involved, Marksweep is involved, and theres a potential for a lot of other people to get involved. We've already had a vote closing, a deletion, an undeletion, several modifications to a protected page, etc. This was never intended to be personal.--Tznkai 18:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I apologize for assuming that this was aimed particularly at me. You are correct, we have had all the above actions, and things that start that way have in the past caused wheel wars or other rancourous interactiosn, and i don't want another. Having some previosuly uninvolved people join the discussion could hardly hurt, and might help keep things calm. I repeat that I will not delete-war over this or anything. DES ^(talk) 18:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh I just renamed the silly bloody thing and changed the wording. It would probably be better off deleted, as it's advocating the abuse of template space. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Mass PDF upload

Somebody should check what Rajasuap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is doing. It seems like he's using Wikipedia as his personal fileserver. He uploaded about a hundred apparently copyrighted PDFs. bogdan 17:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The one or two that I checked weren't used in an article, so they can be put up for deletion as orphans. --Syrthiss 17:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no kind of option to speedy them? Hmmm... this may be something to look at. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of a speedy criteria that applies. The person who uploaded them marked them as GFDL so they aren't "unused copyrighted images"... they aren't nonsense, or broken. --Syrthiss 18:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, common sense would be that they are all going to be deleted, so why not just speedy them, perhaps under the "Improper license" clause, as I am not sure they are his/hers to release into the GFDL? And my comment was that maybe we need to draft some kind of policy about stuff like this being speedyable. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If they're fair use images that are still orphaned after 7 days, they can be speedied (I5). · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an article from a newspaper, which most likely is copyrighted. bogdan 18:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of them look like magazine articles, newspaper articles, and government documents (?), which might not be fair use. They may be copyvios, so should probably be deleted even if they aren't orphaned. The tags he/she used specify that they are the creator of the work. We need some explanation from Rajasuap. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. If he tagged the one that Bogdan noted above as gfdl-self, then I'd say the rest of his gfdl-self tags are definitely suspect. Articles are almost certainly copyrighted; not necessarily true of government documents -- however that's better in Wikisource anyway. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ask Bogdan for details. Also, blindly speeding stuff which seems OK just because it is orphaned will also remove material being uploaded to support a new article. Is it proper to require creation of an unsupported article (violating WP:V) as opposed to uploading supporting material for a new article before creating the article? (SEWilco 18:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC))

They were uploaded two weeks ago and the user had no activity before or after that. bogdan 18:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

These should be mass deleted. The user in question has not responded to inquiries on the talk page as to what the point of these images are. It seems pretty clear that these are being uploaded for the purpose of using Wikipedia as a file server. I also noticed a lot fo the images are identical, and can be deleted as duplicates. -Husnock 18:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

We may also want to ask User:206.207.175.69 Special:Contributions/206.207.175.69 since he/she appears to have changed many of Rajasuap's files. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Continued block of User:208.183.105.11

208.183.105.11 is, it seems, a school IP from which ther has been considerable vandalism, and whcih is currently blocked for 3 months. I received a msg on my user talk page, which, after quoting the contents of User talk:208.183.105.11 (including the block notices) said: "This is the notice given to my school computers IP. The fact that our school has 4 classes in that room a day, and the fact our school is on a 2 semester block shedulae, means that though 3 warnings were givin out only one ever reached the violater. This message was sent to my friend and me after the vandlizm of the eminem page, not by me, was committed. He nor I was aware of prior offences that had taken place on the computer. For this we got punished by you and the staff of this web site with a 1 month ban from editing. I am pointing out the fact that while you thought 1 person had commited all the vadalization, 2 or more people commited them. I am also pointing out that you are banning a number of inoocent people, including me, from editing for something they never did. I ask you consider the Unbanning of the IP address. Thank you. --User:69.19.14.32 02:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC) (User:Led-zep)"

• I responded that the block was protective, not punitivce. but can we reveiw this block, and perhaps reach out to the relevant school authorities? I hate to leave a school IP blocked if we have any choice. DES ^(talk) 18:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

My compassion for this kind of story is growing thinner with time. Primary schools don't make a lot of useful edits because, you know, primary school kids don't know much yet. I'm leaning toward a "fire and forget" policy, explain the situation to the school administrators if they ask about it, and if they can keep their kids in check then they can edit Wikipedia. It's not our responsibility to babysit them on the internet in the meantime. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. However is this a primary school? I had the strong impression, based on the other edits of User:Led-zep, who says that he is a student there, that this is a secondary school, aka high-school or perhaps Junior High-school. School kinds an research and write decent articels on soem topics, although many of them do not do so. Note I did not suggest an unblosck, merely that we contact the school staff and see what their response is. DES ^(talk) 19:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I just sent the following email msg to the addresses liste in the WHOIS listing for the above IP. We'll see if I get any response.

The IP address 208.183.105.11, which is registered to the State of Tennessee Department of Education, and which seems to be used for providing network connections to various in-school computers, has been used on a number of occasions to vandalize Wikipedia (the free user-written online encyclopedia). As a result, this address has been blocked from editing wikipedia.

A copy of the contribution logs for this address may be seen at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/208.183.105.11>, and of the related warning notices can be seen at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:208.183.105.11>. The relevant block log entries are at <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3A208.183.105.11>.

Some examples of the vandalism can bee seen at <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Humanism&diff=prev&oldid=35688364>, <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GEICO&diff=prev&oldid=35676512>, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plutonium&diff=prev&oldid=35675609>, <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eminem&diff=prev&oldid=35567772>, and <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amethyst&diff=prev&oldid=35675552>.

The matter has recently been discussed at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Continued_block_of_User:208.183.105.11>,

I am a volunteer administrator of the english-language wikipedia. (I am not a paid employee or official, and have no more authority than any of the more than 700 other administrators.) I have recently received a request from someone who says that he is a student affected by this block. I would like to be able to unblock this address, but Cannot in good faith suggest unblocking unless there is some indication that relevant school authorities would be taking some measures to prevent or at least deter such vandalism. Is there any chance that such measures could be taken so that this block could be lifted? If you are not the proper person, could you please let me know who is the proper person to contact on this matter?

Sincerely,

-David E. Siegel <email removed> Wikipedia user:DESiegel

• I just recieved a response that suggests a partial solution. I am now posting that response and my further reply (edited to show who is writing by different indent levels, and to snip quoting of text already posted above). DES ^(talk) 21:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

From: Marc Powell To: <myself and other addresses i copied my original msg to> Sent: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 14:59:04 -0600 Subject: RE: Vandalism of Wikipedia via IP Address 208.183.105.11

Hi David,

The IP address 208.183.105.11, which is registered to the State of Tennessee Department of Education, and which seems to be used for providing network connections to various in-school computers, has been used on a number of occasions to vandalize Wikipedia...

208.183.105.11 is a filtering/caching proxy machine that is managed by us, Education Networks of America as the ISP for the Tennessee public schools. It is one of two machines that proxies traffic for approximately 805 schools in East Tennessee (all grade levels). There are a total of 6 such proxies on our network servicing most of the public schools in the State. Each proxy also passes X-Forwarded-For information containing the closest available IP address to the workstation making the request if you can ban on that (either the workstation itself or a NAT/Firewall device at the school or district).

[vandalism examples removed]

I am a volunteer administrator of the english-language wikipedia. ... Is there any chance that such measures could be taken so that this block could be lifted? ....

While we are just the ISP in this case with minimal enforcement ability, we do have an understanding of how computers are used in the schools and I believe the above request to be unrealistic on a system-wide scale. Computer use is not monitored as strictly as such a policy would require in all cases, computers are not assigned 1:1 nor are unique logins required in most cases making follow-up on vandalism incidents difficult or impossible (not to mention firewalls/NAT that could mask the origin workstations).

We do have the ability to bypass traffic destined for Wikipedia around the proxying devices so that you can see the most specific public IP available for any request. That may be a workstation, school NAT IP or District NAT IP depending on how each District has their internal networks built out. While not a perfect solution, it does provide for the ability to create a more specific block in the event of vandalism and wouldn't affect large sections of the network as the current block does. Additionally, the IP information could allow us to identify and inform the Technology Administrators in the specific District for additional follow-up if possible.

Thoughts?

(signed) Marc Powell; Senior Systems Engineer; ENA/ConnecTEN; <email & telephone removed>

I understand the limitations involved (I am a professional programer myself). Such a bypass might well allow for more specific and more limited blocks, so that at least fewer people would eb affected by each one. (It would be nice if instructors or other relevant authorities at least explained the consequences of vandalistic editing, but that may be unrealistic, and would be at best imperfectly effective).

I am going to post your response on wikipedia's "Adminsitrator's notice board" for comment and further followup, ommitting yopur email and phone number as requested. If you are interested in talking to me by telephone, my work number is <removed>. I will let you know if the response indicates that such a bypass would be considered a positive move by others. Thank you for your prompt response.

