Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stayfi (talk | contribs) at 19:33, 23 July 2008 (→Arabic Wikipedia: Arabic wiki is but a sunni one). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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)



    User:Neutralhomer requesting an unblock

    Resolved
     – Editor unblocked with conditions and mentoring--Kubigula (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Neutralhomer is requesting an unblock, and has asked that notification be given here considering the number of people involved in the block's history. --Stephen 07:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In before drama. —Giggy 07:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For future reference, this goes to the blocking admins talk page, and does not necessarily need its own post to AN or AN/I. Hes been informed already by the way. Synergy 07:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See his talk page; he requested an AN note, and the blocking admin has been informed. —Giggy 07:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    giggy: I did see the talk page. Its a bit early for an AN post. Synergy 07:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...which is specifically why I pinged the blocking admin first off. No objection to discussion here, though. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. I was informing anyone who was reading any of this that the blocking admin was informed. I guess I'm the only one who sees this post as being a bit premature. Regards Synergy 22:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I declined it. That was a very disruptive user who was banned quite recently. He can email the arbitrators for a review, but I don't see any realistic chance that the community will consider him reformed after so short a time. 14:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Well - I'm going to stick my neck out on this one. I interacted with Homer a bit, and he was usually a productive editor who reacted very poorly in certain types of disputes. He's been effectively banned for about four months, and I see the apology and coming clean as sincere and an excellent sign that he may have come to terms with the problems he sometimes created. If he can steer clear of User:Calton and limit interaction with User:JPG-GR, I think he would return to being a positive contributor. As I do feel he was previously a useful editor, I would be willing to monitor and mentor him.--Kubigula (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Limiting interaction between NH and JPG would be difficult, as both were very active in the TV and radio projects, and short of topic-banninh NH, little can be done to rectify that. Asking JPG-GR to not edit pages Homer is active on is not realistic, as he has never been sanctioned for his editing. Horologium (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    True enough. I have, however, seen NH and JPG edit productively together (I even gave them both barnstars for cooperative editing). I've notifed JPG of this thread as I think he should have input here. My thoughts were that we would go into this with NH understanding that there would be no tolerance of disruptive contact with JPG.--Kubigula (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason I didn't indef-block the original OrangeMonster account (whose original contributions were hoaxes) was because it was clear that the user behind the account was quite intelligent and could actually write articles. NH gave that up and was productive for a long while, but disputes with other editors (of which there were several) overshadowed that. Given some mentoring and direction, there's no reason NH couldn't be productive again. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be inclined to agree with ya, Firsfron ... but this wasn't just ordinary socking we're talking about. This involved use of two sleeper accounts. Ordinary sockpuppetry is one thing, but keeping a sock in the drawer until you're blocked again? That doesn't sit well with me at all. Blueboy96 03:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No question that by the end his behavior was unacceptable - bad enough to get him rightfully banned. However, the block is not punishment, it's for the protection of the encyclopedia. To me, the key questions are whether he recognizes what he did was wrong and if such behavior would resume if allowed back. I have to say that his apology and recognition of the error of his ways are about the best I've seen, and I'm confident he's sincere. The question then shifts to whether he is likely to repeat the bad behavior. Obviously, there are no guarantees, but I'm more inclined to take the chance when someone has been a productive editor - there's more liklihood of it being a net positive to WP. I will commit to the mentoring and a short leash, and I think the risk to the encyclopedia and our editors is sufficiently contained to give it another try.--Kubigula (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess the fact he used sleepers leaves a bad taste in my mouth. However, if Kubigula's willing to keep him on a short leash, maybe it's worth trying--especially if it's understood that even one slip-up will result in him being indefblocked with no preliminaries. Blueboy96 15:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I had positive interactions with NH prior to his block, and my assessment is similar to Kubigula's: I'm willing to keep an eye on his edits, and more importantly, his interactions with others, on the condition that he has no interactions with Calton or JPG-GR. I'm not comfortable with rejecting an apparently sincere request to participate constructively, under whatever conditions we care to impose - we're not in the punishment business. Acroterion (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hoo boy. Where to begin? I knew it was only a matter of time before NH returned, and I'm glad it's as NH and not under a cloak of some sort. I don't take kindly to the fact that my greatest "fame" on Wikipedia is likely due to my unprovoked run-ins with NH (I'd much more prefer no fame on Wikipedia, thank you, as I have enough to keep me content elswewhere). I'm undecided as to what I prefer the outcome to be at this point, trying to balance the facts with feelings, etc.
    However, I will say this - if NH's first edit back is, in fact, wasted on an apology to my user talk page as promised, please keep him blocked. A large part of my frustration with him was repeated and unnecessary postings to my talkpage (he has more edits to MY talk page (267) than he does to his OWN talk page (222)). Any non-content related comments from him I'll either see in passing or I won't - they aren't relevant to the encyclopedia.
    (Also, for the record, I'm not a member of WP:TVS and any work I do in that particular field is either local-station related or simply because it overlaps with WP:WPRS (i.e. FCC-related stuff). If the end result is a return with a partial "content ban", let him run as free as is allowed in the land of television.)
    I may very well want to chime in more later, but that's what I've got to say for now. JPG-GR (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on the discussion above, and with the gruding agreement of the blocking admin, I have unblocked Neutralhomer. The conditions are that he have no contact with Calton or JPG, avoids articles edited by JPG and not undo, revert or change JPG's edits, and does not create any alternate accounts. As promised, I will mentor and monitor him (and block if any problems resurface). I am determined that this will either be a success story in terms of giving a second chance or a short lived disruption if that fails.--Kubigula (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Huggle edit advertising

