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, Overpopulated categories and Copyright Problems.

General

Daniel Brandt's team, 'Wikipedia Watch'

I reverted some deletion vandalism at Vincent Gallo and posted appropriate warnings on the IP's talk page. I then received these replies. High points: 1)user claims to have access to 100+ Penn State University IPs, and thus can never really be blocked, and 2)s/he is "part of Daniel Brandt's team, 'Wikipedia Watch', and our eventual goal to get Wikipedia privately edited. It will happen some day soon, trust me. Jimmy Wales will cave some day soon enough." S/he has left similar messages on other pages. It's point #2 that's particulary troubling. However unlikely it is that there's some sort of organized effort to sabotage Wikipedia, we should all know about it. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 01:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If he keeps coming back, block the whole range, with a note that university staff should contact the blocking admin to discussion the reason for the block. Universities, unlike most ISPs, are very responsive when blocked. Raul654 01:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

With threats like that, I'd contact the university right away. We can't tolerate bullshit like that. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 23:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

They do realise that the "private editors" would ultimately end up being, um... the very people they want to get rid of? Alphax ^τεχ 07:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Contact the univesity immediately per Werdna. They'll probably crack down quickly and nicely. JoshuaZ 04:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a grad school employee, I agree. The IP people will think of such folk as a security threat. --CTSWyneken 03:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

PRODs

Hi everyone, WP:PROD is now policy and sometimes I get the feeling I'm the only person actually going through and deleting the PRODs that have been around for five days. There's a big ole mama backlog at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/en_proposed_deletion, including some that I can't delete because I was the PRODder myself. Little help, please! Thanks, Angr (talk • contribs) 08:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That list is deceptive, I just checked it and most of the red items have already been deleted. This display may be the result of replication lag. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried maintaining that once but got extremely fed up because of the problem Xaosflux mentioned. I'd like to help, but there are things I can do on Wikipedia that are just as useful and less frustrating. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there no way of finding PRODs due for deletion that actually works? I clicked on some at random from the Interiot list just now - not just the bottom three - and two had already been deleted, while one had had its PROD tag removed. Hell, I was about to post this, then I did it again - all three were fairly near the top of the reds, and all three had been deleted already. That is not good odds for someone who wants to spend their time productively. I'm wondering how this became official policy. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Any enterprising editor can feel free to leave the {{prod}} tag on, then also add a CSD tag to get these worked as a band-aid solution. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I also gave up on trying to delete PRODs because there was no reliable up to date list of which articles were ready for deletion. Each link I clicked the article had already been deleted or deprodded. Seemed like a waste of time. --kingboyk 03:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Could we make a bot that automatically adds articles that are past their prod time to the CSD list? That way we could consolidate it all to one clearing house. BrokenSegue 15:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with making such a bot. When I first became an admin, I was chastised multiple times for deleting articles that did not fit CSD criteria. CSD'ing all old PRODs would result in lots of admins all of the sudden speedily deleting articles against policy. In fact, when I scan through CAT:CSD, I routinely find articles marked as CSD that shouldn't be. When I find such an article, I either AFD it or PROD it. PROD should be used to remove all anti-process CSDs, not add to them. --M@thwiz2020 15:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your objection on the specifics, but the basic idea is a pretty good one I think. How about a new category containing articles which have been PRODed for 5 days? --kingboyk 15:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• At present, the backlog is gone. Everything below Swami Devvrat has been dealt with. Until the replication lag clears up, I wonder if it might not be easiest just to leave a manual note somewhere about where an admin working the list left off? Joyous | Talk 16:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help you, but sometimes on my computer this page take an age to load! *Sigh*. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone brought this up with the software developers? --CTSWyneken 11:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested deletion of pages in my (former) userspace.

Hello. This is User:Blu Aardvark, and I would like to request the deletion of the following pages in my userspace. (I'd tag them as speedy, but I wouldn't be able to tag them with my original account, which could potentially cause confusion for the admins who clean up speedy deletion candidates)

In addition, I would like for my userpage, User:Blu Aardvark, to be purged, as there is some personal information in the history that I would like removed. Thank you. --72.160.80.78 01:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This now-blocked user has gone on multiple vandalism sprees, and spent weeks harassing multiple user (myself, Musicallinguist, Slimvirgin, Nicholas Turnbull, 'etc). He put his personal information out there of his own free will, and now that he's decided to act badly, I suspect he doesn't want anyone googling his name to find out about his misbehavior. I don't see why we should be doing him any favors. Raul654 01:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted all the user subpages, but not the main userpage itself. The tag about indef block needs to remain as a record. Hopefully this is an acceptable move. Harro5 01:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That's what I intended by "purge". I would appreciate it if the history of the page was removed. The tag should certainly remain. --72.160.80.78 01:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the information prior to being blocked. The reason I want it completely gone now is because users such as Malber are re-publishing the information in several locations, and that is not acceptable. I did add it of my own free will, true, but that was because I was attempting to foster accountabilty, when I thought that Wikipedia was still a decent place. As it turns out, it just became troll food, and that's why I want it gone. --72.160.80.78 01:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and lies do not become you Raul. I've only gone on ONE vandalism spree, after enduring a multitude of abuses from you, NicholasTurnbull, and several other editors. I was wrong in doing so, true, and I recognize that. That's the only "vandalism spree" I have ever gone on, despite what summaries you use when blocking thousands of potential contributors by instating range blocks on 72.160.1.1/16. I've toyed with your userpage and NicholasTurnbull's userpage, but that is not the same as a "vandalism spree". I also have not at all harrassed Musical Linguist. She just happened to be the user most frequently watching your talk/userpages when I went a'trollin'. As for SlimVirgin, I have given her a fully sincere apology, and have not harrased her since then. --72.160.80.78 02:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I was counting your sprees on en, meta, and commons - the three that we know of - seperately. If you want to count them as a single one, that's your buisness -- I, for one, do not. Raul654 02:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Now Raul is starting in on the trolling and republishing this info. I want it gone, and I want action taken against Malber and Raul654. --72.160.85.60 23:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Incorrect. The comment I made "republishing this info" was made two days before Blu put in the request for that page to be deleted. Nor was it gratitious - I was making the point that if he should get his ranged blocked again, that the complaint against his ISP (being written by other legit users on that range who get blocked) would contain the personal information he freely posted to his user page. Raul654 00:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This user thinks that there should be no consequences for his actions and his reputation should not be tarnished. I should hope that the Wikipedia administrators would show him that he's sadly mistaken. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

In my view his user page should be deleted. The punishment has not included "not to delete his user page". Mind that no one is going to question the punishment. -- Vít Zvánovec 10:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Cap_j

I am blocking Cap_j (talk · contribs) for 24 hours pending review by other admins. Cap_j has been involved in a long standing editing dispute in the Shotokan article, where a concensus of editors have continuously reverted his edits for the most part. I responded to this complaint on the Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard, in which Southwick (talk · contribs) stated that "Cap_j has sent links to our discussion on Shotokan to my Department administrator at Michigan State University, where I am employed. This is outrageous behavior. My life as an editor on Wikipedia has nothing to do with my academic career. Something needs to be done." I asked Southwick if he could provide proof to me that this occurred and he has. I can provide the evidence, but I am trying to protect the emails of those involved. User:Wsiegmund is on my watchlisted editors and I saw that he was also involved in this situation in a mediative role. Cap_j posted this email evidence in which he claims that Southwick contacted him directly and wrote:

"I received the following note from Ron: [email addresses snipped] Subject: Wikipedia Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:48:12 -0400 From: "Southwick, Ron" Please do not take this outside the Wikipedia. You do not know who you are messing with. Feel free to contact me here. Thanks, Ron"

I questioned Cap_j about this email and told him I needed verification.[1] I also subsequently recieved a copy of the email that Southwick had sent by way of email to me. In the version that Southwick provided, the wording "You do not know who you are messing with. Feel free to contact me here." does not exist. I asked Cap_j to send me the copy he recieved and the address to Cap_j is different than the address that Southwick actually used to email Cap_j...the times of transmission are also different. In a nutshell, Cap_j did indeed contact Southwick's place of employment in regards to an editing dispute in Wikipedia...that is the primary reason for the block. Secondarily, Cap_j misrepresented an email that Southwick had sent to him, when questioned by myself and by Wsiegmund. Without being unilateral, I request further advisement, and I also want to point out that I am rather itchy about this off wiki harassment as of late, but regardless of that, I am inclined to permanblock Cap_j for his actions.--MONGO 05:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I support a permablock if Cap_j did indeed contact Southwick's place of employment. Ral315 (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In many ways I was just as pigheaded about this as CapJ. I did not realize that this could get so overblown and go beyond Wikipedia. I have learned a lot from this and apologize to those who had to go through it, including CapJ. ron Southwick 14:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I also support a permablock. There is no excuse for that, and falsifying the info just makes it more dastardly. --Syrthiss 14:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely blocked Cap_j (talk · contribs) and his IP 137.207.80.163 (talk · contribs) which was established based on this edit and editing history.--MONGO 00:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Er, I was under the impression that we don't indefinitely block an IP address unless its an open proxy. JoshuaZ 13:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright status

Can another administrator, preferably someone with experience with image copyright tags, take a look at (warning: image is graphic) Image:Jfkautopsy.jpg? The uploader, Gpscholar (who has received several warning messages from OrphanBot already) has tagged it as public domain and gives this as his summary: http://www.celebritymorgue.com -- this is a photograph of President Kennedy's corpse, taken at his autopsy and is, as such, in the public domain. However, the photo has the website's name in the corner, and when I visited the website, it does not provide any source information and also says Copyright 2005, which makes me doubt that the photo is really public domain. All in all, the image triggered my "red flag" instinct, so I've gone ahead and removed it from the John F. Kennedy article, which the uploader added it to. I would appreciate it if someone else would take a look at this. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the website rotten.com states they "collects images and information from many sources to present the viewer with a truly unpleasant experience." In this case, the question is what source did they get this from? For JFK, they state "The autopsy pictures, taken at Bethesda Naval Hospital on November 22, 1963." I think it's safe to assume they were taken by government employees there. Now, what context was the picture used in the article. Being graphic as it is, I know we allow such pictures, but I personally don't think this picture is essential in illustrating his assassination in the main John F. Kennedy article. On the other hand, it's more directly pertinent to the John F. Kennedy assassination article. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 16:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I agree that the inclusion of the pictures is a separate topic. I'm just wondering, given that the image has the site's name in the corner and that the site does say copyright 2005, that the image does qualify as pd? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure. celebritymorgue.com didn't take the picture, so they can't copyright it. They can put their watermark on it, and they can stick a copyright notice on their web site, but that doesn't matter. If it was really taken by US Navy doctors during the autopsy (seems likely) then it would be {{PD-USGov}}. User:dbenbenn 17:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I don't believe wikipedia can or should host a version of the photo with the "copyright celebritymorgue.com" watermark on it, either. (Even if the copyright claim is invalid.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think there's an official policy on that somewhere. Can't find the long version right now, but there's a short note at Wikipedia:Image use policy#Rules of thumb. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Can't we just crop off the top part with the website's name on it? Or just cover it up with a black rectangle? enochlau (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a better version of the image here and it does not have a copyright notice. -- Kjkolb 10:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've replaced it with the image Kjkolb linked to. Angr (talk • contribs) 10:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I also put the image into John F. Kennedy assassination, but User:Mytwocents keeps removing it, insisting it isn't public domain at all. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashur Soro

This has got to be one of the most f***ed-up AfDs ever... I can't make head nor tail of it. Bottom line is, the AfD has not been closed but the article has been deleted. Can someone take a look at this? Herostratus 19:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Spectre deleted it as recreated content, it seems: see this diff. I closed the AFD on the basis that it had been speedily deleted--feel free to revert me if that was the wrong decision.-Polotet 21:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Er, OK, whatever... but it appears that Ashur Soro is the Bishop of Seattle of the Assyrian Church of the East, whatever that is, according to this page on what appears to be the official Vatican website... so I'm surprised that his page was ever deleted in the first place, seems like he would be at least marginally notable... but I don't know... the AfD indicated that, for some reason, he is either loathed or adored by some... perhaps better that he rest in peace among the deleted, I don't think I wanna see another AfD like that one... Herostratus 07:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich

I assert that Jason_Gastrich (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has exhausted the community's patience (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich, Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Jason Gastrich, and Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Jason Gastrich), and have taken the liberty of blocking him indefinitely as a community ban. Stifle (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse decision. - Mailer Diablo 01:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• I thought this decision had already been made. What gives? — Apr. 21, '06 [01:31] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• I thought he was indef banned. But honestly who cares if someone else indef bans him again since it changes nothing. Mike _{(T C)} 02:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • He was banned for a year by Arb Com. Incidentally, I'm not an admin but I also concur. JoshuaZ 02:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You're a member of the community so your view counts. - brenneman^{L} 04:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I know, but the last time I concurred in a similar context, someone got the mistaken view that I was an admin, so just thought I'd be clear in this case. JoshuaZ 04:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: I saw that - 1) there is a cure for your "unconscionable pretenses of Adminship" (tongue firmly in cheek) , you know, become an Admin! and 2) with people like the accuser running around posting, you'll get your Rouge Admin badge in no time (the editor in question accused JoshuaZ of false pretenses, disruption, misleading him to gain compliance, etc. All the standard cries and protests.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  Ok, I get the point, I think your the third person whose made a comment about me becoming an admin in the last 48 hours. I'll probably run in a week or two after a few things are settled. JoshuaZ 14:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Shoulder-to-shoulder (also non-admin) support on this one Deizio 08:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• More in Harrow than in Ongar, support. Just zis Guy you know? 12:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, given his continued sockpuppeting after a one-year ban was issued. Superm401 - Talk 18:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I see no evidence that he gives a toss about consensus. Just zis Guy you know? 21:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support, given that Gastrich has never contributed anything but time-wastage and hearburn, continued to disrupt and create socks for that purpose post-Arbcom, and shows no signs of ever doing anything else. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Totally. Don't see how it'll stop him puppeteering, though. Bishonen | talk 18:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC).

Non English language pages that redirect to other pages?

I recently deleted a series of non-English language pages that were just redirects to existing pages, and were listed in CSD. These were all marked with {{notenglish}}, and I assumed that A2 applies to them. Now, Cool Cat (talk · contribs) requested undeletion of the pages, arguing that It is common practice to use redirects to link official names of the organisations, places, tv shows, games, etc to the article with the most comon english name.. I want to know whether non-English language redirects are allowed in the English wikipedia (an example would be イノセンス 攻殻機動隊. The CSD page is not clear about what to do about this. Thanks. --Ragib 20:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I deleted some of these too. I was using the CS rather than the CSD. This is the English wikipedia - non-English links are what interwiki linking is for. If you are looking for Korea in Korean, try the Korean wikipedia. Besides, we have enough problems making sure English language articles and redirects are NPOV and not slanderous without this. The problem with redirects esp in non-latin languages, is that, few editors would be able to read them, and so there would be little chance of problematic redirects being caught. We could be redirecting God->George Bush, or someone's name->asshole and never know. I'd say delete all but the most obvious ones. However, perhaps this is not the forum for this debate. Can someone point to a better place, existing policy or debate, or open up a centralised discussion. --Doc ^ask? 20:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all common names by which its subject is known. When the native name is written in a non-Latin alphabet this representation should be included along with Latin alphabet transliterations and English alphabet transliterations. For example, the Beijing article should mention that the city is also known as Peking, and that both names are transliterations of the name 北京. It is also useful to have multiple redirects to the main article, for example Sverige is a redirect to Sweden. If there is a significant number of alternative names or forms it may be helpful to keep only the most common two or three in the first paragraph and a list of them in a separate section to avoid cluttering the lead; see Freyr for an example of this.

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English)

Sadly, the naming conventions are not well organized and they generally deal with how the main article should be titled. Some country specific MoS pages also make the same suggestion. There is even Category:Redirects_from_alternate_languages.

I see no real reason to delete them. Often things are named something unrelated in English and just because someone is searching for it in a different language does not mean they are looking for an article in that language. Kotepho 20:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I also deleted a fair percentage of these, using CSD-R3 (stretched somewhat). I also put the {adminbacklog} tag up to call in reinforcements to help with the deleting. However, an unwritten rule of CSD should be that Speedy Deletes are used for things that are assumed to be non-contraversial to everyone (except perhaps the original creator). When I was told that this wasn't a non-contraversial matter, I undeleted all of my own deletes. I'd happily delete them all again, but feel that clarification is now required. As such, it's best to undelete now and debate the matter, then delete again afterward; possibly the only time you'll hear me say that as generally I believe in delete-and-perhaps-recreate-better (with caveats on this entire policy that I won't go into here so please don't judge).

I think that we need to decide where a line lies - if Pokemon is likely to be searched for as "ポケモン", then that redirect should exist. But there's little or no need to redirect "英語" to "English", if nothing else than because the result will be an article in English that the searcher won't understand (the Pokeman searcher may be looking for what ポケモン means on the packet their game/toy/card/something came in, after all). In other words, a redirect to a Proper Noun is, er, proper. A redirect to a simple noun (or a verb etc) is useless.

But, as Stifle says, redirects are cheap: perhaps the Redirect speedy criteria need to be (gulp) a bit more, well, set in stone?

I feel so unclean. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I undid the deletions for now, but this needs to be resolved in a clear cut manner: either we allow non-English redirects, or not allow them. The policy should be clear on this. Thanks. --Ragib 23:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe any harm is done with rediretcs. Presenting a redirect for the cyrilic writing for Moscow or Kanji writing of Tokyo in my view is good practice. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 10:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirects are good for other purposes, such as getting hits on google for your article. I made such a redirect on Atacul de noapte, so that Ro people will have it easier to find the English article if they google the name. --Candide, or Optimism 11:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so can I assume we have a consensus on non western language redirects for proper names? --Ragib 02:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think so, yes. With the caveat that the names ought to be mentioned in the article (to make bogus redirects as mentioned by Doc above easier to catch). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

At WP:PNT, I often redirect duplicate articles with foreign-language titles to the corresponding English-language title. Of course I tag them {{R from alternate language}}. I don't think foreign-language redirects should ever be speedily deleted unless the deleting admin understands the redirect and knows that it is inappropriate; at least the redirect should be given the chance to have a speaker of the language look at it first. For example, we could make a rule that you should ask at WP:PNT whether a foreign-looking redirect makes sense. Kusma (討論) 14:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Cantus blocked for one month for evading an arbcom ban through sockery

See this notice for details. This is an invocation of remedy 2 and enforcement clause 1.1 in the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus 3 after a checkuser request returned a confirmation that Cantus had socked. --Tony Sidaway 16:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the correct term is sockpuppetry not sockery. Nice use of language though. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 23:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

And the use of "sock" as a verb is interesting. Sock it to 'em! —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait till it makes it way to dictionaries! --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 07:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Kelly Martin's block of User:Rory096

• 18:02, 23 April 2006 - User:Sceptre (for reasons unknown to me) reverts {{prod}} breaking the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion system.
• 18:12, 23 April 2006 - User:Rory096 starts substituting the templates without discussion, however at this moment a message in big red letters displayed on each article currently prodded states that {{prod}} should be substituted.
• 19:01, 23 April 2006 - User:Kelly Martin blocks User:Rory096 for substituting {{prod}} on a large number of articles.
• 19:06, 23 April 2006 - User:Sceptre undoes his edit to {{prod}}. This does not repair the system, however.
• 22:05, 23 April 2006 - User:R. Koot decides to switch to the {{dated prod}} system, which we hadn't done until now because it would break the system for five days (but this has already happened at this point). There already was a consensus to eventually switch to {{dated prod}} and to cause the least amount of trouble switching this needed to happen as soon as possible after Sceptre broke the system.
• 00:30, 24 April 2006 - User:Rory096 continues substituting the {{prod}} templates and correcting the dates of the {{dated prod}} templates. (Note that at this time all the pages which are prodded agian show a big red message requesting people to substitute them template.)
• 00:56, 24 April 2006 - User:Kelly Martin blocks Rory096 again, claiming there is no consensus for this change. She is wrong here.