-David E. Siegel

• I think that the bypass solution suggested above might be a good idea. At present this block seems to be affecting users at "most of the public schools in the State of Tennessee" (at all grade levels) which is not good if there is a better choice. The solution proposed would at elast allow more specific blocks, and perhaps dealign with authorities at specific schools or districts. DES ^(talk) 21:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• If it minimises the impact of individuals blocks I can't see (from a wikipedia view point) a downside, it might be nice to know the new IPs and where they relate in advance, so we can tag the talk_pages appropriately. --pgk^(talk) 21:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The use of the x forward for information was, if I recall correctly, what allowed individual IP blocking on NTL's network instead of blocking the proxy. So talk to the developers and they should be able to get it working here. It was what allowed the blocking of Marmot. Also go see the Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal that would further limit collateral damage, and write a patch if you are able. - Taxman ^Talk 22:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I recall the x-forward information is effectively a list of ip adresses from source, through eash proxy and on. The software looks backwards through that list until it finds the first IP not on a list of "trusted" forwarders, that is the IP which the edit is considered to come from. In the NTL case the NTL proxies are added as trusted and so it all works, if the devs would be willing to add these proxies to the list of trusted is of course a different question. If they are I doubt they'd trust anything beyond that so if I understand the above correctly we'd probably get the same result as the bypass solution. The bypass solution of course requires no changes at the wikimedia end and wouldn't be open to abuse in the case that those proxies are ever compromised since we aren't extending any trust. --pgk^(talk) 22:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds reasonable and you're right, having the school do the bypassing might be a better idea. - Taxman ^Talk 15:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I am in jefferson County High School. I am also in a class full of people who are between the grades of 10 - 12. I would not complain, nor no how to seen my complants to the proper sorces if I wasn't perfectly literat and a good enough english student that i felt that typing to you would solve this issue. I hope that this post clears matters about school level and maturity. --69.19.14.15 00:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Led-zep

• I recieved a further communication from Marc Powell in which he says: "Chances are high that the teachers don't even know its happening. It's almost certainly happening on lab time or during study hall, etc. ... We're interested in keeping the resource as available as possible without causing significant burden on either end. I'll check on the discussion periodically but if there are other suggestions that are interesting, let me know." I woulkd like a brqoder consensus before asking him to implemt the bypass solutuion, but it still looks good to me. DES ^(talk) 03:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I did block User:208.183.105.11 and User:66.4.225.11 (these 2 proxies randomly handle requests for these TN schools). This is not the first time they have been blocked, and Led-zep's friend is not the only person who has vandalized from these IPs; it's been going on for over a year. I think it would be great if the school bypassed the proxy for Wikipedia, or set up X-forward. I'm not familiar with X-Forward but it sounds like a good solution. However, if the school doesn't take these steps, these IPs shouldn't be unblocked. They've been a steady source of vandalism for over a year. Remember that students can still read Wikipedia, they just can't edit it. I think that's a small price to pay to stop this vandalism. Rhobite 19:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to trust your reasoning on this DES, although I do echo Rhobite's concerns. Steve block talk 19:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Rhobite, I feel that since the semester ended a month ago, you should judge the ban on vadilzims that have happend since the New Year. I also am fine whith the solution that all of you have come up with. I know my oppion doesn't count, because I have only had an account for a week or so, but since I was the one that wrote the letter to DES and started this thing, I feel that I must do as much as I can to try and see this through. Thank You all, Led-zep

Blockage of User:213.40.67.66

This IP has been used for vandalism in the past. It had the repeat vandal template on it. Well, twice now, User:J.Spudeman/User:Spum (he recently changed his username) has been inadvertently blocked because of this. Yes Spum had problems 6-7 weeks ago but he's reformed and is now making many valuable contributions to Wikipedia. I've tried to explain how blocks work to him, but he's understandably upset. We need to be *very* careful with blocks longer than 2-3 hours. I think it's something many admins forget about until something like this happens. It looks like it's a dynamic IP that shifts among just a few users, which happens sometimes. I removed the template on the IP page and replaced it with a warning that this is a dynamic IP. The problem is that this just looks bad. Here are admins, who claim we are helping people out, and yet this stuff happens...too frequently. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I wish people would look at the block log before blocking, a quick look at this one shows that collateral damage has been reported in the past, not to mention it helps to know a realistic block length to set. (Now waiting to be pointed to poor blocks on this part by me....) --pgk^(talk) 21:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

We need to put a notice on the user page of dynamic IPsSecretlondon 00:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Requests for rollback privileges

Please vote on the requests for rollback proposal, a proposal which would give good contributors, who are not admins, access to the rollback privilege. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Geogre's talk page

Would someone mind moving User talk:AOL IP, alas. The person needs blocking, but he's at an AOL dynamic IP back to User talk:Geogre? It was moved by WoohooDoggy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks. Chick Bowen 04:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Chick. Done. Bishonen | talk 04:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

Oops, I think we stepped on each other's toes, Bishonen. Geogre's talk page is currently deleted. I'll step out of the way and let you undelete. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

We did, Bunch. Now take a look at the history of your userpages. :-) Bishonen | talk 04:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for that, too. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure what's going on and I think I've mucked things up twice trying to leave Geogre a message, but I think I'll just leave it alone for now and drop by a little later, when things are stable. My message seems to be the only thing there right now, so someone should just delete it, undelete the proper talk page, and then I'll leave a message later. Sorry about the lousy timing; thanks. Chick Bowen 04:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll do it, if that's OK. --Bishonen | talk 04:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, do, thank you. Chick Bowen 04:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for catching it, Chick. From the way IRC is buzzing right now, it was a biggish attack, but I think most of it is already fixed. Bishonen | talk 04:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

Revealing deleted content to non-administrators

I'm not quite sure what I should do here. I recently speedily deleted a page for nn-bio; the page was written by someone other than the subject of the article, and the subject of the article wants to see what was there before it was deleted. Quoting from my talk page:

... another reason as to why i would like to see the material is to determine if malice was intended. i have been getting quite a bit of flak from people who have seen the article and seeing the content would hopefully enable me to identify the person who posted the article and hence, pursue the appropriate courses of action.

So far, I've been politely refusing to do dig out the deleted material. However, what's the relevant policy on this? Thanks. enochlau (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

My view is, what would it hurt? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Would it be a mis-use of admin powers though? I mean, we don't have the ability to view deleted content for the pleasure of non-admins. enochlau (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Not according to these admins who have put Template:User recovery on their user page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Back to your question, you might want to read WP:DRV#Content review. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the links! enochlau (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Not every user who can be trusted to view deleted content is an administrator. Whether or not to reveal deleted content is a choice you've gotta make — ably guided by Zzyzx11's links, of course — but I don't think it's a good idea to hide everything from non-admins just because they're not admins. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless there is a good reason not to release deleted content (copyvio attack page) I've never seen a reason not to. The content is under the GFDL after all.Geni 12:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course the good reasons would be things like copyright violation and libel, etc. So if the information could be considered as libel, then revealing it after deletion could be contributory in that. - Taxman ^Talk 15:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

A similar incident occured before. What I did (at someone else's suggestion) was undelete the page, move it to my userpage, delete the redirect, protect the page in my userspace, and give the url to the interested party. This lets them view the whole history and all the information we have, but also prevents it from looking like a real article. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Some, but not all, deleted content is sensitive. For instance, if a copyvio or attack page is deleted, recovering that content for a non-administrator might in effect constitute copyright violation or defamation. However, if a nonsense or fancruft page is deleted, recovering that content wouldn't cause any problems. Use common sense. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 03:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Users can ask for undeletions at WP:DRV, including having the info moved to their User space. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleting Image

Vandal image that needs to be deleted. [45] This is the first time I've run into needing to delete a picture. What do I do in a situation like this? I removed the revision from the page. Sue Anne 20:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Put {{db|reason for deletion}} on the image page. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

From Hell, reverting and edit warring

I just want some clarification on some edits which occurred recently at the From Hell article. To my eye there's a small edit war/3RR brewing, so I took the step of warning both users on their talk pages, carefully asking them to discuss the issue rather than continuously re-edit the article. One user disputes that he has reverted more than once, and I'd just like clarification that these edits [46], [47], [48], support my reading of the situation. Was I correct in my warning here, and my explanations here and here? Steve block talk 22:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Warnings all around is probably a good thing; even if they're not skirting the 3RR, revert wars are harmful; they should attempt to resolve the dispute on the talk page. Protecting the article for a bit may be a good call instead of blocking one party or the other. android79 22:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

That's an idea I was considering too, although I'm hoping they'll resolve the issue amicably. I definitely agree that protection would suit better, thanks for the advice. Steve block talk 23:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Webcomics RfAr closed

The Webcomics RfAr has been closed. Aaron Brenneman is admonished to be respectful of consensus in creating and altering Wikipedia policy. While boldness in editing is valuable on Wikipedia, it is no use to Wikipedia to have written policies that create dissent. Aaron Brenneman, Dragonfiend, Snowspinner, and Tony Sidaway are all cautioned to remain civil even in stressful discussions.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was fantastically useful and will definitely attract experts back to Wikipedia instead of cursing its name - David Gerard 10:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that any expert who spends every waking hour watching the minutiae of Wikipolitics and weeping over Arbcom results is not really an expert worth having here. Nandesuka 12:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

...and it will be early to bed for all of you if you don't! Do you hear me? No, wait. That was kindergarten teachers. -Splash^talk 11:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this result is about as good as we could hope for in an ArbCom case which I said ought to be rejected. Dragonfiend, Aaron, Snowspinner and Tony are all people who attempt to do the best they can for Wikipedia and levying sanctions against them does not seem necessary. Aaron has graciously announced that he is intending to follow the ArbCom ruling in spirit, and even though it goes to arbitration, dispute resolution does not have to involve bans, probations and paroles when there are sensible people involved. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Nandesuka 12:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The waggy finger, wielded carefully, is the most powerful tool the committee possesses. We're now on notice that:

• New contributors are prospective "members" and are therefore a valuable resource. We should treat newcomers with kindness and patience — hostility or elitism often scare away potentially valuable contributors. While many newcomers hit the ground running, some lack knowledge about the way we do things. See Please do not bite the newcomers.

and (my favorites):

• "Our fundamental goal here is to write a comprehensive high quality encyclopedia, and our social rules are in service to this mission." [49] The primary purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information to its readers. Although Wikipedia has a strong community of editors, it is important to remember that Wikipedia is primarily for its readers, and that the activities of the community must be dedicated to that purpose.