    There has been a call for "Less intrusive advertising" here for the huggle anti vandalism tool. The current advertising for huggle is (using Huggle). As you can see this is rather big e.t.c. The proposed change is that the advertising will look like other advertising of anti vandalism tools. The proposed summary is (HG). I'm hoping that this will be more of an announcement than a discussion as there really is no reason for it to be as long as it is. Many people have called for this change and If there are no major opposes then I will make the change in the next few hours. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 09:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't see a problem with the change. It also makes it consistent with the edit summary tag used by Twinkle (TW).Gazimoff WriteRead 11:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This has now been changed. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 14:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't mind removing these labels altogether. If I wanted to know what tool or client somebody was using I would use spyware to find out their user-agent ask them on their talk page. — CharlotteWebb 16:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You can suppress the others, but I don't think people should be able to supress huggle's indicator, due to the tendency of some people to use it in a sloppy manner. –xeno (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Those little backlinks in edit summaries can be quite useful, and I'd strongly advise anyone writing or using semiautomated editing tools to include them. Of course, as long as everything goes fine, it shouldn't matter how you make your edits — but if the tool you're using turns out to have a bug, or if someone simply gets suspicious about your editing speed, having an explanation and a link to more information right there in the edit summary can do a lot to minimize confusion. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For an edit summary, the more descriptive the better. -- Ned Scott 03:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass speedy deletion of Fellows of the Royal Society

