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

Asinine behavior at RD

Anyone else want to try to convince the clowns at the RD that, for example, this thread is completely inappropriate? Before wading in you might want to review the history at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk and user talk:Light current. I've tried to be way more than reasonable, but apparently have only managed to piss them off. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blanked the section (see my last edit in the history) and left a note at Light current's talk page. JoshuaZ 05:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The reference desk Humanities gets trolled consistently by the please-talk-to-me set ("blacks are stupid," "jews run everything," "women are stupid," "anyone who believes in God is stupid," "anyone who doesn't believe in God is damned"), but the volunteers have lately been giving head to the needy clowns way too often. There isn't much to do but offer up stern reminders and then hope that they take the advice. As volunteers, there isn't much coercive that can be done to or about them, nor should anything more really be necessary. Geogre 17:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

User Light current is not a random troll on the reference desk. He regularly abuses it, askes inappropriate questions and answers serious questions with jokes. Someone really should keep an eye on his, its childish behaviour such as this that seriously hiders the usefulness of that part of the project. pschemp | talk 20:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What pompous nonsense! Give examples of inappropriate questions. Look at the ratio of serious answers to jokey ones. Why are you picking on me. Other people use the RDs. Why didnt you also remove the preceding comment by StuRat eh?--Light current 05:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

StuRat has been nearly as bad in the past, just not this time. You both need to think before you type. pschemp | talk 06:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but that is your personal interpretation of the posts. The posts happened to serious. THe problem with applying your own rules is that they aren't WP rules. You are acting as censor, judge jury and (possibly) executioner. That is not the function of an admin. That is not the spirit of WP. Deletion of other peoples that do not attack anyone is censorship. This is the slippery slope of which I have warned: I dont like you, so Im going to remove any of your posts to which I take a dislike.And if you argue about it, Ill block you!

All your actions need to be backed up by written WP poilices. Just using the term disruption is a cop out. I could say you were being disruptive by removing parts of a thread. And I ask you again: How is that thread disruptive to WP? --Light current 17:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a serious problem. Just tonight we have more inanity and crude jokes that could be offensive to those not "in" on them. If these editors continue, I'm going to block them. Their actions are disruptive and offensive. pschemp | talk 03:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I told you that is NOT a joke. Its a short discussion on skid marks that should not offend anyone. Tell everyone how these posts disrupt anything. I would think VERY carefully before I took unjustified and unsustainable actions. I get the impression now that Im being Wikistalked by pschemp. Please desist.--Light current 05:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously how many people need to tell you to knock it off for you to listen? - Taxman ^Talk 06:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I am listening. So far I have heard a few admins tel me they dont like my jokes. Knock what off? What am I being accused of?

I am not trying to be offensive to anyone and thread was serious. You must come up with a violation of some rule. Otherwise you are just making up policies to suit yourselves. Please tell me specifically where I am violating policy.--Light current 17:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop rules lawyering. You don't need to be violating policies to not be helpful. Seriously, you've been asked multiple multiple times. When there are several conversations I can think of asking you to stop a behavior, those conversations are all wasted time that could be saved by you just stopping the behavior. So enough already. - Taxman ^Talk 19:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So are you going to tell me what rules Ive broken or not? Or which behaviour to stop. Do you mean stop posting anything anywhere? If not, please be specific so we can all learn to abide by the consensus rules. 'Not being helpful' can be applied to anyone who does nothing. THey are not helping at all! What you are saying is much more than that, but what exactly is it that I do that is disrupting WP?--Light current 20:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

See below. - Taxman ^Talk 20:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you broke the civility rules (referring to someone's Mother is out of bounds). Second, from one of Wikipedia's official policy pages: Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchic communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism. \-Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I admit referring to someoness mother. I didnt know that was disallowed. I cant see this particular bit on not being allowed to mention peoples relatives in WP:Civility: perhaps you could point it out to me? It was not intended to be an offensive referral. I apologise if anyones or their mother was offended. Most people who live at home have their mother do their washing, so I see no disrespect in mentioning that she would not throw out underwear for that reason (anb action suggested in the previous post).

I dont see how that comment in any way interferes with creating an encyclopedia. Perhaps you could enlighten me. Neither do I see how it attempts to explore the viability of anarchic communities. But again maybe you are reading something into it that wasnt there. I again restate that this thread was a serious one on how to remove skid marks from underware. 8-((--Light current 20:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering you've been asked so many times to stop your unhelpful behavior it's rather disingenuous to ask for specifics again. How about in general stop using Wikipedia as a discussion forum? Stop rules lawyering and stop making wasted edits. Stop arguing just to argue as you're doing here. And yes, that is what you're doing because you've been told so many times, you already know what behaviour is expected. If you still claim you don't, you should be able to go find out easily enough. - Taxman ^Talk 20:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I can determine from all the criticisim (in the absence of specifics) is that some Admins would like to gag me completely.--Light current 13:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Community probation

Why are we wasting time on this? I propose we apply a Wikipedia:Community sanction and ban Light current and StuRat from the reference desks for an appropriate period of time (perhaps 2 weeks to start), to be enforced by appropriate blocks. Thatcher131 21:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Quoting what reason? If its funny comments, yould better ban all the other joking RD editors as well so that it doesnt appear to be discrimination. Also you will need to change the rules so that any form of joking on RDs is banned.--Light current 21:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of Light's edits seem to be acceptable and he seems to have actually answered serious questions with serious answers on some occasions. I suggest for now simply strong caution to use the reference desk primarily for what it is designed for. While joking may be acceptable under some circumstances, they should be kept to a minimum. JoshuaZ 21:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

StuRat, as far as I've seen, has been incredibly informative on the RDs. He's also been more serious recently, even if he's not stone-serious I havn't noticed anything that could be construed as disruptive since the last time this was brought up with him. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

THank you Joshua for that sensible comment. 8-) I agree to do that and if you look at my replies over the last week or so, you will in fact see that the amount of foolish silly replies from me has markedly diminished.

Also some people may have noticed that I am in fact trying to form a set of guidelines for posting on the RDs. This process was going quite well until the present distraction. Also remember that a great deal (the majority) of silliness is initiated by silly questions from unknown users who do not sign their posts. Guidelines on how to deal with trolling or stupid questions will also need top be developed. I think this procedure is far better than leaving judgement upto individuals as to whether a particular post is offensive, silly, tolling etc. That is one reason I proposed that it should take the agreement of 2 editors before any post was removed from the Rds(except in cases of blatant violiation of WP:Civi, WP:BITE etc.).In fact maybe the last guideline to add to the 3 I have already formulated would be:

While joking may be acceptable under some circumstances, it should be kept to a minimum.

8-)--Light current 21:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

May I make a comment about LightCurrent? This is my observation after several months of interaction.

1. I believe this is a good-faith editor, and I don't think strict/punitive remedies are necessary or desirable.
2. I think his problems stem from two sources: a) I believe he is truly, genuinely incapable of recognising the line between appropriate and inappropriate humour/comments. That, IMO, is why he is pushing for rules and regs on this matter; I think he invests a lot of emotion into his work on WP and it causes him a great deal of anxiety to have uncertainty/ambiguity v/v its reception. Compounding that is that b) he has no faith in the community at large to guide him in matters of appropriate communication. I believe it causes him great anxiety to feel 'at the mercy' of a bunch of people.
3. I believe he has a problem with authority, and that extends not only to Administrators, but in fact to anyone who offers feedback or concrit, however mild, on his contributions or behaviour. Note that for a couple of months, he had a header on his userpage reading something like, 'Barnstars from my friends, blocks from my enemies'. He can't recognise when a critical observation or inhibiting action is taken against him in good faith, or to be helpful. Such actions automatically make the perpetrator an enemy.
4. I think the only reasonable solution is if an editor can be found who has community trust and common sense, and who would be willing to mentor/mediate, and from whom LightCurrent would actually accept concrit and gentle guidance. I do not know if such a person exists, because I have seen numerous instances of LC reject and pillory even the gentlest, most well-meaning guidance. OR, we just accept the status quo. Because in my observation any comment or attempted intervention from the community at large generates a firestorm of conflict that LC and a couple of other editors latch onto, to the detriment of the community. Anchoress 21:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a very good summary and I dont think I can disagree with any part of it. I am particularly impressed with the fourth suggestion as I do find that reasoned argument works better with me than threats or critisism. Also yes if we did have rules and reg, everyone including me would know where the line was. I am the first to admit it when I have been shown to be wrong as past evidence shows. I thank Anchoress for taking the time to do this personality analysis. 8-)--Light current 22:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, its dead on. However it isn't the community's place to legislate or make insanely detailed rules for behaviour because you are incapable of understanding what is over the line. In fact, I know you are capable because you replaced the original offensive post with one that is slightly better, so that's evidence your brain works, you just aren't using it most of the time. Find someone to help you. Maybe SCZenz will do it since he thinks that the people who posted here are so abusive. pschemp | talk 12:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

(The last sentence misunderstands the context of the message it links, and misrepresents my position. Please see my note on pschemp's talk page. -- SCZenz 17:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC))

Well really I cant quite see the difference apart from the wording being more formal (less colloquiall). Perhaps its colloquiall language that gets your goat? Unfortunately, if you keep it a secret as to what offended you, no one will know what to avoid in the future. Also, I bet that what offended you was not the same thing as what offended some other commenters. But of course we wont know until everyone is specific about what exactly is offensive of wher exactly the line is drawn.

Anyway why do you object to having some rules on the RDs. You seem to quote your own versions of the existing rules often enough when it suits you. I wouldnt say the people posting here are abusive. Some are however seem agressive and hostile as if their very existence were being threatened. Is that your reason?--Light current 12:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a babysitting service. pschemp | talk 13:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Then why act as a baby sitter? And please do not remove my posts. You are acting outside your authority.--Light current 13:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove any post made by you to this thread. Please remove your paranoid hat. pschemp | talk 17:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible resolution

After discussions with Light current and pschemp, I will be working personally with Light current on this stuff. This would be something like the mentorship suggested above; I hope to come to some understanding with him on what's appropriate for the reference desk, and on how to handle disputes about such issues in the future. If there are further problems that I miss, I would appreciate being informed of the situation and being given the chance to take the first try at handling the issue through discussion. -- SCZenz 03:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Good luck, SCZenz and don't hesitate to ask for help with anything if you need it.... thanks for agreeing to take this on. ++Lar: t/c 17:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

He wont need any! 8-|--Light current 17:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Another reference desk issue

While people in this thread are discussing the Reference Desk, I'd like to ask whether I am the only one who finds this thread inappropriate? It's partly because I happened to have noticed elsewhere the self-identified age of one of the participants in the thread (a reason why I increasingly try to keep tabs on that sort of thing - sometimes it is helpful to know the age of the people you are talking with), but also because in general the way the original question was phrased might well be something that would be considered inappropriate for Wikipedia. Carcharoth 03:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit I would prefer to see it deleted as inappropriate to the reference desk— not for exactly the reasons you cite, but on the grounds that it is not a science question, and indeed not a question that we could factually answer in any meaningful way. -- SCZenz 03:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with both -- this seems way beyond what the RD is intended for. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 04:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I too would agree that I personally find this thread disturbing and worrying nad not at all to my taste. However I will strongly defend its retention as it appears not to break any current guidelines and many people will not find it objectionable. If people want to ban this sort of discussion, then a guidelines on sexual acts or use of certain language on RD should be drafted. This is a very good example of the point about censoship that I have been trying to make the past few days. People keep on saying that WP is not censored. REmoval of this thread without backup from existing guidelines will prove that this is not the case. If you cut this, whats next? 8-(--Light current 08:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually agreeing with Light current here. It isn't an unreasonable question to ask in of itself. I find the practice a bit gross myself but that isn't a reason to censor it. In fact, this is a good example of the desk being used for what it is supposed to be used for. A question was asked and it was answered with pointers to the relevant Wikipedia articles. JoshuaZ 08:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia is not censored for minors, and I usually don't bring up age issues, as many people around here don't divulge their age, but it is with questions like this that I suddenly find myself drawing back and thinking, "hang on, I (and many other people) would talk differently about this topic if I (or they) were aware of the age of the people reading and posting in the thread." I have no problem with children reading encyclopedic articles about such topics, as the articles can be presented neutrally, but on these topics the tone of the discussions are more subjective and need to be tailored to the age of the people asking the questions. To be quite clear, it is not the self-identified age of the original questioner I am worried about, it is the self-identified (on their user page) age of one the participants in the thread. About the relevance of the question to the Reference Desk. It is always possible to slide around a question and try and make it relevant, but it is quite clear the original poster wasn't asking about the subjects people changed the thread into. Carcharoth 10:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Are these people under 16? If not whats the prob? You can have sex at 16 (ie whilst still a minor) here. And I assume that includes all forms of legal sex however perverted an individual might think. I believe a*** sex between opposite sexes is legal in the UK presently. I believe also that at one time not long ago it was not. So the question was in fact refering to legal activities (in UK at least)