• While boldness in editing is valuable on Wikipedia, it is no use to Wikipedia to have written policies that create dissent.

It's good to see those words given the imprimatur. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

April 20

Over the past day or so 4 different user names (User:65.148.159.118, User:68.36.108.102, User:Nin10dude, User:68.161.179.48) have posted on to the April 20 article variations on the same event:

• 2006 - Mother 3, the sequel to the awesome game EarthBound is finally released in Japan after a decade in development.

it is standard practice in Wikipedia not to list future events in Days of the Week articles. i have left messages (once at User talk:68.36.108.102 and twice at User talk:Nin10dude) saying "please don't put future events into the Days of the Week articles."

rather than me be the only one reverting these edits, i'd like to ask other admins to watch this development. your help in the matter would be appreciated. thanks, Kingturtle 02:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Piers revision history

The redirect at Piers was subject to some vandalism yesterday, and was later tagged, rightly I believe as a CSD. The thing wasn't deleted, but instead was reverted, but now there's a load of useless gunk revisions about some guy named Piers Mathias. Now, I don't think that stuff should be publicly accessable on Wikipedia, and think that those revisions should be removed. I actually thought it'd be more effective for the admin to just delete the thing and place a redirect in himself. Sure theres the GFDL authorship thing, but it's only a redirect. - Hahnchen 17:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it, then undeleted all of the valid edits, leaving the nonsense with no history. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Soapboxing and user pages

User:KJVTRUTH is using his page to soapbox about an issue he hasn't been able to get consensus on. A one of the editors on the consensus side has taken it upon himself to remove this information from his userpage, and another has MfD'd it outright, citing [50]. Is this appropriate use of WP policies? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 18:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that someone has listed this guy's user page for deletion because of a content dispute? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it's been listed on MfD as a breach of Wikipedia:User page, namely for being used as a soapbox for matters unrelated to an online encyclopedia. Physchim62 (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly -- he put content on that page that in part violates WP:V, since it got reverted every time he tried to put it in List of Freemasons, and WP:NPA, for the same reason. See this diff for the version prior to the MfD.--SarekOfVulcan 19:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a content dispute - listing on MfD looks petty. Secretlondon 23:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I would have said "stupid and obnoxious", myself. Stupid and obnoxious in the best of good faith, of course. And people wonder why *FD gets a bad reputation ... - David Gerard 13:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

GodzillaWax attack

A seemingly hotheaded and clearly passionate Daredevil fan is making wholesale reversions, being intemperate on the Histroy page, being personally insulting on my Talk page, and making a large number of what seem to be subjective statements, backed with partial citations if at all, and solipsisms.

Since he's making wholesale changes at a quick rate, not reading the article thoroughly before adding repetitious paragraphs, and since I've take then steps of trying to reason with him and of bringing in an administrator, who said "if the editing gets hot and you can't resolve matters on Talk:Daredevil, please notify me and consider visiting the administrators' noticeboard". I have now taken those recommended steps.

Following is one example of the exchange. It got more heated on the Daredevil history page.

This particular Kirby-credit example is only one example of of my trying to reason with GodzillaWax. He's currently in Daredevil putting in opinions of questionable encyclopedia value, behaving beyond discourteously and well into insultingly. Disregarding the specific Kirby issue below, please look at my tone, and his tone in response, and then see the kinds of changes he's making.

My response on DD page: Kirby

Marvel doesn't give Kirby credit for a lot of things. Everett said Kirby contributed -- including coming up with the idea of the billy club, and the record shows Kirby helped designe the costume, a highly integral part of any character's creation.

I footnoted the source in the first graf. I understand you may have missed seeing it. Here's the quoted source, from someone who spoke personally with both Kirby and Everett:

Comics historian and former Kirby assistant Mark Evanier, investigating claims of Kirby's involvement in the creation of both Iron Man and Daredevil, interviewed Kirby and Everett on the subject, years before their deaths, and concluded [51] that, "in both cases, Jack had already drawn the covers of those issues and done some amount of design work. He ... seems to have participated in the design of Daredevil's first costume. ... Everett did tell me that Jack had come up with the idea of Daredevil's billy club. ... Jack, in effect, drew the first page of that first Daredevil story. In the rush to get that seriously late book to press, there wasn't time to complete Page One, so Stan had Sol Brodsky slap together a paste-up that employed Kirby's cover drawing. ... Everett volunteered to me that Jack had "helped him" though he wouldn't — or more likely, couldn't — elaborate on that. He just plain didn't remember it well, and in later years apparently gave others who asked a wide range of answers".

I can see you've been a faithful contributor to the Daredevil entry, going back months. That's a good thing. Sometimes that can make it difficult to accept others edits, even when well-sourced and factual. That's OK. People of all different ages and temperaments work on Wiki, and by and large they make it work. As long as we're all courteous and can back up what we say.

I'm looking forward to more of your work on Daredevil, and I know the more you do, the more interested you'll get in digging into sources. - Tenebrae 18:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

His response, on my Talk page: Lighten Up

First off, you need to calm your nerd rage. Second, in your effort to revise Daredevil, you continually omit facts under the claim that they need sources. Fine. But do a modicum of research on these things to find the source before you remove them completely. You clearly have google at your fingertips, so use it. Third, Kirby is not recognized as a creator of Daredevil. At most he did a sketch on page 1. Marvel does not recognize him as a creator, so neither should wikipedia. Fourth, "style" is not in violation of wiki guidelines. Incoporate some into your work. My dig that you 'must write algebra textbooks for a living' is not a dig at writers. I happen to be one in real life, as shocking as that might be to you. I was suggesting that you are removing any element of readable prose with paint-by-numbers drivel. GodzillaWax 18:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As required, I'm putting a notice of this on GodzillaWax's page now.

I request he be blocked from the Daredevil page until some sort of resolution can be reached. The page as it is now is extremely fannish, to fancruftian detail in some points. Thanks - Tenebrae 19:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

GodzillaWax still at it

He is now making an unwarranted accusation that I "seem to have broken a number of picture links on the Daredevil entry." He has no factual basis for saying this -- one picture I inserted doesn't show up, though it shows up fine in another article, so I put in a big report. That's not "a number of picture links", and no one knows why it doesn't work.

If you read his posts on the Daredevil Talk and History pages and on my Talk page, you will see him hurl a number of insulting, inflammatory, and often plain untrue remarks, while I have -- and read for yourself -- refrained from doing likewise back.

In addition to his unsubstantiated allegations, he says he reported me to an Adminsistrator. That's fine. But when I did so, I adhered to the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration's statment, "You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint", and User:GodzillaWax did not.

I have been one Wikipedia's most credible comic-book editors, giving the sorts of proper and confirmable footnotes and source citations Wiki asks for, for nearly 50 neglected comics creators, including the Golden Age likes of Lou Fine and Syd Shores, and important Silver Age creators like Gary Friedrich and Dick Dillin, among the many that were amazingly missing. I've written deep historical pieces on the 1930s likes of Fiction House and Major Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson -- two creators of the form -- that certainly belong in any encyclopedia's comic-book. Please go to User:Tenebrae, click into some of the things I've written, and please ... let me know if it's right to have someone who doesn't follow the rules, doesn't properly source things, and does wholesale reversions with snide comments on top of them, be able to insult me, accuse me unfairly, flame me and God know what else. Please help me. - Tenebrae 22:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

North Carolina Operation Account

This account was created by the NC vandal to make Sanbox edits. I request that he be unbanned.CCOTT, CCOTT 00:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That's nice. Why should we? --Golbez 00:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The nick actually wasn't banned until you brought it to our attention, thanks. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Catholic priest stubs

User:Aloysius Patacsil has created a large number of stubs about ordinary Catholic priests in Hawaii. I suspect that they would not pass notability criteria but don't have time to list them all tonight. I thought I would note it here before I go to bed. Rmhermen 03:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing banned for one year

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) (using whatever account or IP address) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. As adopted by the Arbitration Committee 10:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Kelly Martin (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Implemented as 365-day block by Tony_Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 13:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Categorizing protected templates

The following protected templates need to be added to Category:Image copyright templates.