    Sean Whitton (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been mass deleting articles on scientists (and then removing links to them), unfortunately I am not considered trustworthy enough to actually see what he has deleted. I do note however that they appear to be articles on Fellows of the Royal Society, and that Fellowship of the Royal Society is probably the best indicator of a British or Commonwealth scientist's notability. Please could some admins have a look and reconsider these deletions? I shall inform Sean of this thread. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I recently started articles for all living female Fellows of the Royal Society who did not already have pages. I believe I added about 60 new pages. Which seem to have all been deleted.Domminico (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    See here for a list of all living female fellows if this is helpful for restoration.Domminico (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that all the articles that I checked are of the form, for example, '"Patricia Clarke, FRS, is/was a distinguished British scientist", they are not establishing their notability. WP is not a directory of every Fellow of the Royal Society. --Stephen 12:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the FRS bit does establish notability (or at least it would if Wikipedia had any pretence to serious coverage of the sciences). DuncanHill (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely, it's true that all the articles were stubs, but they are exactly stubs that would be interesting if they were expanded. Except for Hon. Fellows (e.g. Margaret Thatcher) every FRS is a distinguished scientist who will have performed notable work. Obviously Wikipedia is not a directory for every fellow that's why the articles were stubs - my hope was that people would expand them. Domminico (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability for people can be established by a notable award. From a quick review, Jean Thomas (scientist) is notable, and the stub should have been expanded rather than deleted. I've restored the page and added a BBC reference, as well as asking Sean reconsider other pages deleted. . . dave souza, talk 12:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fellowship of the Royal Society is a notable award. It's about as distinguished as you can get for a British or Commonwealth scientist bar winning a Nobel Prize/Fields medal.Domminico (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It would help to establish notablity if a reference is given to each page, establishing award of the FRS. . . dave souza, talk 12:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, for every page I added this page establishes FRS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domminico (talk • contribs) 12:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree that speedying the lot of them with no discussion was hasty. Shall we just undelete them all now? Consensus, folks? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd undelete them and add a maintenance tag, then if they've not been touched in a month review them. It's false to say that every single FRS is inherently notable - there is no such thing as inherently notable, especially when you consider our policies on WP:V and WP:RS, if there are no non-trivial documents about them then it doesn't matter what level of academic distinction they may have gained, but it's unlikely that any modern FRS will be so obscure as to lack any non-trivial independent sources. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No one said they were "inherently notable" they are notable _because_ they are FRS. It is this that qualifies them since they must satisfy at the very least 2 3 and 6 of guidelines to be considered for election in the first place.82.69.91.165 (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Er... what? FRS's being "inherently notable" means they're notable because of being FRS's. Please see "inherent" in Wictionary. And I agree that they shouldn't have been mass deleted. Please undelete right now, then we can discuss which if any of them should be deleted. It was hasty all right. Bishonen | talk 16:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    Being a fellow of the Royal Society does not mean there will be sources and independent analysis we can use. Notability in Wikipedia terms means that there are sufficient sources to work from. No sources, no article. Your statement makes no sense: you say they are not inherently notable, they are notable because they are FRS; that is, as I said, an assertion that an FRS is inherently notable. I dispute that. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Greetings. I would concur with JzG here: I can accept that the scientists may well have been notable (I can't comment either way because I don't know much about this area), but without sources for each one of them their articles then they don't meet Wikipedia's version of notability, which is, as said, sufficient sources to write an article from. —Sean Whitton / 16:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They are pretty poor articles but they make an assertion of importance (being an FRS) so should not be speedy deleted. Any which cannot meet the notability guidelines can then be deleted by AFD. Davewild (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When articles do not meet Wikipedia's standards, there are two ways of fixing them. One is to fix their deficiencies; a second is to leave them for someone else to fix. Deletion should only be used when the subject is non-notable -- not when the article is poor. And if one does not know much about an area, one is not in a good position to decide whether a subject is non-notable, so option two should be used. These articles should be undeleted so that someone who actually knows about the subjects can decide whether they are notable or not according to WP's standards. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Non-of my articles were good. They were close to as bad as it's possible for a WP article to be but nevertheless they were robust to AFD. They were stubs: all are good candidates for informative articles. I'm willing to bet no FRS will get through WP:AFD. If they come to AFD I'm quite sure they'll be improved and found robust. I disagree with Guy that FRS is not sufficient criterion for notability, read WP:Notability (academics).Domminico (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course they're inherently notable; they must satisfy at least one of the criteria in WP:PROF to be elected. Some will satisfy all six criteria. --Rodhullandemu 17:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Dave here. If you start discussing notability and sources it is most likely already not a speedy candidate. Speedy deletion is reserved for articles not asserting any importance and imo being a FRS does that. Whether individual admins think they are notable or not, they all deserve in doubt a discussion and all speedies need to be undone.--Tikiwont (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to me that some people need to go back and read the WP:PROF guideline and the WP:N guideline a bit more carefully. Notability is about the existence of adequate sourcing, and Wikipedia not being a directory. Of anything, including FRSs. If something is encyclopaedically notable, then there will be multiple non-trivial independent sources. If there aren't, then it isn't. Falling into class X, Y or Z does not make the case even if it is a strong or even universal indicator. Sources, that's what matters. And of course for most of these there will be plenty, so no problem. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to me that some people need to go back and read the CSD policy. The point isn't about the notability guidelines but about the A7 criterion according to which the article has been deleted which is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. Besides, I'd proceed as you say above, i.e. undelete, tag, and review which for me just means in case of doubt send to AfD. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite familiar with it, thanks. Foo is a member of bar is context-free and does not assert notability. Foo is a member of bar notable for frob is an assertion of notability. Now, as it happens, I would accept FRS as some kind of assertion of notability despite having read of some FRSs form the 17th and 18th century who are really quite obscure, but I can see how others might dispute that. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not these people are considered notable under our policies, the award certainly constitutes an assertion of notability, which is all an article needs to avoid being speedy deleted, as occurred here. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm not an admin, but it seems to me there is a consensus for reinstating the articles at the very least for a few weeks with AFD tags. Can an admin do that?Domminico (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As a practical matter, if Domminico is the person who created those articles in the first place, it would be better for him to restore a small number of them and begin work on adding sources to them himself, before restoring all 60. Otherwise he is just dumping a big bunch of work on his fellow editors. There is no point of a mass AfD on 60 articles which are nothing more than directory entries to begin with. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just restored 30:
    Did I miss any?
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Spot-checking a few:
    Note that Google Scholar is probably a better measure; nevertheless, if Royal Society Fellowship does not make them notable you're going to find out they all became notable in the course of doing whatever they did to get selected. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These deletions should never have occurred.