So what you are implying is that it was not the original question that should be disallowed, but one ore more of the responses for veering off topic? Is that right? But of course in the absence of guidelines to the contrary, all respondents semm to have acted preoperly 8-)--Light current 15:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the people responding to that thread self-identifies as 12 years old. I didn't want to have to say that quite so bluntly, as I thought I'd made it clear above that looking at the user pages of the people involved in the thread would have made clear my concerns. I'm not saying that such questions should be avoided, but that people involved should remember that, by Wikipedia's very nature, minors (self-identified or otherwise) may be reading and even participating in such threads. And it is not the type of sex involved that worries me, more the whole idea of people in that thread discussing sex as if they were talking to adults, but probably not realising that one of the people in the thread was 12 years old. Carcharoth 16:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware of the age. However, if the respondents are aware that the OP may be asking about illegal activities, surely that is covered somewhere in the guidelines or policies? If not, the respondent should point out the legality of the activity and in any case refuse to aid and abet someone in commiting a crime! Knowledge in it self is not evil. Its how you use it--Light current 16:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But this is not what I was talking about. I am merely wondering whether the people participating in that discussion would have said things differently if they had been aware of the ages of the people involved in the dicussion (not the original poster). Not whether the activities or discussion of said activities are illegal. My position is that people should remember the "I don't know how old this user is" thing, and remember this when they find themselves talking about whatever they personally feel to be 'adult' material. This only applies to discussions, because minors reading Wikipedia are the responsibility of their guardians (who should be aware that Wikipedia has material not suitable for minors). When you are directly corresponding with someone on a talk page or at the reference desk, it is important to check whether that user has self-identified their age, because if you would act differently towards someone of that age if they were standing in front of you, you should do the same online. If they don't self-identify their age, then no problem. Just remember that you don't know their age. Carcharoth 16:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think WP RD has a duty to refer the OP (however old they are) to the answers they are seeking. Discussion of the nicities of the subject is not required. WP is not censored for minors! Do you think it should be. 8-? For instance:

Q: what is anal sex?

A: See anal sex is all thats needed. 8-)--Light current 17:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look at what I wrote, you will see that I wrote above: "I know Wikipedia is not censored for minors". Given that, why are you now turning round and trying to tell me this?

Now, your example is a simple RD question and answer. The problem comes when people post questions like "how to I get my girlfriend to do XYZ?", and people reply "practice safe sex", when they should reply "we don't answer questions like that" (plus, "practice safe sex" if they want to say that).

But again, this is going away from my point (ie. going off-topic), which is: Wikipedians in general (including those at the Reference Desk) need to remember that unless they are told otherwise, the user they are talking to could be a minor, so self-regulate yourself as you would if talking to someone face-to-face. This is not just the OP in a thread (which is what you are focussing on for some reason), but any anonymous person on Wikipedia. Carcharoth 17:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well its interesting you should bring up such a point. THis very problem is dealt with in the first of my proposed guidelies: Address the question, not the questioner. ie the question should be answered in a matter of fact way referring to our pages on the subject where we have them. THe RD editors should not actually be 'talking' to anyone. 8-)--Light current 17:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Age of consent

This can be as low as 14 years in some parts of Europe! [1]--Light current 16:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So? You are going off-topic. Carcharoth 16:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No its completely pertinent to the above discussion. If the age of consent is 14 where they live and they ask any question about sex, its legal and therefore proper to give factual replies! 8-)--Light current 16:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You missed my point. I've said several times above that it is not the age of the OP I was worried about (the OP in fact only gave the age of his girlfriend). It was the age of one of the participants in the thread I was trying to get people to consider. So yes, you were going off-topic (which is not to say that that is a bad thing). Carcharoth 17:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ive just looked and I cant see any evidence of any of the respondents stating their ages. They could have been removed I suppose.--Light current 21:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah respondents in the thread! Not participants in the act! I see. Well we cant stop minors from viewing or responding on threads. THe only way to do this is to have a censored version of WP for minors. I suggested this before Juniorpedia or some such name.--Light current 17:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, the answers given in the case, are dangerously close to giving medical advice, which really bothers me and moreover one respondent is nearly suggesting the guy just do stuff to his girlfriend without asking her or discussing it. I can't wait to hear the case where "the guys on Wikipedia told me to do it." is used as a rape defense. The question is problematic and so are the answers. pschemp | talk 20:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So whats the answer? Block 'em all? Also Carcharoth was worried about one of the participants being only 12. What about our 12 year old admins: are they immune from this sort of material?--Light current 20:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I mean: should we really have admins who are below the age of consent? Never mind the age of majority or 'key of the door' age.--Light current 21:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You totally missed my point. I'm not talking about age at all. I'm talking about the legal ramifications of giving advice. pschemp | talk 17:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well my opinion is that we shouldnt be giving out advice. Either legal, medical, financial, sexual or personal other than to seek help from the appropriate experts! 9-)--Light current 17:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

AOL vandal reverting User:Hu12's edits

Need some help with this, an AOL vandal has been repeatedly reverting many of User:Hu12's edits, and it's quite aggravating to me, as I'm sure it must be to him (ex. diffs: [2], [3], [4], [5]). It's quite likely the spammer is the same as had posted personal information on my userpage from AOL, and was noted as likely through a checkuser here to be the since banned User:EinsteinEdits. As both myself and Hu12 reverted and repeatedly warned this user for his linkspam, and this vandalism started soon after that (and I know, personally, that I haven't done anything that might antagonize anyone here recently), it seems obvious to me that it's the same person doing it. I had been liaising with User:Kylu on this problem (see some messages on her talk page regarding this situation here, however it appears she has gone on Wikibreak. So I figure it's high time I come here, and ask for others to keep an eye on this AOL vandal, and especially Hu12's contributions, since they seem to be getting reverted on a daily basis. Thanks. -- SonicAD (talk) 05:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a thebookstandard.com-related effort. El_C 06:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, he'd been doing it before he reverted anything having to do with that website. See [6] [7], [8], and especially this, as this vandal has repeatedly reverted (probably more than any other of the pages he's reverted) Tickle Me Elmo, which User:EinsteinEdits repeatedly spammed with http://www.tmx-elmo.org . -- SonicAD (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I stand collected. El_C 13:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This aol proxy Vandal, in addition to what SonicAD has mentioned, has also threatened Pilotguy,by blanking his talk page and leaving this [9], resulting from the revision here. This vandal has been well doccumented, more background can be found in the following locations; [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] and [15]. Most recently has vandalized these pages; [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Hu12 16:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

More.. [24], [25] Hu12 19:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Copying this section back from the archive, as it looks to be continuing... [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31] -- SonicAD (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

continues... [32], [33], [34], [35], [36] Hu12 18:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

more: [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Please SOMEONE help. -- SonicAD (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

More regarding Bobabobabo

This is an e-mail I received from a person alleging herself to be Bobabobabo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s teacher:

Dear user,

Many of my students at my Private School called the "Learning Community School" are complaining about being blocked from the internet site called "Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia". I don't know the reason for this six month ban. The private school IP is 72.177.68.38, which is located in a residential area of Austin.

I has asked some of the student if they vandalized Wikipedia, many of the students are bullying a student, which was a contributor of Wikipedia under the name Bobabobabo which what she told was having problems with some users over Pokamon articles which looking up articles not school related is against the rules, so the three students began creating user names and began vandalizing the pages that Bobabobabo editted. She and I talked about the bullying. I restricted the three students from using the computer until next year.

I hope you can reconsider unblocking the IP and Bobabobabo because what she has told was she being made fun.

Thank you,

Lisa

6th Grade Social Studies Teacher

It seems to have a ring of truth to it, but is sent from an yahoo.com address, which can of course be faked by anyone. It also doesn't boost my confidence that just a day earlier, Bobabobabo had (as far as i know, falsely) told me that Centrx (talk · contribs) agreed to have her block lifted. However, I agreed to post the e-mail here to ask for consensus on this. I still do not particularly endorse granting or denying this request. --Nlu (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a joke. The spelling (and grammar) is awful, and she would have sent it from a school email address, not yahoo. yandman 16:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's just wash our hands of this Bobabobabo business and be done with her and her school. Nlu, if you wish, I can disclose to you the email address of Bobabobabo and compare it with the email address from "Lisa Mercato." Just send me an email, and I will get back to you once I am out of my Marine Bio lecture.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

An idea: why not ask her to send an email from her .edu address in order to verify her title? I don't think that's asking too much; if we're dealing with a 6 month ban, and just considering ignoring her anyway, I don't think another day or two hastle in getting her to send it from an official address would be a problem. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on that email, I wonder why the teacher is asking for the block to be lifted. The teacher realizes Bobabobabo was using school computers to edit Pokemon articles, which is against their rules. Why would a teacher ask us to lift a ban that would allow a student to go back to breaking school rules? Because she feels bad the student was bullied? Hmm...Metros232 18:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you might want to talk to Can't sleep, clown will eat me - he says he blocked it long term becuase it was an open proxy. I might point out that the teacher's claims hold up - there were a lot of Pokemon changes, but little vandalism. But as a teacher, I can understand why she would be frustrated that her class was blocked. In any case, I def advise talking to Clown. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha, you got that email too? I got the email last week because I blocked some of the sockpuppets of Bobabobabo. They claimed it was a 6th grade student, and I still said no. I later received an email from the teacher, and then another one from "Bobabobabo". It's all BS. Nishkid64 19:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, one of the IPs was an open proxy (the website claims that it allows you to use MySpace at school). The other IP Raul654 said (when we double checked the massive sockfarm listed somewhere above) was a residential IP address, which is more than likely her own (unless the school uses Roadrunner/Comcast, whatever it was).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The "IP Info" button on the IP's talk page is a wonderful thing. I've got the school's contact e-mail and I'm writing to them myself. Durova^Charge! 16:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, open proxy. What school would use that? This is nonsense from start to finish. Durova^Charge! 17:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Two were open proxies, and then there was 72.177.68.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which belongs to Road Runner. I am not sure about the fourth... —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Latest sock unblock attempt from this most persistent vandal. (aeropagitica) 18:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Two more admins have contacted me today saying they have received similar emails and wanted to know what was going on. 19:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I got one today from Bobabobabo begging to be unblocked. (Can you say "delete button"?) --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 20:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I also used to get e-mails from Bobabobabo (as well as some spammage on my talk) after I blocked some of supposedly Interrobamf's socks (that turned out to be Bobabobabo's per CU), but pretty different in nature - he/she asked me to protect a few Pokemon articles, block users like Ryulong, User:Interrobamf, A Man In Black etc. Needless to say, I have promptly ignored these requests, but the e-mails came from 2 different @lycos.com addresses. Misza13 16:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

With all 81 sockpuppets, and various attempts to forgo process on the Pokemon articles, I would heavily suggest not giving this one heed. If he/she wants to contribute constructively, he/she can create another account, and handle things better with them. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The question is, how do we deal with this issue? --SunStar Net 18:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed indef-ban of User:SPUI

This user appears to have left in early October. His only edits since then have been to SQUIDWARD pages and violate 3RR. He has also been blocked many, many times before. At one point I would not have wanted him to be indefbanned, since many of his edits were good. However now he is no longer making good edits, and seems to eant to leave the community anyway.Drennleberrn 20:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

SPUI contributes in his own special way. And you seem to have only registered in the past week. How is it that you know so much about SPUI?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The edits with 'squidward' edit summaries and those which led to the 3RR violation were all perfectly valid changes. Thus, your statement that "he is no longer making good edits" is simply false. Nothing in SPUI's recent behaviour comes anywhere remotely near requiring a community ban. --CBD 11:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a motion at the ArbCom to ban him for a year. See WP:RfArb#SPUI. Carcharoth 14:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandal with grudge against William Connolley the user taking it out on the William Connolley article

User:MarkThomas appears to have taken it upon himself to vandalize the William Connolley article in retribution for an earlier block dealt to him by the administrator User:William M. Connolley.