<noinclude>[[Category:Image copyright templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]</noinclude>

• {{Albumcover}}
• {{Cc-by}}
• {{Cc-by-2.0-map-of}}
• {{Cc-by-sa}}
• {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}
• {{Cc-by-nc}}
• {{Cc-by-nc-sa}}
• {{Cc-by-nd}}
• {{Cc-by-nd-nc}}
• {{Cc-nc}}
• {{Cc-nc-sa}}
• {{Cc-sa}}
• {{Copyrighted}}

• {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}
• {{CopyrightedFreeUse-User}}
• {{CrownCopyright}}
• {{Fair use in}}
• {{Film-screenshot}}
• {{GFDL}}
• {{GFDL 1.2}}
• {{GFDL-self}}
• {{GPL}}
• {{LGPL}}
• {{Logo}}
• {{No license}}
• {{Noncommercial}}

• {{NoncommercialProvided}}
• {{PD}}
• {{PD-art}}
• {{PD-old}}
• {{PD-self}}
• {{PD-US}}
• {{PD-user}}
• {{PD-USGov}}
• {{PD-USGov-NASA}}
• {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}
• {{PermissionAndFairUse}}
• {{Restricted use}}

Also would it be possible to speedily rename Category:Image copyright tags so as to merge it into Category:Image copyright templates? I just created the category this evening when (I thought) that no other image copyright template category existed. Thanks! ~MDD4696 04:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

They have been added to Category:Image copyright tags, shortcut CAT:ICT, as that is the more usual terminology and the tags category was larger than templates category. Category:Deprecated image copyright tags has been created for those where uploading is no longer permitted, and Category:Non-free image copyright tags for other non-free situations. Physchim62 (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Image copyright templates has now been merged into Category:Image copyright tags. Two subcategories exist, Category:Deprecated image copyright tags and Category:Non-free image copyright tags. If anyone is remotely interested, we have about 300 tags in total. Physchim62 (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Question

I just ran across a user page where the user states "I do not give the public permission to reproduce the information in this private userspace or any subfolders of this private userspace in any way shape or form."[52] I am a bit fuzzy on the specifics, but I was under the impression this was frowned upon, if not outright discouraged. Any comments? 151.199.90.103 06:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Rob Church placed a warning on his talk page. This is not only discouraged but illegal, since it directly contravenes our GFDL license. Radiant_>|< 11:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. User:Pioneer-12 was blocked for just this until he agreed to make his stuff available under GFDL ... that being the license you are agreeing to make your work available under when you click "submit"! You can give people the option to use it under other licenses as well, but if you want to play Wikipedia then what you put here is GFDL including user space - David Gerard 12:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I blanked the lot of the pages as cpvios. They should have been deleted. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

What is a sufficiently low resolution for an Album cover?

Album covers fall under fair use, if they are reasonably low resolution. User:Arniep tagged a 750x750 version of Image:MeettheBeatlesreissuecover.jpg, removing links to it, and instead diverting links to Image:Meet the Beatles.jpg. Now, I do not believe that a 750x750 scan of an old album cover is unreasonable. On the front page, we have a 430x421 image of a CD cover, now, this album is a vinyl so is obviously larger, but 750x750 is no way too high res. Another user even reuploaded a lower res version of the cover, removing the delete and hangon tags, only for them to be replaced again.

I'm asking for admins to look at this. I believe that Image:Meet the Beatles.jpg should be deleted, and the links to that file reverted to the original at Image:MeettheBeatlesreissuecover.jpg. The argument of orphaned fairuse is irrelevent in this case. I believe that claiming a 750x750 scan as overly high res is copyright paranoia, I also believe that even the new lower resolution of that image as it is now, is still better than the poor quality scan of Meet the Beatles.jpg. The thing has been on contested CSD for hours now, so could some admin please just come in and sort it out. - Hahnchen 16:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

To answer the question in your title, there are no official guidelines as yet (AFAIK), but I use a rule of thumb of less than 100dpi at original size: by this account, the image is at a reasonable low resolution.

I have removed the speedy tag from Image:MeettheBeatlesreissuecover.jpg as it does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I suggest that you take one or both images to WP:IFD and discuss the matter there. Physchim62 (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism from 167.206.78.2

This ip user has repeatedly vandalised pages since Dec 13, 2005, this ip needs to be blocked for the maximum time allowed. This ip's most recent vandalised page was Las Vegas, Nevada

The most recent edits are poosrly written, but not the kind of obvious vandalism previously comming from this IP. The one before that was a self-revert of vandalism. Before that is obvious blantent vandalism, but that is more than 24 hours ago and prior to the mosst recent warnings. I don't see a block here, but if anyone else does I won't object, there hs been enough vandalism that a block might have been warrenteds a day or two ago. DES ^(talk) 17:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Look at all the vandalism, some is bad edits but most are out rite vandalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=167.206.78.2

The "my contributions" link

The "my contributions" link doesn't gain bold when selected as with the other personal links "my watchlist", etc. I found a list of special pages for each user and it didn't include "my contributions". Jason Quinn 18:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Confirming reproducibility. I have filed bugzilla:4764 to notify the developers. It's really trivial though... — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 22:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect image license tagging

I just thought somebody may want to have a look at this. Australia boy (talk · contribs) has been uploading images taken from websites and tagging them with the wrong license templates. I first noticed this when he uploaded a bunch of images of Mexican Presidents and claimed them to be under the GFDL without any evidence, sometimes not even stating where he got the images from. I left a few notes in his talk page trying to explain him why he could not do that and asked him to change the tags to fair use. He apparently ignored me (he edited other articles after my message) so I decided to change the tags to {{PUI}} after a week. Recently, however, he's been tagging newer images with {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} with no evidence to support this claim. This time, at least, he's providing links to the source website.

Record of previous exchange is in his talk page and my talk page archive. Examples of recent offending images are Image:Add.jpg, Image:Brodaniel.jpg and Image:Keneally.jpg.

I'm quite sure that he's acting in good faith, but it would be nice if a third party could explain him the importance of proper license tagging and deal with the images he's already uploaded while at it.

Thanks in advance for any assistance. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If left them a note linking to the Wikipedia:Image use policy. If they continue there is precedent for a permanent ban I'm afraid. Secretlondon 20:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

OpenInfo

Eliezer warned me to explain my alert. He blocked me without reading my explanation on the talk page and never gave me the chance to elaborate the reason for my alert. His excuse for warning me contradicts the realities on the article and talk pages (please compare). Furthermore, Eliezer & OpenInfo both keep deleting my and others' edits to the article that would make it conform to Wiki's npov policy. How am I supposed to resolve this problem when these two men neither allow anyone to edit the article in a good faith effort to remove their anti-Messianic biases nor allow several of us editors to express our concerns via alerts? Eliezer deliberately set me up for failure. He reverts the article and talk pages to appear the way OpenInfo wants and then warns "both" of us - i.e. me. I complied to his warning only to be blocked. Meanwhile, OpenInfo hardly gave me the chance to tag the article and put my explanation on the talk page without constantly disturbing my edits and tags (Look at the timeline to see how fast he was working). I warned him to stop per Wiki's vandalism procedure and he deleted my warnings. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't deleting my warnings considered vandalism? Shouldn't Eliezer have taken action against OpenInfo for this?KnessetP.R.Guy 19:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• OpenInfo (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

The above user was reported on WP:AIV here. I don't believe it's a case of blatant vandalism, but this user definitely needs might need some action placed against him. The block log suggests that this user was originally indef blocked for making legal threats, but was unblocked after some agreement was reached. I'm going to contact the folks who know more about this and see what they say. --Deathphoenix 20:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the posting by KnessetP.R.Guy on WP:AIV, there has been 3rr violations on that page by both users, and I have placed a warning on the talk page and KnessetP.R.Guy's talk page reminding them of the rules, which was violated again and therefore KnessetP.R.Guy was blocked for 24 hours. Regarding the edits by OpenInfo I do not see them as vandalism. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Its a political dispute - these almost never count as vandalism. Secretlondon 20:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The origina block by me was due to [53] where he hinted that nobody was anonymous on the internet and the actions of a person on a forum could be corresponded to the same person here and was attacking NathanZook hostily at best and was making a threat at worst thus my block. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The original block was removed, however I would like to point out that the statement quoted as the reason to block was written by NathanZook not OpenInfo see [54] (and NathanZook later wrote on his talk page that he thought that OpenInfo was someone else [55]). --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hamas Edit War

Severe edit war in progress, an anon. with a strong anti-Hamas POV seems to be the fuel. See Hamas. KrazyCaley 22:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The moment they step over the 3RR, report them to WP:AN3 for a block. Warn them first to take away the soft-admin 5th revert. -Splash^talk 22:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

How to permanently remove a libelous vandalism

Do we administrators have the power to revert and permanently erase an obviously libelous and vandalism edit, of the "Mrs Soandso commits indecent acts with dead frogs" category? A similar comment about a teacher was inserted into the article about her hometown. It was deleted but remains visible in the page history. Is there a way to delete the two edits even from the page history? I looked through the "how to" guide for adminstrators but did not see an answer. thanks alteripse 02:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete and selectively undelete. Check all the little boxes aside from the revisions that contain the libellous edits. Hermione1980 02:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You'd have to delete the entire page, and then manually check off the versions you'd like to keep. I think it does cause problems, if someone is editing the page while your doing it. Also doesn't it violate the GFDL agreement? I think it's only done in extreme cases where there is personal info posted in the edit sunmmary and the such. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 02:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC) (Edit conflict: In short what she said :-D)

There is someone's real name there with a more serious accusation than the example I gave. alteripse 02:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There was an insertion of personal information into an article recently that I fixed in this manner. Not wanting to delete any edits except the offending one, I had to click on 522 boxes. There has got to be a better way. I know we don't do this very often, but it is painfully manual work. -Will Beback 04:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

And I suspect we're going to have to do it more often, as outing people seems to be all the rage. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Look in the archives of WP:AN or WP:AN/I, or ask Brian0918- there's a way to automatically check all boxes in Firefox. If I remember, I'll post it here later today. Ral315 (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this sort of delete-undelete has to be done at the moment. There should be little or no problem with the GFDL, and in any case much less than for a libel suit. There is a wiki-rumour that an easier method of selectively deleting edits from the history is being developed, but it hasn't arrived yet. Physchim62 (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

As long as no content from the deleted revison is left there shouldn't be any GFDL issue, if there is a simple reversion following the bad content best to delete that too to avoid a confusing page history.