What it all boils down to is that due to Sceptre editing the template the system will be broken for the next five days (even if the toolserver comes back online before that time) unless we substitute all the {{prod}} templates and correct the dates on the {{dated prod}} templates. There seems to be a consensus for this at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion for this. I'm afraid Kelly Martin fails to understand the situation here. In this light Rory096's block seems extremely unfair and unjustified. I requested her to unblock him and appologize for this misunderstanding but has not answered my latest e-mail. —Ruud 03:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is NOT a consensus for these changes to {{prod}}; I've seen significant evidence of edit warring and several admins have expressed concern about the recent changes. I strongly urge that the entire situation be left alone until a true consensus emerges. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring? Could you provide some diffs of that? Which admins have expressed there concerns? Have you even read Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion? Most people say they would prefer {{dated prod}}, no one opposes it. Proposed deletions can't be left alone. We either have to keep it working (and {{dated prod}} is the only way we can keep it working right now) or suspend the process. Again there is a clear consensus on the talk page for the former. —Ruud 03:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Also understand that these are not changes but repairs. After Sceptre edited the template there was no longer a choice between {{prod}} or {{dated prod}}. Our options were just reduced to {{dated prod}} or no WP:PROD at all, so by urging to leave it alone you are also making a choice (for which there clearly is no consensus). This may all be a nasty situation, but in no way warranting a block of anyone. People are trying to keep Wikipedia running smoothly and you treat them like vandals. —Ruud 04:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sceptre initially reverted the template because there was a discussion in #wikipedia about how it wasn't working. He reverted it to the dated system and Rory started subst the template to get the dates in. Sceptre then reverted his initial change as a result of Rory's initial block. When R. Koot decided to revert back to the dated prod, I don't see what was wrong with Rory fixing the templates. At this point in time, he was actually benefiting WP. Perhaps there is something I'm missing. Pepsidrinka 03:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Rory096 actually broke the template when he started subst'ing in without the correct date. I've rolled back all of his "today" substs and am letting Tawkerbot tag them with the correct date. Once the bot is done, its probally safe to unblock but the block was the right thing to do -- Tawker 07:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the first block, but after that block he actually corrected the dates, doing manually what your bot just did automatically, making the second block unfair and baseless. —Ruud 15:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't we just keep it in place and use it when the toolserver comes back within a week or so. I reverted prod once on benon's request, as every single prod page was giving me this huge subst notice which was breaking it. We could use a bot to to check the date when the prod was added but it's going to be a fairly big pain in the ass if we're going back to one system or another. (most of the code I should be able to nab from Tawkerbot2, it might bot be as big of a deal as I think) -- Tawker 04:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Rory has requested use of AWB (he was removed from the approved user list by Kelly Martin), should it be reinstated? Prodego ^talk 01:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems like Rory was doing what he (and apparently others) thought was the consensus decision... which was also what the template itself specifically instructed. I haven't kept up with the whole 'broken prod' mess but there was obviously a good deal of confusion. Some people are still suggesting that what Rory was doing was beneficial or, at worst, only that Tawker's bot could have done the same thing more efficiently if Rory hadn't been doing it manually. Trying to 'fix' something and other people subsequently deciding to 'fix' it a different way doesn't seem like any kind of 'bad act' to me. --CBDunkerson 11:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Kelly was wrong here. She has not provided any evidence that there was a dispute over Rory's actions (diffs, someone else confirming, etc.) and diffs and the PROD talk page testify that there was support for Rory's action. As I see it, the block was simply and planinly incorrect, unless Kelly or someone else can provide such evidence. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo

The arbitration committee has enacted a temporary injunction in this case. It reads: "Due to continued disruption Terryeo is banned from editing articles related to Dianetics or Scientology pending resolution of this request." Please ensure it is adhered to. Thank you. On behalf of the arbcom, Johnleemk | Talk 15:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Alienus and WP:NPA

I have blocked User:Alienus for 72 hours for repeated, ongoing, egregious personal attacks and disruption on WP:AN/3RR. This user has severe issues understanding what it means to be civil, and has received many, many warnings about personal attacks -- far more than most other users. This latest series of incidents is full of personal attacks, but the best one so far is "Your edits suck and so do you," [2].

Since I have a history with this user (he has alternately accused me, incorrectly, of being a member of a "Christian cabal" or "Jewish cabal," depending on which content dispute he's involved in at any given moment), I'm posting this block here for review. Nandesuka 16:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Because of past disagreements between Nandesuka and Alienus over the content of circumcision related articles, in my opinion it is inappropriate for Nandesuka to use his position as an administrator to block Alienus. In the interest of fairness, Nandesuka should excuse himself from any administrative action involving Alienus.

Also in the interest of fairness it should be noted that Alienus edited the offending comment cited by Nandesuka when he realized that that it had been posted. [3] -- DanBlackham 20:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

If it were a content dispute, I'd agree, but this is user conduct, on pages that are totally unrelated to circumcision. I think that Nandesuka was right to raise the issue here, since as he points out he has a history with Alienus, but as far as I can tell his actions were appropriate.

I am inclined to wonder, incidentally, how many admins have had the luxury of avoiding Alienus' hostility. I suspect that they are few in number. Jakew 20:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I too agree with N. I'll also point out that DB is hardly neutral in this: check his contribs [4]. Spot any patterns relating to A? William M. Connolley 21:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Nor is Jake neutral in this. Anyone who is familiar with the debate over elective, non-therapeutic circumcision outside of Wikipedia will recognize Jake Waskett as a very active and dedicated circumcision advocate. -- DanBlackham 07:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, many anti-circumcision activists have made this claim, but none have ever been able to show me a single example where I have ever a) advised a prospective parent to circumcise, or b) said that circumcision is advisable in general. Interesting. Do feel free to discuss this further on my talk page. Jakew 11:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The conflicts usually start out as a content dispute, then when an editor like Alienus responses in an intemperate way, the focus changes to the user's conduct. People's attention is thus distracted from the real source of disagreement which is content.

In my opinion the analysis by Michael Glass of the problems with the circumcision related articles is accurate. [5] The items in point six are particularly relevant. "If the first editor protests in a way that is at all intemperate, the hostile editor invokes all the Wiki rules about incivility." -- DanBlackham 07:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I also completly agree with Nandesku's actions. I don't think N is involved any more than anyone else that has come into contact with Alienus. This user is so rude and uncivil that it is probable that anyone that has edited on the same page as him will encounter some of his innappropriate comments. In this case it was perfectly appropriate to act as Nandesku did.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman

The arbitration committee has enacted a temporary injunction in this case. It reads: "Until the conclusion of this arbitration, Aucaman is placed on standard revert parole. He may not make more than one content revert per article per day. Should he revert excessively, he may be briefly banned, up to a week for repeated violations." Please ensure it is adhered to. Thank you. On behalf of the arbcom, Johnleemk | Talk 16:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phrenicea

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phrenicea It seems to be a bit of a mess, can some one please help sort it out. From the looks of it a new AfD discussion has been added on to a old non-closed discussion.--blue520 16:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the second AFD to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phrenicea (2nd nomination). Hope this helps! --lightdarkness ^(talk) 19:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry there still are problems, the AfD notice on Phrenicea still points to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phrenicea rather than the new Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phrenicea (2nd nomination) and two users have placed discussions on the older AfD since the two were split.--blue520 04:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved. Thank you, Lightdarkness for helping.--blue520 14:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandal - The wcw wrestling 2008

This new user, The wcw wrestling 2008 | Talk has been adding nonsense to professional wrestling articles for the past six hours - please ban him. TheNewMinistry 20:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Ral315 (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Odd admin behaviour at Cuba article

I'll just lay this out in point form for you:

1. One of your admin reverted a change with no comment. rv
2. The admin reversion was immidiatly undone, You are supposed to be an administrator! Remember, I'm not a "communist" --we can discuss this, my changes follow policy!.
3. I then added my image File:408px-Che.jpg.
4. Finally, your admin locked the page, [Protected Cuba: Stop edit war, allow discussion [edit=sysop:move=sysop)]] and reverted it all (my image included!) [[6]]
5. So far, there has been no efforts at discussion. But I did recently leave a message at the admins userpage, so give it time

Also Note: The previous time this admin sponsored a revert war (after welcoming me by calling me a coward/sock puppet [7], the admin brought this up [8] ([9]). Now I still have no hard feelings, but this admin is really standing in the way of fixing up the article. I understand in the admin's world view, Castro represents things that I can't understand... I just want someone to help out here. (disclosure: the anon involved is me)

Please and thank you, Mystork 20:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Since he was also involved in editing the page, it was likely not appropriate for PMA to protect the page. I'm also not sure why he felt the need to roll back to his version while the page was protected, as it seems a bit petty. However I would advise against making substantial changes to contentious articles without testing for disagreement on the talk page. The actual content of his edits seems quite reasonable, but he probably should not have mixed in admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to be able to defend myself but i am going to be mostly wikiaway in the next week due to chronic health problem treatment - ask 172 or Adam Carr to find out that i am a good editor and Adam has said that i mean well - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BruceHallman&diff=49461797&oldid=49459999 PMA 04:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No real need to defend yourself...based on his edits I assume that Mystork is probably not a super-easy-to-get-along-with kind of guy. But it would probably be better to leave protection (at least protection related to content disputes) for uninvolved admins. Cheers, Christopher Parham (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this out Christopher, PMA Mystork 00:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree here PMA violated #1 & #2 of the protection policy and should have to defend his actions. A uninvolved admin should have been asked to step in, the page should NOT have been reverted, and PMA should NOT have protected the page himself. Users are expected to respect policy and admins should also respect policy. Mike _{(T C)} 18:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

List of National Basketball League (Australia) venues

User:Jcuk has done a bang up job bringing this list in line with style and policy, AfD nom withdrawn and I'd be grateful if someone would close the (no-consensus bound) debate. Deizio 21:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

AfDs are often closed when the nomination is withdrawn, but not when other users have commented in favour of deletion. Leave a note on the AfD that the page was rewritten after some people had commented, so the closer knows to give less weight to early comments, and then just let time run its course. --bainer (talk) 07:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

help undoing a move

There was a fairly stable article titled American liberalism. Somebody moved it to American social liberalism and then moved it again to Social liberalism (United States). On the talk page, several people opposed the move and nobody supported it when it turned out that the person who made the move had not bothered to fix redirects. (I was willing to go along with it, but have now joined the others who oppose the move.) I tried to move the article back, but it wouldn't move because of the double redirect. So, I'm afraid I made matters worse by trying to move American liberalism to American liberalism scratch, to free up the name for the article to move back. That didn't work. I read some advice in "help" and now realize that I should have moved the article back one step at a time, but apparently it is too late for that now, though I have managed to move it back from Social liberalism (United States) to American social liberalism. There it sits.

Since the main article on liberalism links to the article American liberalism I think that title is the most stable. If you are willing to help by moving American social liberalism back to American liberalism, and delete American liberalism scratch, American social liberalism, and Social liberalism (United States), I will take on the job of fixing all the links.

Thanks. Rick Norwood 23:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Everything should be fixed now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ClassicSciFi.com

Would anyone please close this AfD? It's been way over 5 days, I am afraid it was overlooked. Thanks - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

For some reason Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 17 was missing from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old. I've rectified that, and relisted the debate you came here about as it had only two contributors. If there's a few more deletes it can be closed (currently 3). --kingboyk 04:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

...and deleted. --kingboyk 05:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing like a short cancelation of a new opening night! What a theatre! <G> FrankB 05:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Lol! You snooze, you lose. Sorry about that :) --kingboyk 05:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Suicidal user

Apparently this is the place to report people discussing on Wikipedia their intentions to commit suicide. The most recent such person is The Hypnotist (talk · contribs). Pay particular attention to his edits to Talk:Suicide, Talk:Mass suicide, and Talk:Potassium cyanide. moink 04:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't entertain this. His own talk page and some previous edits have shown a tendency towards vandalism and trolling. Based on the ministerial training I've received, posting "Hey, I've got cyanide" messages on Wikipedia would be pretty atypical warning signs for a person seriously considering suicide. Not to sound callous, but I don't take this guy seriously, and both the extent of intervention available via Wikipedia and its impact is negligable. A link to an outside website should suffice; let's not play into a troll's hands. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 05:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that his edits in the past have been less than stellar, although some of them (e.g. the whole thing with the Stimulism article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stimulism) seem more confused than bad faith. But just because someone is a vandal or confused doesn't mean they can't be suicidal. moink 05:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's warn him with a {{suicide3}} right away, maybe? LOL!! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

STOP! This is your last warning! Do not commit suicide here. You'll make a mess! HAHAHAHAHA - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm altogether concerned that this has become "the place to report people discussing on Wikipedia their intentions to commit suicide" (I readily recognize that perhaps Moink offers that description sardonically, and I'd certainly concur with that spirit); one's discussing his/her prospective suicide ought only to be dealt with as any other vandalism. Where disruption to the project occurs (e.g., when a user inserts extraneous comments into mainspace or consumes talk page space with wholly irrelevant comments), a user should surely be blocked; where disruption does not occur (e.g., when a user simply posts comments apropos of an imminent suicide on his/her user page to no deleterious end [vis-à-vis the production of an encyclopdia]), nothing should be done. Having followed the discussion last week with respect to this issue, I'm reasonably sure my position doesn't have a great deal of support here, but I thought it ought to be noted that we are here to write an encyclopedia (cf., to insinuate ourselves into the lives of other editors where the primary object is not the expansion of the 'pedia). Joe 06:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, and to view it from a practical standpoint for the "suicidal user," if they're genuinely looking for help online, it seems very, very unlikely that they're going to do so by coming to Wikipedia to pore over an article on suicide. This is not a self-help site, and if someone's able to find their way to an article in Wikipedia, they're able to use Google to look up a resource that's actually helpful. I think this is a good example of Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose... don't give vandals the impression that they can eat up resources by claiming that they're suicidal. It's not just an issue of "this is disruptive to Wikipedia," it's one of vandals manipulating concern to get attention. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 06:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I missed the discussion last week (where is it? I just looked for it and couldn't find it), and I think we've got a responsibility to do more than ignore this. I also don't like the notion of dismissing suicidal talk just because someone has been trollish in the past. I'm not saying that someone couldn't make claims of suicidal ideation in order to stir up trouble or get attention, but I'd rather err on the side of responsibility — better to feed a troll a bit than have someone commit suicide on our watch. Besides the moral questions, imagine the headlines if it turned out to be genuine: "Wikipedia ignored suicidal teen's pleas for help" and the like.

I'm also not so sure that someone who's suicidal wouldn't look here. They might also look in more "useful" locations, but since Wikipedia has become such a universal tool it's not inconceivable that someone might look here first. The Wikipedia page suicide does come up on the first page if you type "suicide" into Google; it's not the top of the list, but it's there.

All that said, I also recognize that most of us can't do anything more than the sensible comments moink has already left on The Hypnotist's talk page; could we get an idea of where he is with a whois search? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the attention for an unheeded response posted to Wikipedia — which would be the same as if it were posted onto a blog, or MySpace, or Facebook, or whatever — would be slight in comparison to that drawn to an article like suicide methods. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 06:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The last time this happened it was immediately passed over to the Foundation. I think the same should happen here. (If it turns out to be a spoof, he should get a long block; if it isn't a spoof we have a moral duty to do something). --kingboyk 06:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think WP:BEANS to be largely irrelevant here; even as we don't want to encourage trolls and vandals, we ought to react in the same way to a "suicide threat" by a user whom we know to be serious as to one by a user whom we are certain is trolling (perhaps we would suggest a block in the latter case, inasmuch as the intent is to disrupt, but, of course, the former also tends to disrupt when expressed on multiple pages); scilicet, we ought to do nothing (for reasons I attempt to explain below, in response to Tijuana's template). Joe 04:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) There was a similar case sometime earlier this year or late last year, if I recall correctly. We're here to build an encyclopedia, and I think we just pointed the guy to some other site (perhaps it was a counselling site or something...). We should do the same here, and not waste rescources and energy on one user with claims. Anyone can make claims. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:39 UTC (2006-04-25)

More like, road to hell is paved with good obsessions. Wikipedia does not have a counseling service. Any personal problems of users are only personal problems of users and hence is of no concern to wikipedia comunity as a hole.

Maybe this might make a nice addition to WP:NOT?

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 07:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Think a short template would be practical... something along the lines of "WP:NOT for med/mental problems, see WebMD, etc."? Then, if they keep going, {{personalproblems2}} could refer them to User talk:Crzrussian. Guarantee they won't come back after that. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 07:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You are joking right?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This humor seems grossly inappropriate to me. I agree that Wikipedia isn't a suicide prevention / general selfhelp service, and certainly agree that potentially suicidal users should be pointed to another, appropriate, external resource / service. I do disagree with, for example, the concept that "personal problems of users are only personal problems of users and hence is of no concern to wikipedia comunity as a hole." (sic) I'll keep this focused at a purely project level and suggest that, at least, it is my hope that the community would be concerned if an editor was lost to the project through suicide. There's a whole wide world out there for mocking fellow humans - this discussion doesn't seem to be contributing to a better encyclopedia, IMVHO. And, as user:kingboyk points out, we have a moral duty to do something. Colonel Tom 11:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Then find someone with cheackuser to grab the IP then contact the ISP. We don't know who this person is or where they live so there is nothing else we can do.Geni 14:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

To get this in before somebody tells us to discuss it somewhere more appropriate... all joking aside, I'm fairly certain that all of the editors above would upset if an editor committed suicide. However, the likelihood of someone coming onto Wikipedia to declare their serious, immediate intention of taking their own life is beyond remote. Based on my somewhat limited knowledge, when a person has a serious intention of suicide, they will begin to manifest by speaking to friends and family rather than strangers online. More importantly, they don't do so by tagging obnoxious comments onto talk pages [10] with happy faces on them [11]. Part of the reason that you may be misunderstanding some of the responses above as callous is because this is a easy to spot case of a vandal looking for attention — it wouldn't be the first time he's tried [12].

I'm not sure how much experience you've had dealing with vandals, but they'll do pretty much anything for a laugh... faking suicidal tendencies wouldn't be that far up the list compared to other things that have gone down here. If one starts to pick up that he can start getting attention from editors that rush to every suicide claim, trying to track down their IP and call their provider, he's gonna do it again. On a practical level, there's nothing an editor can really do other than refer them to a self-help site, but like I said above, if they got here, they can get there. Since there still seems to be some users concerned, though, here's a template that you can use in such a case. Looks like this:

Just type {{suicidehelp}} onto their talk page.Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 14:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine that I'd be particularly distraught over the loss of any particular editor, and I surely hope the community writ large (and even any given editor) wouldn't be upset over my committing suicide. I, in any case, oppose our apprehending a moral duty (as a matter of policy; certainly individual editors may act, generally, as they wish in this respect) to intercede, and think it altogether inappropriate for us to offer, on a template, an external link to what is plainly an advocacy site (even as most may think the POV for which the site advocates--viz., that one oughtn't to kill him/herself--to be the "correct" view with respect to suicide). This relates, I suppose, to the discussion currently underway apropos of WP: NOT EVIL, and, I think, at the end of the day, the concerns that militate against our adopting that proposed guideline militate against our having an advocacy template here; we are here to write an encyclopedia, from which we may then benefit, and not to inculcate morals under color of policy. If one wants to express on his/her talk page the view that suicide is wrong or should be looked upon with disfavor, especially by those contemplating killing themselves, that's fine (at least if one believes user pages may contain expressions of such sentiments; I, as I've expressed elsewhere, believe that the use of user pages to express personal beliefs is beneficial, rather than harmful, to the project), but I don't think it at all appropriate that we should have a template that responds to a user's querying talk pages and the like about suicide. Joe 04:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As I mention on the templates for deletion vote page, I think we should keep an NPOV version of {{suicidehelp}}, and that it should be similar to the "Resources for dealing with suicidal thoughts' section of Template:Suicide. Also, WP:BEANS does not apply here, I don't think people will commit suicide "just to try it." - PatrickFisher 03:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The beans reference was not for people committing suicide because an editor on Wikipedia suggested it. It was about giving the idea that a vandal claiming suicide could get other editor's attention. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 03:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Policy towards deleting user:talk pages

I think it is necesary to come up with a concensus for this.