These actions have mostly included blanking ([43], [44], [45], [46], [47]), but also included some simple nonsense vandalism such as [48] and [49]. He also gave 2 rather WP:POINTed talk page suggestions here and here, and bragged about his earlier vandalism [50]. His edit summaries have also generally be insults against Connolley.

During a short period in which he was not actively damaging the page, another user (with a similar name pattern) conveniently emerged to continue his vandalism ([51], [52]) Mark Thomas also ignored a vandalism warning left to him by another user[53] and threatened to report me for 3RR violation for reverting his vandalism [54].

I request User:MarkThomas be blocked for disruption, vandalism, and most likely personal attacks as well. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 08:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours.--MONGO 12:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed one of his talk page comments as particularly abusive as well, per Wikipedia:remove personal attacks.. A check of the article history reveals that the user only started to edit this article, after his original 3rr imposed by Connolley had expired. Morwen - Talk 12:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And you can add Appeals to Jimbo[55] and talk page trolling[56] to the list of misdeeds. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And to top it all off, I've filed an WP:RFCU case on him for his abusive sockpuppet assistant User: Sarah Williams here. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 12:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser has come back, with no surprises. further ban evasion has been made. I propose to give User:MarkThomas and his sockpuppets an indefinite community ban, until such time as they admit to abusive sockpuppetry and promise to stop. [The comment here was particularly unacceptable. Would this seem sensible to others? Morwen - Talk 00:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Methinks this an acceptable solution; or at least a long ban (e.g., 3-4 weeks). If he admits he did wrong and apologizes, then he's let back in. But until then, a community ban seems acceptable. The 3-4 weeks might be enough, though, to get him to think about his conduct, and reconsider in the future.-Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Reading misogynist comment makes me reconsider. Perhaps a community ban is better until he admits contrition. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice that comment on my talk page, actually. I love the way he plays the sexist card at me for no good reason. Also, I think that his creation of additional sock User:DecadentAdminAttacker proves he's not particularly repentant. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 00:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think his present behaviour is so out of the pale it cannot really be tolerated. This is not to preclude that he can stop at any time. However, an indef block at this stage may just further inflame the grudge and lose all hope of redemption. Shall we see how he is over next couple of days and do this if needed? Morwen - Talk 00:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There is only really one question to be answered here, which is: do we think this user is likely to calm down and resume making good edits? If we do, then we should ban him, as a community act, from the William Connolley article, and possibly place him on civility parole. If we think that he is never going to reform then we should show him the door. I lean to the former view myself. Either way, he can challenge a community sanction via ArbCom and we can restrict by block any disruption in the mean time. Guy 14:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems a reasonable approach. Morwen - Talk 16:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This does not look like your routine frustrated POV-pusher, so I've left a note on his Talk advising that, if he has a beef with William, he take it to dispute resolution rather than waging war. I suspect he will calm down when he returns. I am not sure whether we should press for an apology, probably not worth it. Guy 18:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you examined the disputed edits he made at George Galloway? The checkuser case above has links to them. They do seem incompatible with WP:BLP. Morwen - Talk 19:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFSL

I have written a proposal for a hybrid between RfC, Arbcom and the Community Ban and named it WP:RFSL. It is intended to be an RFC with teeth (or faster Arbcom that works be Admins not by Arbitrators or Community ban with discussions). What do you think? Will it work? Can it be abused? Alex Bakharev 09:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm not an expert at RfCs, though... What is an "RfC with teeth"? If during an RfC strong remedies are proposed and endorsed by a substantial number of editors, I don't see why such strong measures from a regular RfC couldn't be enforced. So, if regular RfCs have no teeth it's because nobody proposes or endorses stringent messures. A regular RfC has the advantage over this new RfS proposal that the decision-making isn't limited to admins. I don't particularly like the idea of giving admins a role akin to an "arbcom-at-large" or "ad-hoc arbcom". On the other hand, this is what sometimes happens anyway at WP:AN/I, so maybe this could be seen as a formalization of an existing informal process... There's also the timing question. New ArbCom elections are upcoming: why not wait and see whether the newly constituted ArbCom manages to work more speditively? Lupo 10:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing? Durova^Charge! 15:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This needs to dovetail with Wikipedia:Community sanction a new policy written to document our recent community probations. I mention on the talk page that user conduct RFCs can be a starting place for community sanctions. I did so because currently a RFC has a motion for community santions. FloNight 21:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Both WP:DE and Wikipedia:Community sanction are very good policies, IMHO. The policies are new maybe we should see if they will work. I was thinking among other thinks about some cases like WP:AN/I#Homeontherange_Again there many admins insist on permaban, but some does not agree. In that case some structured way to deal with the problem faster then through arbcom may help. Also if there was a process to have a consensus solution for the chronic revert wars (like "if we allowed to name Moldavian language as Romanian language?", "if Category:Genocide suitable for Holodomor", "when it is appropriate to use word liberate", etc it would be a breeze. Alex Bakharev 23:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What new ground would this proposal cover? If there's a lot of overlap then it may be more effective to propose this as an addition to some existing guideline. Durova^Charge! 03:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• That is a good point. I'd say it overlaps a lot with Wikipedia:Community sanction, so I've put on a merge tag. >Radiant< 09:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that they will combine well. The Community sanction policy is written to reflect the new practices that have emerged over the last few months. It is flexible with no particular way to reach consensus for community sanctions. WP:RFSL does not describe a current community practice. It appears to be a more rigid process than the community wants to use. Instead I think that user conduct RFCs will be a spring board for community sanctions in some instances. Overtime when this happens we can document it with policy. Thoughts? FloNight 15:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think RFSL is too process-heavy. The problem with RFC (or one of the potential problems) is that if there is consensus that an editor's behavior is a problem but the editor doesn't agree, there is no enforcement mechanism but to take it to Arbitration. Rather than adding yet another step in the dispute resolution process, Community sanction becomes the enforcement mechanism for RFC. When there is strong consensus that action needs to be taken, the participants can bring their case here. I expect that once it becomes more widely known that admins are willing to enforce article bans, revert paroles, and so on, there will be a lot less dead-end RFCs. Thatcher131 15:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Plus the fact that as Flo says, Community sanction is something we are already willing to do, RFSL is an eniterly new thing which will likely attract a lot of debate if we try to implement it. Thatcher131 15:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually WP:DE links RfC to community sanctions, although only in cases where uninvolved editors form the consensus. Is that the difference here? 72.199.30.31 17:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

At that moment I put the proposal to get feedback and start a sort of brainstorming not to seek the immediate adoption of the proposal.

(de-indent) I dislike this idea. Administrators and regular editors are NOT different classes of users here and the opinion of an administrator is not intrinsically worth more then that of a user. ---J.S (t|c) 18:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Which idea? I'm starting to lose the thread here. Thatcher131 19:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Still there are processes like Community Ban there administrators as a whole acts as committee. I was trying just to put some formal process into it. Alex Bakharev 00:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like a clear explanation of this proposal's unique purpose. No disrespect, Alex. It just seems that a couple of recent guidelines cover pretty much the same ground. Durova^Charge! 04:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

At the very least I'm going to remove the merge tag from Wikipedia:Community sanction, since it is too early to consider merging a description of what we already do with an entirely new proposed process. Thatcher131 04:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• By "merge" I do not mean "cut/paste everything from one page onto the other" but something like "add the best parts of the proposal onto the already mostly accepted page". >Radiant< 09:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. My concern is that one describes what the community is already doing and the other is proposing a fairly rigid new process. I do not think that they mix that well for that reason even though they do overlap. As we find our way with community sacnctions I've tried to carefully follow the community lead here instead of getting ahead. Waiting for the community to use the authority that we had newly recognized on this page in discussions before introducing it. Doing it this way was key to successful introduction of Wikipedia:Community sanction, I think. FloNight 22:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please delete

Would someone please delete the redirect Medical assistant so I can move the Medical Assistant (MA) article to that title? -THB 17:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Done, and I made the move too. Can you clean up a few of the articles that link to Medical Assistant (MA)? I see this has already been done in the past and somebody moved it from Medical assistant to Medical Assistant (MA) without much justification. Oh well. - Taxman ^Talk 19:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thanks for your (extra!) help! -THB 19:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Making a similar request here: can an admin remove the redirect RPG Maker so the RPG Maker Series article can be moved to that space? NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 18:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, can any admin help me with this? I still can't move the page until the "RPG Maker" redirect is deleted. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 18:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Categories' order within an article

I was quite certain there was a guideline—or at least a consensus—that categories should be arranged in alphabetical order within articles, in part because sorting by relevance is a subjective exercise at best. Does this ring a bell with anyone? Darned if I can find it... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I know that's the procedure for interwiki links, but I don't specifically remember seeing anything like that for categories. Couldn't hurt though. --Daniel Olsen 00:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it appears there isn't one. I've begun a discussion toward that aim. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've always thought it was alphabetical too, but I can't remember if years categories (like Category:1945 births are sorted before or after the alphanumeric categories. Hbdragon88 01:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely before; but I don't want to search for it again ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone want to make a Bugzilla feature request for this? howcheng {chat} 21:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd oppose that. Category order should be flexible; see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#What is the issue here?. Chick Bowen 22:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd also oppose it for similar reasoning. While sorting by relevance may be subjective, the same can be said for any authorial decisions regarding structure or content of an article. The times when sorting alphabetically makes sense is when no reasonable order of relevance exists or when an item in the list is likely to be searched for. In the case of categories, I'd argue that they are more likely to be looked at to find related categories of articles, and for this purpose it would be more useful to put the most "relevant" categories first. If need be, an editor comment explaining the rationale behind the ordering should help when consensus on relevance is desired or to assist editors in maintaining the ordering. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 21:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Relevance" is POV based on the person editing or reading the article, nothing more. The very next person will most likely disagree with the ordering, and change it. If it's alphabetical, you won't have anyone saying "but B should come before A". --Kbdank71 21:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Relevance" is POV — pretty much total disagreement here, at least if this was intended as a sideways reference to WP:NPOV, unless we want to say the entire encyclopedia is POV. We constantly have to make subjective authorial and editorial judgements regarding relevance in order to create the encyclodedia. If we're not making these judgements, then how do we decide what articles to include and not to include; what to include in the article and what not to include; and what order to discuss items in an article (or maybe we should just sort the subtopics in an article alphabetically?) The fact is, we can't create an encyclopedia without continuously making judgements regarding relevance. Now what I do agree with is that the next person to come along might have a different idea regarding relevance and change it—gee, that sounds kind of like how the whole editing and article creation process here works. Using order of relevance is not only acceptable, but I would say it is often preferred. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 22:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:RM backlog

The backlog at WP:RM is now really big, and a helping hand would be welcome. I don't have much time myself at the moment though. Duja► 09:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll get on it. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Email on "how wikipedia really works" by User:Tern

Did anyone else recently receive a lengthy (ranting) e-mail from a person claiming to be Tern (talk · contribs) with the subject linke "how wikipedia really works"? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Not me but i suggest you use a spam filter if you got it and ignore the issue. I see that this issue has been taking a long time. Zscout370 was the first to block his account on August 2005. -- Szvest 15:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}