    It took me about a minute to do each of those searches -- isn't the deleting admin supposed to do a 30-second check of notability before deleting? I know I do. Also, I saw no notifications to Domminico, the author. That's not just a courtesy but it also gives feedback to the author, documents for non-admins that this person has a problem with article creations, and, in the event of an admin mistake, shortens the loop in fixing an erroneous deletion. Something else I do is look at the author's contribution log and talk page -- if I see several hundred good, positive edits, then I assume there's a greater chance the author is not making a mistake and I investigate more thoroughly before deleting. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing that requires the deleting admin to check the notability of the article. If the article does not assert notability then it can be deleted. If the article on bread just said "Bread is a food" (assuming the admin hadn't heard of bread and there wasn't an article history to revert to) it could be deleted under A7. The criteria does not specify whether or not the article is notable, only whether it asserts its subject's notability. Thus no google search is required although in cases I'm not sure of I tend to check anyway. James086Talk | Email 10:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    An assertion of notability does not need to mean an explicit sentence of the form "Foo is notable for...": it can be a statement about foo that prima facie indicates that foo is likely to be notable. "Fellow of the Royal Society" is a very clear assertion of notability of this type. If the deleting admin is too ignorant to know the implications of being a fellow, and too lazy to find out by doing a brief search, he shouldn't be deleting these kinds of articles. "Speedy" doesn't mean that the deleting admin should take as few seconds as possible to make the decision, it merely means we're avoiding a week-long decision. And by the way, your example betrays another fundamental misunderstanding of A7 deletion: bread is not a person, organization, or web content, and is therefore ineligible. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed bread is an incorrect example, I should have chosen something like Einstein or Google. I happen to know of the Royal Society so I wouldn't have deleted them without investigating further but to call someone who doesn't know of the RS "ignorant" is a bit of a stretch; I would not expect everyone to be familiar with the various honours within academia. Wikipedia:Notability (academics) criteria 6 says that if they have received a notable honour (Fellowship would fall under this) then they are definitely notable. Also these articles are not covered by CSD G4 so they can be freely recreated without discussion. However I stand by my point that it is not the responsibility of the admin to do a 30 second check for notability, only to check for an assertion. James086Talk | Email 12:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it just my impression that we have people just blundering about deleting things they don't fully understand these days? When I was on WP:NPW long ago I'd at least Google if I was unsure. Have we really become that lazy these days? And what happened to WP:SOFIXIT? That I learned from working the Wikification project. --Rodhullandemu 23:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The chance that the Royal Society would grant fellowship to someone who was not notable in the Wikipedia sense is approximately zero. (Granted, finding multiple reliable sources on a fellow whose main activity was before the Internet might require a visit to a *gasp* research library.) Also, as mentioned above, all those articles contained a claim to notability (fellow in the Royal Society) and had at least one reliable source (the list of fellows of the Royal Society) just a few mouse clicks away. As far as I know, "kill it before it grows" is not a Wikipedia policy. So I suggest restoring all those articles, and waiting for someone to flesh them out.. Cardamon (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great Cheers I'll try and do some fleshing between writing up my thesis... Domminico (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can read here, it seems there is a strong consensus to undelete all ~60 articles, tag em, and AFD them if sources can't be found after a reasonable time to verify the asserted notability. Have all 60 been undeleted Domminico? I also very much agree with Guy here, we definitely need sources, going forward for these 60, perhaps numerous others, for the articles to remain for any length of time. I'm inclined towards a mild troutslap for the deleting admin for at the very least, not attempting to talk to the article's creator (would have been very easy seeing as they were all created by the same person, not 60 separate talkpage posts). AN could've and should've been avoided. Keeper ǀ 76 22:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good deletions, giving people the possibility to feel good about starting an article from scratch by filling a redlink, which is more satisfying than expanding a mostly-worthless substub. Kusma (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • These should not have been deleted; they didn't meet the speedy criteria, because they had an assertion of notability. A mass AfD would have been more appropriate if the articles were thought to be useless. -- SCZenz (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was a good faith deletion of stub articles which lacked sources and were close to being content free, equally stubs aren't discouraged as such. Notifying the author and a mass AfD would have been better, in retrospect, but time constraints make that sort of clearing out difficult enough already. Domminico had a source asserting the notability of the list of names, and if that had been cited in each stub at the outset the stubs would have been referenced, rather than just asserting membeship of a society. From glancing at a couple of examples, that's still to be done. . . dave souza, talk 10:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do assume good faith in this deletion. I however consider it a remarkable example of recklessness. At the very least anyone placing speedy tags should know the basic speedy deletion criteria, including that non-notable A7 means no indication of notability, not lack of references to prove notability, and that stubs are acceptable at Wikipedia. Furthermore, anyone even nominating for deletion should be aware of the applicable notability criteria, and this includes that for academics a very notable awards is sufficient evidence of notability. It is, I suppose possible, that the deletor was not aware of the meaning of FRS--but that's why we have an encyclopedia. The reason I consider this worthy of serious attention, is the actions of the admin above -- who actually removed the backlinks from the articles to Royal Society, and other notable awards. This is a clear indication that it was not just an oversight but either carelessness or lack of understanding. I am aware that he is a very experienced admin, and someone with a technical background, so i totally do not understand. Further, he choose to delete in a single motion of his own accord without anyone previously having placed a speedy tag in at least many of the cases--I have not checked all. This once more provides reason why, except for BLP and copyvio and outright vandalism, no admin should be permitted to have that power. I see two responses of his, the first to Domenico, to the effect that "I've ... speedily deleted all of your articles on scientists ... because there was no assertion as to why the scientists are sufficiently notable to warrant articles. I'm no expert in the field, but the articles really were too short to justify their notability so I decided to remove them from the encyclopedia" To delete -- let alone delete single handed, instead of just placing tags-- in an area one admits one does not understand, because the articles were "too short", and in the presence of the indications of notability provided by the backlinks, seems more than careless. It shows the failure to understand SCD A7, that there merely has to be an indication of importance, not a "sufficient" proof that the articles justify inclusion. I see his comment above that "without sources for each one of them their articles then they don't meet Wikipedia's version of notability, which is, as said, sufficient sources to write an article from" This shows the failure to understand deletion policy, that importance does not have to be proven to prevent speedy. At the very least it would seem appropriate to expect a full apology to the editor involved and a clearly stated recognition of what the speedy deletion criteria actually are. And in any case, it's time to remove the power for admins to delete single-handed except in the cases I mentioned above--it's too dangerous to the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't believe I didn't see topic this before...deleting these articles was a bad move. Membership in the Royal Society is quite prestigious. An "elected member of the RS" is a de facto assertion of notability on par or greater than just about anything here. DGG is spot on that this is complete misuse, and misunderstanding, of WP:CSD#A7 which only requires a reasonable assertion of notability. {{stub}} tags, maintenance tags, and AfD nominations (if necessary) were the correct course of action. — Scientizzle 02:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm lost. Don't all of these meet WP:PROF #6 and therefor are notable? Why is there even a debate? Are we arguing that WP:PROF doesn't play a role here or are we arguing the membership doesn't meet number 6 or something else? It looks like an argument that WP:N trumps WP:PROF even though WP:PROF says otherwise. That seems a bit odd.... Hobit (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Posting people's uncompleted sandbox into mainspace: okay?