Talk pages exist as a means to comunicate with others. User talk pages are also an excelent source of evidence for arbitration cases as well as rfcs.

Hence I feel it is inaproporate to delete user talk pages even if the user leaves the project (such leaves are often temporary).

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 07:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about a user deleting their own talk page, or a user deleting someone else's page? If a user is leaving the project then there's no harm in them deleting their user page or user talk page. If it is actually needed for an arbitration request, it can be undeleted then, just ask one of the admins at Category:User undeletion. --bainer (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think user talk pages should be deleted under any circumstances, and most particularly I don't it's proper to delete one's own user talk page. It seems to me to fall under the same category as using blocking privileges to enforce your own Wikibreak, which is strictly prohibited. I can easily see people leaving the project (with the serious intention of going away for good) during a particularly nasty exchange, deleting their userpage, then coming back sometime later and 'forgetting' to restore it. Similarly, I do seem to recall that in several past arbitrations, an admin's deletion of their own user talk page (during one nasty exchange or another, granted, and after they'd said things they'd obviously rather unsay) became one of the central issues against them. Basically, if an admin wants to leave the project, I see no reason why they can't settle for merely blanking their user and talk pages like anyone else... permanently deleting other users' legitimate comments strikes me as something to be avoided and discouraged whenever possible. --Aquillion 09:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with prohibition of deleting user pages. Every one has a right to decide about his pages. Just blanking is not enough. Otherwise everyone should be warned: "If you post anything even on your own page, it cannot be deleted." -- Vít Zvánovec 10:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

That warning is inherent to everything added to Wikipedia, and is indeed presented to you before every edit; that's part of what it means when it says that "you agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." No one has the automatic right to utterly retract anything that they add to Wikipedia, even on their own talk pages; it is not even within a normal user's capabilities to permanently delete their talk page. Indeed, a normal user who requested that one of their submissions or comments be hard-deleted simply because they desired it would (rightfully) be laughed off of whatever forum they requested it on. Granted, admins are given the ability to "permanently" delete things under a limited subset of circumstances in order to help run the encyclopedia, but I see nothing in the rules that would extend this to grant them the discretionary ability to delete their own talk pages, nor any reason why it should be extended to grant them that right. Deleting your own talk page has nothing to do with the maintenance or smooth functioning of the encyclopedia, which is supposed to be the sole purpose of an admin's abilities, and goes against the principals of openness and respect for the comments of others, both of which are essential to Wikipedia's functioning. --Aquillion 11:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious that a normal user cannot delete his or her page by himself or herself. But the petition for that should be done without reluctance. Has anybody to be forced to have personal attacs on his or her own talk page?

GFDL was always meant for encyclopedical articles, not for my personal data I post at my page. Your attitude is a great endangering of privacy. -- Vít Zvánovec 15:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

+ Some addition: In my view there is a great difference between real name users and pseudonyms. If I were three years ago with my current knowledge, I would never choose my real name login again. -- Vít Zvánovec 15:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal information is a special case. Users can always have personal information about themselves specifically excised, provided it isn't already common knowledge. (You could get your username changed, by the way; I know of at least one other longstanding user who had his name changed for that reason.) I should note in passing, though, that I was talking about the wholesale deletion of user:talk pages, not the user pages themselves or the removal of specific troublesome edits; the issue with deleting user:talk pages is that it invariably involves deleting the comments of numerous other users, which is normally against policy. We do it when deleting an article, sure, but in that case the discussions are unlikely to remain relevant. With a user's talk page, though, they remain relevant for, at the very least, as long as the flesh-and-blood user those comments were directed to could conceivably continue contributing to Wikipedia. --Aquillion 03:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

User talk pages should not be deleted. User pages may be deleted. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Somebody needs reigns

A relative newbie user talk: Wrc60 , User talk:202.40.210.246, and User talk:85.165.205.144 has a ton of pages 'Inuse' (Note Group), has used at least two IP's, and forgotten (???) his account name or password or something. Most of these (20?) are generaly boilerplate and very much effectively empty. He was working on 1973 this evening earlier. I left him a couple of notes but he'd apparently just shut down for the night. FrankB 08:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of them have been tagged for weeks! {{inuse}} is supposed to be for a couple of hours at most; {{underconstruction}} isn't really appropriate for this kind of time span either. He does appear to be working on them albeit very slowly, and they could be useful articles, so perhaps the best solution would be to remove the tags and add a stub template instead? --kingboyk 08:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd gotten that far, but I needed my beauty rest (Trust Me!). I figure one reason he's done this is because of all the fancy interlinking, which if they were in sandbox mode would require him to then fix those cross links once the articles were moved to article space. I'll do five or so, if a few others will take on as many, he can't get too resentful. Best regards, FrankB 15:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've done 5 and tagged em with {{Autoracing-stub}} instead of {{inuse}}. --kingboyk 15:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Help needed to fix c+p move

Quantum mysticism was moved to Quantum metaphysics by User:H0riz0n, but it appears to have been done by a cut and paste, instead of a move, wiping out the history, (and the resulting redirect is mis-formed). I dropped a note to the user about it, but admin intervention is needed to sort out the history issues, etc, and is probably easier to fix before anyone else edits the target article. Regards, MartinRe 10:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to User:FreplySpang for fixing the original article, however it appears that a different, second user has renamed the page to yet another title, making the same mistake, so the history is now scattered over three articles! (the talk page history for the original article wasn't merged, was this was just an oversight?)

Three pages in question are: Quantum metaphysics, Quantum mysticism and Quantum pseudo-mysticism if any admin feels like getting this back into order again! Regards, MartinRe 22:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What joy. Sorry for missing the talk page history - that was indeed an oversight. I'll go look at these articles now. FreplySpang (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this, I know it's a little messy to fix. (I don't even have anything to do with the article myself, just happened across it by chance!) Cheers, MartinRe 23:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think it's done. I redirected two of the names to Quantum metaphysics because that's where the article history happened to be. If anyone wants to check this, I'd appreciate it. FreplySpang (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cycle theory needs closing

No one has bothered to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cycle theory (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cycle theory|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which was initially posted April 5 2005. Maybe it fell off an AfD log or something. Sandstein 13:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it has apparently fallen off the AFD list. I am therefore adding it to today's list so that we are assured of giving it a full 5 days worth of visible discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Account suspensions

I was browsing through the administrator's reading list and came across this page, as it is the very first one. This page seems to be very inactive and has basically been replaced by WP:AN and WP:ANI, among other pages. There has been talk in the past of adding a {{historical}} tag to this page (see Wikipedia_talk:Account_suspensions#Does_anyone_actually_use_this.3F). Are there any objections to making this a historical page, and perhaps removing it from the reading list? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a problem. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I still use it, and would like to continue doing so. El_C 20:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not use AN/I, RFI, etc., which all get much more traffic? I mean, the last few edits on that page reach into February. Snoutwood (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Those pages are always hundreds of kb — whenever Wikipedia is slow (often) it can be unmanagable (RFI is NA). El_C 21:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way to filter Autoblocks by the blocking user?

I want to check which autoblocks have been generated on the basis of blocks I have made, but can't find a way to filter the list (search filters on the blocked user not the blocking admin). Can anybody help? Cheers TigerShark 22:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

DPSingh banned

Since his arbitration case, DPSingh (talk · contribs) has violated his ruling and been blocked, and then created a whole host of sockpuppets to violate his article ban, and just be generally disruptive and uncivil. See most recent socks at Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#Rajput_case.

For continued violation of his article ban for edit warring and incivility using sockpuppets, DPSingh is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year.

Passed 6 to 0 at 23:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 23:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This has not yet been officially implemented. Can someone implement this? --69.117.7.63 02:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Done; DPSingh (talk · contribs) has been blocked for one year. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newtons Fourth Law of KinoDynamics

Would anyone please close or relist this AfD? It has been open since the 7th of April, that is a bit more than the normal five days. By the looks of it was removed accidentally from the April 7 Log when another AfD was listed.--blue520 02:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Closed now. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Adil Abdul-Mahdi

I moved this page from Adel Abdul-Mahdi. The internet spells his name both ways. For instance, CBS spells it Adil [13] however, FORBES spells it Adel [14]. Futhermore, some spell the last name with a hypen, some without. Is the page where it is right now okay? I added the redirects that I thought were necessary Thanks! OSU80 03:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There are a few double redirects left: see Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Adil_Abdul-Mahdi to find them. Otherwise, looks good to me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What to do with this user?

User:The_Chosen_One has made no edits other than to set up a user page which is a copy of the Anakin Skywalker article. At minimum, the categories need to be modified so that it doesn't show up in the relevant article cats, but I'm not sure what should be done or why the user did this. JoshuaZ 04:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is this a problem? If a Wikipedia user wants to copy parts of an article onto their user or talk pages--I don't see why this would be a problem. Almost Famous 05:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes maybe he just hasn't had a chance to write any articles yet. But maybe...just maybe..this user is actually Anakin Skywalker. You probably don't want to offend him just in case.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Harry Potter and the Willy On Wheels of Fire

I guess you know what to do. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ?)} 09:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Curps got it before you even posted here ;) Petros471 09:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious, is THE willy on wheels really active or are these just his imitators? Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ?)} 09:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

(P.S Hey I just found out the above post (i.e the first one) was my 2500th edit! Well thats gonna look good on my milestones column "Reported Willy on Wheels sockpuppet to admin noticeboard" :-D )

With a "phenomenon" such as WoW has become, it is likely that there are many vandals who enjoy imitating this meme. The ones with the obvious usernames aren't, incidentally, the dangerous ones as they are blocked long before they get move privileges; they're just here to be funny and waste a microsecond of Curps's time. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

And a microsecond is all it takes, too. Curps is amazing in his ability to block multiple vandals faster than a speeding bullet, leap tall buildings with a single bound, ... ok, I don't know if he's stronger than a locomotive. Still very impressive. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I have to admit I once thought he was a bot. He isn't a bot, is he? :) --kingboyk 02:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There was an outcry on this very page a while back about his bot being given sysop priviledges (i.e., running under his own name). So he's part bot part human. You'll have to look at the edit/log summaries to tell. :-) Kimchi.sg | talk 07:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is there something similar to the RC patrol tools for new users, one that lets vandal fighters redflag certain words or phrases in new usernames as they're created so it'll be called to their attention and they can investigate? --Aquillion 09:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Lupin's vandal fighter does that? New users do show up in RC after all. Kimchi.sg | talk 10:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

We have this functionality in the vandalism IRC channel, and it does flag then greylist users whose names match particular problem phrases or expressions. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Who is "Wikipedia" this time (Mark Taylor (politician) and WP in the news)?

According to Georgia Public Broadcasting this morning, "the Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia has traced a change to the biography of Lieutenant Governor candidate Mark Taylor inserting his son's drunken driving arrest to the office of his opponent, Cathy Cox. The insertion of the tragic event was uncivil." Ok, now Georgia Public Broadcasting has a highly political ownership that is very close to one political party (Mark Taylor's) (Republican). What I want to know is who is this 'Wikipedia' who traced the change? I saw no request on WP:AN or WP:AN/I. Did an admin do this? Did Jimbo? We're in the news, and we appear to be taking sides, as the news copy makes it sound like we condemn the change or characterize it as "incivil." If we're being hijacked, we need to make a disclaimer/explanation. Geogre 11:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: I and Gmaxwell have written on the article's talk page, but the mystery remains. Who is "Wikipedia" in this context? It sounds for all the world like a ... a fib, let's say... that's in that news report, and I suggest that someone from the Foundation clarify the thing with the news drones of Georgia, lest they make us a greater part of their political strife. Geogre 13:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: about 5 minutes ago on CNN's "The Situation Room", one of the blog reporters claimed this was confirmed by "Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales". Can anyone confirm this, or is this just a silly blog reporter making a claim they don't think will ever be checked? (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

An Atlanta Journal-Constitution article states that Jimmy told the Associated Press that it had been traced. I assume checkuser was used. FCYTravis 21:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If that's true, it would have been nice if the wp:an had been warned that we were about to get dragged into it again. (And why, exactly, are we doing checkuser requests on articles like that? Doesn't that, if true, open the door to every single unhappy reader demanding to know the location of every single displeasing edit? Doesn't that chill contributors in general?) I'm sincerely hoping that it's not true and hope that folks bring it up on the mailing list and cross-post Jimbo's response here. Geogre 22:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I struck through my statement because I believe it's wrong. If an unregistered user inserted the information, only a whois request would be needed to determine basic information about the location of the IP address. FCYTravis 22:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It is also interesting to contemplate whether Wikipedia has any effective privacy policy left. Is there any circumstance left under which we will not release the identity of an editor to the press? If this person had used an ID rather than an IP, would we still ferret them out and announce their location? - Nunh-huh 22:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If a member of a political campaign edits the encyclopedia with the intent to use its articles as political weaponry, then absolutely they should be ferreted out and exposed. FCYTravis 22:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but that means: anytime anyone edits a political article in a way we don't like, we will investigate them to determine if they are a campaign worker carelessly working from their office. I'm not so sure that's desirable. - Nunh-huh 23:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

We are the free encyclopedia anyone can edit, not the free encyclopedia anyone can edit without fear of any reprecussions for actions they may commit which tend to damage the encyclopedia. FCYTravis 23:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be a good argument for requiring users to [1] register, [2] edit under their actual names, and [3] display their e-mail addresses prominently. I'm think inflicting real world invasions of privacy any time someone complains would be rather a bad policy. - Nunh-huh 00:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please! I'm the original worry wart when it comes to political edits and Wikipedia as a campaign tool, but this case is quite different. The editor resolved to an IP at her office (her being Cathy Cox), and the edits were embarrassing but true information. I'm not for either politician, as I haven't made up my mind about whom I support in the race, but, as much as I fear (and as often as I sang songs of woe about the coming use of Wikipedia in politics), it's one thing to say "We will revert any political usage of Wikipedia and protect pages that are being used for campaigning" or "We will put disclaimers on pages indicating that our open editorial policy renders them unstable" and quite another to say, "We will tell anyone who asks how to use WHOIS." I don't object to Mark Taylor's office running WHOIS or reading the History tab. I object to "Wikipedia confirms that the edits came from Cathy Cox's office." It turns out that such was not the case, quite. It appears that Jimbo was asked to confirm that a given change was the insertion and that WHOIS did give a particular ownership. I guess I would have preferred his saying, "That appears to be the case" or "You have read the history correctly" and overtly tried not to give the newspapers grounds for saying "Wikipedia says," and, of course, the Georgia Public Radio newswriters made things much worse. It's a game of telephone by the time it gets to their hacks, but I do wish we weren't confirming or appearing to assent to searching out the origins of non-libelous edits. Geogre 02:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Names of languages in "Other languages"

I asked this at WP:VPT over an hour and a half ago and haven't gotten answer, so I'll try here. I'm an admin and can alter MediaWiki pages. How do I correct the name of a language displayed in the "Other languages" box? MediaWiki:Otherlanguages isn't it. Angr (talk • contribs) 13:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You cannot. Live MediaWiki has to be changed by develepers. -- Vít Zvánovec 15:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocking numerical user names

Is there any clear policy concerning blocking numerical user names? User:160490 is blocked, User:159753 is not, User:30021190 is blocked, User:16836054 is not. -- Vít Zvánovec 15:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate usernames just says, "Random or apparently random sequences of letters and numbers", but not specifically a number sequence (especially if the number might be significant to a group of people). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but what is the difference between 160490 and 159753; 30021190 and 16836054? -- Vít Zvánovec 19:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The only differences I noted was that 159753 is a long time user (possibly before the number restriction went in) and 16836054 may just have been overlooked when they registered. --Syrthiss 19:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Then this policy lacks any clarity. I will propose its change in liberal way. Together with kingboyk I don't have any problem with any of the user names I have mentioned. -- Vít Zvánovec 07:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The point of that clause is to prevent confusing usernames. Usernames of larger numbers are hard to recognize and remember, so, for future cases, usernames like the cited examples should probably be blocked. ~MDD4696 22:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Rather ironic that these words should be spoken by Mdd4696 and Zzyzx11 isn't it?! Both look like "Random or apparently random sequences of letters and numbers" to me. That said, I personally don't have a problem with any of the user names mentioned. --kingboyk 02:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my user name is not random. It is named after the Zzyzx page :-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Blimey. Live and learn. What about the number 11? Are there 10 more Zzyzx's who registered ahead of you? :) --kingboyk 03:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it was the rationale. But in practice, where is the difference between 30021190 and 16836054? -- Vít Zvánovec 09:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Truthfully, 30021190 doesn't look so random to me... it's a fairly easy-to-remember number with a lot of repeated digits, and likely had some meaning to its user. I think username blocking for randomness should be limited to situations where there is strong reason to believe that a username is genuinely random; at the very least, admins should ask before blocking on grounds of randomness, to determine whether the name in question is genuinely random, or if it just refers to something they don't know about. As noted above, Zzyzx11 could easily have been blocked on joining by a careless admin who didn't bother to ask about the name. --Aquillion 09:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

its the date 09/11/2003 written backwards.  ALKIVAR™ 17:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Technically they don't even need to ask (although it's always nice of course) - "Random or apparently random sequences of letters and numbers" --kingboyk 05:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Actaully, I started editing on Wikipedia long before that policy clause was put in place. As I recall, it was instituted because there was a vandal bot that was randomly creating usernames with random characters. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds rather complicated. Why all the huge bureaucracy with it? Why not be liberal? Is 16836054 offending somene? Let's discuss it on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal to repeal last point of No inflammatory usernames in WP:U. -- Vít Zvánovec 10:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be changed to only apply if there is a suspicion that the account was created by a bot (unlikely now, don't they use captchas) or is to be used for disruption? --kingboyk 05:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice. Should I alter my proposal? -- Vít Zvánovec 08:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

User:John Reid

It seems that a user has taken exception to something I've said or done; his complaints are rather incoherent so I can't say more. He has expressed himself a number of times on my user page; an admin thoughtfully placed it under semi-protection. Now this annoyed user, via a succession of socks, has turned to my talk. A number of admins have taken time out from their busy rounds to stem the tide. I apologize for any inconvenience.

I'd like to suggest that so long as this user confines himself to experimentation on my user page he is not a danger to the community. I'm sure we would all rather see him better directed, perhaps away from the project entirely; but it may be most efficient to permit him to enjoy himself on one page in this project that is of little or no concern to anybody. I don't consider my user page to be any sort of showplace; it's merely a collection of useful links. History provides me with usable versions on demand; this user's expressions are a minor inconvenience even to me. Meanwhile he expends his energies harmlessly.

I would appreciate if admins who notice such play be sure to add each new sock to the appropriate category. However, I'd prefer my user page not be protected and, for that matter, that no admin take time to revert changes to it. I'm sure I appreciate the attention but it's really not needed. Thank you. John Reid 17:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Prodego ^talk 03:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. John Reid 19:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Office of International Treasury Control

The edit warring on this article was getting out of hand yesterday. I was informed on my talk page about this by an anon ip editor. On reviewing the AfD the article had gone through (resulting in no consensus) the discussion leant towards it being moved to OITC fraud, which I did last night. The edit warring continued for a while on both pages, eventually ending with 3rr by both parties for which I blocked both editors for 11 hours. Both appeared to accept this positively but edits to the article today (and absence of same to talk page) show no attempts in talking it out.

The anon claims it is all a big hoax, the named editor(s) claim it is genuine and that the wiki is being used for defamatory purposes. There has already been some mention of liturgation by the named users. I have moved the talk that was posted on my talk page to the article's talk page. I would like (a) more experienced admin(s) who knows their way round these points better than I to take a look at both the article and the talk page, and give me some idea what needs doing from here. Thanks. --Alf ^melmac 18:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Further talk from both editors my page today;

OITC Fraud

Alf, I am wondering what to do about the persistent vandalism and menaces directed agaist the above mentioned article and against the authors of the original article thereby filed. I would not initiate another persistent copy and paste, but I would be thankful if this issue can be referred to someone at Wiki.

I and some friends have worked hard in the article, furnishing as many sources as possible and in general giving hard and verifiable facts. The people from the OITC only fill up the same recycled paragraphs they have used before in their dealings. Can something be done? Thanks in advance for your reply.