BTW is it actually illegal to make a known libel statement availible or is it just illegal to write one? Plugwash 12:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

In the UK it is illegal to publish (ie, make available, even unknowingly) a libellous statement; I believe that Florida law is somewhat kinder on the publisher. Physchim62 (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If an administrator must selectively delete revisions from an article with a ton of edits (1000+), and no developer is at hand, a faster way than checking all the thousands of boxes is to do a "history unmerge" like this:

1. Delete all revisions
2. Selectively undelete the libellous revisions.
3. Move the libellous revisions to an arbitrary title.
4. Delete the libellous revisions.
5. Undelete the article.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Or, put this as a Firefox bookmark:

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

And just click the bookmark as needed- it will check all the boxes. Ral315 (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Aaron

I have unblocked User:Aaron. He was blocked by User:Howcheng for violating the 3RR, but he really didn't as his 4th revert cited was only an edit to his version (and thus not a revert). I hope this doesn't cause too much trouble. If you feel he needs to be blocked, then please discuss here (I won't unblock again so as not to block war, but I disagree with the block). — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

As I explained on Aaron's talk page, it was more of a "neither side has been willing to engage in constructive discussion" kind of equal block. Aaron had done three full reverts and once re-inserted content that someone else had added but that he felt should be in there. Since he probably went offline and to bed, the effect of unblocking is negligible; I'm hoping just the fact that he was blocked even for a short time will sit him at the negotiating table. howcheng {chat} 07:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ban on Ciz extended

The Arbitration Committee has expanded its ban on Ciz:

If Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) edits Zoophilia or its closely related articles, or makes any edit which relates to zoophilia, bestiality, animal sexuality, or human-animal relationships in any article, or their talk pages, such changes made may be reverted by any editor and any administrator may, at his/her discretion, briefly block Ciz (up to a week in the case of repeat violations). After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

AndriyK banned, and other remedies

Per the final decision in AndriyK:

• AndriyK is banned for one month from Wikipedia for creating irreversible page moves.
• Until by consensus he has agreed to a suitable and mutually agreed naming convention using the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conflict, AndriyK is prohibited from moving pages, or changing the content of articles which relate to Ukrainian names, especially those of historical interest.
• Should AndriyK move any page or change the content of any article to conform with his preferred usage before an agreement is reached as to a naming convention concerning historical Russian names and places he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall be increased to one year.
• Moved pages which have become irreversible by [AndriyK] adding to the page history of the redirect page may be moved back without the necessity of a vote at Wikipedia:Requested moves.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 month--Tznkai 04:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism under my username

Could somebody provide some insight to how this edit could have occurred under my account? I've been a contributor for 2 years, so you'll have to trust it wasn't me. Is it possible that a previous edit was deleted/edit conflict? I'm on a private computer, so another user could not have done this. Is this a bug in the software? Thanks --Jgritz 04:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• good strategy, except they tend to indef block compromised accounts, so you're in ban city either way--152.163.100.200 05:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Two years of edits is a good strategy so I can write "retard" on a page? I'm not a vandal, I want to know what caused this, so I'm not embarrassed again. --Jgritz 05:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You've at least changed your password since the edit, right? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Changed password. Still is very strange - now I'm being pestered by Zehboi.

Do you use your account on a shared computer at all, if so is it possible you've left it for a few minutes and someone else has used it? --pgk^(talk) 07:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a private machine, nobody else uses it. I'm thinking it's maybe a something like a edit conflict/database locking issue, because I can remember reverting about 3 items of vandalism by the user - that's how I got to Hip Forums - it's not something I'd really look at otherwise.. --Jgritz 08:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that's what it is. I didn't see any deleted edits in history that would account for it, so it might be some weird bug that occurred: maybe you performed your revert at the exact moment that someone else did some vandalism, or the vandalism you were trying to revert somehow got assigned to your username. Do you use AOL? If so, perhaps you shared a proxy IP with someone? Either way, looks to be some sort of database bug. --Deathphoenix 21:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I think I read something like this happening before, posted on here it was at least a month or two ago so that incident would have to be somewhere deep in the archives. I'll take a look and post back if I find something. I should also point out that it was determined to be some kind of bug if memory serves me rightly KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 21:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've had this happen to me before too. I think it's some kind of bug when more than one person tries to revert. It's a bit off if you ask me. I know I was surprised to see what I had just re-entered into an article. I wouldn't worry too much about it. It's good to note that it really wasn't you though. And after you have built a record, we are more willing to trust that it was some bug and not someone trying to be sneaky. ;-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

New pages by article space

Just in case anyone has missed it when it was announced on Village Pump (technical) several months ago, this is a very useful vandalism fighting feature:

1. Special:Newpages/namespace=User
2. Special:Newpages/namespace=User_talk
3. Special:Newpages/namespace=Wikipedia

Et cetera.

We have a vandal tonight creating new pages which not in the main article space, therefore none of them would show up under the usual Special:Newpages. Antandrus (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be really useful if this was selectable with a menu like in Special:Contributions, for consistency. -- Curps 03:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Temporary injunction in Zeq case

Zeq (talk · contribs) and Ian Pitchford (talk · contribs) are banned from editing Palestinian exodus and 1948 Arab-Israeli War until the conclusion of their arbitration case. The pages are no longer protectd, so they need to be watched. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq. Dmcdevit·t 05:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Zeq actually just edited one of the articles and then reverted himself. I have them both on my WLs now. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Paulo Fontaine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is apparently part of a sock farm. The pattern is, a series of edits which may or may not be accurate, sometimes with minor nonsense slipstreamed, and then some complete bollocks added to a number of articles (e.g. [56]). The real problem is that it's necessary to double-check every single edit to verify it, which is a total waste of time. I blocked for 1 week, others may think it should be longer or shorter, please feel free to adjust as I am new to this game. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 08:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Me

Hello, I am blocked user Jimbo Wheels, and would like a way of proving that I am certainly not Willy on Wheels so that I can be unblocked - how do you guys suggest I go about this? The current way I am trying on my talk page doesn't seem to be all that productive. (Posting this from an anonymous ip - 84.9.94.232 - but please reply on my talk page.

Cheers,

Seymore

Oh, and also - first of all why were my edits to Huntingdon Life Sciences reverted by that guy, and secondly the link to Huntingdon's stance on ethics is a 404 - it should point to http://www.huntingdon.com/index.php?currentNumber=4&currentIsExpanded=0 and as I was clearly saying I was trying to do that until I was banned. This stinks of knee jerk reactions and a refusal by you guys to even countance that I might be acting reasonably just because of some mindless vandal. Why the hell should I be presumed a vandal without making edits like a vandal? You are letting the vandals win. I am pretty annoyed by this, but even more annoyed by the way that you are ignoring me.

You are illustrating the definition of disingenuous. Arriving in this community with that user name is like showing up at a synagogue social hour with a nametag that reads Jesus Hitler. If your name choice had been an unfortunate coincidence, you would have thanked the person who suggested you change it and quickly complied. I am aware that I have just fed an obvious troll, but will happily extend the block as an act of contrition. No more conversation. alteripse 12:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well for the moment I will use this username, and I think you will be able to watch my contributions over time and see how wrong you are. But the synagogue thing is an interesting comparison. It would indeed be a silly thing to do going to a synagogue called Jesus Hitler if one were named Francis Drake. But if you were actually named Jesus Hitler, it would be reasonable to expect perhaps some disbelief, but also for this to be suspended if you were to produce (for example) a driving licence. The same applies here. JW2 12:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I for one believe that your name really is Jimbo, Seymore. Oh, wait... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Seymore is my nickname. Seymour is my middle name. JW2 12:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a good faith request. If the guy's a wrong un then he'll be blocked for more than just having a name that spooks people. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Kelly Martin

Protecting a voting page after an election is over is clearly justified, but can someone explain to me the rationale behind protecting a Talk page? The one that I can find is that there's a discussion that someone wants to stifle, and of course that can't be it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