    I came across a dispute between Kare Kare (talk · contribs) and AdultSwim (talk · contribs). It comes down to AS having nabbed a very incomplete article draft from KK'S sandbox and posting it in mainspace. KK is (understandably, as the article was not only very incomplete, but an entire section had not been corrected that had been written for a different article), and AS's reaction is not exactly, to say the least, Gracious. I find it at best impolite, at worst dickish, and have told AS so on his talk page. I think it'd be a shame for KK to get disheartened over behavior no sane editor would condone.

    Anybody got further comments? Circeus (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    GFDL requires attribution. Probably should be speedy deleted as a copyright violation. Just because something is posted on Wikipedia doesn't mean it can be copied willy-nilly wherever. --- RockMFR 19:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with RockMFR. Should be deleted per G6 or G11, so that the writer can receive proper attribution. –xeno (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I deleted it as an A7, with a link to this discussion. Since the primary author was the one who was irate, A7 is appropriate in this case. Horologium (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly you meant G7, and that is what you wrote in the deletion, but then you restored it? –xeno (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He probably meant G7, which is appropriate here, although I could see a case for G11 working as well. Typically, such drafts usually have only one author, so if the author took the material into the mainspace, then it's fine by GFDL concerns, but if multiple people worked on it, a history merge is probably necessary. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 20:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (after E/C) Yes G7, and it's been re-deleted. For a moment, I thought I had deleted the wrong article. I verified that it was the correct article and redeleted it. Considering the work that Kare Kare has put into a series of fish articles (witness all of the DYK's on his talk page), it is only right that he receive credit for his work. Horologium (talk)
    CSD:G0, "generally doing the right and obvious thing". Guy (Help!) 21:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    AS has gotten more and more confrontational ("Being an admin for 1 month and 16 days does not make you the all knowing authority on all issues.") and appears to completely miss the point of GFDL violations. I've given him a 24 hours block. Circeus (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait, what? Bad block. AS should learn from things like these threads, not through spankingblocking. -- Ned Scott 23:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand the situation, and I don't really disagree with what happened (the speedy deletion), but it does say on every editing window "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."... All AS would have had to do would have been to mention KK in the edit summary to satisfy the GFDL issues. -- Ned Scott 23:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In theory this could satisfy GFDL attribution requirements, however, rather than listening to people's concerns (not just about the attribution, but about the lack of courtesy involved in making someone else's work "live" before it is ready and without consulting them) he instead tried to justify his actions through wikilawyering, and when that didn't work, resorted to incivility and personal attacks. –xeno (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which certainly wasn't very nice of him at all. -- Ned Scott 00:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, the block was based on the discussion on AS talkpage: User talk:AdultSwim#Stout whiting. --Amalthea (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which still makes it a bad block. Heated discussion should be defused, not hit with a baseball bat. -- Ned Scott 00:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is difficult when someone refuses to admit that they may have made a mistake and instead decides to lash out with incivility. –xeno (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He was blunt, cold, and uncaring in responding to KK, but nothing blockable. It wasn't until other people started to pop up and say "we think you should feel bad about this" that he started to get agitated. -- Ned Scott 00:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why that gives him free reign to violate the WP:NPA policy. The original act and his response to it was bad enough; refusing to even consider the fact that maybe he should not have done it and attacking those trying to explain why, even worse. –xeno (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe he just doesn't give a fuck. He was cold, he was detached, but he didn't actually do anything wrong. The GFDL argument was just an excuse to delete the page, because we can all think of many ways to fix it without actual deletion. Keep in mind that I agree with the deletion, and I don't think he was right to be rude like he was, but come on people. I sure would be annoyed as hell if you guys came on my talk page and started lawyering about, rather than just saying "hey, that was rude, try to consider thinking about how this person felt" and leaving it at that. You all had good intentions, but that was a bad way to handle the situation. -- Ned Scott 00:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    KK tried that. Anyways, I was willing to let the PA's slide, which is why I took my leave of his page, but not the GFDL violations and his treatment of KK, which is why I went there. By the way, from that essay you cited: Using apathy as rationalization for a dickish action is a patent abuse of the live-and-let-live ethos of Don't-give-a-fuckism. seems rather appropriate. –xeno (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to make it clear that I'm not defending his actions, I'm trying to put them into a reasonable context. Lets help the situation instead of making it worse. -- Ned Scott 00:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The deletion seems appropriate; unless talking back to admins became a blockable offense somewhere along the line, I don't see anything that calls for a block at this time. Shouldn't you folks have thicker skins than that? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    eh, like I said, I didn't care about insults. I'd support unblocking if he agreed not to harvest other people's sandboxes. –xeno (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not even sure that in itself is an actual issue here. There doesn't even seem to be any lingering issue between AS and KK. KK's last post to AS's talk page was:
    "Again i quite realise that it is not "mine", however, i believe that other editors, such as ryan who i have worked with in the past, would rather they posted the words they wrote as opposed to someone else. I do realise after editing here for around a year now that blanking a page does not get rid of it, but there was no information of any quality on them anyway. I very rarely venture into the admin and non article generating side of wikipedia, and couldn't care less about it most of the time. I understand your point of view; it was there on the sandbox, so why shouldn't it be used? I just thought common courtesy existed on wikipedia. I wish to put an end to this discussion, again i know you have done absolutely nothing wrong in terms of policy, i just thought you might use a bit of courtesy. I apologise that i came over quite strongly in my first statements, i am sorry if i was uncivil towards you. Thanks Kare Kare (talk) 04:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)"
    I'm not sure what else we're waiting for. -- Ned Scott 01:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problems or issues with AdultSwim, i had intended to chalk this incident up as a lesson learned and presumed it a dead issue. I am heartened to see Circeus picked up on the issue and the article was deleted, but i am done with the whole incident. Thanks to all the admins who looked into the problem. The full stout whiting article should appear in the next day or two, i'm just finishing the article now. Cheers Kare Kare (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll have the Template:The Trout Barnstar for you when the article is posted. --AdultSwim (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    3 comments:
    • I detect a faint, if not unanimous, consensus that the block should be overturned. As a completely uninvolved admin, anyone have any serious problem if I unblock early? As a cool-down measure? (for a refreshing change, let's ask about cool-down unblocks at the next RFA)
    • If "policy" allows someone to take someone else's work and post it as their own, we should change policy. However, I don't believe it does; I think this did, in fact, violate policy.
    • Based on the last two responses above, I propose an immediate IAR sysoping of KK, without the need for an RFA. We need more of that here.
    --barneca (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds about right to me. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I could be wrong, but my impression is that we're mostly waiting for someone to go ahead and do it, at this point... so I went ahead and did it. AS is unblocked. Should consensus determine I acted in error, take action as needed (I'll be heading offline for a bit, soon, myself). – Luna Santin (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never been clear what we were supposed to do when faced with personal attacks if block "should never be punitive". In any case, should anybody wish to revert the bock, I won't throw a fit. At least there seems to be constructive discussion on the deeper issues. Circeus (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Stretch - Now that my talk page has tripled in length, let me state the above comment concerns me. Admins that are unsure of what to do, should probably call in others before blocking. Why thats exactly what the blocking policy states to do when the Admin is involved in the dispute. Look how handy it is, it covers both 'no cool downs' and 'disputes'. Gosh those policy guys were smart. What will they come up with next? Some kind of way to address these issues on a noticeboard? Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts perhaps? Perhaps they may even come up with a Wikipedia:New admin schoolfor new and 'unsure' admins. --AdultSwim (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi AdultSwim. Please, please let this drop. You did two uncool things. The block may have been an over-reaction to that, although one could reasonably disagree with that. You are now unblocked. I really don't see how being snide is going to help. --barneca (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would, but somewhere down the road some other admin (or even perhaps the same one) who has a dispute with .0001% of my edits will look at my talk page and block log and in spite of policies against such things, will use it as a record to justify another no-warn, cool down, dispute block. Since there can be no vindication of an unblock and wikipedia has no further review of either unblocks or expired blocks, my only requiem is to fully log the issue here for future reference.--AdultSwim (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any chance at all that you might have caused this problem, AdultSwim? Hesperian 02:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but with lesser power comes lesser responsibility. However in the interest of making unnecessary promises beyond the general polices and guidelines that effectively govern and protect us all equally, simply to place the community at ease, let me vow the following:
    1. "From now on I will not write off as 'trolling' random comments that call me 'dickish' and then go on to complain of a general lack of 'Graciousness' (Grace v. Dick perhaps?) instead responding to them here with great haste in spite of what ever else I may feel is more important, productive, or less contentious and regardless of how old the issue at hand is or weather it has already been cleared up with the user in question.
    2. I will be less knowing of wikipedia policies and suck up what ever comments are posted at my talk page without question.
    3. I will click the move button instead of satisfying GFDL requirements through the traditional method, so help me Jimbo" --AdultSwim (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Last I checked, the move button was the traditional way of satisfying the GFDL. Mr.Z-man 03:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    AS, don't worry about your block log. A lot of us have quite a rap sheet, some deserved, some undeserved. It happens. Rumor has it that if you get more than twenty entries you get a free sandwich at SubWay. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Take that Jarod. --AdultSwim (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A block is only a big a deal as you want to make it. From what I've seen in the past in threads like this, requesting further review of blocks after they expire, and especially after they are manually undone tends to make things worse, not better. Continuing to complain about a block that was overturned by consensus tends to reflect more poorly on the complainer than the blocker. Mr.Z-man 03:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And what about all the users that don't complain, that don't know how to appeal, that don't know the policies, that don't know how to defend themselves. What do they do? They leave the project, sock, or turn to vandals. And wikipedia is worse off because of it. --AdultSwim (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not going to read AN. You are accomplishing nothing for the oppressed masses. Horologium (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That seems like a horrible and ugly block. Quite petty. It was rather punitive and served no preventative purpose. I would urge the admin to apologize. Admins don't realize what a huge consequence their blocks have. As recently happened to me, it's quite discouraging. Beam 03:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It is a good idea to understand the GFDL before you make arrogant pronouncements about it. Here's a primer:

    1. Your contributions to Wikipedia remain your personal intellectual property. If someone claims you don't own your contributions, they don't know what they are talking about.
    2. Your contributions to Wikipedia have not been transferred to Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. If someone claims that Wikipedia owns your contributions, they don't know what they are talking about.
    3. By licensing your contributions under the GFDL, you have neither given up your intellectual property rights, nor transferred them to another party. All you have done is specify a set of conditions under which others are free to use, copy and modify your contributions; one such condition is that your authorship must always be attributed. Anyone who copies your contributions without acknowledging your authorship, or otherwise without complying with the GFDL, has stolen from you in both a legal and moral sense. If someone claims the right to do whatever they want with your contributions, just because you have posted them on Wikipedia, they don't know what they are talking about.

    Hesperian 03:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well said Hesp. Where were you 12 hours ago? =) –xeno (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He was in Perth,the capital and largest city of the Australian state of Western Australia, and the fourth-largest city in Australia, with a population of 1,554,769 (2007 estimate), shouted Wikipedia Brown for no reason. --AdultSwim (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh good for you, you know where I live. Which means you probably know who I am too. And you know how to tell me so without breaking the letter of policy. And now I'm supposed to be scared of you and say "Hey everyone, AdultSwim was right after all when he tried to defend his rudeness by hiding behind a license he doesn't understand", right? Bah. Hesperian 06:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Calm down, things could be worse. You could have been from Nigger Head, Queensland. Most uncomfortable userbox ever. --AdultSwim (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    AdultSwim section break (revised issue)

    The more I think about it, the more uncomfortable I am with AdultSwim's Perth comments above, and (yes, I know, groan) I don't think this thread should close yet. I don't know where the info came from, I don't know whether it is common knowledge, but no matter what, I can't think of a legitimate reason to bring it up. I can, however, think of an illegitimate reason to do so; it appears to be some kind of ill-conceived attempt at intimidation. AdultSwim, please show me I'm wrong and give me a different, harmless, believeable reason for doing so. If you can't, then at the risk of further inflaming a situation that many of us wish would go away, I'll have to make you give me the "scary ghost hands" too, and say that further instances of attempts at intimidation will result in another block. I know you feel mistreated by the block, but this is a truly unacceptable way to lash out. -barneca (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, just to play the devils advocate, when I read it, I took it as a kind of "lighten the mood" comment rather than a "I know what major metropolitan centre you're from so watch out" idle threat. At least I hope this is how he meant it, even if it wasn't well-received. The person he mentioned it about is in the Australian wikiproject so it's possible the information was found in the project pages somewhere. –xeno (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't strike you as an extremely creepy kind of humor, then? Even if that info was taken directly from H's user page or something, I don't see how that could be construed as humor. AS had to actually go looking for this information. If everyone else thinks I'm over-reacting, I'll grudgingly drop it, but with at least a caution to not use that kind of "humor" anymore. But calling it humor strikes me as similar to the "my evil twin brother was using my computer" excuse you sometimes hear; it can't be completely disproved, but it smells wrong enough that I don't feel compelled to take it at face value. --barneca (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's appropriate, no. Neither do I think his follow up was. –xeno (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dedent, Oh for the love of Jimbo's Beard. H is a member of Wikipedians of western Australia, 80% of the population lives in or around Perth as its the only major city in the region. Simple statistics state thats where he was or at least associates himself with (as was the question). The response plays to an actual answer to a rhetorical question. (Perhaps the youtube video helps carry the humor inspite of your lack of an ability to laugh.) The second response plays to the old userboxes and the fact that Australia has some really weird geographic locations that no one could imagine having in a place like the United States ('Nigger Head High School?' Home of the fighting ...? ) As far as intimidation by outing let me see what else I can do with statistics, he is a white male, 20 to 30 years old, some college education, owns a computer, spends a lot of time on the internet (most of it at wikipedia), drives a toyota less than 7 years old, complains about the price of petrol, opposed AU involvement in Iraq, watches soccer... ScaryGhostHands:Now everyone put your hands up to chest level, palms out, shake them and say oooooooooooooooooo. As far as 'lashing out', Do I really have to justify my self on every edit on this manufactured issue or are you just digging and needling till you find something blockable? --AdultSwim (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Now that I am at a computer where I can see the YouTube video, I'm willing to assume good faith and accept that this wasn't a clumsy intimidation attempt, so while I still think it was somewhat inappropriate, I retract all the talk of blocking, etc, above. I would point out that I was in favor of unblocking AS earlier, so the talk of "just digging and needling till you find something blockable" seems odd. --barneca (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Arabic Wikipedia