Ugh. I blanked his Talk, since it was one long diatribe. Clearly this person is unfamiliar with the old adage "when you are in a deep hole, stop digging". Guy 18:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Preying from the Pulpit, First Baptist Church of Hammond, Jack Hyles, Hyles-Anderson College, and any related article which contains poorly sourced controversial material are placed on article probation. The material in dispute between Vivaldi and Arbustoo has been determined to be controversial material which does not have an adequate source. They are warned to avoid edit warring and encouraged to edit the articles in dispute appropriately.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 18:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Haven't click the link yet but... is this saying articles can be placed on probation? The idea has very great merit but huge implications for Wikipedia. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to have been used since July; see Wikipedia:Article probation. Melchoir 21:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Proof, if I needed it, of just how distracted I've been in that period. A wikibreak or better medical science are required! Thanks Melchoir! ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't mention it, I didn't know about this thing either before today. It's pretty rare. Melchoir 21:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Admin Act seems questionable

Can someone please review the precipitous action by Admin Carnildo on a fair use image deleted before the time limit, so far as I can see. I've been away and am still extremly busy, but what seemed to be some edit warring I looked in on as a Member's Advocate has me scratching my head as the image policies seem to now be applied contrary to common sense and way, way beyond legal needs. Template:ISee Part-II of User_talk:Carnildo#Missing_information. This is the section in /Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion-- which also seems to be part edit war. Thanks // FrankB 21:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo is absolutely right. This guy is not a recluse, and it would be quite possible to get a free use image of him. Better to use no image than one that violates fair use. -- Steel 21:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Carnildo here the fair use policy is pretty clear your suggestion on User_talk:Carnildo "Yeah, I'm going to hop a plane and go hunt the guy down for a Pic? So how many hundreds do you think I'll spend" misses the mark the policy says "No free equivalent is available or could be created" not "could be create cheaply by the person currently wanting to use the image". And your comment "You seem to be forgetting the mission—a world class information source", seems to be missing the very significant part of the mission - the "free" bit. --pgk 22:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I echo others' approval of this deletion, and would also point out that by clear consensus as well as with the authorization of the foundation, "legal needs" is not the issue. We want an image policy that's consistent with our article policy, which is that GFDL or public domain is the norm and relying on fair use a rare exception. Chick Bowen 23:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, of course, with the deletion. But I have a question: I often come across "fair use" images that aren't even close to being fair use. For example: Image:Axis porcinus.jpg: "This is fair use, because it's the only picture of this animal that I could find." (paraphrased). What should I do about these? Should I just delete these images, or is there a tag {{not-fair-use-please-delete}} that I can put on the image and just forget about it? I don't want to have to: put a tag on it that I cannot remember, notify the original uploader, AND add the image to a page like WP:PUI. It's such a clear violation of our FU policy that I'm not going to jump through that many hoops. Eugène van der Pijll 23:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that clearing up this kind of thing is needlessly buraucratic. There's always {{Fair use replace}}, but in this case I doubt anyone would object to an out of process speedy. -- Steel 23:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Gone. Let's consider it a test case and see what happens. Chick Bowen 00:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy it, or stick {{Replaceable fair use}} on it if you want to give it a seven-day stay of execution. --Carnildo 00:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that template was what I was looking for. It seems that images tagged with that template will be looked at and deleted in a reasonable time, which is what I wanted. Eugène van der Pijll 11:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Not Free? How is that really germane?

• This strict constructionist interpretation of an 'ideal goal' in a work in progress is really baffling to me from the standpoint of quality of the product and respect for other editor's time and interests. Do keep in mind, if an editor is interested in a topic, there are tens of thousands of readers who are likely to be looking in and appreciative. Template:ISo happens I'd briefed the uploader by email on how to obtain a free image sans a costly flight, but this unecessary rush to delete material before it can be replaced only makes our articles poorer to my way of thinking—a case of throwing out the baby with the dirty bath water. Template:IWould that most of you champions of the rule of 'free' should consider that this 'noble goal' is a mirror of an ideal that the English wikipedia be portable to several hundreds of relatively minor cultures, not a legal need—so there is no reason to rush to delete such (save perhaps anal retentativeness and an over indulgence in unnecessary and in this case harmful rules worship). Template:ITo my mind, unnecessarily removing any good-faith content, perhaps especially pics (the old saw: 'A picture speaks a thousand words' certainly applies in cases like this! <g>), just diminishes and devalues the overall results and quality we are (all? hopefully) trying to obtain. Never mind that properly attributed publicity pics are something the theoretically harmed owner will cheer us on doing to include, when such 'harm' is added, this gets beyond ridiculous into the realm of stupid and self-defeating. Template:II suppose we ought to follow the logical extension and start speedy-deleting book and magazine cover art too... to be consistant and logical, so we can all look ourselves in the mirror without regrets. Not! Template:IIn sum, that idealistic introductory paragraph is self-defeating and inconsistant in WP:FUC, and I'd really respect you all better if you were thinking of the big picture, not some trivial idealistic non-need that cannot be satified perfectly given books, et. al. Please focus on the content and the user-reader, not editorial policies, making your decisions as admins 'easier' by blindly following bad voting results (We ALL should know how this kind of guideline twist happens. This one needs undone, clearly.) rooted in such inconsistancy, and the product will benefit greatly from all the time you free up undoing good things other editors add towards a better project. You could take all that energy and (shudder at the unthinkable!) have some time to add some content yourselves instead of indulging in the endless morrass of wiki-politics mistaking such time as being productive. They are at best supportive, not steps forward in-and-of themselves; I applaud your contribution that way, but please do keep that in mind whilst executing the office. (Yuck on this useless messaging!) Best regards, imho, that policy needs an enema and practial face-lift edit. I may just email Jimbo on this slanted interpretation. This is one more spill over from lack of top down direction and uniformity of policy. Cheers to you all! // FrankB 20:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

<Sigh>. We've been over this a million times. Please do e-mail Jimbo; a lot of our recent push to cut down on fair use images that aren't really fair use comes from him and from the Foundation. Chick Bowen 20:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In Frank's email to me, his primary concern seemed to be that he felt that I had been wishy washy about handing down decrees. Ok, that is normally a fair enough criticism of me, but it is my style, and a style that has served us well. But in further investigating the case, it became clear that his real concern is that policy is firmly against him in this case.--Jimbo Wales 21:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Jimbo -- I have no dog in this hunt, so really don't care which consistent policy is followed, so far as it is logically consistent—after eight years as a taxi dad, I really hope I never ever see another soccer game, so there is no 'my side', just a wrong thing here. There are too many nitpicky criteria to keep track of around here as it is, without illogical inconsistency— that's challanging enough as it is. As in my reply email, you can either disallow fair use or allow it. Not both. Have a good weekend all! // FrankB 05:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

In that case, this is not the place to debate policy. Admins just carry out policy, we don't determine it. You'll have to take your case to WT:FUC. Personally, I think banning fair use altogether is inevitable and should happen, but that we'll probably have to live with a wishy-washy policy during the transitional period. Chick Bowen 06:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what 'case' I have, but agree this (WP:AN) is certainly now not the venue, though was for the inital request. As I replied to Jimbo by email, it should be all Fair Use or none. I had nothing on the table on this, save it seemed nonsensically inconsistent, and still is to me. Apparently, whilst I was off-wiki dealing with RL, this was policy promongulated. But Kudos to Jimbo for growing a spine and actually doing some managing and setting a policy! That was quite a shock to realize! Maybe we're in for better days and our productivity will improve, should he keep on that tack! Do another Jimbo! One things certain... The banner template for 'Policy' really needs to be much better differentiated from the 'guidelines' box. After three years or so, I just overlook most of them for the text and they are way too similar! If you follow most of the thread(s), no one pointed out my error when I said 'guideline' (including a couple of user talks) so I didn't know I'd had egg on face until I was drafting my email reply to Jimbo last night. My premise above is clearly we were discussing a guideline... I've been in favor of more top-down managing for a long, long, long while! Template:IBest regards to all. This discussion now clearly all belongs elsewhere. // FrankB 15:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Unbifurcated users

Have a look at these two sets of contribs: [57], [58]. See the references to the so-called "fashion freedom" movement, links to Gaultier's "Bravehearts" show, edits to High-heeled shoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). And of course the "mug" bit (including adding the phrase "unbifurcated garments" to skirt and dress). The user is not banned, and there is no suggestion of block evasion, but it's not just me, ius it, this is the same guy? This [59] represents a POV-push of course. Guy 22:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

They certainly look the same to me, right down to their user pages. The latter account supports the former account in Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Male Unbifurcated Garment and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dr1819. Somewhat unexpectedly, Mugaliens claims to be more moderate than Dr1819. Either that's for show, or the user is honestly interested in making a fresh start. I don't know if his contributions uphold such an interest... Melchoir 23:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

(after ec) My impression is that they are different people who both happen to have the same interest. Dr1819 has a pretty distinctive style of interaction, which I don't see the traces of in Mugaliens's postings. Also, Dr1819 has some strong interests unrelated to unbifurcation, and Mugaliens doesn't seem to share them (although I confess I haven't gone through all his contribs). FreplySpang 23:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

(after looking more closely) Hm, I take it back, Mugaliens does seem to be a network engineer who is interested in aviation, much like Dr1819. They could be the same guy. But it's fine with me if he wants to make a fresh, more moderate start. FreplySpang 23:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed now: he's edit warring over links to kiltmen.com and inserted the word "unbifurcated" in skirt and dress. Guy 23:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Here we go again. It's all about bias and fashion nazism, nothign to do with WP:EL and removing linkspam. Obviously. Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Mugaliens, his article RfC. Guy 23:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

StonedChipmunk warning templates

Is it just me, or are most of these templates problematic? At best they seem unnecessarily confrontational. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 04:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not just you. I suggest that this editor may need a little help. He's using these user templates rather freely. John Reid ° 06:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

They're fairly confrontational, but I don't necessarily think they're bad. I'd just suggest he's careful when using them (a lot like {{blatantvandal}}. Alphachimp 07:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on him. He means well. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive145#Wikipedia_vandal_control. --Guinnog 11:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The images are really inflammatory. Official warning templates only have images (and a single stop hand sign) for the fourth level. Talk about having "grumpy users" scare off a newcomer. I'd be scared off if someone tuck a big-ass stop sign or something on my talk page, especially on a first-level warning. Hbdragon88 03:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

I just unprotected Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. This page has been the scene of a rather nasty edit war. Particularly, a member of CARM claims to have initiated legal action and then subsequently used sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets (the meatpuppets at least are confirmed) to continue editing the page while banned. I have unprotected the page because it has been protected for more than two weeks. However, I fear that people will resume the edit warring and perhaps try to bias the article as a result of the unprotection. If some other admins could monitor the page, I'd much appreciate it. I have no opinion as to the current level of bias in the page and frankly, I wish I had never heard of the page. But what I'm saying is that I'm not claiming the current page is unbiased, only that it is guaranteed to swing one way or another if the edit warring resumes. Particularly watch for people removing criticism from the article, or for other people inserting additional duplicated criticism. --Yamla 04:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Diane S was caught using more sockpuppets to get around a ban placed in response to her legal threat. --Yamla 03:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Ulritz and Rex Germanus are placed on revert parole. They are limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, they are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Ulritz and Rex Germanus are placed on probation for one year. They may be banned from any page or set of pages for disruptive edits, such as edit warring or incivility. All blocks and bans and are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 06:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Untrustworthy

It needs to be speedy deleted because it's a protected deleted page from over a year ago, created with the old method of adding mediawiki:noarticletext. Mediawiki:noarticletext used to be substed but in this case it wasn't. Therefore it confused me when it appeared in what links here for Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?. I couldn't find any other instances of pages protected against deletion in this way with a quick google search, but they could be out there. Graham87 10:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the transclusion from User:Stevey7788/Red1 and User talk:Georgia guy/Archive 1. Kavadi carrier 10:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Got rid of page. Morwen - Talk 11:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it seems there were also a lot of articles and user pages that were created with {{subst:MediaWiki:noarticletext}} . Perhaps an old bug that has now been fixed? I've marked many of them for speedy deletion or blanked them as appropriate. Graham87 11:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User Page Vandalism

Please look up to see my userpage being vandalized by an anonymous IP 203.171.70.136 and block it so that he does not go on to vandalize others involved in similar projects as that appears to be the intent here! Thanks Sudharsansn (talk ·  contribs) 13:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This should be reported at WP:AIV, you could always inform at any admin by poking them at their talk pages. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 13:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The IP has not vandalised since 11 hours ago (02:32 UTC). And it wasn't warned at all - talk page is still a redlink. Kavadi carrier 13:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Is removal of warnings a no-no?