I just wanted to note that I removed a subthread of this here since it contained blatant legal threats, baseless legal threats but still legal threats. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 15:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

AfD Closure

Would appreciate it if an esteemed sysop closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EarthCore (Podcast novel). I have withdrawn my nomination, and the only other two votes are "delete per nom". Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have closed the AfD. Crazy Russian intends to move & tidy article, in collaboration with another editor. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 19:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Fucking vandals

No, seriously, fuck is vandalised a lot (who'd have thought?). Should we semiprot, do you think? Just zis Guy you know? 22:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. ~MDD4696 22:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say no. its 3-4 vandal edits a day. Frankly, that's not much. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

And it's probably on around 300 watchlists... Sasquatch t|c 05:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Toolbox

Can the Welcome template be modified to include a copy of the toolbox and wiki-links, so that new Wikipedians will not burden you guys with questions, such as this: "Where do I go to report a vandal ?' or, "The website went down, why did this happen ?" ? I have all of the wiki-links and tools that may prove useful to new Wikipedians. Martial Law 03:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC) :)

What I'm asking is this: Can a copy of the Wiki-links and toolbox found on my userpage be placed in the "Welcome" template, so that future new arrivals will know where to go. Martial Law 03:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC) :)

The intent is to lighten the load on WP:AN Martial Law 04:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC) :)

What's this got to do with WP:AN? --pgk^(talk) 07:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to propose any changes to the template, you should do so at Template talk:Welcome. --bainer (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Psycho marky

You may want to take a look at his user page. The last time I looked, he had put a user box there that read "This user has probably banged your wife/girlfriend or Ex". I'm not sure if that is acceptable content for a user page. - Conrad Devonshire 03:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It is somewhat distasteful, but seeing as it's not horribly offensive, I've just politely asked him if he would remove two of them. ~MDD4696 05:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be separately concerned that the user has done nothing but edit their userpage in the 6 days they've been here. JoshuaZ 05:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

New Template created regarding "Original Research"

Greetings Wikipedia Administrators, I'm posting this announcement here with hope that those who tend to be the most experienced and involved with Wikipedia might make a suggestion or two on how a template I've created might be improved.

I've always liked how with Template:Facts {{facts}} (^{[citations needed]}) concerned editors are able to pinpoint to fellow editors (particularly those newly editing on a given article) a specific spot of contention in a given article. Following this same model I created Template:Or {{or}} (^{[original research]}). For those who might have the time to do so, please review the template and make a suggestion or two on its talk page or just be bold and edit to improve it. Thanks! Netscott 08:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent innovation. Tyrenius 01:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Scary Movie 5

This has been recreated after an AFD, with the edit comment "I'm going to keep doing this forever". I wouldn't like to speedy this myself, as I was involved in the heated AFD discussion, and in fact I'd suggest a merge-redirect is a better option than deletion (see also Hulk 2 and Terminator 4). — sjorford (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever is done, the page should be protected to prevent continued crap. JoshuaZ 19:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JoshuaZ. -- Kjkolb 10:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Already is. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 17:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Where are you guys??! - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 15:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Backlog now cleared (multi admin effort). Petros471 15:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Guy Bannister

IP's 65.202.223.13, 66.28.239.163 (twice) and 24.90.8.50 have been vandalising the Life of Agony article by inserting random references to "Guy Bannister". Does Guy have the hots for this band in particular or has he popped up anywhere else? Deizio 15:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring serious vandalism?

I just listed 207.193.136.7 on the Administrator intervention against vandalism list for, after 10 previous warnings, changing the copyright tag of my picture to Salvador A. Lopez. In my eyes, attributing a copyrighted image to a false author is a serious offence, certainly as the history of this user shows that it's not an accident. However, administrator Prodego removed my alert without taking action, stating rm 207.193.136.7, old vandal, may not be vandalism. Could someone please explain this? Nick Mks 18:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If a vandal is operating infrequently enough to be easily reverted, then a block isn't necessary. If you really want an answer I suggest that you contact Prodego directly. — Laura Scudder ☎ 19:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. However, I see that Syrthiss has already taken the necessary steps. And for the record, I don't blame Prodego for anything, I just was wondering what was going on. Nick Mks 19:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not much for blocking people, in this case since the vandalism was pretty old, and there was none after it, a block seemed unnecessary, after all blocks are "preventative rather than punitive." (my favorite quote ;-) ) Prodego ^talk 19:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Requesting verification of a new PD tag

Having had many occasions over the past several months to use images taken and published in Cuba during the 1960's, and having searched in vain for a specific PD tag to cover these cases, I decided today to create one, i.e. Template:PD-Cuba. However, since I am not a copyright attorney or specialist in such matters, I would like to have Template:PD-Cuba reviewed by someone who is to make sure that my understanding that, because Cuba did not sign the Berne Convention until 20 February 1997, images taken and published in Cuba before that date are in the public domain. Not knowing where else to place this request, I decided to post it here ... Polaris999 18:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags Jkelly 18:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!! Polaris999 18:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV

This arbitration case is now claused. SimonP is cautioned to respond appropriately to the expressed community consensus.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 23:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Stale AfD: SNS News

The AfD for this article is stale. I bring it to your attention in case you're interested in closing it. -- cmh 01:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a nonsense article worthy of speedy to me. And also, someone moved the page while it was on AfD. --Ragib 01:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Ral315 (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Stale DYKs

Any admins interested in updating this. There is a bit of a backlog building up. Regards,ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

History Analysis

For those interested, I have developed a quick history page analysis script. You can click here to get it or ask me for info about the history analysis JS script. This will also allow for me to easily create a "my edit summary" usage tab, for those of you with editcountitis. Thanks! Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 04:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A functions was previously not copied over. Should be fixed now.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 06:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please Unblock User:GoldToeMarionette

It appears that the blocking Admin, User:Hall_Monitor, has left Wikipedia, since they have not edited in a month. Emails to this Admin went unreturned. Please Unblock User:GoldToeMarionette. The basis for blocking the account is that the account is a sockpuppet. Per WP:SOCK simply being a sockpuppet is not a violation of Wikipedia Policy. It is simply uncool. Please unblock the account because there was no policy violation and users should not be blocked for being uncool. Thank you for your time. Zappada 05:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

See WP:RFAr (against User:PoolGuy) on why this should not be granted. --Nlu (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

See also User:GoldToeMarionette itself. Also, see Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006. --Nlu (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, anyone who is familiar with the situation is invited to comment on the RfAr. --Nlu (talk) 08:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I also see no good reason for unblocking a username that effectively means 'sock puppet' and was used for things contrary to at least the spirit of the rules, and used exactly because doing what was done might get the account blocked. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that the requester has also been blocked as sockpuppet. Mackensen (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR violations - can they be undone?

I have a question. Assuming I revert four times on an article within twenty four hours and then I realize I have violated the 3RR and undo my last revert (by reverting myself), will I get blocked? The policy doesn't specify this. Telex 10:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't block you, personally, and if I had blocked you without knowing of the self-revert, and you told me about it, I would unblock. I would say that it's not in the policy because it's a very rare occurrence, and when it does happen admins should be expected to use their common sense. Technically a 3RR block would still be valid, though I would guess that most admins would show leniency - but not showing leniency would not be a just cause to start filing 'admin abuse' RFCs. If that happened, it would be best to leave an edit summary clearly explaining what you're doing. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't revert war. The second revert is an indication that somethign is wrong; take it to Talk sooner rather than later. Just zis Guy you know? 11:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Concur, WP:3RR shouldn't be seen as a permission to revert 3 times in 24 hours, it means don't edit war. --pgk^(talk) 20:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Massive deletions, please help

Dear Admins, I have encountered a series of massive deletions by one editor called User:Tlf-t4pa. He is deleting whole sections (or the entire article) on pages related to Priory of Sion, Knight Templars, Pierre Plantard, all without any explanation either in edit summaries or talk pages. Only one edit out of many seemed to be justifiable. He even deleted chunks from talk pages. Can anyone please step in and stop this? Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Final warning issued. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, he's stopped for now. I've been watching him since I dropped the {{bv}} on him originally, and was going to indef block if he didn't start listening to reason. --Syrthiss 14:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Long-term abuse of Viv Nicholson

In the past week alone, there have been around 15 reversions of anon vandalism (originating all over the place) with no significant content additions (see week-long diff) on Viv Nicholson. Would it be improper to have it semi-protected for now? Are there policies that dictate how long? Alternatively, what would be the proper course of action? Thanks, dewet|✉ 18:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of personal information that's been sitting around for a while

A user has asked me if he can have some personal information deleted from a talk page archive, which he regrets leaving. The trouble is that he made the edits in question months ago and never removed it, and the archive contains many more edits on top of it, all containing the personal information. So far as I can see the only way to delete the personal information altogether is to edit the page to remove it, then delete all the revisions leading up to it. Would that be acceptable? It's a talk page archive rather than an article, so would the signatures be sufficient to avoid breaking the GFDL? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Contacting schools Re:School IP vandalism

Schools seem to produce a rather large amount of vandalism- rather than just issuing numerous short blocks I was wondering if there was a better way? I am willing to try long term blocks in conjunction with school contact for the most persistent cases (I think Hall Monitor used this tactic before disappearing?), but I want to hear about any previous experience from more experienced admins first. Has anyone ever tried to contact schools regarding vandalism from their computers? If so what response did you get? Any other general advice on dealing with school vandalism other than the usual revert-warn-block routine? Petros471 19:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This has come up on the noticeboard before, and as I remember, contacting schools gets extremely good responses. I can't think of any specific cases though, sadly. I'll go peruse the archives and see if I can find something on it. Snoutwood (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's the one Essjay's talking about below. I know there's more, and I've only heard of good results coming from contacting ISPs/schools/etc. I remember someone, I think it was Lucky, saying that AOL of all people is very responsive. Snoutwood (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I had success contacting the Miami-Dade County Schools via phone; User:Psy guy has also noted success contacting schools. I considered starting a project to investigate and contact schools to report abuse, but it would require a number of people being involved, and I never saw enough support to feel comfortable setting up a system. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 19:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be behind that. Shall we? Snoutwood (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thought would be good. A start would be putting together a page with information for people like me who want to help out but not quite sure how to do it. So include a how to guide, hints and tips, email templates etc. Petros471 20:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting up a bit of a draft. Once I've compiled the precedents, I'll put it on-wiki and ye can have a look at it. Snoutwood (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

My idea was basically a three step approach:

1. Someone notices a pattern, and reports it to a page built on the idea of WP:RFI, perhaps called Wikipedia:Requests for Abuse Reporting.
2. A group of volunteers who are willing to investigate reports (need not be willing or have the means to actually contact schools) work up a preliminary report, checking out other similar addresses, etc. A basic template would be created that would link to all the useful spots: Contribs, logs, deleted edits, etc.
3. A group of volunteers who are willing to make contact take the information from the report and contact the school. Generally, contacting the school district's ITS department by phone is useful.

The contacting person need not necessarily be the same one who investigated, as some will be willing to investigate, but not contact, while others will be happy to contact, but won't want to investigate. The idea was to have a pool of volunteers who could take requests from the "reported" queue and work up an investigation report, then pass it on to a "ready to contact" queue, where another volunteer would pick it up and make contact.

Since others are obviously interested, I'll draft up a mockup of what the process would look like in my userspace, and open it up for comments. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 20:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That's better than my idea, which was more along the lines of a "how to contact an ISP/school IP" page. Yours is slightly more personnel-intensive, but then I think it'll be more useful in the long run. Snoutwood (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Snoutwood- I would still like to see your page, as a "how to contact" page was what I had in mind. I also support Essjay's proposal, and I don't see any reason why they can't be combined (after all that proposal still needs people to contact the places, and it would be good to have a guide as to how to do that). Petros471 22:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, something like "Guide to Abuse Reporting". We could make it a subpage (like the Guide to RfA is) and link it from the report page. I'll stick a link in now, and Snoutwood, feel free to incorporate as you think best. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 22:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

O.K., lads. I'll get cracking on it again, I'll post once I'm through with it. Snoutwood (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Voilà! I've written up a draft here. Snoutwood (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've drawn up a draft: Wikipedia:Abuse Reports. There are a number of subpages involved; I'm listing them all on the talk page so people can review everything. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 22:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The page has gone live! It's in a draft/proposed state here, and any and all comments are exremely welcome on the talk page. Please stop by and take a look: if this goes through it will add another tool to vandalfighting, and we can use all the help we can get. Snoutwood (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a Blocking_policy_proposal which overlaps with the schools problem, and, if implemented, would also be applicable to schools. It seems the two proposals should be dealt with together. Tyrenius 01:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

User:JIMBO WHALES

I believe this is illegal. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Happy Camper has blocked. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 20:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hrm; how'd that get past us? Ral315 (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Help. User Personally attacked me. Admin is threatening.

Please help. A user personally attacked me [15]. I put an NPA template on their user page [16]. An Admin removed it [17]. I asked them why and they said it was true [18]. I explained that it was a clear violation of WP:NPA and restored the NPA template [19]. Now the Admin is threatening to block me [20]. Someone please help. If there was an NPA violation, please put the tag back for me. PoolGuy 06:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously there has to be more to the story than this as this seems massively out of character for Nlu... I will take a closer look if it helps. - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 07:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This RfAr provides further context. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 07:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes certainly does. Just discussed on Nlu's talk page and suffice to say this is merely the proverbial tip o' the iceberg. Thanks for your help :) - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 07:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is just the tip. It is one of the symptoms of Nlu's harassment of me. As an Admin he has demonstrated that he supports other users personally attacking me. Just so I am clear, this post [21] is a personal attack based on WP:NPA correct? You don't have to be an admin to put an NPA tag on another user's talk correct? PoolGuy 18:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say that edit is uncivil. And yes, you can place user talk page warnings whether you're an admin or not, with the exception of those that imply a block. Stifle (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

However, the idea that PoolGuy has any standing to call anyone uncivil boggles the mind. Again, please see the RfAr for more details. --Nlu (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Stifle, so on the WP:TT table, anything in the 'Blocked' and 'Block & warning' columns is for Admins only? Regular users can use the other templates? Thanks for the reply. You are kind to help. PoolGuy 02:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC) Go to RfArb for more details. I find it astonishing that PoolGuy takes my comment as a personal attack because I'm just trying to help him out, get him to be more productive. What's the point of creating sockpuppets anyway? I guess there's a misunderstanding here 'cause my comment is made in good faith.--Bonafide.hustla 06:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

User name

I am sorely tempted to block User:SkankBitch for having an inappropriate username, but her contributions show no vandalism in the month and a half she's been here. Does being a legitimate editor make up for a questionable username (as is certainly the case with User:Yuckfoo)? Angr (talk • contribs) 09:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't you suggest they change their username? (Wikipedia:Changing username) Petros471 09:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Assuming she is a legitimate contributor, I would tell her that the name is inappropriate and that she should consider what she would like to change it to. I would not block the account right away, so that she has time to decide. Also, she should be given the option of transferring her edits to her new name. -- Kjkolb 10:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, she should be given the option of transferring her edits to her new name. That's what changing username does. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 12:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

So username changes are enabled again? --Syrthiss 13:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Enabled again? They have been all along, as far as I know...I've done 68 since the beginning of the month. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 13:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I could swear there was a notice a while ago on Wikipedia:Changing username that said changes were disabled (from ~jan 2006). --Syrthiss 13:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Update - well it wasn't on there... it was on Wikipedia:Username, and I found where at least it was fixed (here). So I am not insane, at least in regards to this. --Syrthiss 13:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"...at least in regards to this." I have that thought *so* many times every day! :-D Anyhow, on the original issue, someone should point the user to WP:CHU, and we'll take care of them. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 13:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

{{usernameblock}} is appropriate here, a username change isn't that hard to do. I think the process that was disabled was changing the attribution of old edits to new usernames. Stifle (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

More specifically, the reattribution of IP edits to a username (and possibly from an old username to a new username if a username change wasn't done). I would oppose blocking a user who's been making useful contributions solely because of their username, without giving them a chance to change it. Don't bite newbies. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Protection on umm protection templates?

Its the morning and I haven't had enough tea yet so forgive me for not remembering the rules regarding highly linked templates (ie how high is high?). Per CFD this morning we tossed a bunch of the templates from Category:Article header templates to Category:Protection templates (because they were basically all protection templates). As I was moving them in my < multiple tea state, I noticed that three of them weren't protected and protected two of the three...only to realize that the protection notice *was* the template. So I guess what I'm asking is: should they all be protected, or only {{protected}} and {{moveprotected}} as originally. I'm happy to go back and remove the protection I did on the other two, but figured it was better to get feedback here in case I accidentally did a good thing. --Syrthiss 13:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Failure to protect protection templates would leaves a pathological loophole allowing for indirect vandalism of a page that's already supposedly protected from vandalism. — Apr. 29, '06 [22:11] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Friendly, eager to help, and needs a bag of clues

Vandal fighting idea

(from Funnybunny's page) I've got an idea to fight vandals! And, you, Funnybunny have done so much anti-vandal work! What if the Counter-Vandalism Unit elected Generals, and after getting much bigger, Lieutenants, Sergeants, etc. But a General would send a code through the levels, like 45.m.K would be "hit random article and look for vandalism". or 86.p.2 would be "fall back and quit searching like a wild maniac". What do you think?-Sabertiger 02:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds nice. It can get the vandals confused about the codes. Funnybunny (talk/Vote for this policy) 02:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Improvment-Each level on the Wikidefcon will indicate a code. Peace, orders are in English. 4 every other letter, etc., maybe.

Okay, we could give this info to General Eisenhower. Funnybunny (talk/I want you to join the QRVS) 03:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you think G.E.?-Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 18:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

RE:Vandal fighting idea

Yes I think we should do that. Right now though I'm creating Babel templates and categories. Maybe tomorrow we'll start. General Eisenhower 18:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[22] [23]

[24], [25], [26], use of admin template, attempt to become admin based on nothing. Mentors needed by General. How many chances do you get to guide a very very friendly ball of energy? WAS 4.250 18:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu banned from editing Black metal

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu

Under his probation, Leyasu has been banned from editing black metal because, hours after the end of a seven-day block, he has once again violated his revert parole [27].

As usual, I stipulate that the ban may be revoked by any administrator. --Tony Sidaway 18:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You have my support here. Incidentally, I can only imagine that eventually a ban from all articles related heavy metal music may be in order, but I'm unsure if that would require the Arbitration Committee's intervention or not.--Sean Black ^(talk) 18:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

After a reasonably positive and very civil response from Leyasu, I have rescinded the ban. He denies using socks and (for now) I'll take his word for it. I'm watching him and have warned him that restoration of removed material, such as his first edit today on the article, counts as a revert for the purpose of his parole. --Tony Sidaway 20:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection

Given the result of my new history analysis script, I am curious about these results for George W. Bush.

George W. Bush
Viewing article modification statistics (from the 250 edits shown on this page):
20% quick reverts (any) (50 edit(s))
14.4% probable reverts of vandalism (36 edit(s))
User statistics for these edits:
0% IP/anon edits (0 edit(s))
25.6% likely new user edits (64 edit(s))
58.4% likely older user edits (non-admin/bot) (146 edit(s))
14% administrator edits (35 edit(s))
2% bot edits (5 edit(s))
Time range:
21 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 17hr (UTC) -- 29, April, 2006
Oldest edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 8, April, 2006
Averages:
63.2% edit summary usage
11.955 edit(s) per day (since last active)
2.391 revert(s) per day (since last active)
1 : 0.25 regular edit to revert ratio (RE:RV)

Should we make a template tag that better emphasises the duration and how to request changes. The subst tag on GWB does not do a good job of saying how long it is for (semi-permanent). I suggest that it be reworded and made into a template for other articles that seem to have this problem, like Jew or United States perhaps.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 18:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

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

WTF?