On a slightly related subject, why has this page just been created? It seems to be a way of getting round the protection of this one. It seems rather disruptive to me, but I don't want to delete because I haven't been following all of this, so I'm not absolutely sure that I'd be doing the right thing. I note it has already been deleted previously, and that this creation is in fact a re-creation. Can someone look into this? AnnH ^(talk) 12:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Both instances are pretty lame. Someone added a comment about Kelly's new function as a Clerk (see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks), and other people have been removing that comment on grounds that, what, the election is closed and the RFC archived? While I hardly agree with those comments, I do believe we it is very inappropriate to remove anyone's comments from any talk page (given that WP:RPA is already controversial). Also, it's inappropriate to state that since something is in the past, it may no longer be discussed. I've undone both protections and restored the comments people made. People, this is getting out of hand. Kelly's new function allows her to read and summarize comments on arbitration pages, and make remarks to the ArbCom. Well, guess what? So can you. Big friggin' deal. Radiant_>|< 13:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The page Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin/Protected was created by User:Dschor in a clear attempt to 'game the system'. The original RfC was closed and archived by clear consensus. Material was then added to that RfC regarding Arbcom's decision to creat a clerk's office. The material was removed as irrelevant (comments on Arbcom go to Arbcom - not on a continual gripe sheet on one individual user - or are we saying once an RfC is filed it is an eternal place for personal grips and silly vendettas?). Dschor and others edit warred, until the page was protected by someone. He then cut and paste this, in violation of GFDL. There is a long history of his trolling and and incivility, for which he has already been warned by JamesF and others. I have blocked him for 6 hours for disruption. --Doc ^ask? 13:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This is why I protected them, I don't think there should be a receptacle for people to bitch about someone ad infinitum which is exactly what these pages are turning into. The RfC was archived by clear consensus it's over, time to move on, Kelly withdrew from the election long before the election which is now itself over was over, it's over, time to move on. No one is saying they can't discuss this, they shouldn't be discussing it there. Finally, Radiant, as I mentioned on your talk page, you should at least do the courtesy of attempting to contact me before changing admin decisions I've made. Therein lies the foundation of wheel warring. --Wgfinley 13:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No comments on this, except to say that I've removed a couple of inappropriate uses of "bold" by different individuals because I think it gives the impression of shouting and encourages more of the same. Please do restore if you think this was inappropriate. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• There is really no such thing as "archiving an RFC", as I pointed out on that RFC talk page. There are RFCs on which discussion has died out, but one cannot state "hey, we must now stop discussing this". Yes, people should move on. No, removing their comments will not magically cause them to move on or drop the issue (in fact, more like the opposite). Radiant_>|< 13:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  There was broad consensus to end that RfC and move on. One more time, no one is saying they can't comment, that's not the appropriate place for it. --Wgfinley 13:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

My two cents: Please do not protect the pages in question, and please allow these people to say whatever they want to say on them without interference. Obviously some people feel that they have something important that they have to say, so letting them say it is probably the best thing. Taking away their forums will just cause them to look for increasingly inappropriate places to say them, and reinforce their sense of disenfrachisement, to boot. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Perhaps, but I've always felt that open-ended RfCs are unfair tot he subject. If RfCs are going to do any good, they will do it in the first week so. After that, they are just an open sore. Kelly, I realise you can cope with this, but a less thick-skinned editor could find this intollerable and leave. For the sake of the subject of the RfC, there should come a point where we say 'move on' - and hush those who will not. --Doc ^ask? 14:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

    Exactly what I was thinking Doc, thanks for putting it better than I could. This is what I was talking about regarding "receptacles for bitching about a user". --Wgfinley 14:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

    • I do agree we need a better RFC procedure (suggestions please?). However, at a certain point when the discussion becomes redundant, most people stop watching an RFC page, and so (in most cases) does its subject. At that point, any remarks by long-term gripers will only be read by other long-term gripers. While that's not particularly helpful, there's hardly a point in forbidding it. Radiant_>|< 14:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • There may a point. Not everyone will be able to handle the thought of people posting negative stuff about them on the open internet for all to see, and it going unanswered (particularly if they edit in their own name). I'd suggest that RfCs ought to be closed as a matter of form after 3 weeks or so. If the conduct problem is ongoing, then another can be filed. If not, then the thing will be well stale by then. I think the problem here is not that Kelly's RfC was closed - it is that an exception was made in closing it. If we had an agreed policy of closing after x weeks, then no-one would be arguing. --Doc ^ask? 14:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

        It makes sense to protect them as soon as they are no longer linked to the main page or "archived" although that doesn't mean much. A reasonable approach to when to remove would be that if either if no comments have been made for three weeks or there is consensus to close. As Doc has said, there wouldn't be a problem if we did that consistantly.

        However, as I never unwatch any RfC I have participated in, I see that comments do trickle in. Not just from hard-core disenfranchised, it's often "normal" but infrequent editors. When the page is protected that should be given a link to some sort of forum. Any suggestions as to where?

        brenneman^(t)(c) 14:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• I completely agree with KM's suggestion and reasoning here. This looks like a purely procedural way of curtailing a discussion, and it's not even good procedure, at that. Which isn't to say it's a very useful discussion to have. Alai 15:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point of protecting talk pages like this. As long as nobody is mucking about with the vote, and nobody is engaging in personal attacks, then there's no problem. It is possible to reaise legitimate concerns without doing so. If people are attacking the candidates or making accusations of dishonest behavior then they should be bloody well blocked for a long time, of course, but that doesn't require page protection. A bat about the nose should be enough to bring the miscreants to their senses, I should think. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It might be wisest for people with gripes with Kelly to actually tell them to her in her face, on her very own talk page! At least there she can fairly respond to them. Kim Bruning 15:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The gripes in question, were not about Kelly, they were about Arbcom's decision. Are we saying any gripes at all can be added to an RfC - for an indef period of time? --Doc ^ask? 15:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

While the gripes seem rather petty, I don't agree with the idea of protecting a talk page because the election is over - conversations of RFA talk pages sometime continue well after the RFA closes. Guettarda 15:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This was an exceptionally dirty arbitration campaign. There are those who care not for Wikipedia one bit, would love to use the campaign as a lever to divide Wikipedia. Some people who should have known better have said, or have tolerated, some vile, indefensible things said about some of the candidates. Now is the time to remember that you might be able to get away with the during an election, but the election is over and it's time to stop rubbishing the candidates. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we ignore these last several attempts to make this more personal that it is and concentrate on moving towards a solution: a consistant approach to closing off pages in a manner that doesn't feel like stifling dissent? - brenneman^(t)(c) 16:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as "personalising". I'm just saying we don't need to go around protecting. If some people are rubbishing the candidates then that is the problem to be dealt with. Warn them, warn them again, and if they still don't get the message just block them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Should this even really be thought of as an RfC? I mean, I know that technically it is, but it actually was a vote, not an attempt at conflict resolution, and the voting is long since over. As such, I don't think you should have any qualms about protecting the page. Anyone who has continuing beefs with Kelly is free to use her talk page or file an honest RfC or RfA, but there is nothing that can be added to this particular page that will further any constructive debate on any subject whatsoever. ---Aaron 16:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I havn't been following the issue on the vote page, but I have been part of the issue on the RFC. First off, the RFC was closed by its participants and wide community consensus, overidding any proccess already in place. Why? Because they felt that anything further was beating a dead horse, and disrupting the wikipedia. (This is an important, I'll be coming back to it). Later, after the clerk's office was opened, some people decided to use the RFC as a vehical to complain about Kelly Martin and the Arbitration Commitee. This clearly served NO constructive purpose, was and is disruptive, and is irrellivant to the matter at hand. (The RfC was on her conduct in relation to userboxes). It was then later moved after several editors, myself (I got blocked for 3RR on this for the record), Doc and Dalbury consistantly removed the comments because of their irrellivance and disruptive nature. I protected and quickly unprotected the article. Then Dschor moved the talk page, causing utter choas which I tried to fix (creating a bit of a mess along the way).

I have no qualms with people messaging KM on her talk page, filing a new (albiet silly) RfC, or doing any number of other things. But no, people don't have a right to say what they want, where they want, when the want. We have rules, policies, guidelines, all of which are there to protect the project. This was, is, and will continue to be a disruptive action until it is stopped. Protection seemed to be the easiest action at hand. Barring that, I'll go with Tony's suggestion.--Tznkai 17:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been following this closely enough to have picked up on the fact that the arbcom election page was just one venue in a larger attack. And it does sound to me like you're describing a personalized attack. Now I'm not Kelly's mom, either, but I'm not aware of any legitimate issues with her conduct on Wikipedia. This does seem indeed to be a personal attack of unprecedented ferocity upon a Wikipedian in good standing, and shouldn't be tolerated. Like I said, if they keep it up, block them good and hard. We don't want Wikipedia to host that kind of trash, because it's en encyclopedia. If they want a hate group, let them bugger off to Wikipedia Review where they'll find a welcome audience. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I tend to avoid the term "personal attack" because of the baggage and silly rubrics involved. However it does involve a person, vitrol, and disruption, so draw your own conclusions--Tznkai 17:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, if people want to consider this a personal attack, they should note that it would be an attack on the present ArbCom, not on Kelly. Of course, calling it a personal attack or denying existing issues won't make the situation any less controversial. Time to move on, both sides. Radiant_>|< 18:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If you followed it around you would see this is a broad case of a couple of people deciding to wage their little war on various pages - the Clerk page (which is where their criticisms belong), Kelly's RfC talk page and Kelly's Arbcom vote talk page. What is taking place is a multi-prongd attack, similar to the "Stalin" userbox that is seeking to rattle sabrres and get people agitated. At it's core it is to cause disruption. Trying to get people to move on is exactly what I was trying to do by protecting that page so that a couple of the prongs, those that had absolutely nothing to do with her RfC or Arbcom candidacy, were shut down. I wasn't trying to curb anyone's right to complain, I was trying to keep it civil and where it belonged. Now, if we're going to throw WP:CIVIL out the window and just let people make their attacks or allegations on whatever page they see fit then, by all means, let's get on with it because that is exactly what doing nothing and allowing them to post anywhere they want is doing. I'm going to take Tony's recommendation although I would have preferred the softer approach which was protecting the page and directing people to the proper avenues for their complaints.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Kelly or what she wants, this has to do with precedent on how we handle stuff like this. Do we do nothing and allow RfCs and elections to go on ad infinitum and allow people to cast large attack campaigns across various pages? I believe this would drive many decent people out of the project should they ever have the misfortune of being the subject of an RfC or running for election. Or do we keep them contained to where they belong thus allowing people their dissent, just not wherever they want it and with a modicum of decorum? --Wgfinley 00:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• "Large attack campaigns across various pages" are grounds for censure and RFC, and failing that, RFAr on the users who perform them. They are not grounds for protecting talk pages or reverting user debate, in large part on the grounds that that doesn't actually help. Radiant_>|< 08:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well we all know what an RfC would look like--that would be pouring gasoline on the flames. Maybe it's time for an arbitration case on the miscreants in this case, though honestly I think I'd rather treat it as petty disruption. There are legitimate concerns about the arbitration committee elections and subsequent events and these must be talked out, but people who say stuff like "It's a crock of shit and it stinks", "shithouse", "underhand procedure" and the like aren't really voicing reasonable concern, they're rabble-rousing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Block of 69.46.139.69