On WP:PAIN, Durova states that there is no consensus for considering it improper when a user removes warnings from their talk page. If so, this comes as news to me. Where is/was this discussed?

Atlant 15:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Read the thread above. pschemp | talk 15:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Quoting MER-C, "here, here and here". yandman 15:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the references.

Atlant 15:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Basically, Durova is correct. While some RC patrollers are inconvenienced by warning removal and would like it to be a blockable offence, to my knowledge there are no admins who will actually block for this (as opposed to repeating the behavior that caused a warning in the first place, which obviously is bad). (Radiant) 16:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

THats funny. I got bollocked for removing warnings not long ago. Has the rule changed?--Light current 16:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Pretty much. More specifically, a group of people discussed it and found consensus for forbidding talk page warnings; but as they started acting on that and drew attention from others, people outside that group tended to disagree, and it started to become clear that the consensus of the group did not match the consensus of Wikipedia as a whole. (Radiant) 16:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"and it started to become clear that the consensus of the group did not match the consensus of Wikipedia as a whole" - sorry, that just made me giggle a bit. Clearly a larger structural problem... --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If someone is removing warnings and then continues to misbehave, then admins are free to take appropriate action. On occasions this might include replacing the warnings - but as a norm assmming good faith demands we assume the person has read and understood and wished to start again. Of course that assumption is easily rebutted if the misbehavious continues. However, {{Wr0}} seems to be nothing but an assumption of bad faith - if someoen removes warnings it looks to me more like they HAVE read them.--Doc^g 16:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Since I spend most of my administrative time at WP:PAIN and WP:RFI maybe I should explain my take on this more clearly. From the way I've read the threads on this debate, I just don't have authority to block in direct response to warning removals. I wish the community would back me in extreme cases such as when administrator warnings get blanked less than a day after they were posted. So as it is I don't block for that, but people who remove valid warnings almost always earn a block for established policy violations soon afterward. So I weigh the removal along with other factors when I decide how long to block them. Durova^Charge! 00:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on SCotUS page

Some one please fix the US Supreme Court Page: someone has inserted racist commentary and insulting photos. Sorry about my format, but this is the only way I know how to edit a page and its important this is fixed soon

It's being/been fixed.

Atlant 15:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

History merge

Would appreciate if someone could merge the histories of

• The Hits Album up to and including the "15:10, 2 March 2006 DJ HEAVEN" edit, and
• Hits (compilation series)

Basically, DJ HEAVEN made a cut-and-paste dupe article which ended up becoming the "main" article. Yes, I know that was a bad idea...

Please note that (a) The current version of The Hits Album is an automatic redirect, and (b) There is a different the hits album article (note capitalisation; that is a redirect only).

Fourohfour 15:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Done. (Radiant) 16:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Review a block I made on User:Bimzalazim

Hi. Perhaps the community should review a block I recently made on Bimzalazim (talk · contribs). I blocked user as a sock of Fakir005 (talk · contribs). Back story is archived at AN/I here.

In a nutshell, Fakir005's only edits and intents on WP was to improperly edit the Zedo, ad serving and related pages. After Fakir005 was blocked for disruption (not by me), s/he made threats of switching IPs to continue these efforts [60]. Shortly thereafter, ad serving was again vandalized in similar fashion by Bimzalazim [61]. The content & tone of this vandalism was similar to Fakir, it was the vandals first and only edit, and the username was obviously chosen as a derivative of my username. All these factors led me to the conclusion that Bimzalazim was a sock of Fakir attempting to continue the vandalism.

It seems Bimzalazim is e-mailing various admins (including myself) accusing me of being a sock/shill of Zedo and demanding to be unblocked. I don't agree, but perhaps it should be reviewed. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I was mailed. I asked if Bimzalazim hade previously edited as Fakir005. I'm still awaiting a reply. Charles Matthews 15:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have indefblocked that account just for the username. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 15:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Same here. I've received the e-mail as well, and I too would have indefblocked the account just for the username. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 15:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I too received the email. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 16:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I received the email also. I think probably Bimzalazim should be indefinitely blocked and I support the block on Fakir005. Seems to be no disagreement here other than from the person who has been blocked. --Yamla 16:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I received an email as well, which led me to ask ZimZalaBim about it (which ultimately led to this discussion). As I told ZimZalaBin, I would have allowed more edits before reaching his conclusion although I dont necessarily disagree with his conclusion. What is particularly suspicious is the edit mentioned above: [62] (although this was removed from the Fakir005's talk page so I didnt read it previously). It seems that you all are looking into this matter (& awaiting replys from Bimzalazim), so I'll leave it to you. However, I dont think that the chosen username is grounds for blocking in itself, pace a few of the opinions above. – ishwar  (speak) 18:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad there's support for my block. Would it be acceptable for me to remove this libelous comment [63] at User talk:Bimzalazim that User:Ish ishwar restored?

I restored the removed comment because it helped to inform me and potential others about the situation. As you probably know, removing personal attacks is controversial here. If something is particularly offensive, portions of the the comment can removed while leaving the rest visible for others. – ishwar  (speak) 18:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I received yet another email from Bimzalazim, again falsely claiming he has been blocked for calling Zedo an adware and claiming that ZimZalaBim is crooked and on the Zedo payroll. I responded pointing out the falsehoods and asking yet again if the user is really claiming he and Fakir005 are different people, pointing out that we can check to be sure. I suspect if I get any further emails from this person, I'll simply reply asking for the person to state under oath that he and Fakir005 are different people. Without that, there's really no benefit to continue responding. --Yamla 18:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I received another message from Bimzalazim, but no firm statement whether or not the accounts, Bimzalazim and Fakir005, were related. My response was as follows: "You have made no sworn statement that Bimzalazim and Fakir005 are unrelated accounts. I need you to state whether these two accounts are related or not. Until you do that, please do not email me further." The user did ask that both accounts were immediately unblocked, however, which strongly implies that Bimzalazim is indeed a sockpuppet of Fakir005. --Yamla 20:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I just received another message from this user, once again refusing to make any statement as to how the two accounts are related. This time threatening to make legal threats against me (sort of a meta-violation, though not a direct violation of WP:LEGAL). My response was to tell the user to stop emailing me unless willing to state how the two accounts are related. --Yamla 21:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I was first notified of Fakri005's edits on Zedo by User:DoGooderJohnnyD on October 9 [64]. (And I'm not currently on anyone's payroll, unfortunately). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Man, I would love to be on someone's payroll to do my Wikipedia work. howcheng {chat} 21:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I notified you of Fakir005's non-NPOV edits because you had a comment on that user's talk page reminding them of the WP NPOV policy. I never received any such comment on my talk page when I created my login, so I assumed this was in response to some sort of non-NPOV activity. I decided to notify you directly since you were probably already familiar with Fakir005's activity. I certainly find watching this whole process fascinating. Keep up the good work, everyone. --DoGooderJohnnyD 22:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like this was handled very reasonably but I do have one small suggestion. For future reference, I do not think users should be requested to provide statements "under oath" or "sworn" statements. We have no authority to be administering or demanding oaths and using that language carries a suggestion of legalism that we generally try to avoid. Just a thought. Newyorkbrad 21:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the user has now admitted to using abusive sockpuppets and plans to withdraw the legal threat. Just a heads-up. Newyorkbrad, I see your point. Do you believe it would be acceptable to ask a user to promise rather than swear? I am not trying to imply any legally binding statements, what I'm trying to ask is a sort of "swear" like kids make on the school yard. That is, "yes, I've thought about it and I do assert that the following statement is true." Does the term, "promise", carry sufficient connotation without the underlying legal implications? If someone swore and then we proved later they were lying, I'd be disappointed and believe it would show they are acting in bad faith, but obviously I would never launch legal action or anything. If "promise" does not serve, any other wording that you think would work? I find that occasionally I do need some sort of statement from a person in order for me to look at unblocking them or otherwise working on their behalf. --Yamla 22:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"Promise" or "definitely state" sound okay to me. Newyorkbrad 22:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I was away for a bit, and have just retrieved another e-mail from Bimzalazim (sent about 3 hours ago) calling me "a crooked Adminstrator taking this job only because you are promoting Zedo as an Adserver and raking in Millions..." and asserting that "You are a sock puppet of Zedo" etc, etc. For the record, I have absolutely no connection to Zedo or any other adware company, and as far as I know, no one in my family or close circle of friends has any connection to Zedo or any other adware company. As noted above, another editor pointed out the vandalism at the Zedo article to me a month ago, and that's how I got involved. I'm not a sock for anyone, and I honestly don't give a (bleep) about this particular company.

It also appears that User:Fakir005 has retracted the legal threats that got that user blocked [65]. I've left a message for the blocking admin (User:MONGO) of that fact. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to unblock him due to his legal threats on wiki and to me personally in email. If another admin wishes to review and do the unblocking, then that's up to them. He made it clear in an email to me that he intended to seek legal options, so I can't imagine why we would unblock him, but again, if another admin wants to unblock and monitor, that's up to them.--MONGO 23:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with MONGO. The unblock request seems either insincere or incorrect: the claim that he couldn't even view his talk page due to protection is wrong. And he even made abusive edits to the page after the block, most notably this threat to evade the block itself [66]. There is no evidence to conclude he would "have settled the matter then and there on 7 November, 2006". (And I have yet to see any public admission from Fakir005 of using "abusive sockpuppets" as Yamla hoped above.) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And I (who just unblocked him) agree with both MONGO and ZZB — but if my A of GF is proven wrong, we will reblock him and the case will be closed forever, since he will have used up more than his share of chances. A loon who rants about how we're making millions by promoting adware is hardly likely to maintain a low profile, is he? (Oh, and since you are raking in millions, can I get a loan?) ➥the Epopt 01:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I just did a little cleanup on the Zedo article, so I should be getting another royalty check soon. :) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Different images with common name on wikipedia and commons

I am unable to deal with the images which have common name on wikipedia and commons. Here is one case involving images, Image:Betty Blythe.jpg, Image:Betty Blythe1.jpg and Image:Betty Blythe.jpg. I want to replace Image:Betty Blythe1.jpg with Image:Betty Blythe.jpg. How could it be done? Shyam ^(T/C) 17:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Tag commons:Image:Betty Blythe.jpg with {{nsd}}, which it needs, and problem solved (in roughly a week). Jkelly 18:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, done:). But if we take a general case, when there are two fifferent images with same name on different project (commons and other than commons) then how the problem could be solved. Then we need to change the image name on the project other than commons? Shyam ^(T/C) 18:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no real easy way to rename image files. One can reupload an image to Commons (or to a local project) with a more descriptive name less likely to cause conflicts and tag the original as a duplicate for deletion. The movie poster image, for instance, could really stand to be renamed "Betty Blythe 1921 movie poster" or something of the sort. The point being that the conflict can be resolved by renaming at either Commons or the local project, but it is a bit of a hassle, especially if one doesn't have admin tools. Jkelly 18:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a case, an admin please delete the image without replacing the image with redundant file because other files links to the Image:Beethoven.jpg. Thanks, Shyam ^(T/C) 18:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. Done. Jkelly 18:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Betty Blythe1.jpg is by Nickolas Muray and is almost certainly not public domain. Chick Bowen 18:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Quick help with some copyvio

Mynameiscurtis (talk · contribs) is creating several articles, all with copyrighted text (good faith, no doubt). I informed him about once, and tagged several as speedy copyvio, but since I am leaving, I would like some administrator to check his other contributions for more copyvio, speedy delete them under G12, and to answer his questions if he has some. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 21:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

www.stateuniversity.com

I don't know how to do this, but I thought someone might: This site posted links in wikipedia for many of the pages listed on their site. Over 100 schools on their site and they are continuing to add more. 59.145.233.130, 59.95.66.173, 59.95.70.60, 74.134.246.13, 59.95.70.84, 59.145.233.130, 58.68.79.5 These are just a few of the IP's involved. It currently has 68 insertions in Wikipedia.