This user doesn't even exist, I don't get it--64.12.116.200 23:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• The user exists, [28] [29] [30] but it is using special characters to generate the name. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Instituto Marangoni

Would an admin please revert my mistaken pagemove. The article is now at Instituto Marangoni, it need to go back to Istituto Marangoni. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Done, FYI, an admin wasn't needed for that, you could have moved it back over the redirect. Prodego ^talk 15:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel closed

This arbitration case has closed. Agapetos angel et al. are banned from editing Jonathan Sarfati and associated articles. The opposing editors (Duncharris, Guettarda, Jim62sch, and FeloniousMonk) are warned concerning NPOV and edit warring. Any user banned by this decision who violates the ban may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum ban shall increase to one year. For further information, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 18:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Oranges

Got someone using Image:Outspan Orange.jpg and creating variations on "Orange on wheels". I'v deleted the last nine but there may be more. This appeared to start yesterday. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

On the move, need account terminated.

I'm moving again, and to keep this account from running around, as persuant to what happened to another user, I'm requesting that my account be terminated. Martial Law 01:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC) :)

I don't think the devs/stewards/whoever's in charge of these things carry out these types of requests. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:09 UTC (2006-05-1)

Just make a massively long random password and remove your email address and nobody will access it -- Tawker 01:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no way to terminate an account, but you can do as Tawker suggests and set the password to something you'll never be able to recall. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Real funny, I'm just taking precautions, admit extreme precautions, so that my account does'nt vandalise Wikipedia. Martial Law 02:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC) :)

Understood but they ain't kidding. :) --Woohookitty^(meow) 03:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are serious, leave me a talk page message on my talk while signed in, requesting an indefinite block, and I will oblige. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

We can also delete your user pages if that's what you want. -- Francs2000 03:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Per your requests 1, 2, 3, 4; your account has been indefinitely blocked from the project withough prejudice. Should you change your mind and wish to return, place the {{unblock}} template on your talk page. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Main Page protection

It's a new month. Can someone protect all of May's POTD, TFA & Sel Anniv (OTD) templates, please ? I, as an anon contributer, just edited today's POTD on the Main Page. Lucky for Wikipedia, I am not a vandal. Please keep the face of this grand project protected from vandalism. Thanks. -- 199.71.174.100 06:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like today's was done by Howcheng, I don't know about the rest. Thanks for bringing this up. Snoutwood (tóg) 07:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

They were unprotected on April 29 and 30, as well. We need to be more careful about this. I've done through May 4 for now, as it seems we don't protect them more than a few days in advance. Ral315 (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I, along with a few other admins, usually take care of all the appropriate protection and unprotection of main page images and templates. As you see, we've all seem to be busy the past few days. Don't worry, though, we usually do a superb job. :-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Image licensing problems

Supaman89 has uploaded a number of images to Wikipedia, and appears to be sticking cc-by-sa-2.5 tags on them regardless of the actual license. For example, Image:Mxcdia.PNG is under a license of "educational use only", Image:Mxcnightbuildings.PNG appears to be a simple "permission to use on Wikipedia", and Image:Casadecambiomxc.PNG was originally uploaded to the German Wikipedia as GFDL (I've retagged the copy here). Could someone look into this? It may help if you speak Spanish, as some of the images come from a Spanish-language website. --Carnildo 07:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I speedied the few remaining noncommercial images, and left a note. There remain problems with GFDL images from other language Wikipedias uploaded here without preserving authorship. Jkelly 16:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV (done)

Would be nice, if anybody could have a look at WP:AIV and handle the reports, as at least the second involves ongoing vandalism, which does merit a block... --Mbimmler 12:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

is done --Mbimmler 12:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Did You Know?

Template:Did_you_know is in need of updating. The current selections have been there more than a full day - longer than recommended. Some new proposed entries are in danger of aging past five days (the maximum age for an article to be listed). I would update it myself, but I have a proposed entry coming up, and it doesn't seem proper to put up my own entry. Johntex\^talk 18:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Update - User:Cactus.man updated this - though it looks like he started with entries from 28 April instead of 27 April. It would be nice if the ones from 27 April could still be worked in if they are found to be proper entries. Johntex\^talk 19:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Update - Did You Know was updated once, but it has been 22 hours since that update. It is usually updated every few hours. Can an admin please look into this? (As I mention above - I have a proposed entry in the list, so I don't want to make the call on whether it is main-page worthy or not.) Thanks, Johntex\^talk 17:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've hopefully taken care of it. I'm not sure where the regulars are, though. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 19:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much - now that my proposed entry has passed - I'll try to pitch in to help with the updates to the page. Johntex\^talk 21:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Unreasonable blocking by Jonathunder

I believe that I was unreasonably blocked by the aforementioned administrator. Here is a brief timeline of the events:

• It attracts my attention that the birth place of certain Macedonian revolutionaries of the 19th century is disambiguated as Republic of Macedonia by User:Travelbird - [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36].
• I revert the changes and initate a discussion with Travelbird on his talk. We reach an agreement.
• Up comes along Jonathunder and reverts [37], [38], [39] my edits back to those of Travelbird.
• I initiate a discussion on his talk and try to explain the situation.
• He is not responding and continues to revert.
• After I revert his changes for the 3rd time within 24 hours! (NOT a 3RR), he blocks me without a warning first for 3 hours with the motive "unproductive reverts", shortly after he extends it to 24 hours. Note that Jonathunder himself has 3 reverts on Miladinovi Brothers. Unlike his, the last two of my 3 reverts was not a complete one, because I changed the disambiguation link, which was the matter of concern and tried to explain it on my talk, but I was already blocked.

I would like to hear the opinion of the administrators on this matter, as I find it a very serious issue, which defies my understanding of what is allowed and not allowed on Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration. FunkyFly 19:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I had a word with Jonathunder about it yesterday asking him to unblock (User talk:Jonathunder#FunkyFly), but he seems to have disappeared. Telex 19:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I too am unhappy about this. Why is JT blocking people he is reverting? William M. Connolley 21:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I notice that there has been a brief discussion at User talk:Jonathunder. User:FunkyFly does seem to have been edit-warring across a number of articles, but didn't break WP:3RR on any individual article. It is my understanding that almost every admin would agree that one shouldn't block someone that one is in a content dispute with if the other party hasn't inarguably broken a rule, and a majority of admins would say that even when a rule is broken another admin should do the blocking. Jonathunder's response might be read as indicating that he or she feels differently about that. Jkelly 16:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Page moves on roads

User:SPUI and User:JohnnyBGood are going back and forth with page moves on the California state road articles. I protected one before I realized there were too many for me to go about and protect all from moves. I also figured I should check here first. Does anyone else think these pages should be protected from page moves until a consensus arrives on what naming convention to use? Pepsidrinka 20:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. You can't have pages being moved back and forth constantly. Protect away. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 20:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a naming convention outlined in WP:CASH#Article_Naming_Convention but it has been subject to some discussion. The road naming issue (and resulting move warring) seems to be an ongoing, and possibly increasing, problem e.g: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12_U.S._Roads and WP:RFC/SPUI. Regards MartinRe 22:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

3rd Opinion

How can an admin to block pages and impose his own version? A 3rd opinion will be just fine.

• Moldovans anti-romanian edits by admin user mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he was blocked for anti-romanians edits. 3rd opinion regarding an issue raised here needed.
• Moldova anti-romanian edits by admin user mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he was blocked for anti-romanians edits. 3rd opinion regarding an issue raised here needed.
• Anti-Romaniananti-romanian edits by admin user mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he was blocked for anti-romanian edits. 3rd opinion regarding an issue raised here needed.
• Moldovan languageanti-romanian edits by admin user mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he was blocked for anti-romanian edits. 3rd opinion regarding an issue raised here needed.
• Vlachsanti-romanian edits by admin user mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he was blocked for anti-romanian edits. 3rd opinion regarding an issue raised here needed.
• Vlachs of Serbiaanti-romanian edits by admin user mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he was blocked for anti-romanians edits. 3rd opinion regarding an issue raised here needed.
• Chisinauanti-romanian edits by admin user mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he was blocked for anti-romanian edits. 3rd opinion regarding an issue raised here needed
• Bucovinaanti-romanian edits by admin user mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he was blocked for anti-romanian edits. 3rd opinion regarding an issue raised here needed.
• Romaniansanti-romanian edits by admin user mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he was blocked for anti-romanian edits. 3rd opinion regarding an issue raised here needed

• • I haven't looked at the cases, but please remember that protection is not an endorsement of the current version, nor should an involved editor use his/her administrative powers to gain an advantage in a content dispute. In addition, requests for unprotection of pages may be made here. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well I looked at a few of the cases you gave, and in all the ones I looked at, User:Mikkalai wasn't the one that semiprotected the page. That throws your argument totally out of the window- he can't be locking it on his favourite version because it wasn't him that locked it. Please browse the page histories more closely. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 21:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
      • BTW, I think the above (unsigned) edit was most likely made by a sock of banned user Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please check the IP and block if necessary. 11:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Bcrat logs and rights logs

The bureaucrat log seems to have changed back to the rights log (like on meta), and seems to be pulling the entry text from MediaWiki:Rightslogentry instead of MediaWiki:Bureaucratlogentry. Besides the log being named incorrectly, this breaks the log display. What happened? (yes I know this should go at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical), but then it might be fixed before anyone sees it) Prodego ^talk 21:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I copied the text over, which fixed the diplay problem, and changed the title of the log to "Promotion log", as some bcrat actions are now logged in the bot status log, and I don't want it to be confused with meta's [[rights log. Some feedback please, is this OK? I only intend for this name to be temporary, unless you all like it. Right now it is next to the Protection log, so it's easy to confuse them. Prodego ^talk 03:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The change of the name to "Rights" seems to be system wide, I checked both French and German pedias and they have also been changed to rights. I see no reason "Rights" should cause confusion, unless people can't keep track of what project they are on. The term "promotion" is not 100% accurate, it should be Rights. Besides Promotion is too similar to Protection. NoSeptember ^talk 04:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed it back to the "User rights log". The problem is that meta's log has all the desysopings for enwiki in it's "User rights log", so that may be confusing. Prodego ^talk 12:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I use both all the time and never get confused. Meta's log is full of red links, since any action to a non-Meta username is a red link. I think once someone knows enough to know that the Meta log exists, they can handle the name issue without confusion. NoSeptember ^talk 16:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

anonymous ip

An anonymous ip made changes on the talk page of the Democratic Party (of the United States) article. It's not that the damage was so great, but it was done sneakily and meanly. Please check history on this page. The ip of the user is 71.139.8.28 Thanks for looking into this. thewolfstar 23:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Liquidcross

Liquidcross (talk · contribs) has been blocked with the reasoning, "Too close to User:LiquidGhoul." That's far too broad a reason, this user has done nothing to deserve a block. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the blocking admin has unblocked. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve

This arbitration case has closed. FourthAve is banned from Wikipedia for a year, and is placed on personal attack parole, probation, and general probation. This will be enforced by block. I have carried out the one-year-ban in my capacity as an administrator. For further details, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 15:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Block of Hogeye (talk · contribs)

I have blocked this user for 30 days for excessive 3RR violations, general disruption, and personal attacks. This user has a long pattern of this behavior including block evasion, and I thought (since I am not usually one for the longer block) I should take it here for review, to make sure the length was not too short or too long. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. - FrancisTyers 21:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't take long this time. His static IP is 70.178.103.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); I've blocked it also (after carefully removing the possibly conflicting autoblock). Since he's a heavy open proxy user, I guess I'll do a round of open proxy blocking too. --cesarb 02:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Static AOL IP's?

A single link is being repeatedly removed, without discussion from Naturist Christians by an anon. It looks like the link has been a bone of contention on the article for a while, but it’s been removed and replaced a dozen times in the last week alone. I'm hesitant to block for 3RR because the editor is using AOL, but oddly enough most of the edits are coming from the same two IPs, 64.12.116.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 152.163.100.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I thought they were supposed to change IPs every few minutes? The former address has made eight edits to the article since April 18, with the most recent yesterday, and the latter seven since April 16, the most recent on April 29. I'm really not sure how to proceed. Should the article maybe be semi-protected for a while? Should I go ahead and block the next time 3RR is broken and see what happens? -- Vary | Talk 22:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• They change per page, not per unit of time, they only 'seem' to change every few minutes if the person loads a new page every few minutes, but they're not static, and they're not unique, and they're still shared by dozens of pages/users--205.188.116.200 22:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You might be interested in taking part in this, if you haven't already: Wikipedia:Blocking_policy_proposal. Tyrenius 02:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Advice requested re extremely graphic postmortem photos someone has linked to ...

An unregistered user has just inserted into the "External Links" section of the Che Guevara article a link to a website displaying close-up photographs of the autopsy performed on him (and also his skeletal remains). I have read that Wikipedia is used as the "standard reference" in many schools and I believe that many of these photographs are too gruesome for young children to view. I am wondering whether Wikipedia has a policy about displaying autopsy photos, or how this situation should be dealt with. I will greatly appreciate your guidance.Polaris999 00:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The question here would not be whether the site would be included or excluded because of its content; Wikipedia may contain material and/or links which include material offensive to some. The question, instead, is whether the site (and I have not visited it, nor do I wish to) adds significantly to the article and should be included per our policy on external links. From the description provided, I don't think such a site should be included; however, I would recommend bringing the issue up on the talk page first. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Black and white and not a vast amount of blood. Just make sure the link contains an accuret disscription.Geni 00:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I Agree with Geni, wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors (per WP:NOT), just amke sure they have a clear notice about what they are and leave them there as long as they're relevant and informative there's no reason why they shouldn't stay. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you want schoolchildren to view these images, make sure there is an accurate description. (In my experience it's the teachers that have nightmares, not the kids.) Tyrenius 01:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks to each of you who answered. Since the photos in question do not add significantly to the article and, furthermore, the link appears to have been inserted by a troll, I have removed it with a reference to WP:EL. If that user, or someone else, wishes to re-insert it, I will ask them to first set up a discussion as to its relevance on the Talk page so that a consensus can be reached. Polaris999 03:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Gnudiego

This user has done some bizarre things... He created an article in Spanish, someone else translated it, then he added to it in English. Then he made another article in Spanish and put a {{notenglish}} tag on it. His userpage said he was an administrator but he had no talk page, but then I checked and saw he had only nine edits. I removed the administrator userbox (I think he copied his userpage all from somewhere else.) Keep an eye on this guy... I've never seen behavior quite this strange before. I don't know what to make of it. Grandmasterka 01:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Seems okay. Grandmasterka 02:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

userboxes stuff

I closed two rather... hot discussions here over Template:User N-K (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:User independent Chechnya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Consensus was unclear, but I think the page I've linked represent a strong precedent, since none of the many independance ubxes there have ever been TFD'ed AFAIK. However, I can tell there's going to be... consequences, so I just wanted it tobe known. Circeus 01:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, User:Kuban kazak has come forth over it. His comment is [40], amd my answer goes [41]. I would really appreciate comments from more experienced admins on this. Circeus 00:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Persistent linkspammer

An IP user, 63.150.8.10 kept adding links to commerical sites (buysanfranciscotours.com and buyalcatraztours.com) to the Alcatraz Island article, despite receiving spam1 and spam2 warnings. Twenty minutes after the IP user's last edit, a new user, NewAwlins Traveler made their first edits, which seemed to be slight formatting changes to the spam links. This user has also kept adding the links back into the article, leading to the obvious conclusion that they are one and the same. As such, this user was given a spam3 warning. The links have since added the links again, and I removed them.--Drat (Talk) 02:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

NewAwlins Traveler put the links back again not half an hour ago. They do not respond to messages, and their only edits are related to those two commercial links. The only thing that will make this person stop is a block.--Drat (Talk) 10:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've given the registered account a 24 hour block; hopefully they will take the hint. I'd be happy to block the IP as well if they return to spamming using it (last edit was a couple of days ago). Petros471 10:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Have those links been added to meta:Talk:Spam blacklist yet? --Connel MacKenzie 12:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Done now. Just zis Guy you know? 13:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

63.150.8.10's been at it again.--Drat (Talk) 01:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours (IP seems static, second block on that user). Petros471 08:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

MFD

Would an admin not invovled in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Qif look at it and close it one way or the other, it's been haning open for quite some time. I think most of the normal MFD admins are active in it. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Closed by Naconkantari. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Zahira College Colombo

Hi the article Zahira College Colombo was tagged for COPYVIO on 13th of April, I am the creator of the article and assure that it is not a verbatim copy of the webpage mentioned in the copyvio tag. The article follows a similar structure thats all, The creator of the article on the mentioned webpage is also me, so I have the ownership of it, but I have no means of proving the ownership, so I am not going to try it. But the article I have created in wikipedia, is not a verbatim copy, it has taken a very long time for the admins to check this. Could somebody check and remove the tag? or delete the article. Thanks «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 04:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It occurs to me that if you added a GFDL copyright notice to the bottom of your angelfire website article, then it would be obvious to everybody that the article can be used on Wikipedia without fear of Copyright Violation. Would that be a possibility ? It would certainly prove that you are the author and that you are happy for it to appear on Wikipedia. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, The text I have added is from http://www.geocities.com/Zahira_College_Colombo/ same thing is copied by someone into angelfire webpage, I can put GFDL copyright notice, but GFDL allows only a verbatim copy of the page, please correct me if I am wrong, my article is not a verbatim copy of the webpage. if just adding GFDL would solve the problem I can do it. And copyvio notice should point to the above site. Please advice «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 11:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

User:71.139.8.28

An anonymous ip made changes on the talk page of the Democratic Party (of the United States) article. It's not that the damage was so great, but it was done sneakily and meanly. Please check history on this page. The ip of the user is 71.139.8.28 Thanks for looking into this.

I put this request in to check the ip 71.139.8.28

Can someone help me with this please? Thanks, thewolfstar 05:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• I see two edits that try to change the heading of the history section, one vandalism reversion, and one addition of a quote (with source) that seems reasonable in context. Work it out on the talk page. Thatcher131 15:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Sbekele

This has been tagged as db-copyvio by User:SPUI. I untagged it because (a) it's not content from which the commercial ocntent provider is trying to make money (per WP:CSD); (b) it's his company anyway; and (c) it's in User space. So, it's a user who has copied and pasted his bio from the website of the company he owns; deleting it as a copyvio seems like WP:BITE to me. What does the panel think? Just zis Guy you know? 12:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Call me a copyright paranoid, but is there any evidence that User:Sbekele is actually Sophia Bekele? Since this user has only one contribution so far, I do not see the point of insisting on her having a user page. - Liberatore(T) 13:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

From an entirely different pespective, I'm concerned about page rank boosting by linking through user pages, as well as the propensity of some to use their user pages as web pages. That's not a definite opinion on this case, but I think doing a speedy delete after 2-3 days of inactivity and/or 2-3 days of non-productive edits would be in order. I don't think we solve our problems by "userfying," even if we get to avoid being meanies who delete things that way. (Again, this is general, not specific.) Geogre 16:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We're not here to boost some person's sales or pagerank. And based on her meager contributions, I think that's exactly why she's here. Snoutwood (tóg) 16:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that that might still be considered a copyvio, as a) we don't know that she's the real owner (per Paolo Liberatore), and b) I doubt that such a new user would have any concept of the GFDL. I'd say call it a copyvio and ask if they really want to license it (as you've done). If so, then great. Otherwise, delete it. Snoutwood (tóg) 16:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am rather concerned on the grounds of WP:BITE and WP:AGF, as this material has only been on Wiki for a few hours, and we have no evidence of this person's future intentions. If it is posted by Sophia Bekele, then she could, from the bio, be a very valuable contributor in the future, and should be encouraged to be so. Over-reaction could alienate her completely. On a technical ground it is copyvio, unless authorisation is received from a valid email address associated with the origin of the material (i.e. the company). Re. page rank boosting - there isn't even a link from the user page, so it's a poor attempt at doing that and suggests that may not have been the intention. Reading through the bio, I wonder if there is enough notability to merit an article on her or her company. Tyrenius 17:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That's why I suggest not acting for a day or two. If two days pass without any further contributions, we can assume a vanity entry. If that long passes without clarification of the copyright status, we must delete it as a copyright violation. I wasn't suggesting coming down with the hammer of Thor after 2 hours. Geogre 09:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

A list of fascists on en.wiki, FYI

The user User:Vit Zvanovec, registered also on other projects, published on his blog here (Article Fasiste na en:) an article, where some users (and I guess also admins) of the en.wiki are listed in a list of fascists. Namely Jossi, Dmcdevit, SlimVirgin, Sean Black, Will Beback, TML1988, Ben Aveling and Stevage. Thereafter he deleted this. -jkb- 14:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The author of the blog is obviously reading these pages... Some minutes ago he reformulated his blog, making "nepratele svobody" (enemies of the freedom) from the original "fasiste" (fascists). Nevertheless, I have a copy of the original text. -jkb- 15:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, he has been blocked by Tony Sidaway for 12 hours, and has been requested to delete those personal attacks (see his talk page). 07:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

To some degree, we're out on a limb here. His blog is his blog. What's there may indicate his intentions here, and so it might be evidence of his intent to stalk, disrupt, or vandalize, but we can only really care what Wikipedia has. If he wants to use his blog to say that we're all chronic bedwetters, that's his business, and I'm sure he'll get all the readers that a private blog gets. It's just one more opinion floating around out there. On the other hand, we can all watch his edits on Wikipedia with an especially jaundiced eye and keep a record of his first hand testimony from outside, and, of course, if any such statements ended up on Wikipedia pages, we'd delete them and arbitrate/block. I'm not sure how we can block someone on Wikipedia for something they did anywhere else. Geogre 09:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately most of us don't read Czech (the language the blog is written in) so we can't even understand what was written. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 13:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I know no Czech, but I know enough English to understand what "Fašisté na en" means. In response to Geogre's suggestion that "if he wants to use his blog to say that we're all chronic bedwetters, that's his business", this simply isn't the case." For instance, in the Jason Gastrich case, Gastrich was sanctioned, in part, for his use of an external website to solicit meat puppetry. --Tony Sidaway 23:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked SPUI for move warrning with JohnnyBGood

As a condition of the unblock of both SPUI and JohnnyBGood, I stated that neither are to move war with each other and instead try to reach consensus. After SPUI started move warring again, I have blocked for 24 hours, I am hoping that both SPUI and JohnnyBGood can come to some sort of reasonable conclusion as this move warring is getting a little over the top -- Tawker 18:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

9/11 victims

What are we supposed to do with articles on nonnotable 9/11 victims? Another one has arrived: Raymond York. Isn't there a different wiki just about 9/11 victims where we could politely send the author to? I seem vaguely to remember there being such a thing, but I don't know where it is. It seems callous to speedy the article as an A7, but technically that's what it is. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's the Meta-Wiki discussion. RadioKirk talk to me 21:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Authors of memorial-type articles can be pointed (gently) at the 9/11 wiki: [42]. The discussion linked above is also quite useful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, so much for going gently. It's already been tagged and deleted. Oh well. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It was already a recreation of Raymond R. York. KimvdLinde 22:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A Record Deleted While I was Working On It

Can someone please undelete the record for Donald_Friedman, I was working on it, accidentally pasted in some wikipedia-sourced text that was copied and someone protected then deleted the page within seconds of my saving it.