This IP was "Blocked for being another sockpuppet in the harassment and threats against User:Bumpusmills1" until Feb 9. Helpdesk-l received an email suggesting this IP was a gateway for an ISP and causing collateral damage. Since the notes I've seen about the harassment seemed rather severe, I'd be concerned about unblocking the IP even with the extraneous editors who may currently be blocked. Thoughts? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It belongs to Crawford Communications/NPO.net. If it is an ISP gateway we can't block it imo. Secretlondon 21:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion gordian knot

We've been discussing the merits and suggesting changes to AFD for at least half a year now. So it's about time we stop talking and actually do something. The simplest variant to AFD would be to list all proposed deletions, and delete all that nobody objects to within several days. Since about 80% of AFD are obvious keeps or obvious deletes, we can accomplish the same with far less bureaucracy and negativity. Wikipedia:Proposed deletion does just that, and is intended to go for a test run very soon. Please join the discussion there. Note that this should solve the issues regarding deletion recently raised by Jimbo on the mailing list. Radiant_>|< 17:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't really like this. With the current system, I can skim the day's AfD page, and if it seems like there is a strong consensus, I don't have to vote at all. With your proposed system, someone checking AfD would need to read every proposed article before knowing whether the article should be deleted. (I hope that wasn't confused... what I mean is I trust the AfD voters, and they save me time. With this, there are no votes to "trust"). -Greg Asche (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• So basically you're saying that people on AFD vote, and that they do so without actually reading the article, and that this is actually a good thing? By this proposal, you're not supposed to look for issues to vote on - you're supposed to find articles with a problem, and fix that. Radiant_>|< 01:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• I think he is sayign that when he sees a dispute, he reads the article and votes, but when he sees a clear consensus forming, he trusts the other voters, does not read the article and does not vote. But simce with Wikipedia:Proposed deletion there would be nothing but the nom, someone who wants to avoid improper deletions must check every case, or assume that someone else that s/he trusts has done or will do so. Of course the same problem exixts now with speedy deletes. DES ^(talk) 01:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, fair enough. But if there was a dispute about an article, it would have at least token oppoistion, and thus would no longer be listed on Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. Radiant_>|< 01:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • True. The real question is the risk of no one looking at a tagged article, and it thus beign deleted when it would have been disputed had anyone looked. but if it is that obvious, no admin should delete it. DES ^(talk) 02:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

A question about AOL autoblocks(copied from User_talk:Curps)

I know that when you want to block an entire AOL range you sometimes use commands like 'blocked User:64.23.132.13/22 with an expirey time of...' to take out the entire range for 15 minutes,

the question is, could you use the same method to clear AOL autoblocks? as in 'unblocked User:64.23.132.13/22'? Or even better,

how about 'blocked User:64.23.132.13/22 with an expirey time of 0 minutes',

then just do the same thing for each of the three major AOL ranges, 64.x.x.x, 152.x.x.x, and 205.x.x.x, maybe add it as a daily function for your bot, to clear any autoblocks that might pile up during the course of the day?--64.12.117.5 23:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Sprotected

Philwelch just edited this template to remove the box, without discussion such a change. The template is currently protected, so I am unable to revert this change. More to the point, the template is protected to prevent vandalism and edit warring, not to limit access to administrators.

When confronted with complaints about his action on the Talk page, he responded by calling me obstructionist and an edit warrior, refusing to speak to me on those grounds. Please, could someone revert the template to the form that was agreed upon previously? -- Ec5618 02:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually think the box around it was a good idea, it kept it separate from the article. Mike _{(T C)} 02:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the amount of opposition to the change on here and the talk page, I've reverted for now while we discuss the changes and come to a consensus. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Also reading Philwelch's talk page, his responce as a admin to Ec5618's request was quite uncivil. Mike _{(T C)} 02:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Since this editor admits on the template talk page that he would have "reverted my changes in seconds", I guess protection succeeded in preventing edit warring. Although, as I recall, Template talk:Sprotected is in Category:Permanently protected, which is the same category as the Main Page, so if this editor is right, we need to fix our categorization. As a related issue, I have chosen to disengage from this dispute, but the editor so far refuses to leave me alone about it. This is my last word on the subject, and if another admin wants to revert me I won't interfere. There's enough work to do on this encyclopedia that doesn't have anyone standing in the way. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 02:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I recall running into Philwelch on Talk:George W. Bush#Unique sprotection boiler, on which I argued in favour of using the standard template. Philwelsh stated that he disliked using the standard template, because it is too visible, and it was pointed out to him that he should take that up at Template talk:sprotected. The standard template was then decided upon, by the majority. It seems he has now done decided to 'fix' the template, simply because he disagrees with its appearance on the George W. Bush article, and I get the feeling he somehow developed a grudge against me. Note that I don't believe I have ever run into this editor before or since, so I'm not sure what this apparent enmity is based on. I don't agree with the fact that he almost immediately asked me to 'leave him alone', and refused to discuss the matter. And I'm not sure what to make of this whole mess, though I already feel that this user does not deserve the power he wields. -- Ec5618 02:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't even recognize you from Talk:George W. Bush. I don't have a grudge against you; I have no opinion of you as a person. I only request that you refrain from contacting me or speculating about my motives and character with regard to this issue. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 02:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You nearly bit my head off, immediately calling me names. I'm glad I did nothing to offend you, though I am now even more puzzled by your behaviour. And as for asking me to never contact you, I'll ask you to stop being such an ass. I don't like using such language, but what are you doing? I did nothing to offend you, I merely asked you to abide by consensus, and policy.

Have you considered giving up your Admin rights? You seem to have difficulty relating to others, and to refrain from abusing your power. -- Ec5618 03:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ec5618 so far as to wonder what kind of admin says "Please do not contact me again" rather than deal with the real issue at stake. As I said recently here, admins need more transparency and accountability, not less. Superm401 - Talk 03:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Before this goes any further, might I suggest you two have a nice cup of tea and a sit down? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologise, my last comment was untactful.

As for tea, I have had little contact with this editor, and know nothing about him. I have been asked, without cause, never to contact this editor again, and his talk page suggests such is not an uncommon request for him to make. He has stated that he wants nothing more to do with this issue. I honestly have nothing nice to say about this editor. The first time we met, I observed him making a personal attack, the second time I was the recipient of same. What could I possibly compliment this editor on? -- Ec5618 03:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. Compliment him on his sense of humour (i.e. his edit at 23:58, 27 January 2006 ) or his nice hair (on his talk page). I'm sure if you actually looked, you could find something. It takes two people to argue, ya know. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Refrain from abusing my power? I made a constructive edit to a permanently protected template. If that's abusive, than so are these edits (hint: that's the page history of the Main Page). Ec5618 didn't like that edit, and got another admin to revert. I disengaged from the issue. Where's the abuse? As for asking him not to contact me, that was taken far out of context. First off, he said, "Had I been able, I would have reverted in seconds". Anyone who's willing to revert a good-faith edit in "seconds" has serious edit warring tendencies—I know, because that's how I used to be. I commented on those sensibilities and disengaged from the discussion (albeit, I admit, in an unnecessarily cryptic and tactless way) and never made a further comment on the talk page. After that, I read his comment on my talk page. Having already decided to leave the dispute, I reply by reiterating my distaste for the issue and request that he not contact me. Once I see that he got the message, I archived the discussion as I do whenever I close a discussion. (You might notice that I archive often, because I like a blank talk page.) Anyway, Ec5618 didn't get the hint, so I archive again.

Long story made short, I was less tactful than I could have been. I acknowledge that, and apologize. I do not feel that I have in any way misused my administrator privileges, nor do I feel that my request was unreasonable. If your idea of getting to know me is telling me you would have revert warred with me given the chance, then don't be surprised that I don't want to be your friend. If you continue to harass me—not only on my talk page but also on a public noticeboard—after I've already disengaged from the dispute, don't be surprised that you find a chilly response. That said, I'm willing to start over and set this behind me if Ec5618 is. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 06:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You can't just "disengage" here; we are a community. Breaking the lines of communication when you get annoyed is not acceptable. Superm401 - Talk 08:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What should I have done, reverted the template back and kept arguing with someone who automatically leapt to impugning my motives and suitability for adminship? We'd be a healthier community if people walked away from unimportant disagreements instead of wasting everyone's time continuing disputes that only serve to piss people off. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 08:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there was no dispute when you left. All that had happened at that point was that

1. you had edited a protected template without discussion, and without even refering to ongoing discussion on the Talk page. Arguably not the wisest thing to do.
2. you had received feedback from several editors, suggesting they preferred the template be reverted.
3. I suggested I would have reverted your edit. Understand that all I saw was an overzealous editor, making changes I knew were unpopular, to a protected template.
4. you refused to yield to community opinion, and left your version standing as you left.