Also, this site is also connected with these others, many of which were added along with stateuniversity.com:

• www.encyclopedia.jrank.org
• www.madehow.com
• www.referenceforbusiness.com
• www.nationsencyclopedia.com
• www.everyculture.com

They keep switching ip's to break the pattern. Any help/advice would definitely be appreciated.

Stealthound 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone should blacklist those addresses if they keep evading possible bans. Hbdragon88 23:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

All affected pages are seen at Special:Linksearch, so you can get rid of the ones you think are unnecessary. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to request blacklisting, you may do so here. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Operation Gladio

seabhcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has misused his admin tools by reverting and then fully protecting an article that he is an active editor. He has decided that his version is the "final" version and reverted a differing version before protecting. This article should be unlocked immediately. He does not own this article. Tbeatty 00:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Operation Gladio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) links for convenience. Thatcher131 00:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Well, for one thing the article is generally deficient. I learned more from the opening paragraphs of this than I did from the article. Since the stay behind networks were real, a hoax tag over the whole article seems dishonest. The question seems to be whether or not these stay-behind groups committed acts of domestic terrorism. There should be a way of covering all of this in the article, i.e. a) what is known and not disputed about the stay at home networks; b) what is alleged, noting the sources on both sides of the forgery question. If there is any violation in protecting the version without the hoax tag it is minor; an uninvolved admin would have a 50/50 chance of picking that version anyway. Thatcher131 00:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• • What are we protecting it from? I can't implement your suggestions when the article is completely protected. The article will not change from being deficient in this state. --Tbeatty 02:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reprotected the page due to revert warring between User:Derex and User:Tbeatty. -- Steel 12:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

A revert war that didn't even rise to 3RR by either side. Please unprotect it so that it can be improved.--Tbeatty 06:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR is not a license to revert war so long as nobody goes over three a day. Revert warring considered harmful. Sort it out like civilised people on the Talk page please. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible vandalism only ID

Please take a look at the edits by User:Leftistguerrilla contribs (talk). Judging by the edits and by the user ID, it seems to be a vandalism only ID and possibly worthy of a block. Hu 01:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There are good-faith edits mixed in with the vandalism, so I've left him a stronger warning for now. If he realises that he can't continue editing properly when he feels like and vandalising when he feels like, good. If he doesn't take any notice, then he should be blocked. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Requesting an impartial administrator's opinion

I had posted this on the talk page for Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention on Monday, but I realize that's probably not an oft-visited page, and probably not an appropriate place for the following request, so I've cut and pasted it here. Thanks to anyone who can take the time to look this over. --JohnDBuell 01:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

---

I've been involved in a (mostly civil) dispute over the title of History of the board game Monopoly for a couple of weeks. Multiple proposals were made, initially, for a possible new title, but only two proposals looked to have support: leaving the title alone, or moving the article to History of Monopoly (game) to line up with the main article's title at Monopoly (game). I narrowed the discussion, which has been mentioned at RFC, down to those two options, and it still appears mostly deadlocked, with 11 total votes, and one more vote for the move than for leaving the article at its present title. I don't want to say "Hey, no consensus, I'm leaving it" because that might cause negative feelings, but I'm not sure what SHOULD be said. I'm not asking for a ruling, I'd just like someone who has NOT been involved with this article at all or its dispute to come to the talk page and say "No consensus, leave it," or "One vote more is enough, move it," or "Wait a bit longer and see if one option winds up with more votes than the other." The last thing I want to see is a war start up moving the article back and forth between multiple titles. If I'm in the wrong place, feel free to come chat with me on my talk page. Thanks very much. --JohnDBuell 19:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoa!!

What's with the sudden flooding on [[67]]? There used to be only around 3 at a time!! Fredil 02:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like 86.129.142.159 (talk · contribs) is either running a bot or is him/herself placing the g8 tags on all the image talk articles without an image. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for vandal user behaviour by Khoikhoi

Could the administation take an independent look for the following reversal of useful and pertinent contributions at the Mustafa Kemal Ataturk site please? It is very difficult for me not to interpret the revision by Khoikhoi as disrespectful vandalism. More I studied his log history at various article related to the Turkish subjects and prior bans for the same disruptive behaviour, more concerned I became. Could someone help revert the edits he damaged and request him to be more respectful to others' work? Thank you.

(cur) (last) 16:06, 10 November 2006 Khoikhoi (Talk | contribs) (rv to last version by me) (what last revision? this is a whole sale deletion and vandalism, is it not?) (cur) (last) 14:59, 10 November 2006 Incir (Talk | contribs) (→External links) (cur) (last) 14:26, 10 November 2006 88.242.84.98 (Talk) (→See also) (cur) (last) 06:19, 10 November 2006 71.162.66.250 (Talk) (→An Overview in A Nutshell) (cur) (last) 05:59, 10 November 2006 71.162.66.250 (Talk) (→International relations)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.162.66.25 (talk • contribs) .

Could you give some examples of some of his other issues? He undoubtably has a lot of reversions because he's a vandal fighter, but if he's acting badly in other places, some other examples would be helpful. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This looks like the most significant change made by User:Khoikhoi. At a glance and without knowing the subject, I'd say this was a perfectly reasonable revert of an unnecessary addition of duplicate and WP:POV material, but someone else should confirm this judgement. Gwernol 03:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

(to anon) Perhaps you could try discussing things with me first before jumping to the conclusion that I'm a vandal? That would be nice.

BTW, now the anon is spamming talk pages of Turkish users. Khoikhoi 03:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you send him a quick message, Khoikhoi? Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess that would work. Khoikhoi 03:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

AIV

WP:AIV has been sitting stale for about 2.5 hours now. It's getting rather full. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Khoikhoi 04:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Me and Luna Luna and I got it all. Khoikhoi 05:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

White people

Some conflicts related to this article and its editors have produced a slew of requests at WP:PAIN and WP:RFI. I've backed off from taking action because there's an open mediation case and another administrator has already gotten out the mop for the editors involved, probably due to postings at other noticeboards. I'm one step away from recusing myself on the whole affair, yet am unsure what to do about all these overlapping requests. Would it be out of line to close and archive the whole lot? Durova^Charge! 05:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been one of the involved admins (I don't know if you are referring to me above) but I'm very confused by the situation. If you want to deal with it, feel free. JoshuaZ 05:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I worry that my beliefs would affect my judgement. The point where I put that in writing must be the point where I do recuse myself. If anyone wants to take this I'd be very grateful. Durova^Charge! 05:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I am having similar issues. JoshuaZ 06:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This looks like it's going to end up at ArbCom. Can we refer it there while mediation is ongoing? Durova^Charge! 22:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Technically yes, but it would be preferable to continue mediating anyway, given that arbcom cases may last awhile. (Radiant) 13:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Time to Test wikipedia: I need your help Please.

I need help regarding AFD of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Third_holiest_site_in_Islam_(second_nomination). We always say that AFD is NOT A VOTE. We say many big things like comments during AFD matter a lot. I want to test how much true it is. I wish to have a non-Jew and non-Muslim group of Admins. A group that have NO conflict of interest and I wish that admin-group close this AFD after reading both side views. I think last admin was not neutral. I ask you to help me so that this time it does not happened. I wish if someone read the whole AFD debate page and decide without any previous affiliations that what should be done. Do you think what I am requesting from you is valid and can I get that? Am I asking for too much? --- ابراهيم 14:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you asking too much? Yes, I'm afraid. To say that you think that the last admin was not neutral (and then not back it up with any diffs) seems to violate WP:AGF, especially because myself and others believe that the closing admin made the right call. Try and remember that the admin (Ezeu) has been made an admin by the community, not by some random chance. The likelyhood, therefore, is that the community trusts Ezeu's judgement, and trusts that he is able to close a simple AfD. However, seeing as you want a comment from someone who is neither Jewish or Muslim, here it is: Close the AfD as no consensus, default to keep. Hope this helps. Thε Halo ^Θ 18:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you give above mentioned comments after reading the on going AFD with open mind and care? Why you think it should be keep what reasons your support? --- ابراهيم 19:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I neither think the article should be kept or deleted. However, looking at the AfD, it is clear to me that the is no consensus to delete the article, and when this happens, the article is kept. Anyway, it is not time for the AfD to close yet (it opened on the 9th of November), so there is no reason to seek an admin to close this discussion yet. Thε Halo ^Θ 19:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I asked the same question from Ezeu he NEVER replied back and that is how I lose my good faith towards him. How could my holiest place first-Kaba could be changed by some freaky travel/News websites references and all the hadiths/Quran and other sources could be nullified. How could all the Islamic scholars should be forgotten and our third holiest side should be changed by Non-Muslims. How OIC should be neglected? You and your admin Ezeu cannot be wrong but all of Muslim fighting for their third holiest site are liers and we Muslim do not know it but you and Ezeu know it. Ezeu said it is NOT A VOTE and it depends on arguments. Please give me your arguments please ? Why I am lier and my parent, we all Muslim, our all scholars, our families. Why? Tell me? what are your reason to KEEP. -- ابراهيم 19:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, try to calm down. I, and no one else, have never called you a lier. Secondly, this is not a discussion on wheather the article is correct in what it says or not. If the article is not correct, change the information, but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted. I suggest you read WP:AFD. Thirdly, and finally, even if I thought the article should be deleted, that wouldn't mean I would delete it, as there are opinions to both keep and delete this article. An Admin's job is not to choose how is right in an AfD discussion. It is to see what consenus has been met, and abide by the communities decission. This issue needs no admin action for now, so I suggest to you that you don't worry about, go and edit somewhere else, and the community will decide what to do with the article. Thε Halo ^Θ 19:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Then it is a VOTE. Say it is a vote. Say the we should count the votes and decided. Say that your argument does not matter and we do not care ever how strong those argument could be we will still ONLY count the vote. Then also Ezeu should not said that it is Not a vote. --- ابراهيم 19:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Read Consensus decision-making. Consensus is key to Wikipedia. But, please, as I say, try to relax. I'm sure things will sort themselves out. Thε Halo ^Θ 19:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ezeu said to me AFD is not a vote. There were many good arguments to keep, and to delete. Merely counting votes is not the way AFDs are decided. I ask him which arguments you are talking about. He NEVER replied back. I lost my good faith towards him. You came in supporting him and strongly talking against me. I guess that at that time you have not even had read what is going on the AFD. I asked you give me your reasons to support that admin Ezeu if AFD is not depended on vote only but you are declined replying back with argument. I was NOT here to discuss Ezeu at all. Hence forget about him and forget about you too. I am here for finding 2-3 admin that could close this AFD after reading all the arguments. Those admins should have no prior affiliation with this topic (not Jew, Not Muslim). I need those admin BEFORE CLOSIND DATE OF THIS AFD. So that they can close it after reading arguments. When ever I use the word of VOTE some people start writing against me (see the AFD). Then I say okay arguments but then people like your do not listen. --- ابراهيم 19:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ibraheem (providing I read the Arabic in your signature correctly), please know that no one is trying to attack you, or to cause you trouble. The Halo was trying to explain the general AfD process, and why the result of the last AfD was what it was, regardless of any biases that might have been seen. It's really best not to type in caps, as it comes across as shouting, and is kind of anti-productive to the situation. Just as you think that he has not read up on the AfD discussion, you should read what he has said to you, as it's very applicable. Thanks, and feel free to ask any questions, -- Natalya 20:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If someone is nice with me I reply back nicely. If someone reply in bold then I make my latter capital too. --- ابراهيم 20:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ibrahim is right about how AfDs are closed. It is not always the apparent keep or delete comments that decide whether or not an article should be kept but it is also the strength of the arguments on both sides of the issue. I believe Ibrahim is hopeful that an admin or group of admins will take this fact to heart and not merely count the calls for keep or delete in the AfD discussion. (→Netscott) 20:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Why I Need Help

Currently the AFD in question is only Jews vs. Muslims battle ground "mainly". People who are neutral are in minority. Al-Aqsa Mosque is located in Israel capital. Muslims claims it is our third holiest site according to our Hadith and Quran. Hence a person who declares himself a Jew created this article denying this Muslim claim . It will remain in non-consensus with respect to votes always. Hence you need to read the arguments and decided to keep or delete it. See most of the votes on Keep are from people who openly say themselves Jews and most of the votes in delete are from those who are Muslims. Hence either wikipedia policies are not good enough or you admins are not implementing it rightly. I just tried to illustrate my point clearly while doing that if you feel I become anti-semantic (which I am not at all) and you feel like banning me. Then so be it. After this AFD keep I will start hating wikipedia from deep of my heart anyway. --- ابراهيم 20:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

(Sorry to continue discussion here) - ALM, could you possibly provide some specific examples of where the article is not good? I am starting to see what you mean about a POV fork. The problem is that the article should be included on Wikipedia. But given the heavy Muslim opposition, I'm a little skeptical about how it's written. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I will not discuss it here because I am here to find few admins. I have told many times in AFD. Go are read and I know where you stand. --- ابراهيم 20:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It is speedy keep after two day. All our arguments for two day are wasted. --- ابراهيم 20:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Capitalising "web"

Would appreciate another admin taking a passing look at this, since I'm involved... UBeR (talk · contribs) has made edits to website to replace every occurrence of "web" or "website" into the capitalised and split "Web site". Following that edit a request has been made to move the article to Web site. Both forms, "website" and "web site", are in widespread usage and the forced capitalisation just baffles me. Smacks of the numb US vs. UK English issues normally seen...