Thank you.

CowboyDon 22:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to have been deleted because it is unclear that the subject passes our criteria for inclusion (see WP:BIO). I am unclear on whether it is about someone alive or a fictional character. If it is the former, it is making some extraordinary claims about living people that would need to be sourced very carefully. I'd recommend not continuing to work on this article until you have unimpeachable sources for every point in it. If this is an article about a fictional character, you should indicate that much more clearly. Jkelly 22:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Abuse reports

Attention, vandalfighters! You have a new tool to add into your belt! BEHOLD! If you have a IP address that has been warned, blocked, blocked again, and still keeps coming back, list him at the page mentioned in this header: WP:ABUSE. This is a process, similar to WP:AIV and WP:RFCU, that contacts the ISP of an IP address that is a repeated abuser. The page went live about five minutes ago, and we're itching to try it out. Please read the guide and the main page before posting, that's all we ask. Thanks, lads. Snoutwood (tóg) 23:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Muahahahahaha! Sounds great! --Darth Deskana (talk page) 23:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The Game needs another closure

Wikipedia:Deletion review/The Game (game) (second DRV) has been open for about 9 days now. Extremely brief history of the article: it was created, kept on VfD, kept on AfD, deleted on AfD, kept deleted on DRV, restored with a new source, kept with no consensus on AfD, speedy deleted by Zoe, and sent to DRV again. What we need is for this deletion review to be closed by an uninvolved admin, as basically every admin who watches DRV is involved now.

The article is currently called The Game (meme).

Note to users involved in the DRV: please oh please don't use this as another forum for arguing over the article. This is simply a request for admin assistance. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It has actually been open a bit longer than 9 days, it was opened (I think) on 04:23, 22 April UTM. JoshuaZ 00:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Closed, by User:Thebainer. ~ PseudoSudo 02:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Vincent van Gogh

I suggest this page is semi-protected, at least in the short term and preferably indefinitely. Every time I log on I expect it to have been vandalised, and an examination of its history shows most of the edits are either by anon vandals or by editors rv them. The subject is obviously one of those that just attracts this response. Tyrenius 01:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Requests for page protection should go here. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Tyrenius 07:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Troll Pen0r! (talk · contribs)

the non-existant denial of service vandal strikes back, or so it seems--64.12.116.200 02:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed all of the autoblocks. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Albatross

Could someone please take a look at this page? User:Minkowsk has inserted private information/vandalism into an edit summary that will need to be removed. Thanks. --Hetar 05:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops, looks like Freakofnurture is already on top of it, thanks! --Hetar 05:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright vs. GFDL

Could someone who understands the ramifications of the GFDL better than me please have a chat with Dennis Chan? He's uploaded a lot of pictures of emergency vehicles from his own website http://www.fotogb.com/dennisbus. At the website, copyright is claimed for the images, but when he uploaded them here he put the {{GFDL-self}} tag on them. If they're copyrighted, they can't be released under GFDL, and if they're released under GFDL, they can't be copyrighted, right? Anyway, I would have left him a message myself, only I don't understand all the legal ins and outs myself well enough. Thanks! Angr (talk • contribs) 09:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If Dennis took the pictures, Dennis owns the copyright. If Dennis owns the copyright, he can choose to licence the images under the GFDL. If, however, Dennis doesn't own the copyright, he can't choose the licence of the images. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 09:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but if Dennis chooses to release them under the GFDL, shouldn't his homepage say that, rather than saying "© Dennis Chan 2004-2006"? Aren't the two mutually exclusive? Angr (talk • contribs) 10:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. The GFDL only works because Dennis is the copyright holder. If he's not the copyright holder, he can't license them. The GFDL doesn't restrict Dennis' rights in any way. It restricts your rights to use the image in a way inconsistent with the license. Nandesuka 12:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

But doesn't the GFDL permit me to use the image in some ways that a copyright would prohibit, such as by modifying it? The GFDL allows me to modify his image so long as he's still traceable as the original author, right? But the copyright for the very same image on his web page prohibits me from modifying his image. So what the Wikipedia image page says and what the source page says are incompatible, aren't they? Angr (talk • contribs) 12:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The GFDL is just a license that permits certain uses of Dennis' copyrighted material. Unless he chooses to assign the copyright to someone else, he still retains it, even though he has licensed the material in a way that makes it possible for others to use it.

For example, if you were to take the image and reuse it without attributing it to Dennis, he would still be able to sue you for copyright infringement—you would be using his copyrighted work outside of the conditions imposed by the license (in this case, the GFDL).

Normally if you wanted to use or modify Dennis' work, you would have to contact him, seek permission, negotiate licensing terms, and lay out all the conditions under which you could use his pictures. By licensing the images under the GFDL, Dennis saves himself that time and hassle. He can just say, "here are the terms and conditions under which I will let other people use my copyrighted work. Enjoy!" He still holds the copyright on the images, and he's welcome to licence them to other people or groups under whatever terms that they might agree to. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore considering the rather clumsy nature of the GFDL it is quite posible people who want to use your images will want to contact you to ask for (or even perhaps buy) the rights to use them outside the GFDL.Geni 13:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Repeated Blocking on Group Basis

I have been repeatedly, at least every other day, blocked on the basis that someone else using my IP address has infringed the rules - though I never have. The last IP address where this occurred was 205.188.116.135.

I suspect that this is because I use AOL as my service provider.

This is not just inconvenient, locking me out for more than a third of the time, but it also wastes a considerable amount of time - I have just spent 2 hours cleaning a topic (as requested on the page) only to have my work blocked and disappear!

Is there anything I can do about this?

Futureobservatory 10:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop using AOL? Angr (talk • contribs) 10:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait till this is implemented? Petros471 10:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As an admin and an inadvertent AOL user (I use Netscape dialup, but that's owned by AOL), I'm bugged endlessly by this. I have my own version of a policy, but no one would ever agree to it. I think all IP's should be visible for all editors, account or no, and that way admins putting blocks on vandals with names won't accidentally hit an AOL IP with an eternal darkness block. After all, I'm not sure quite what privacy we get by not having visible IP numbers, as an IP doesn't really say where you are anyway (as our vandals prove every day with their open proxy bounces). Like I said: no one would ever agree with me. However, I am a sympathetic ear for fellow "AOL" users caught in collateral blocks. Geogre 12:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, most IP's do resolve a location which reveals what city you reside in. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 12:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

My IP would reveal from where in school and which school I'm typing this from. So it's apparently cleaver evil people who will manage to hide their real IP while genuine users will have their real IP exposed if all IPs are revealed. Kimchi.sg 13:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I figured no one would agree. That's ok. Now I'll just wait for the day when I'm wealthy enough for broadband or we implement the miraculous magic smoke that will solve our AOL IP blocking problems. (Typed in dejection, not sarcasm.) Geogre 17:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Block

Hey - I am the editor of (and candidate in) the Preston City Council elections but find myself blocked as per :

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by CanadianCaesar for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "GuyWaltersIsGay". The reason given for GuyWaltersIsGay's block is: "admitted vandal, trollish username"." Your IP address is 195.93.21.6.

I know being an AOL user means this sort of thing happens all the time, but the timing is a bit off as I hoped to being updating (and splitting) this page to year-by-year articles.

Does anyone know when this block is likely to be lifted?

Cheers

doktorb | words 13:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked. -- grm_wnr Esc 13:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sadly not - just been updating that page and all of a sudden..

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by CanadianCaesar for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "GuyWaltersIsGay". The reason given for GuyWaltersIsGay's block is: "admitted vandal, trollish username"." Your IP address is 195.93.21.8.

Any help from anyone? Cheers.. I just want to help Wiki, I know AOL users cause this sort of trouble, but I'm here as a well meaning editor... doktorb | words 01:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

We were just discussing this in the previous section of this page. AOL and AOL-owned ISP users are regularly blocked accidentally. Usually, this is because a vandal with an account using AOL gets blocked. The auto-blocker then blocks all IP's associated with the vandal's account, which will be all AOL IP's. This is a drag because the person doing the block didn't knowingly block AOL, and it's a true hassle to unblock, because one has to go to all the AOL IP addresses to unblock. It's even worse than that, though, because the block doesn't actually hit the vandal! The vandal's IP is renewing with each page load, so he or she gets off scot-free, while some innocent gets blocked. Many admins (most admins) will understand and unblock if you're hit by accident. Geogre 01:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Advice to AOL users. --bainer (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Images from Flickr

I have just come across an image sourced from Flickr which was up for speedy: the IDF on Flickr says "All rights reserved" but the gallery says "This photo is public". Is this a bug on Flickr, or what is going on here? Physchim62 (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked, "public" isn't the same as "public domain". Johnleemk | Talk 14:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"Public" as used on the Flickr website means that the photo is publicly available to be viewed on the website, i.e. it is not posted by the uploader as a private viewing only image. In terms of licensing for re-use, all rights to the image are reserved by the uploader and it is therefore not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Many images on Flickr are released under the Creative Commons Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike Licenses, which can be used here. [43] --Cactus.man ✍ 14:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I removed one from an article earlier today, will go back and delete it now. Just zis Guy you know? 21:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Main page error reporting page

Just wanted to let everyone know that I have created Talk:Main Page/errors for the reporting of errors on the main page and would like to ask admins to keep an eye on it since they are the only ones who can correct main page errors since it and all the source templates for it are protected. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 14:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

nice one _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Selective Deletions

Here[44] is a tool to check all of the revision of a deleted page, so that you only have to uncheck the 1-3 vandal edits, rather than having to sit there clicking the 2000 good edits.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 22:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds useful! Especially when I just clicked 500+ checkboxes on the Albatross page only to find it didn't actually do that much! --Darth Deskana (talk page) 22:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

excellent! I just said to Deskana earlier that someone should make such a thing :o) _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

umm... where's the link to "check all of the revisions of a page" appear? I'm probably being blind (it's late) or my browser not properly reloaded it, but I don't see it! _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You can just shift-select, can't you? Snoutwood (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Gosh. If you hold Ctrl and Shift and click the top one, then the bottom one, it DOES select them all, then you can just unselect the offending version. Is that what you meant Snoutwood? I can't believe I missed that! Then again, I have only used the undeletion feature once, so I can be let off! --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 23:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes shift does work, and almost as fast. My history analysis scipt was just extended to analysis deleted pages as well. Getting diffs out these babies is the real challenge. I am not yet sure how to do that.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 23:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Should just be shift. If you hold down shift, select one, and then the other, everything in between in selected. Holding down Ctrl just selects whatever you click on. But yes, that's what I was referring to. Snoutwood (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Pnatt

User:Pnatt has posted a link to his Paypal account on his userpage. This link has been removed four times by various users, including myself. I left a note on his talk page saying that such links are inappropriate (a comment which he promptly removed [45]) (Other people trying to persuade Pnatt not to link to Paypal: [46].) I know of no particular policy against such links, but common sense tells me that this is inappropriate for the encyclopedia. Perhaps Wikipedia:User page should be modified. This user also has a history of vandalism, and has been blocked 5 times. Comments? --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 05:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd treat him as a persistent linkspammer. There was a case before, of a user who put many external links in very small font at the bottom of his userpage and he got permanently blocked for this. (Can't remember the exact username, but he was from the Hebrew Wikipedia and got banned there first.) I don't see why posting PayPal links should be treated differently. Kimchi.sg 06:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Haham hanuka (talk · contribs), who, BTW, wasn't permanently blocked, just temporarily. --Calton | Talk 07:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Zmmz and User:David Gerard

I have got an E-mail from User:Zmmz asking for help. He was suddenly blocked, without any messages on his talk page, warning or any clue why he was blocked. I have checked the block log and it said:

02:38, 5 May 2006 David Gerard blocked "Zmmz (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (obnoxious behaviour, harassment, inviting others to "pile on")

Still general words, nothing specific. I have asked Zmmz to contact David by E-mail but David's E-mail is not enabled (I was told it is a requirement for a sysadmin to enable the E-mail). Zmmz is in a middle of an Arbcom case and very frustrated. I have worked with him trying to mediate a conflict over a few Iranian-related articles. I got an impression that he is a good productive although sometimes hot-tempered editor. I would not be surprised if he said something uncivil or obnoxious, but he is certainly deserve to know what he was blocked for. Also because of his arbcom case, is it possible to shorten his block? abakharev 06:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Email is not enabled, but a look on his user page contains a section on contacting him, which includes his email address spelt out. --pgk^(talk) 07:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say unblock him. He shouldn't be left out of his own Arbcom case. (And he should be informed why he was blocked in the first place.) --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 06:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Just for the background, Zmmz' involvement in that arbcom case had gone to the point of wikistalking another (semi-)involved party ([47]), and making threats and harassing posts against arbcom members [48], [49], [50]). Lukas ^(T.|@) 06:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I blocked him for. Also, my email should in fact be enabled; are you sure you're permitted to send? - David Gerard 17:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I just checked, and I got an error message as well. Could be a couple of things: could you double check that you've put in an address and that you've the "enable e-mail" button checked? Snoutwood (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Just for the background, both User:LukasPietsch and User:Zora are involved parties in the arbitration case, on the opposite side of User:Zmmz. User:Zmmz is gathering evidence and asked two other users to share their input and concerns regarding the case, which is within his right, as another administrator already stated in response to User:Zora's accusations. [51] --ManiF 06:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I decided to unblock Zmmz, so he could contribute to his own ArbCom case. abakharev 07:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that being personally involved in an ArbCom case should not be a "get out of jail free card", so to speak. If you commit an offense that an admin sees as blockable, it shouldn't matter that you have an ArbCom case pending. Don't do the crime if you don't want to do the time. For the record, I have not reviewed this block so I'm not commenting on whether the block was appropriate or not. Pepsidrinka 08:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Just want to say that I did undo Zmmz's autoblock but it was by request. I'm not taking his side or anything. In fact, I have no side. :) I know zilch about his case. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Usually if a blocked user is involved in an ArbCom case, it's a good idea to propose an injunction to unblock for the purposes of participating in the case if you want to unblock them. That makes clear the position that the original block stands, but it is suspended only to allow participation in the case. --bainer (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with abakharev's unblock. He should have made more of an effort to discuss it with the blocking admin and waited longer for a response. He posted here at 06:11 and unblocked at 07:03, which is far too quick off the mark. The blocking policy cautions against this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No, that's entirely unnecessary. Anyone in an AC case can contribute by emailing the AC or an active arbitrator directly; they don't need to be allowed to edit on the wiki. Spamming to solicit harassment? 24 hours block is the least he deserves - David Gerard 17:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No comment on the merits of the case, but this happens way too frequently. Please, everyone, when blocking a user, leave them a note explaining why. This is so that anyone happening along the situation can understand why a block was done without having to make a fuss about it. Friday (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Friday, I agree that leaving a note is helpful, but at the same time, admins shouldn't unblock people without checking with the blocking admin first, unless there's been an unambiguous error. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

A block without justification is an unambiguous error, in some people's eyes. I agree that we shouldn't revert others lightly (whether admin actions or normal edits), but a revert is not always automatically inappropriate. Keeping things going smoothly is more important than fragile admin egos. Friday (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

An unambiguous error is one that doesn't rely on a judgment call e.g. when someone blocked for 3RR clearly didn't revert four times. It's not a question of fragile egos, but of trusting admins to have blocked for a reason, and accepting that maybe they know more about the situation than the rest of us. It's about not assuming we always know best. It's about being able to tolerate than we disagree with a block but that someone else has decided to make it anyway. It's about not having a gigantic ego, in fact. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I`m taking a long break from this whole thing, but just for the record; as I was working on the case I saw two more users complaining about user Zora`s rudeness and incivilities, and because their grievances were similar to the editors involved in the case, I civilly asked the two users to review and participate in the ArbCom case, such that the committee will hear their voices. I had no idea this was illegitimate or counted as spamming. I have never been blocked for incivilities, and was not so in this case, nor was I “obnoxious” in any way as the admin who blocked me suggested. Had I been warned about this, rest assured I would have discontinued it. Just to note though, others involved in the case, including user Zora herself had asked many editors to go and help her out in the case by leaving positive feedbacks. Blocks like this have heavy consequences, so I urge the admins to not allow their temper get the best of them, and to kindly communicate with the user beforehands. I also want to add that I`m grateful that abakharev and Woohookitty took it upon themselves to do this, because as it turns-out, after the unblock I was able to post a proposal in the case, and it helped greatly, since the case was motioned to close a few hours later after that. Otherwise, I would not have had the chance to submit my refutation[52].Zmmz 18:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a note: Just throwing-around some words can be damaging to a user’s credibility here, since even after the quick unblock by other admins, the original block will stay on the user’s block log. Despite failure to warn, and in spite of my inquiries David Gerard has not provided an explanation. Zmmz 19:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Pjh1810

Latest of several sockpuppet accounts. Check out Special:Contributions/Frys104, compare to User:Ryanlong's: Special:Contributions/Ryanlong and user:Pjh1810's: Special:Contributions/Pjh1810. They are the same. User has a long history of:

• blanking out pages ([53], [54], more)
• vandalizing user pages ([55], [56], [57], [58])
• and threatening wikipedia with lawsuits (including his current User page) if his "web-site" (his user page) is touched or if messages are left for him.

User has been warned against vandalism many times by many users ([59],[60], among others).