    Resolved
     – left for consensus to emerge. Or not. --Rodhullandemu 17:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    please protect this page, A user (his name is Stayfi and was banned several times in ar wikipedia) puts his ideas and thoughts about ar wikipedia in this article thinking that wikipedia is like a blog where anyone can put his thoughts and feelings. thanks --Osm agha (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have deleted the offending (unsourced) material and left a warning for this editor. I don't feel protection is warranted, but if there's any repetition, other steps may become necessary. --Rodhullandemu 03:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...however, I've now fully protected the article while we empty the sock drawer. --Rodhullandemu 05:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you --Osm agha (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please, any other admin to consider the removing of protection from this article, i'm fully writing it, with evidences to be put today, about its content, but users from the Ar wiki, r here but to prevent facts on it, Mr Rodhullandemu averted me to do so.
    Then any admin, can judge my references, Regards. --Stayfi (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't feel inclined to unprotect Arabic Wikipedia at present due the the flood of apparent sockuppets adding this information, and, who, incidentally, I am about to block. Put your references on the article's Talk page please, and let them be judged for reliability. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 14:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello, I ask, some of the admins here, to remove the protection for the article, Arabic wikipedia, i want to add facts, but we didn't reach a solution with r rodhull, since he isn't able to read arabic, my references are simple, please do take a look at the talk page. Regards. --Stayfi (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing to do with my lack of language skills, it's a matter for other editors of Arabic Wikipedia to evaluate your sources. Assessing content is not something for admins to do as admins. The page will be unprotected once consensus is reached. --Rodhullandemu 19:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh, which consensus ur talking about, rodhull? the guys (editors in the sunni wikipedia, are telling me, u, that there's no censorship (never been), nd i'm simply replying to them, that, beside restricting its content, about caliphs, nd islamic subjects, even, a biased view toward Israel nd its history, beside this all, i'm telling them, u, that they banned the images of vagina, nd mohamed, just because they r not muslim! but sunnis also (see the persian wiki, wich is more free than the arabic one) so let me add just those facts, nd we'll wait, for a major english study, to be put here, as a reference.

    Sockpuppet Warning

    There are two editors [[1]], [[2]] which have already aroused some discomfort amongst the other editors because of their nature of grouping, backing eachother in order to defend a particulat ideology[[3]]. They heavily involve in articles about masons [[4]], [[5]], even they edit an opposive natured article [[6]], [[7]] which seems that they create misinformation. And the way they post to me personally not very acceptable [[8]]. I may not know the wikipedian rules profoundly yet I know that this is not a personal forum site and no article page is closed to general criticism and brainstorming[[9]]. So they (Blueboar, MSJapan) are suspected sockpuppets and the articles about Freemasonary should be observed more closely. (cantikadam (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    (Hey look, he saved me the trouble of having to inform him). Cantikadam is in need of a block. He has made zero main space edits and is clearly here to do nothing more than trolling. See User talk:Cantikadam#AN/I and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive449#Longterm nonconstructive editor... for warnings, etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks and harassment. This means that I will be declared part of a Masonic conspiracy faster than you can say Jahbulon... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, no chance that Blueboar and MSJapan are sockpuppets, I'm afraid. As for LessHeard being a part of one of the ubiquitous global Masonic conspiracies, well, duh. He has several barnstars, which are of course architectural symbols, which means he associates himself with building, which is what Freemasons do, and it is his way of covertly communicating his status as a Mason to the almond-eyed greys on the mothership so that they don't mistakenly pick him up for an intrusive physical by one of their unlicensed physicians. How obvious can you be? John Carter (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly you are trying to intimidate LessHeard by outing very personal details about him on this page. Your insults of greys who as we all know have olive colored eyes is unacceptable and should be withdrawn. The use of the phrase 'intrusive physical' espouses a dark views and to claim it is humor or satire is reminiscent of <file 'feigning outrage by mentioning random unrelated scenario 47.txt' not found> and is defamatory against both people who perform physicals and those who like intrusive medical procedures by persons who may or may not be medically inclined. Now turn your head and cough. --AdultSwim (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been set up! The barnstars were awarded to me by other lizards... people, I mean, people! LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For those of you keeping count, since the thread on cantik I started here on July 16, he's made fifteen edits: two went here, and the rest were talk and userpage edits (as well as an attempted reversion on my talk page). I realize that the 24 hour block is supposed to be a punitive measure, but so was the earlier warning. Exactly how many unconstructive edits are we going to allow from a given user before an indef for a total lack of contribution to WP?
    On an unrelated note, I noticed Beam didn't complain publicly here that cantikadam didn't notify either myself or Blueboar there was a thread about us here on ANI (as he did on the last two threads I posted here). If there's going to be public lambasting, can we at least not have a double standard? MSJapan (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I missed it. My apologies. Beam 16:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't address why Beam didn't notify you, but Blueboar has been notified now. I also note that as per here Cantikadam doesn't seem to have a single mainspace edit yet, only a comparatively few talk edits that aren't dubious, and a lot of userspace edits. If someone were to propose a community ban on that editor, which anyone can do, I think there's a reasonable chance others might agree to it. John Carter (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would ask, then, that a relatively uninvolved party make the recommendation. MSJapan (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor in question has been blocked for 24 hours, with notice that if he continues in similar fashion when the block expires, he can expect to be blocked indefinitely. John Carter (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Goodness... you leave Wikipedia for one day, and suddenly you find yourself accused of being a sockpuppet! Thanks to those who have taken care of this matter. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Notification looks like a fine task for a bot. Perhaps even one that can update links for reference after the issue gets archived. I'll look into it over the weekend. --AdultSwim (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Guido den Broeder

    This user was blocked a couple of weeks ago for legal threats -- importing a dispute with Oscar from the Dutch Wikipedia. As far as I am concerned, the block was correct -- people are not allowed to use the English Wikipedia to get involved in legal disputes. If they do, they leave until the block is no longer necessary.

    I have, however, recently contacted Guido to see if the block is still necessary. He gives a commitment not to refer to or continue in any fashion the dispute with Oscar. I feel this makes the block no longer necessary and am happy to unblock.