That's not a dispute, and that's not something you should walk away from before undoing what you'd done. It seems you despise simple reversion as much as I despise unilateral,unpopular and undiscussed edits, and in that context your actions were perhaps in good faith, if unpopular. Nevertheless, I'm honestly not comfortable with claiming to set this behind me; I know I will remember this. I am still shocked and appalled by your actions. -- Ec5618 12:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

ps. As for "where's the abuse": You should not have edited the template without discussion in the first place. But you really shouldn't have refused to change the template back when several editors disagreed with your edit. You made use of (abused) your powers as an admin to make changes, while another admin had to clean up after you, when you refused to. You forced me to ask for help in reverting the template, since you had refused to revert to its consensus agreed upon form.

Again, your admin powers do not give you the right to force your views onto a template. -- Ec5618 12:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio backlog

The Copyright Violation Page has backed up with weeks worth of copyvios! Could someone please help eliminate the backlog? Roy Al Blue 02:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

User:GreekWarrior

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

This fellow seems to have a bee in his bonnet about non-Christians, specifically muslims and atheists. I've blocked him for gross hate speech in the past [57] but he keeps doing it. Sample of recent edits:

• "It's about damn time somebody taught atheists their own medicine"
• "Also, Atheists tend to have their own POV slant on every article on Wiki, its time someone gave the fuckers like Carlin a taste of their own medicine, if they want to generalize, then they will get it right back at them tenfold."
• "Keep Atheism in itself is effectively Fascism."
• (Blanks AfD)
• "HEIL HITLER!...FUCK THE PIG ALLAH! I AM GOING TO FIND MOHAMMED'S CORPSE AND AZZRAPE IT."
• Example of his editing

I think he's gone overboard. Out of his last dozen or so edits I find nothing acceptable. I'm contemplating a one month block. Comments? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There are some good content edits there, which is the only reason he shouldn't be blocked indefinitely. One month seems like a good way to go.--Sean Black 03:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say if some of his edits are helpful to the encyclopedia (which is what we are building here :-P) a month might be a little excessive. Granted comments like the ones shown have the potential to drive good users out. I'd say 2 weeks would be sufficient in the short term. If that still doesn't set him straight then I was wrong and this should be reviewed for a possible month ban. :-D KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a shame that we don't have any users who can contribute from a Greek and/or Christian point of view without setting this kind of example for behaviour for newbies and scaring away unknown number of contributors. But, well, since we don't, we'd better hold on to this one. Jkelly 04:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

After further contemplation and a deeper review a month is starting to look more and more right...KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

He has already had good long blocks in the past but he's getting worse.

On his "good edits", frankly I got tired of seeing his hateful edits and I didn't see anything both good and recent. Has anyone else had any luck? If so please post a few diff links here so we can see what there is on the good side. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You know, upon closer inspection, I don't see much of anything good, aside from (maybe) Byzantine medicine.--Sean Black|Talk 04:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have a good trawl through his contributions. I'll explain why. This user has been extremely abusive towards muslims and now he's spreading the net wider and having a go at atheists. Maybe it'll be zoroastrians or rastas next week. On it's own, this kind of abuse to anybody would get him a lifetime ban from any decent web forum, and I think we're sending the wrong message if we say "oh but he did a good edit to the fluffy little bunny wabbits article six weeks ago so we should keep him. We all know it couldn't work like that because we'd have people coming along and doing just that so they get to vomit twelve hours worth of unspeakable bile out on Wikipedia once a month or so when their latest ban ends. And that's what seems to be happening here. If I find a single edit that isn't immediate revert-fodder in the past month, I'll list it here. Then I suggest that we discuss whether we want to retain this gentleman's services any longer. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

In the past month he has done good edits to, and largely been responsible for:

• Byzantine medicine
• Medical Compendium in Seven Books

This is quite good work.

On the other hand he has gone out of his way to display extreme racism and religious bigotry. His list of article edits is extremely sparse and punctuated by vandalism of the most chauvinistic kind [58] [59]. My concern is that, in tolerating his activities for the sake of some content, we would probably alienate many, many good contributors. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite ban on GreekWarrior

So, in view of my further research I've decided that it may be more appropriate to ban this fellow.

Points against a permanent ban:

• Some good edits about mediterranean culture and history

Points for a permanent ban:

• Frequent expressions racism and religious bigotry delivered in a manner clearly calculated to offend
• Vandalism
• Blanking an AfD
• Does not respond to blocks by modifying his behavior. Just picks up where he left off. No sign of improvement.
• When blocked for bigoted attacks, continued to use his talk page for such bigoted statements until this was protected.

Comments? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't examined the evidence myself but if that's the summary...allow me to say, succinct, and yet quietly convincing :) — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 09:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Though not an admin, I also agree. Still, he could be blocked for a month this time with a warning that it will be indefinite if he does not stop. He could also be banned from editing certain articles. -- Kjkolb 10:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've thought of banning from certain articles, but then what about his stuff on user talk pages? The reason I'm not giving links, by the way, is that you just have to look at the guy's edit history. Nearly all of his edits are bad and I want people discussing this to actually go take a look. Edit taken at random: [60]. He's really hopelessly bigoted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to say I have come across this user before on www.cyprus-forum.com where he posted the same combination of anti-Islamic/anti-Turkish/Greek nationalism which earned him a ban (and this forum is run by Greek Cypriots). His edits were instantly recognisable to me and he acknowledged on his discussion page that he was that same person. I am shocked that some people are willing to dismiss edits such as "Why I enjoy murdering Turks" on the basis of his small number of innofensive edits. If Wikipedia is to remain credible, then people like this boy should be removed at the first instance. --A.Garnet 15:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

He does seem to have some kind of problem - no one can be so anti-social. Maybe he has the wrong idea about Wikipedia. I'd support giving him another chance and a last warning before a ban though. If he has any good faith, this is the test. He has made some useful contributions, that should be taken into account. Latinus 19:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Kmac1036

• Kmac1036 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have blocked this user indefinitely because, in one month, he has no article edits and openly proclaims that he created the account "to stand up to the establishment". As is my custom I submit the block to review for possible alteration or removal. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

An email exchange. Kmac1036's words in full followed by my response:

Quoting Kmac1036 (email address suppressed: -Tony):

• What is this all about? THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT NOT EDITING ARTICLES IN THE BLOCKING POLICY. What did I do that was so disruptive? Encourage discussion? This is an insult for some unknown reason. Do you have a specific problem or posting? You don't like my website or link? Other Wikipedians have posted far worse than I have and are STILL HERE! I please ask for a detailed reason!
  • In the month you've been editing under that name, you have not contributed to the encyclopedia by editing articles. Nor have you discussed any articles on the talk pages. You openly proclaim that your purpose in creating the account was "to challenge the establishment". Well the establishment welcomes people who want to create an encyclopedia. You evidently do not. This is not a chat forum, it's a working encyclopedia and if you're not interested in helping us to produce one then we don't want you.

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Political Hatchetjob

It appears to me that the page John_R._Leopold is a hatchetjob on that candidate. I am not familiar with the political issues, but the style suggests a nasty POV. Maybe you want to list this for deletion - I can't find a way to put a tag "delete as political" or "character assassination" Carrionluggage 05:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted. I'm deleting this for now and I'll raise your concerns on Wikien-l as a matter of urgency. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Batzarro

Batzarro (talk · contribs) was blocked for shock-image vandalism (by three separate admins). He claims it was an accident and has repeatedly asked to be unblocked. See his talk page for details. There is an apparent Ashida Kim connection and the vandalism was identical to Ashida-Kim-related vandalism that was committed earlier (and again later) by anonymous IPs to various pages (including Ashida Kim and, disturbingly, Jamie Lynn Spears, who is a minor and most of whose fans are minors). If anyone wants to take a look and review, go ahead. -- Curps 05:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Batzarro here-I am a fan of Ashida Kim Ninjor 06:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Ninjor permablocked for being a block evading sock. The only thing I've seen from Batzarro so far is spreading hate culture from other accounts, so I'm not inclined to oppose his ban. Radiant_>|< 09:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Sea of Japan, East Sea, &c.

Tonight, we got a new user (User:Mjump) who's pushing POV on those pages -- but as I was trying to get him/her to understand more about discussing changes, &c., I effectively entangled myself into a dispute as to whether there is a consensus as to whether East Sea should redirect to East Sea (disambiguation) or Sea of Japan. Since I am stuck in the middle of the dispute, I'd like some people to examine the situation to see if you think any of the related pages should be protected pending dispute; I am now myself uncomfortable doing it since I may be accused of doing it to preserve my own POV. --Nlu (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Your help is needed modrators...

If you can help me out, i'm having a little bit of a problem with someone about an article called RuneScape. Now you probably don't have a clue what Runescape is, but I feel your superior knowledge of Wikipedia is needed to help diffuse this situation.

Basically, the problem is that there are way too many links. Before now, there were about 30 links, and they all got cleaned out, but now about 20 have come back and I had a suggestion. My idea was to only have the top-5 websites which are universally agreed as the best and most-used websites. However, There is one person who is objecting to me, who thinks the idea is wrong. This person i feel may be bias, as he has his own runescape site. A few people are agreeing with me, but he stills feels he is right, and feels he's correct. Could you please have a look and hopefully do something please? J.J.Sagnella 07:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The Link:[61]

• Thank you! The problem has been solved! J.J.Sagnella 18:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)