Vandalism was reported at that time on the Vandalism in Progress page, and I left a message on the [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive32], but no action was ever taken, no comment even left. User:Pjh1810's very first edit was a revert of references to Frys104's earlier vandalism ([61]) and he says he'll sue anyone who touches "his pages" (user page and talk page). Claims he's not a sockpuppet, but his list of contributions is almost identical to the other two. I originally assumed good faith with the original account, but there've been so many page blankings, vandalisms, and creations of sockpuppet accounts, along now with lawsuit threats, that enough is enough. User is again active (as of today) and is already blanking out references to his earlier vandalisms. User plans to turn "his page" into a training site for a Subway franchise (see his user page for details)--Firsfron 12:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have given the user a warning to read WP:NLT and removed the threat. We'll see what happens next. As for the subway training site, I cannot see that being allowed, but one crisis at a time. - TexasAndroid 17:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I appreciate the your attempt at a solution, TexasAndroid, and I hope it works. I fear, however, that this user's contributions reflect a basic misunderstanding of many of Wikipedia's policies (no spam, actual encyclopedic content, NPOV, 3RR, no deliberate blanking of pages, etc). In short: thanks! I hope it sticks!--Firsfron 21:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. You may be right, it may not do much. But he needed to be warned first. He needed to be given a chance, not slapped down without warning. - TexasAndroid 22:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Commons Vandalism??

It seems over last nignt a commons:User:Jed uploaded several incorrect images to Commons last night I'm not quite sure what to do (so I posted here). I noticed when Media:Coffee cup.png was replaced with a red X, so I reverted it, and checked his contributions, and it seems there are alot more images affected. Regards Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 13:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind I'm an idiot Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 14:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

New editor using edit description to post bigoted slurs

User:4.240.213.212 posts include antisemitic phrase "talmudic supremacist zionazi" See: Special:Contributions/4.240.213.212. Thought I should at least mention it here.--Cberlet 14:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, he stopped about 3 hours ago, so I think it's cleared itself up. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please be gentle when slapping me with the trout, but...

... I've had a FAC up for almost 2.5 days with one (solicited) comment. Did I do something wrong, or does no one care about this guy? ;) RadioKirk talk to me 14:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

For my money, the same cabal who conspired to kill Kennedy are now conspiring to prevent the Altgens article, and its attendant assassination information, from reaching FA status... Joe 18:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL! :D RadioKirk talk to me 18:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the answer may be in the question... Just zis Guy you know? 21:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but where? Certainly not in "spamming", I notified a grand total of three people, two of whom had worked on or helped with the article. I almost didn't post here, lest that be construed as "spamming". So, I'm still lost... :) RadioKirk talk to me 22:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Since you ask, it's a short article about a dull man. Not one to get my heart racing. Henry^Flower 13:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it's a short article about a dull man—who took two of the most recognized photographs in world history. No reason it can't be an FA. :) RadioKirk talk to me 15:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Either I'm misunderstanding your question, or a bigger fish is called for. I thought you were asking why no-one is interested enough in the article to comment on it (answer, which you seem to accept- because it's boring). Perhaps you could write a more interesting article about the photos? Henry^Flower 16:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he was boring—perhaps—but I don't agree that the article is. At any rate, it seems my question is answered. :) RadioKirk talk to me 16:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

212.135.1.xxx range on a spree

I've been tracking down vandalism from this range for a couple of minutes and uncovered stuff like this [62], I'm just saying that the rollback button is useless against there guys (or one guy with a huge range of IPs).

It seems to be a fairly populated range, so I don't know what to do with it (absolutely not a range block) and their vandalism is too spread out, so semi-protection is also out of the question. -Obli (Talk)^? 14:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not a range block? Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Look at the some of their talk pages, it seems to be the UK counterpart to AOL, but if you're willing to put in a range block, go ahead, I don't want to test it on a major ISP for my first time using it :) -Obli (Talk)^? 14:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ripe whois --lightdarkness ^(talk) 14:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Urgh. This provider is a vandal kiddie's dream come true. Apparently it combines the school-type public access (Broadband for Schools program) with an AOL-type rotating proxy scheme. Femto 14:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal information

Another rogue sockpuppet has added personal information to Solar eclipse. I don't know how to remove it. It would mean eliminating an edit and it's summary - does anyone have the necessary skills? DJ Clayworth 16:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe what's above, under "Selective deletions?" (We probably really need this as a standard feature.) If I'm misreading the problem, I apologize. Geogre 17:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

See also here and here. I found the second link when going to "display and edit complete watchlist". I had to delete some personal information yesterday, and did it by restoring just the bad version and moving it to another page, deleting the other page, and then restoring the remaining edits on the original page. I was a bit nervous that I'd delete things I didn't intend to delete and be unable to get them back, so I experimented with one of my own subpages. It worked fine. I then tried pasting the code into my browser favourites, and it was much easier than I had expected. AnnH ♫ 18:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The easiest way to remove one or several revisions is to delete the article entirely, and then restore only the revisions that do not contain personal information. If you click the first checkbox in the undelete list, hold the SHIFT or CTRL key, and then click the last checkbox, it should check all of them. ~MDD4696 21:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

screwed up move

in trying to move spanning tree (networks) to spanning tree protocol i accidently moved it to Spanning tree trotocol instead. Then in trying to fix it i accidently moved the redirect that had been created at spanning tree (networks) by the first move instead. Can someone please delete the redirects that are currently sitting at spanning tree protocol and its corresponding talk page so i can move the real page there? Plugwash 18:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed this as you intended. Hope this helps. Friday (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin

This arbitration case has closed. Lou franklin is indefinitely banned from editing Societal attitudes towards homosexuality and related articles and discussion pages. He is also placed on personal attack and revert parole. These remedies will be enforced by block. For further details, please see the arbitration case page. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 18:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've lifted the current 1-month block on Lou, with the blocking admin's agreement (SB H), as all Lou's blocks related to an article which he can no longer edit. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

s/can/may/ ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm? Snoutwood (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It may be that JzG's trying to claim that 'can' can't mean 'may', which it, er, can. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Review request for Instantnood

• Instantnood block log
• Instantnood arbitration
  • See especially log of blocks and bans at the bottom

Following a number of complaints about the activities of Instantnood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I have banned him under his probation from several articles on which he had edited disruptively. The authority for this comes under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3. Because he doesn't appear to be learning to moderate his behavior but instead simply goes to edit war on another article, I also blocked Instantnood for 48 hours for disruption.

The block having expired, Instantnood now requests that the bans be lifted [63]. I am not prepared to do this, but as with all bans I regard these as subject to review by other administrators. So I invite other administrators to examine the circumstances and make whatever changes they think best. --Tony Sidaway 18:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I was not notified about user:SchmuckyTheCat's request at WP:AE, and I was not given any opportunity to defend my position before user:Tony Sidaway's decision to impose the block and the page bans. I'm now preparing a response at WP:AE to user:SchmuckyTheCat's request. Please kindly reconsider the block and the page bans after hearing my arguments.

" The block having expired, Instantnood now requests that the bans be lifted [64]. " - I requested user:Tony Sidaway to reconsider before the block expired [65], but she/he did not respond until I moved the reply to his user talk page after the block expired. — Instantnood 18:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever considered taking up co-operative editing instead? Just zis Guy you know? 21:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

May I know what else do I have to do? — Instantnood 10:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've responded to user:SchmuckyTheCat's request at WP:AE. — Instantnood 22:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

JzG's question wasn't rhetorical. I'm interested in the answer also. Why aren't you changing your editing patterns? Nandesuka 21:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I commented as followed on Tony Sidaway's page (as requested by the ban box). He asked me to copy it here:

Hi Tony, I checked Instantnood's edits on Macao, China from Dec2005 till his/her ban from that article. I couldn't see a reason for the ban on that article. I make no comment on his/her other behviour of which, currently, I have little knowledge. I'd appreciate your reasons. Thanks. Mccready 15:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've now checked this user's edits on List of bridges and it appears there is a legitimate reason for his/her edits. An edit summary of this user pointed to the difference between a country and a sovereign state. Hong Kong is listed as the former but not the later. Mccready 16:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I've now checked his/her behaviour on Hong_Kong_national_football_team. He/she used the discussion page appropriately, organised a poll and edited accordingly. He/she suffered incivility from other users. I can't see why he/she is banned from the page. I have not looked at his/her editing on other pages and will await your comments. Thanks again. Mccready 16:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Since then I have also seen the claim that there was an arbcom case about him without his knowledge. If this is true I find it disappointing and unjust. Can anyone comment on this? Mccready 07:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, Instantnood actively participated in both of his first two arbitration case, and was fully informed of the third case [66] [67] but volubly declined to participate. --Tony Sidaway 11:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've explained for many times why it was like that. I wasn't able to submit a statement before case was opened, for I was blocked around that period. When the block expired the case was already opened based upon one-sided opinion, and the evidence and workshop had started. I could not pretend all these had not happened and submit a statement by then. The statement wouldn't have much effect, anyway, since the case was already opened and things were already getting on. I requested to reconsider its opening, but the ArbCom members obviously didn't care about fairness and justice of the arbitration mechanism. That's, frankly, disappointing. — Instantnood 20:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If it was unfair, you can appeal to Jimbo. --Tony Sidaway 20:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2

The arbitration committee has amended this case to add a new remedy. Herschelkrustofsky is now banned from editing Wikipedia for one year. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 19:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:George W. Bush (edit | [[Talk:Talk:George W. Bush|talk]] | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:CIVIL issues, big ones, that talk page needs a full time monitor, it's virtually 100% trolling, there's no way to interact with anyone on that page without being reverted, threatened, mocked, and subjected to the usualy freepr nonsense. As most of you will recall, back in december or january, i forget which, they had an official "freep in", which thankflly most of them were too mature to respond to, however the ones that did respond, seem to have never left and have essentially camped out on that talk page, and focused all their hosility on it. I think at this point that page is going to need some sort of adult supervision, from a preferably uninvolved admin--64.12.116.200 19:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Who'd have thought? Just zis Guy you know? 21:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for a listserv moderator! 8-) If a non-admin would wade in, would someone be willing to throw him a life raft from time to time? ;-) --CTSWyneken 21:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible attack account and sockcheck request

User:Generallego has, to date, contributed nothing other than attacks on my user/user talk page and edits to their own page(s). I'm almost certain who its a sockpuppet of, but despite relatively damning IP evidence, they denied everything on an RfC...

If this account could be blocked, I'd appreciate it - less noise to remove from my user or user talk pages; and if a sockcheck could be run I'd really appreciate it. --Kiand 22:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockcheck? You're not referring to WP:RfCU are you? To be honest, I can't see a case for a CheckUser since the editor in question is soon to be indefblocked simply for harrassment if s/he carries on with you. I'm watching them to see if they keep harrassing you, and if they do, I will block them. Sometimes a final warning can make someone get their act together. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, I didn't know that it had changed name, and that it had its own page now, oops. And no, its not the indefinately blocked user who somehow latched on to me; its someone from an awful lot longer back who has constantly returned to mess around with my user page and make snide comments on my talk page. Which is why my user page is sprotected... --Kiand 22:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I blocked indefinitely just minutes after Deskana had given a final warning. I don't see any point in unblocking; the account obviously exists for the purpose of harassment, and he has the option of apologizing on his talk page if he wants to turn over a new leaf. He has no useful edits. Regarding WP:RFCU, they may think it's unncessary since he's been blocked, but if it's a sockpuppet of someone who's in the middle of a six-month ban, for example, the ban would be reset if the sockpuppetry is established. AnnH ♫ 22:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, one of said users other sockpuppets, User:Zerozero, has reappeared for the exact same purposes (attack account). This is why I requested a checkuser... If this attack account could be banned, I'd appreciate that too. --Kiand 02:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"Governor" cruft.

(This isn't an incident per se, so I don't know where to report this to. Please tell me if I have reported this to the inappropriate page and I will move this to the right page. Thank you.)

1028 (talk · contribs · count) - Posted in my talk "Don't forget to cast your vote for Wikipedian governor! The polls close on May 9! Send your nominations for governor to User:1028's talk page". (Wikipedia doesn't have a Governor, as we all know)

This has been posted to several other Wikipedians' userpages:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FreplySpang&diff=prev&oldid=51754959
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shanel&diff=prev&oldid=51754658
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kungfuadam&diff=prev&oldid=51754508
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Academic_Challenger&diff=prev&oldid=51754377
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kusma&diff=prev&oldid=51754208

Thanks. — nathanrdotcom ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 23:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Leaving a message on his talk page as you did was the appropriate thing to do, although being more polite wouldn't hurt. ~MDD4696 02:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I could've been, and I'll try to be. However, he just goes on even after my comment on his talk. I even linked to cruft and he just doesn't get it the concept. That's a bit frustrating. :| — nathanrdotcom ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 02:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely understand what you mean, but I'm not sure there's anything you can do until it's more than an annoyance. There's all sorts of people on Wikipedia, and there will always be some that just don't "get it". ~MDD4696 04:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I was a bit more polite in the explanation the second time around (and I'm usually never sure how to word things), perhaps he'll get the idea this time. If there's anything I could've said/done better, please let me know on my talk. Thanks for the help. — nathanrdotcom ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 05:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Taking a good look at his talkpage, I'm not sure it's more politeness that's needed. He seems a little aggressive in defending his nonsense articles, coming close to harassment in some cases. Many of his invites to the Governor election have gone to administrators who've tried to deal with these articles, and with him. He seems to focus especially on the patient User:Academic Challenger (who told him in March, with uncharacteristic terseness, that "It is obvious that you are not President Bush"). I think it may be coming up to block time, and have dropped a note on Academic Challenger to see if there's anything he'd like to share. And in the Governor Cruft race, my vote goes to Eugene Cruft. Bishonen | talk 05:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC).

I have a lot of experience with this user. He seems to enjoy playing around with administrators. About a month ago he wrote an article called Charles Edward Cheese which I and several other admins deleted, but he kept recreating it for a while until finally he got tired of it and got me to agree to what he called a truce. I'm not sure what should be done with him. He seems to have made some good edits and from his user page he seems to be pretty intelligent, but I'm not sure how to get him to stop these types of actions. Basically I've politely responded to all of his messages and that seems to be working somewhat. Academic Challenger 05:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what on his userpage makes on think he is "pretty intelligent"; I don't get that impression. He lists himself in the non-existent category of "Wikipedians with an IQ of surprisingly high" which doesn't even obey the rules of English grammar. As for useful contributions, I don't see any in the last 50 edits. JoshuaZ 06:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that any useful edits he made were done a long time ago. I would support a block for disruption if he continues to add nonsense to article pages or talk pages. Academic Challenger 06:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Come on!

Look at this[68]. The two other diffs before show quite a lot as well. PLEASE, admins, list pages you protect. You are welcome to use my monobook javascript for protecting pages (if you run the monobook skin), but please use this list. It has many advantages for Wikipedia and page protection, as it easy easy for all admins to get an overview of what is going on.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 07:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I've rarely found Wikipedia:List of protected pages useful at all. There are already at least a dozen categories for protected pages, and most editors discuss the protections on the protected page's talk page. When I place page protection, I keep it on my desk until I lift it, use the protections templates, and usually leave a note on it's talk. Is this breaking the policy? Perhaps, but it seems to be working. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

All the protections I do are semi-protection of vandals' user talk pages, and I always stick a note at the top of my talk page header to remind me to take it off if/when the block expires. (Not only is it a page I see very often, but if I was run over by a bus, other people can see it.) And more recently I've protected some DYK images, and whoever does the next update always takes care of that. I don't see why any further notice of either type of protection is necessary. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I keep a desk right on my main user page too, with ToDo's and blocks/protections to revist, its very usefull for me. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I borrowed yours as a "calendar". Nice idea, hope you don't mind. ;) RadioKirk talk to me 02:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...I should mention that userpages protections are not really needed at WP:PP. I don't care much for those, but the other ones are important.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 17:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I must be missing something then, why is that page so important? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just completed and debugged super javascript that looks at the cat pages for semi and full, checks if they are listed and makes a list of the ones that aren't, goes to the log (which limit=5000) checks for the last protection of those items, extracts the summary, user, and date and then goes back to WP:PP and adds it in. Sheesh...debugging that was annoying...Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 05:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

To avoid a ForestFire let continue this at Wikipedia_talk:List_of_protected_pages#Why2

spamlink by anon in progress

anon 81.56.135.230 is spamlinking Wikipedia. He/she/it is adding http://www.seemalaysia.org to a lot of pages. Tried to revert his edit but too many and too fast. I suspect it's a bot. Hope somebody could ban the IP temporarily and revert all his edits. __earth ^(Talk) 10:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

User has stopped; I've reverted and left a message on the talk page. RadioKirk talk to me 17:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Prem Rawat

I'm looking for a volunteer putting Talk:Prem Rawat on his watchlist, enforcing WP:NPA, guiding Wikipedia newbies not to use the talk page for endless discussions of the subject etc. I've tried but I'm not up to the task. No prior involvement with article would be a plus. --Pjacobi 11:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried once, in mid-February, and I burned out like that. It's a terrible place. I'd say no prior involvement is more than a plus, it's a precondition, because once people have tried to do those things you describe, Pjacobi, they're unlikely to go near it ever again. I mean, I tried, and look at me now, sticking straws in my hair, muttering to myself, clutching at the air. Prem Rawat and its talkpage are home to some contributors (I speak euphemistically) who edit only there, who are at Wikipedia for no other purpose than pushing their POV at that article. It's a lot like the notorious Bogdanov Affair in that respect. Frankly, in several cases, I don't think it's that they're newbies (they aren't any more), it's that they're not here to learn. Rather than sending new waves of fresh-faced young admins into these purging fires, it might be time to send the article and its habitual editors straight where The Bogdanov Affair ended up: to messy and acrimonious arbitration. Bishonen | talk 12:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC).

Ah, the Bogdanov affair. Is it a bad thing that I can look back almost fondly on that? --maru (talk) contribs 02:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Fungible

This user was permanently blocked for recreating a copyvio article, talk:Alan Chartock. He has expressed interest in recreating the article without copyvio. Can someone read his talk page, review the deleted article, and reconsider the length of the block.

This article is being reported on by the major media blog of the New York capital.

User:Seahen

I have blocked Seahen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for creating userboxes promoting pedophilia (girllover and boylover), general trolling by listing their speedy deletion for review, and talk page spamming in an attempt to rig the deletion review. --Tony Sidaway 16:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Object. I cannot support an indefinite block without warning on a user who has no previous blocks and continues to make good-faith edits, including today. I would support a 24 hour block to make sure he understands that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and attempts to use it for something else are not welcome, and longer blocks, possibly indefinite, if he continues to defy policy after it ends. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I overreacted. I've no objection to an unblock or modification. --Tony Sidaway 16:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reduced the block to 24 hours for talk page spamming. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• It seems rash to indef block someone that has contributed for over a year over one situation in which they were given no warnings. Also, since when did NPA not apply to you Tony? I know people support calling a troll a troll (even though I am not sure if this was done in bad faith), but do you really need to throw in stupid too? Someone should also explain why he is now blocked (the talk page spamming in an attempt to vote stack) and he has requested an unblock. Kotepho 16:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  He knows why he's blocked - Tony referred to talk page spamming, and as I specifically asked him not to continue after his block was lifted, it's pretty obvious that that was the reason I didn't lift the block entirely. And Doc glasgow has dealt with the unblock request (denied). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  I lifted this block later yesterday after Seahen clarified that he had discussed the matter with Jimbo and accepted that he shouldn't do things that might bring Wikipedia into disrepute.[69] --Tony Sidaway 23:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium

This arbitration case has closed. James S. is banned from depleted uranium, placed on probation, and placed on general probation. Those opposing editors who have made personal attacks on James S. are reminded of the policies regarding courtesy and personal attacks. TDC is placed on revert parole. For further details, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 17:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparent WP:NPA violation at Pilot of invisible F-117-a AFD

I request an administrator to check the discussion about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pilot of invisible F-117-a(song). Dzoni (talk · contribs) and apparently Kris12 (talk · contribs) are doing ratial comments against Mig11 (talk · contribs). Since I do not know Serbian, I cannot verify if what Mig11 stated is correct, but if so, maybe it is time for the AFD to close since it has lost WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 17:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, this AfD seems to be going into its 8th day. =P — TheKMan^talk 08:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RC-677780 not closed

Found this cleaning out my watchlist. The nom has been open since April 21, and all votes are delete, so I have no idea why it's not closed yet. Maybe it accidently got removed from the log or something? Anyway, some admin should take care of it. BryanG 17:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Image related legal question

My question is about Image:Mru Dancing.jpg, uploaded by Aditya Kabir (talk · contribs). The image shows a group of teen-aged-looking tribal girls dancing during the festival. The image is used in proper context in the article Bandarban District, where these tribes live.