Relevant links:

• UBeR edit changing to capitalised "Web site"
• My revert
• UBeR's revert
• My comment on UBeR's talk page

Glancing at UBeR's contribs there are many other similar edits and a discussion at Talk:Web page. Thanks/wangi 20:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

User:24.52.114.146 Harrasment

After I warned User:24.52.114.146 for vandalism link, User:24.52.114.146 vandalized my user_talk, page link, as well as this and this. The IP has only been used for vandalism on Wikipedia. Since then, he has tried to change my password by entering my user name and clicking the "E-mail new password" link. As a result, I've received emails saying:

Someone (probably you, from IP address 24.52.114.146)

requested that we send you a new Wikipedia login password for en.wikipedia.org.

The password for user "Kungming2" is now "******".

You should log in and change your password now.

As my IP address is 69.107.54.131, the request for a password change was not submitted by me. I have also placed a message on his talk page regarding this, but to no avail. I respectfully request that administrators review this notice and help me. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 23:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• As you can see the new password was mailed to you, not them, such attempts at hijacking a user name do more to reveal a deliberate vandal than to actually threaten your account. I've reblocked that ip#. -- Infrogmation 18:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 07:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor integrity

A proposed guideline is in development to address some gaps in the Wikipedia namespace. Currently Wikipedia:Plagiarism redirects to Wikipedia:Citing sources, which contains only one sentence about plagiarism. Related content at Wikipedia:Copyrights presumes that the reader already knows how to recognize copyright violations. Due to Wikipedia's lack of some clear statement on the subject, a good number of editors proceed in ignorance and leave problems for the rest of us to clean up. Wikipedia:Editor honesty is intended to be a straightforward practical guideline: the equivalent of a university academic honesty policy. The current draft proposal is very rough and could use input from administrators and experienced editors. Durova^Charge! 00:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have issues with the name and subsequently the content. If you want to educate people about plagiarism, make a policy at WP:Plagiarism. However, writing a policy requiring people to be honest at all times is too general and tremendously unenforceable. I can just see any factual mistake someone makes resulting in people accusing them of being dishonest, and this would be very bad. Mistakes don't just happen to newbies either. You need to narrow the scope to address plagiarism specifically and leave the rest of the general lecture on moral behaviour out. pschemp | talk 00:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to completely disagree with Pschemp on this one. I, for one, was comparing it side-by-side with Arizona State's Academic Integrity Policy, and saw that this page was pretty close to our needs. Also, the proposed draft gives what I consider to be adequate leeway to good faith new editors, and the adequate punishment to Primetime-like users. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Its the good faith old editors I'm concerned about. I don't think it gives adequate leeway to them. pschemp | talk 03:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Then change the name to Wikipedia:Editor integrity? I'd have no problem with that. I also like the idea of using existing university policies as models. Obviously they'd need adaptation to Wikipedia's specific purpose. Truth in advertising here: the current version is very rough. We're looking for help to get this right. Durova^Charge! 01:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Editor integrity is better. I realise its really rough, but if you use a word like honesty, people will latch on to it and start making it a sin to be accused of, just like the word civility. Remember, that if it gets adopted, whatever you choose will become the new meme to throw at people in disputes. Like I said before, I still think the focus is too broad and that older good faith editors will get caught in it, but I realise it is a work in progress. It is a good start. The plagiarism section is good. I'm just not sure we need the others. (But I'm weird.) pschemp | talk 03:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The specific sections I drafted are the ones about appropriate use of citations. They all point to recurrent problems I've seen such as subsequent edits that ruin the integrity of an existing citation. Durova^Charge! 05:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Changed the name. Durova^Charge! 05:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User:189.174.119.16

(I listed the user at WP:AIV, but he/she was removed without reasoning so I am posting it here as it states in the guidelines.) Can someone take care of this user? This user made 50+ non-english edits to Higuera de Zaragoza, did it after receiving a test4 today, and seems to always stop before he/she breaks 3RR, or right after he/she breaks 3RR. I think it's time for a block? I c e d K o l a ^{(Contributions)} 00:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not exactly vandalism per se, but it's certainly annoying. I've semi-protected the article, which ought to take care of it. Would someone mind translating my warning here into Spanish? Thanks. Chick Bowen 04:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

idont know where to post vandalism

the article on Jake Lloyd has some very obvious vandalism could someone fix it or tell me where i should be putting this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.35.147.17 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. I've removed it. In the future, you should feel free to remove any vandalism that you find in an article on your own. Picaroon9288 01:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or did the title of this well-intentioned section provoke other chuckles? As an administrator, I recommend you post your vandalism this way... ;) Durova^Charge! 06:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I'm so used to seeing vandalism reports on here that I didn't even think of your interpretation. But if recommendations of where to post vandalism must be given, I recommend Wikipedia:sandbox! Picaroon9288 18:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush protection

Hey, if we must have articles such as this in a virtually permanent state of semi-protection (I'm not convinced we need to - but I accept that's not the consensus), but if we must - could we consider not placing the {{sprotected}} on them. This template is fine for the short-tern, but on our most prominent articles it a) is ugly b) says to every passer-by 'Hey, Wikipedia has a problem with vandals. We aren't going to let you vandalise this exceptional article, so please go find another to disrupt'. It isn't exactly a great advert for wiki-pedia WP:BEANS--Doc^g 01:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I wouldn't mind... for whatever that's worth. IPs can tell it's protected a glance because it will just say "view source". We don't put protection notices on the main page and so on for roughly the reason you describe. --W.marsh 02:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • And the information about what do regarding protected pages is in the text they see when clicking to edit, on view source. —Centrx→talk • 02:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree, but the article still needs to be in CAT:SEMI. Perhaps a new template could be created that includes the category and indicates in a more subtle fashion, a la {{administrator}}, that the article is semi-protected. Alternately, the template could be removed and replaced with the category alone--that would be fine with me too. Chick Bowen 04:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Seeing this discussion, I created User:Moe Epsilon/Semi2. It puts articles in the same category as the big bulky template and this aligns itself in the top right corner so it's more "out of the way". Feel free to use it. semper fi — Moe 05:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion should be continued here. Chick Bowen 17:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Improper threats made by User:Fred Chess

In the page Talk:Treaty_of_Fredrikshamn, Fred Chess is at least threatening to use admin tools, such as blocking, in a dispute he is himself participating. Such is actually conduct that should mean banning of User:Fred Chess. Suedois 02:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This was already taken care of at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive60#Jaakko Sivonen (talk • contribs). Khoikhoi 02:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Was Fred Chess banned? What were the sanctions of his improper admin conduct? Suedois 04:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, we don't ban because of one case of admin misconduct. I don't know what measures (if any) might be taken though regarding this. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Fred was blocked for 24 hours and made a clear acknowledgment of error and apology. That's more than enough to make up for the offense involved. This issue is closed, absolutely and without a doubt. Chick Bowen 04:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

To which it must be added that User:Suedois has just repeated the Jaakko offense and moved the article without trying to reach consensus at talk. The user needs warned against taking such inflammatory actions that may easily spark fire. --Irpen 23:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Blog to earn more

Regarding his user page (the user has done only contributions to it since October), would a blanking be justified? I know he has done nothing "wrong", but it kind of tickles me name of the user and the fact that the only example he gives is blog2moneyblog.blogspot.com. -- ReyBrujo 07:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:UP (specifically - What can I not have on my userpage: A weblog relating your non-Wikipedia activities). semper fi — Moe 08:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Userpage deleted and user blocked indefinitely. --Slowking Man 17:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that anyone has discussed any of this with the User in question. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam is speedy deletable, wherever it's put, and I don't believe there's a requirement to inform creators when deleting such pages. Particularly when they created the page a month ago and haven't been back since. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Persistent sockpuppet

Following this checkuser request Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/...And Beyond!, I blocked all of the sockpuppets involved. However, the user persists in editing using anon IPs. All the ones I have spotted are in the range 141.211.*.* or 141.213.*.*; their main activity is to delete references to Jewishness from biographical articles and names from lists of Jews. Please block any such activity that you see, or let me know. Thanks.--Runcorn 14:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to check the contributions of all of these "banned sockpuppets" and take note that they are not vandalizing any pages in ANY way outlined WP:VANDAL (civil TALK page-oriented "edit warring" is not a form of vandalism), are responding in talk page with valid arguments, have sources to back up all their arguments for removal of references to Jewishness, and are generally being ignored and even sometimes harassed by Runcorn. Every single name deleted from a list of Jews AND every single mention of Jewishness deleted from an article, has a valid reference or source backing it up. If it does not, then it is because no references exist to suspect any of these people are Jewish. Runcorn fails to provide an pretext for his bans. His reason for each ban is "sockpuppet of whoever" yet, interestingly, it states nothing of the need to ban non-abusive "sockpuppets" in WP:Sockpuppetry solely on the basis that they are sockpuppets. Users being banned for persistently vandalizing pages may be a different story. Furthermore, Runcorn actually SUPPORTS the edits of sockpuppets of other banned users. Specifically ones who are prone to add reference-less mentions of Judaism to people's articles. Finally, for those of you wondering why I'm editing as an anon, if a choose to make an account, Runcorn will simply ban the account as a "sockpuppet," so I can't see a reason for even trying.

Oh, and to give you an example of Runcorn's accusation of "deletion of references to Jewishness from biographical articles" please take a look at TALK:Tadeusz Kantor and Talk:Krzysztof Kamil Baczyński. It will show exactly how these changes are researched, referenced, and explained.141.213.31.230 16:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The user has clearly not read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry: "Users who are banned or blocked from editing may not use sock puppets to circumvent this."--Runcorn 22:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Wiki

I came on here and created a new account. I then started a Wiki on the band, Hundredfold. It was instantly deleted and protected. Why did this happen? Can we undo this so that I can post information about this band? This is a band that tours all over the world and I think people would want to talk about them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hundredfold (talk • contribs) .

In the first place, what you created was an article, not a wiki. Wikipedia as a whole is a wiki. Secondly, you created the article under the user name User:Hundredfold, which indicates that you have a vested interest in the band which would tend to violate our WP:VANITY guideline. Thirdly, the article had previously been deleted twice before due to lack of notability as outlined in our guideline at WP:BAND. Fourthly, such sentences as Take one listen to Hundredfold..s VIA SIRENS (Listen Well) and you will understand the industry buzz that has been generated over this talented foursome. does not an encyclopedia make. If, after all of this, you still somehow think your band deserves an article, you can appeal the third deletion of this article (by three different admins) at WP:DRV, but please read WP:SNOW. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

My colleague might also have mentioned WP:BAND, our policy on the inclusion of music-related articles and WP:N, our policy on the inclusion of any subject. Both are worth your time in reading. When your band is famous enough to not need a Wikipedia article, then we would welcome one. But thanks for your contributions in the meantime! ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo blocked

(Moved from ANI)

I have indefinitely blocked Terryeo for these two edits: [68] and [69]. Both are flagrant harassment and intimidation - links to Scientologist websites smearing the people he's asking for comments from. Terryeo has already been put on personal attack parole by the arbcom, but this kind of intimidation and threat goes far beyond the pale, and needs to be stopped immediately and firmly. Terryeo has shown himself to be a dedicated POV pusher and bully. There is no sensible reason for his continued participation here. Phil Sandifer 17:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment here to say that Terryeo's blocking is well justified and long overdue. After the Wikipedia community has bent over backwards to allow him to still post to talk pages -- and, of course, he was completely free to edit articles not related to Scientology -- Terryeo spent the past seven or eight months pushing his ridiculous "personal Web sites are not allowed" argument on the talk pages, and even attempting to alter Wikipedia's policy to support his position. His real purpose, of course, was to "handle" the Scientology articles in a fashion that would remove all criticism of Scientology from Wikipedia. (Any of the regular contributors to the Scientology articles will certainly agree with me on this, I have no doubt.) He was never here to work towards NPOV and create a collaborative encyclopedia; hence, I am fully in favor of his being banned. The only down side to blocking Terryeo is the strong likelihood of Scientology following its (unalterable) policy: now that he's blocked, he will disappear from Wikipedia completely and a new sock puppet will arrive. This sock puppet will pick up where Terryeo left off, trying to find a new method of handling all of the entheta here on Wikipedia. --Modemac 18:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless he takes a crash course in spelling, grammar, logic, rhetoric and common sense, it won't be very hard to spot him. yandman 18:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom provides for "up to" a one year ban Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with indef, but the ban should be logged on the case page, and you might want to post a request for clarification in prior case, just to be safe. Thatcher131 18:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur that the block is well justified, especially so after an entire year of steadily abusive and disruptive behavior from Terryeo. BTfromLA 18:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that Terryeo's crude attempts at defamation go beyond that which was discussed at the Arbcom discusson and therefore there is no reason not to indef ban him (although, to be honest, I don't think that changing the block to one year will change anything, and it will please the more pedantic members of the community). However, I think that to avoid any complications, you should put a small paragraph on his user page, where it can be seen more easily (I only found this thread by looking through your contributions). yandman 18:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom can ban up to a year, but the community can ban indefinitely. —Centrx→talk • 22:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Now now - sometimes we trade in for a better model of POV pusher. I've heard no complaints about whatever the latest model from the LaRouchies is, for instance. Phil Sandifer 20:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason that the edits containing these links should not be deleted? Newyorkbrad 19:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably should at least stay in the edit history for a bit while people decide whether to be upset that I violated process ZOMG. But probably not, no. :) Phil Sandifer 19:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned this kind of thing is utterly unacceptable and he can get lost. Guy 21:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with JzG. It's not entirely necessary to get the edits removed, however invloving ArbCOm is also not entirely necessary as there is a clear cut decision here. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 21:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd point out, just to emphasize that the right decision was made, that Terryeo was previously blocked for harassment using exactly this modus operandi (linking to a webpage which contains personal attacks/threats upon the editor, pretending he is simply presenting that link to that editor for information). He knew well that what he was doing was unacceptable, but he thought he could get away with it anyways. To prove him wrong is what Wikipedia needed to do. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Me again, adding to projects

Hello, Its me again. I wish to be agged to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Space project. I am quite knowledgable (not in spelling) about space exploration and have spent meany a night up until 2 am reading books and websites reguarding Space. I tried to add myself but was not able to. -Jeffrey- 22:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No evidence you have tried to join[70], unless you were using only an IP account or another username.--MONGO 22:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason why you should not be able to edit that page - it's not protected in any way. However please remember that listing yourself on a project doesn't really "do anything" - the best way to help a project is to get out there and edit! Thanks/wangi 22:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Mitsos

Hi,

I didn't see another category for my concern, so I'm posting it here.

Mitsos' user page really disturbs me - I'm not entirely sure how I found it, but I did.

He has a long article on his user page that's a racist polemic. He also has a userbox that declares him to be a white nationalist. Is this allowed?

I know there was a lengthy and controversial discussion on the use of a pedophile userbox, but I never saw the final judgement.

I'm....uncomfortable....

Thank you, NinzEliza 23:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Also see this. Khoikhoi 23:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war - case decided in a record four days. Hbdragon88 23:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

After reading I am also umcomfortable... more so about the government box -Jeffrey- 23:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Apart from ranging from inappropriately political to overtly racist, they're all copyright violations. I've removed them and warned the user. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:CSD

Hi guys, we're currently running at 199 CSD articles and it's just hit 0100 here in the UK. Can anyone lend a hand, please? I have to sleep sometime! (aeropagitica) 01:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, it is really 289 articles :-( (aeropagitica) 01:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

377 by my count. --Calton | Talk 01:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Now down to just 14, and a couple of images. Wow. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 00:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

User:203.143.254.76

This user vandalizes continuously but has never been blocked due to it being registered to Padua college and because the we can never really go through all the warnings before another person may be editing under this IP. Should someone contact the college? --nkayesmith 04:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Academic_Challenger

This administrator has been noted for acting with malicious intent, deleting every other article/stub before a significant amount of information can be added to them or simply deleting them whenever he sees fit. Please have a look at the user's talk page and take action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daham.wick (talk • contribs)

Nothing seems out of the ordinary here. Is there something more specific you're talking about? – ClockworkSoul 05:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This user also posted a message on my talk page and I responded on his. Academic Challenger 06:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The user is referring to this deleted article. A single line about a non-notable student seems like a perfectly reasonable target for deletion to me. – ClockworkSoul 06:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The user ought to read WP:CSD A7 and WP:AGF. Alphachimp 06:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind reminder, but I have already read them and found nothing contradictory. Perhaps you ought to read it.--Daham.wick 07:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• You can challenge deletions on deletion review. A better option might be to find a couple of reliable sources and use those to recreate the article. Note that encyclopedias in general are not in the habit of writing about an undergraduate student, unless there's something extraordinary about him. (Radiant) 13:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

After checking the thread of conversation, it seems pretty clear this is indeed a vanity piece - can I suggest that the Daham.wick gets a blog - I'm told those are all the rage for young people. --Charlesknight 22:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

vandalism-like page moves

Is there some bot that can prevent page moves that are obvious attempts to "revert" i.e. circumvent admin decisions based on RMs and community consensus? E.g. Someone reverted the admin page move http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Finlandswedes&diff=84847660&oldid=84803373 by using a spelling almost identical to the original page name. It should be easy to use technical means to detect such nearly identical spellings of old page names. --Espoo 05:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

IP inserting news story to articles

I just came across this, but haven't the time to deal with it - could someone please review the contributions of User:124.157.245.100? This IP's been inserting a long rant and an apparent news story into numerous Singapore related articles. I'd start fixing it, but I just don't have the time right now. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted them all. If he continues, I'll give him a stern warning. – ClockworkSoul 06:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

He wouldn't stop after two warnings, so I blocked the IP for 24 hours. – ClockworkSoul 06:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleting, Reverting, and Blocking IPs.... sounds like an academic at work.--Daham.wick 07:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

An academic?? Er, it sounds like quite a normal thing to do to someone adding inappropriate content, refusing to stop when asked, or acknowledge others. -- Chuq 07:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

7th Lambgina Cavalry

I believe that 7th Lambgina Cavalry does not meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia. It seems like a gaming clan, of which there are thousands, and is of minimal cultural importance. Can other people please provide feedback? I've already marked the article with db-group, but the single editor who's creating the page deleted it. Thanks! Jonemerson 09:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleting a db-group tag from a page you created yourself is vandalism - perhaps you should explain this to this single editor, telling him to: add {{hangon}} to the top of the page, and explain why the page should not be deleted on the talk page. (I am not an admin) --nkayesmith 09:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

He did add {{hangon}} to the article, and then removed it shortly afterwards. I don't want to play games and re-add {{db-group}} just to have him delete it, though. It'd be great if an administrator reading this could just handle the situation directly. :) Jonemerson 09:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Joyous! | Talk 11:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wiarthurhu

Wiarthurhu is using his talk page to troll, and talk about all the classic stuff he is known for, such as talking abotu how we are all evil bitches wanting to ban him for no reason. Why don't we just protect his talk page to put an end to this? Karrmann 11:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indef by Cowman109. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Essays on user pages

User:Kmarinas86 is using his/her user page as a way to display a theory of theirs on the universe (which has already been posted on academia.wikia). I hesitated before asking him/her to remove it because the user does contribute constructively to the encyclopaedia, and, while it isn't science, it isn't really offensive. Do you think we should heed the guidelines on this or let things pass? yandman 16:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that appearing on Wikipedia might give it some (apparent) legitimacy in some people's eyes. We could of course post a disclaimer explaining the situation; but should we bend the rules for every (otherwise useful) contributor? Fourohfour 17:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

In the past one solution has been to put {{userpage}} on top of the page, which can be quite a useful disclaimer in cases such as this. --ais523 18:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd leave it... the user-page template might be a good idea, but since this is an active user in good standing I wouldn't worry about it. ---J.S (t|c) 20:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

We could always ask him nicely to add it himself. Guy 22:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo created an edit history to prevent reverse move

I observed that User:Ghirlandajo has at [71] created an edit history in order to prevent reverse move, as these Viipuri names seem to be his battleground. After his movement, he made reverting impossible without using admin tools by adding history to the redirect. According to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/AndriyK#Reversal_of_irreversible_page_moves such act deserves block.

I request that edit history to be deleted.

In addition, Girlandajo erased my warning against his undiscussed moves of controversial pages (see [72]) and by its edit comment, accused me of nationalistic trolling. Which is inconceivable. (And of course a grave personal attack.)

It seems to be well-known that Ghirlandajo makes page moves and wages edit wars, without discussing at all. The history of [73] is just an example of edit and move wars wage by Ghirlandajo, and the article's talkpage displays that Ghirlandajo has never bothered to discuss anything about that article.

I request that Ghirlandajo be blocked from editing Wikipedia for some time. Marrtel 18:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Simply moving the article back would constitute edit warring. Please discuss the move at Requested moves and see if there is a consensus of other editors for one version or the other. Thatcher131 20:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Issuing a requested block

I appreciate that according to WP:BLOCK we don't do user requested blocks to enforce wikivacations. That said, I've had a request made of me and I've fulfilled it, I'm ignoring all rules. The request was made in these diffs, and I found it hard to refuse. I don't think anyone's work or home life should suffer because of Wikipedia, and I don't think Wikipedia needs the bad publicity if someone loses their job or home through such an addiction and Wikipedia did nothing to act. I also think it's best to assume such requests are made in good faith. Hence I'm ignoring all rules because I believe that not doing so may be harmful to Wikipedia. Now I'm bringing it here because I may be too close to the user to make an objective opinion on the situation, because I've worked with the user on a number of articles, and also because I may be wrong, there may be consequences I've missed or I may be being gamed. If people want to unblock, I am willing to accept that, and any other censure. Okay, that's what I did and why, so what's the score? Steve block Talk 19:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• It seems to me you made the right decision. After all, rules are made to be broken. What I might have done is directed him towards the Javascript hack that disables logon, but I can't remember where the silly thing is. Mackensen (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the tip on the java thing, I was unaware of that. I'll have a hunt for it, and when I find it I will add it to the appropriate sections in WP:BLOCK and Wikipedia:Wikiholiday so that it becomes easier to find and more widely known about. Steve block Talk 19:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Found it at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer. I will point the user to it and add links as mentioned above. Steve block Talk 20:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's also in the history of your own js file, Mack. Thatcher131 20:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)