Now, the problem with the image is a bit of frontal nudity of one of the dancers. Normally, that wouldn't have been a problem (and I know that Wikipedia is not censored). However, it appears that the dancer is underaged, and my question in this case is whether the image is legal to use in the articles or view it, considering US or more specifically Florida laws regarding images of underage people. The image also has dubious source/copyright info, but that's another problem. Thanks. --Ragib 17:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is legal. Full frontal nudity of children is on all the time on PBS TV shows in every state in the US. WAS 4.250 18:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Nudity != pornography. Pictures of nude children are fine so long as the picture was not intended to be sexually arousing. Lacisvious is the correct word, but I can't spell it right for the life of me, so use my attempt and find the correct one. -M^ask 18:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Lascivious is the word; see also prurient, the term most often used in the United States in analyses such as this... Joe 18:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Prurient doesn't quite apply here, thats generally used to classify obscenity (appealing to a prurient interest). Lascivicus ('lewd, lustful') is used to classify pornography, and as such is the difference between those naked bath photos your mom as of you as a baby being embarassing rather then illegal :) -M^ask 19:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, we do often use the Miller test in considering whether pornography is obscene; I'd suggest, for example, that an analysis of an Anne Geddes photograph would turn on the lack of appeal to a prurient interest. Your point with respect to the difference between nudity qua depiction of a natural human state and nudity qua tool of sexual arousal is well-made, but such distinctions are sometimes difficult for judges to make, and there is a tendency to classify all that involves human nudity as pornography. Notwithstanding the legal distinctions, though, Wiktionary gives them as either word as a synonym for the other, so I suppose it's all good. :) Joe 06:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification regarding the image. --Ragib 19:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The nudity is absolutely fine in the cultural context, but it would be nice to confirm the licensing status. I've left a message for the uploader. Chick Bowen 15:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing problem at Anwar Sadat and Egypt re photos

Long ago, I added a photo of Louis Gossett, Jr., as Anwar Sadat. There appears to be a campaign to obliterate this photo from the article in favor of that of a very Arab-looking actor who portrayed Sadat (and looks nothing like him) in a later production. It repeatedly has been removed and the other pic inserted. My stance has been that there is room for both. The latest edit warrior is insisting -- IMO, absurdly -- that there are "too many pictures" and that the Arab's photo is "more important." From where I stand, just another example of afrophobia. I'd appreciate it if someone would stop by and take a look. Thanks. deeceevoice 07:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Same problem at Egypt. The photo of the Fellahin girl (in a section that expressly discusses the Fellahin) has been repeatedly removed. (The Fellahin are darker-skinned Egyptians.) Repeated problems with this image being removed also. Presently, the same edit warrior User:Egyegy who repeatedly has removed the pic of Louis Gossett, Jr. in Anwar Sadat has removed the photo of the Fellahin girl in favor of a "superior" photograph. IMO, repeated and blatant attempts to expunge the image of black Egyptians from the website. deeceevoice 08:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

One would predict that Egypt has ethnic issues that are distinct from ethnic issues in the US. Don't project your own views on others where they are not vaild. Dr Zak 12:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page has gone missing

Could someone please reinstate the talk page to Cuba. It's gone missing! Thanks--Zleitzen 11:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I restored it. I am assuming it related to the Alkivar problem and Freakofnature just forgot to restore it after cleansing the page history. There wasn't an summary in the deletion log, so if I restored it in err, another admin should feel free to redelete it. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman

This arbitration case is now closed.

• Article bans:
  • User:Aucaman and User:SouthernComfort are banned from editing articles related to Persians or Iran. Relatedness is to be interpreted broadly so as to prevent gaming.
  • User:Zmmz is banned from editing Persian people and Iranian peoples.
• Probation:
  • User:Aucaman and User:Zmmz are placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year.
  • For edit warring, User:ManiF, User:Kashk, User:SouthernComfort, and User:Khoikhoi are placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year.
• Banned from Wikipedia:
  • For edit warring, personal attacks, and other disruption, User:Xebat, under all of his usernames, is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year.

Further details are given in the decision at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 15:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandal at "Libertarianism"

A user by the name of "Irgendwer" is repeated deleting the word "political" from the descriptor "political philosophy" on the Libertarianism page. The issue has been much discussed on the talk page and consensus is that the descriptor "political philosophy" is appropriate. This user has some kind of ideological axe to grind. Help would be much appreciated. Salvor Hardin 16:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content. Try taking it to the article's talk page, the user's talk page, or dispute resolution. If he does it more than three times, report him at WP:AN/3. Hermione1980 16:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks for an attempt to create a new and very bad policy by the means of edit waring and voting. WAS 4.250 17:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Releasing Personal information on Wikipedia

69.133.158.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) just recently posted personal information (ie; address and phone number) of someone on Wikipedia [70]. Could someone delete this edit so it isn't for public viewing. Thanks! DGX 21:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Just a thought, but this is a high traffic page, you might not want to hyperlink that, according to google, the phone number and address are both listed, so putting it out in the open might attract unwanted attention--{anon iso − 8859 − 1janitor} 21:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the edit and blocked the IP. Chick Bowen 22:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI: that user has three other edits [71] [72] [73] with the same personal information. dcandeto 22:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Way ahead of you. :-) I already alerted Chick Bowen and hopefully they too will be deleted. DGX 22:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm handling them now. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed those edits from the page history. Problem solved. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have checked that. Thanks, everyone, and good work, DGX. Chick Bowen 22:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin familiar with Pro Wrestling?

Howdy,

I'm looking for an admin that either particpates in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling, is familiar with pro wrestling, or at least follows the WWE to help out with a small task. Please contact me on my talk page if this is you! Thank you for your help, --Naha|^(talk) 01:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The only admin I am aware of that knows anything about Pro Wrestling is Lbmixpro. If you need help on anything pro wrestling related in relation to a trivial extent, I am available for that as I am pretty knowledgeable about it. :-D DGX 01:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've already contacted him, but he is kind of on a wikibreak of sorts at the moment. The matter concerns a semi-protect so I really need to speak to an admin, thanks though! --Naha|^(talk) 02:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary user

The Wiktionary:User:Primetime (apparently corresponding to User:Primetime here) was indefinitely blocked this year on the English Wiktionary for massive, systemic copyright violations. His primary sources were Webster's third new international dictionary, unabridged, by Merriam-Webster, Inc. and The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised) (using either the on-line edition or a CD-ROM version - the specific version remains unclear for a portion of his entries.)

The main Wiktionary discussion can be found here: wikt:Wiktionary: Beer parlour archive/January-March_06#Primetime. In his own defense, he relied on bizarre personal attacks, personal threats and repetitious flagrant lies (perhaps in the hope that repeating a certain lie over and over again would make it somehow become truth.)

For over a month now, he has used many sockpuppets on the English Wiktionary, confirmed by checkuser(!) request on meta:. Only the most recent batch of sockpuppets is listed on the meta page. He has become our single most assiduous vandal, recently prompting an automated block of some 6,000+ IP addresses used by the Tor anonymity network.

His signature vandalism patterns alternate between massive rudimentary copyright violations, and bombarding Wiktionary with massive quantites of unattested vulgar terminology.

His copyright-vandalism today on the English Wiktionary (via a new sockpuppet that he created some time ago, in preparation) was first traced to the Wikipedia entry for J, where has been steadily, incrementally adding content. It is apparent to me, that he is using a 'bot to upload material here on Wikipedia just as he used to on Wiktionary, as several tell-tale signs are in each of his entries. It is my personal theory that he is using 'bot technology to split apart his edits, so that no single edit triggers a VandalBot "copyright" warning on the anti-vandalism channels.

I hereby request assistance from all Wikipedia sysops in chasing down this prolific individual's copyright violations (here on Wikipedia, as well as on Wiktionary - as many entries on Wiktionary still have not been cleaned adequately.) I am somewhat unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies regarding copyright violation. But I cannot imagine that such systemic, wholesale copying is condoned here.

--Connel MacKenzie 07:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC) (Wiktionary sysop; please leave messages on my talk page there.)

Here is a bit of advice to anyone who reads this: check carefully everything Connel MacKenzie says. He has been known to exaggerate greatly at times. This is a very complex, personal dispute between him and I. Unfortunately, I do not possess the knowledge to use "bots". (And, what does this have to do with Wikipedia?) I don't know what you mean by "vandalism," either. I've had some content disputes with you. I admit I moved some material I wrote here to Wiktionary, all of which you apparently deleted on sight. The autoblocker blocked my IP for a short time, so I was able to get a new user name (something suggested to me by Tawker in a public discussion). I created about 5 vulgar entries on Wiktionary which Connel MacKenzie deleted on sight (even though Wiktionary is not censored--supposedly--and they all had citations). So, that's hardly the "massive quantites" you're describing. Really, this is not relevant to Wikipedia at all. The reason I remain blocked is very complex but can be boiled down to three factors: (1) personal attacks, (2) evading my block, and (3) alleged copyright violation. Now, Connel MacKenzie is going through everything I ever created on Wiktionary (I made about 1172 edits) and reverting or deleting it on the unproven assumption that it's all copyvio material. Connel MacKenzie is a very bitter person. He's had more disputes on Wiktionary than any other user. Now he's the person who banned all of those accounts and he's the only one still complaining about me. The fact he is even bringing up such a matter here shows even greater malice on his part, in my opinion. If he were editing on Wikipedia, he would have been banned a while ago. However, there's no real formal dispute resolution process on Wiktionary, so he can just continue acting the way he does and no one can do anything about it.--Primetime 10:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I find this dispute worrisome because it may have affected Wikpedia administration. I recently nominated "List of ethnic slurs" for AfD, due chiefly for its apparent violation of WP:NOT [not a slang dictionary]. Primetime argued eloquently, effectively, and somewhat duplicitously (as I've said to him) against its transwikification to Wiktionary. Primetime had said that Wiktionary editors were intolerant, and would not accept the material. This report describes additional aspects to the matter. I don't know if the claim by Connel MacKenzie has merit or not, but Wiktionary is a sister project and we should work in a coordinated fashion. -Will Beback 11:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Primetime's indefinite block on Wiktionary was approved after a decision made by the community. It was not even issued by Connel MacKenzie [74]. Now Connel is indeed a very active contributor and sysop on Wiktionary, probably among our best (if there's such a thing as "the best" on a wiki), who's not afraid of discussion, some arguments in which he is a party indeed evolving into what one might arguably call a "dispute". That is, however, of no relevance here, and has more to do with the argumentative nature of the English Wiktionary. Primetime, though, has never conformed to the rules that apply to Wiktionary, and he and his host of sockpuppets have been banned from Wiktionary by the community, for the reasons given above by Connel. The majority of his former contributions have either been deleted (by a variety of sysops, not just Connel), or rephrased in order to eliminate the copyright violations originally entered by Primetime. New admissions from his part, once they have been identified as being Primetime's, are being deleted on sight (by a variety of sysops, not just Connel or me) due to his long-standing tradition of proven copyright violations. Vildricianus 18:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC) (Wiktionary sysop).

First, there was a discussion where the editors participating came upon agreement that my most-recent creations, created on three nights in March and January would be deleted. (See wikt:Wiktionary: Beer parlour archive/January-March_06#Primetime). Further, my most-recent contributions were already trying to be deleted or had already been deleted when some discovered that they were from me. Others no one ever found out were from me were deleted as well. Further, those didn't look anything like the single-phrase definitions they were complaining about for copyvios. When Connel MacKenzie did a checkuser on some accounts, he immediately deleted the remainder. He never did a checkuser on the accounts he blocked last night, though. Here's an explanation of why they were already trying to delete them:

Some editors have interpreted Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion as meaning that a single reliable source is enough to prove a word's usage. Others, however, say that only three quotations will suffice, despite the fact that the page states that "Usage in a well-known work" qualifies as proof. These same editors claim that other dictionaries do not count. To many Wikipedia users accustomed to citing disputed assertions with a single source, having to give three sources is upsetting and unwelcoming. Many entries have been deleted because they had only one or two sources.

Knowing the anarchic atmosphere of Wiktionary and the propensity of certain administrators to use these unusually-high standards to delete offensive terms, I created six entries with three quotes per sense and with full source information for each quote. (See Wiktionary:WT:RFD#nigger_baby.) Then a user named Jonathan Webley nominated each of them for deletion saying "I can't find these terms anywhere else". Shortly afterward, Connel MacKenzie chimed in saying "This series of anonymous submissions seems intentionally disruptive, and pointlessly inflammatory. Delete all. These are certainly no more than the sum of their parts (each submission) with a clear intent to enter as many forms as can be dredged up, and to bypass the comparatively neutral, explanatory entry at nigger." Then, another administrator deleted them and protected the pages. His assertion that they were the sum of their parts is an example of an exaggeration by MacKenzie as "Blue-eyed grass (genus Sisyrinchium), especially California blue-eyed grass, S. bellum" was not the sum of the phrase "nigger baby". Another example is this: wiktionary:WT:RFV#shit_stabber. I had three quotes and a dictionary reference for that one. Here's another one: Wiktionary:WT:RFV#give me fin on the soul side. Editors there have a tendency to delete terms they don't like on sight (See this entry that had a reference to a slang dictionary, but was deleted anyway the first time. When I recreated it, he nominated it for verification, then deleted it again when he found out it was from me.) As for "give me fin on the soul side" I had two quotes and a dictionary citation. They deleted it anyway, but I had it saved on my hard drive, so I recreated it. Then, they said two quotes and a dictionary references weren't enough, so I added more, for 3 quotes and 5 citations. Connel still wanted to delete it anyway, which shows his deceptive and bitter nature.

As everyone can tell, Vildicranius is good friends with Connel MacKenzie--even though Vildicranius is pretty new. However, Connel MacKenzie has been known to harass other users. On the Beer Parlour (their equivalent of the Village Pump) he had at least three discussion threads raised against him by Ncik: Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/January-March_06#A_further_complaint.2C_unrelated_to_the_one_above.2C_against_Connel, Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/January-March_06#Complaint_against_Connel even though I had been there only since November. He went after Ncik, who he chased away apparently, Eclecticology, then me. I'm sure there were others, though.

In conlcusion, I'm a financial donor to Wikimedia, so if I believed that something would harm our wikis, I wouldn't do it. On Wikipedia, I fight vandalism (I have over 830 pages on my watchlist) and try to be civil. I've worked countless hours, and have 3759 edits on Wikipedia under this user name as well as 366 under others. I tend to use Show preview and focus on articles, so the tally doesn't tell much, either. However, on Wiktionary, it's harder to get along. Many Wikipedia policies, such as the Three Revert Rule and No Personal Attacks are not policies on Wiktionary. To some users from Wikipedia, this makes the site seem like it is anarchic, and makes many administrator decisions seem arbitrary, as well. Everyone knows each other, so you either become good friends or really bad enemies.--Primetime 20:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's cut through a lot of noise: Primetime, do you deny that on Wiktionary you copied defintions from existing dictionaries?

A quick look through your contributions here (at least ones highlighted on your user page) raise red flags, too. Take John Abbey, which you created with:

(Born Whilton, Northants., Dec. 22, 1785; Died Versailles, Feb. 19, 1859). English organ builder. The son of a local joiner, he first learnt his father's trade. Against family opinion he was apprenticed while still in his youth to the organ builder James Davis and later joined in partnership with Hugh Russell... [75]

We have the idiosyncratic, non-Wikipedia style of beginning, the fully-formed sentences, and, most peculiarly for an American contributor, the British usage of "learnt" -- which you changed in subsequent edits over the next hour. My guess is Britannica, but I have a friend who owns a copy, so I"ve asked him to check. --Calton | Talk 20:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. You can also search the introductions for each entry for free online. As you can see here: <http://www.britannica.com/search?query=John+Abbey&ct=>, there is no entry.--Primetime 20:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Partha rathore

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ImpuMozhi#A_threat

Do we require editors like Partha rathore? When he can use such nasty words and worst of Hindi slangs with 50 edits, how dirty he shall make our wikipedia. I recommend that such editors should be banned for life. Regards. --Bhadani 08:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him for 1 week, for issuing a physical threat. Feel free to override me. Thanks. --Ragib 08:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You may also want to list him on WP:PAIN, our (oft-ignored) page for reporting personal attacks. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 16:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Vorash

I am running a bit impatient with editor Vorash (talk · contribs). The editor started out as a well-respected user of the Wikipedia, (though he and I had some major problem/wars when I first came here). Late last year, he closed his account because "he was labelled as a vandal". His anger was increased when his "pride and joy" Best selling music artists was listed for deletion. After closing his account, he has made a few edits to Wikipedia (perhaps a few edits per weeks). Here's the problem: he made some edits to Mariah Carey singles discography a long time ago, which were modified by some anon editors, and especially by Extraordinary Machine (talk · contribs). For some reason, Vorash is determined to have the article his way, and he does this by reverting the entire article to months old version, completely wiping out all updates that have been made since that time: [76],[77], [78], [79], [80]. Even though other editors (myself included) have tried speaking with him, he is uncivil and unyielding. He also uses sockpuppets to carry out his dirty work: Rodrigogomespaixao (talk · contribs) and Klppaa (talk · contribs) (I've blocked the latter, but I'm a bit skeptical of the former, so I haven't blocked him).

I gave Vorash one final warning on May 7, 2006 [81]. The day later, he reverted it to his month old version ([82]). I am getting extremely impatient with him. I cant block him for 3RR because he does not do it three times a day: he slips in every other day or so and revert it. I once protected it, but one can only protect the article for so long. As Carey has a couple singles on the charts, the page needs to be updated weekly. I am tempted to block him indefinitely, but:

1. It might be too drastic. I really do not want to abuse my power.
2. Blocking might have no effect. He rearely uses his account anyway. He'll probably just use another ISP.
3. as he and I have been in squabbles in the past, I dont want to be the one to block him.

Can anyone help me come up with a solution? I do not necessarily endorse the current version of the article. What I'm concerned with, however, is his rude disruptive behaviour, and the fact that when he reverts the page, all the weekly edits are completely obliterated (wrong info is therefore deliberately introduced into the page). Oran e (t) (c) (e) 17:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking before reblocking?

It seems to be standard procedure to unblock a user before reblocking them with a different duration. I was just wondering if it's necessary, or if it's a hangover from a time when Mediawiki didn't properly handle this situation? I ran some block tests on a dormant account I created[83]. First, I blocked the account for 1 hour, then - without unblocking - for 15 minutes. Special:Ipblocklist showed the latest, current block to be ending in 15 minutes. Of course that information doesn't guarantee that the old block has actually been overridden, it merely suggests that it does. Comments anyone? --kingboyk 17:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think MediaWiki takes the shortest of the block periods and whenever it expires, unblocks the account, disregarding the longer blocks. Bug or feature? I don't know. --Ragib 17:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, feature. Whenever any active block on a user expires, all blocks on that user expire. So, you have to unblock first before you can apply a longer block, but you don't have to unblock to apply a shorter block. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And you're positive that hasn't changed in recent revisions of MW? :) --kingboyk 17:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:AIDSWikiCredit

Someone created a template Template:AIDSWikiCredit to explicitly assign creditefor using a specific page. I think this is not in order, but I am not sure about that. What are the feelings about this? KimvdLinde 19:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet another attack account being used on my talk page

I had another report (see above) a few days ago where I requested a check user on User:Generallego, who was indefinately blocked for being nothing but an attack account. As I expected, another of the sockpuppets, User:Zerozero, was resurrected to continue the same. If this could be blocked, I'd appreciate it - its an attack account. Additionally, I'm now going to request a checkuser. --Kiand 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Or not, considering it seems relatively complex to do a request and seems to require other avenues to be exhausted. Although the user in question denies everything, obviously... --Kiand 20:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)