    Any comments?

    Sam Korn (smoddy) 13:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought as long as they resolve not to make further threats or discuss... well honestly he didn't really make a clear threat here I thought. I remember reading the original story about the dutch beef coming here, I need a refresher prior to further comment. Beam 14:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He needs to "genuinely and credibly withdraw" the threat. I would gather in some kind of on-wiki fashion. But I could be wrong, I'm just reading from the NLT policy. –xeno (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I think than Sam Korn needs to be specific on what was said. Beam 14:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect to Sam Korn, I think it really needs to come on-wiki directly from the blockee. –xeno (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My position (as the blocking admin, incidentally, but I really have no personal stakes in this) is that a promise not to talk about the legal conflict any further really isn't enough. NLT means not just that we don't talk about legal conflicts, it means that we don't engage in them, while editing. Guido needs to clarify whether he in fact has initiated legal proceedings or whether he still considers doing so; if either of the two is true and he's not prepared to call it all off, he should remain blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What NLT means is that we don't try to resolve on-wiki disputes through legal means. The point is that this isn't an enwiki conflict -- it's an nlwiki conflict. We don't block for the mere presence of a legal threat to another editor. We block to ensure that the situation is resolved on-wiki. This dispute has nothing to do with enwiki provided that Guido doesn't continue the dispute here. I don't see how continuing the block has any positive effect on the English Wikipedia (in fact, I don't see how it has any positive impact for anyone). Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let me quote: "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we require that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels." This has been in WP:NLT basically from day one. Now, in principle I might agree to an unblock if Guido promises not to edit Wikipedia at all until the legal matter is resolved, but that really seems like splitting hairs. Mangojuicetalk 01:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, I can roll jive with that reading of it. Make it happen Sam Korn, if Guido wants to that is. Beam 14:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oops, fixed. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per Fut.Perf, I oppose this unless the legal action has actually come to a complete stop. Promising to keep this off of Wikipedia now is a little late. I remember hearing that the WMF legal people had been contacted... I'd like to hear something from them before we unblock. Mangojuicetalk 18:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unless all legal threats are fully and officially retracted. This requirement in WP:NLT is very clean, and is there for a reason. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 19:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clean, yes, but irrelevant. There appears to be no thought to question why the policy exists. This block is achieving precisely nothing and is therefore harmful. "Because policy says so" is an unsatisfactory reason to shoot oneself in the foot. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse unblocking only after Guido den Broeder unequivocally and unreservedly retracts all legal threats, and confirms that no legal proceeding are currently ongoing. Think positive. . . dave souza, talk 21:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment from Guido
    [10]
    • I have not made a legal threat, ever, anywhere.
    • WMF is not involved and will therefore not comment.
    • Editing history is irrelevant to WP:NLT.
    • WP:NLT does not say 'don't engage in legal action'. What is says is 'don't threaten to'.
    • Blocks must have a purpose.
    • Note that while en:Wikipedia has noticeboards, mediation, reviews, a functioning arbcom, access to designated agents and to an information team, etc., nl:Wikipedia has none of this. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know how accurate the first point is (I happen not to speak Dutch), I disagree with the fourth point, but much of the rest is valid, and the final point is, I think, irrelevant, but I don't think any of it presents a convincing reason to keep the block running. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I support the unblock on the basis that Guido has clearly stated that no legal action is ongoing regarding en wiki activity, and that he won't engage in any further discussion of any aspect of any external dispute. By my reading, quite a few of the 'oppose's above are actually 'supports' in this light. It is a point of debate whether or not a legal threat was ever made here on en - indeed it might actually be subjective - but the fact that Guido has clearly and firmly committed to no mention of or activity in the legal arena related to en-wiki is great news... I'd thank him for his patience, and Sam for his work in this matter.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support unblocking at this point and I basically agree with what Sam has said. The issues raised by Skinwalker probably need to go through dispute resolution but they're not a reason to keep him under a NLT block. Sarah 23:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    if you get the chance, Golbez - could you review my post from yesterday over here - it's my feeling that this is the heart of that particular misunderstanding - I agree it's worth clearing up... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, well, I do agree that he is wrong when he says "WP:NLT does not say 'don't engage in legal action'. What is says is 'don't threaten to'." NLT says: "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we require that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels." I think Guido should have another read of that and reconsider point 4. I think the policy is clear that you can take action but you can't continue to edit Wikipedia until it's resolved. Sarah 02:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock unless Guido affirms he is not pursuing legal remedies. In his statement above, he doesn't reveal whether he is still pursuing legal action. His most troublesome sentence (for me) is this one:
    WP:NLT does not say 'don't engage in legal action'. What is says is 'don't threaten to'.
    He is misreading the plain language of WP:NLT. (How does he want to interpret do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved)? He should not be editing Wikipedia until he affirms that he is not pursuing legal remedies against the Foundation or against *any* editors on any of the Wikipedias. User:Oscar edits on both en.wiki and nl.wiki. If Guido is planning legal action against Oscar he is planning action against an editor in good standing of the English Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    the comments of the arbs, and other users, at the recently rejected arb proceedings are relevant here... it's not clear in my view that your position is current policy. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)I really think that the 'point 4' argument above may be a bit of a distraction.. however it may not be too hard to clear up....[reply]
    So he doesn't understand a policy... If he isn't pursuing legal action, as he claims not to be, why should that mean he shouldn't be unblocked? Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it leaves things open for him to pursue it in the future and again argue that he is not merely threatening, therefore he cannot be blocked. It's the same reason we ask people who are asking to be unblocked to say that they understand the actions under which they were blocked was wrong. --Golbez (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And also, I don't think that's clear. I think Guido is being careful with his words and he means that he feels he never used a threat of legal action, but this doesn't mean that he never actually took legal action. My understanding is, he has initiated legal action. His inclusion of his mistaken point #4 backs up this interpretation. But we really shouldn't have to be arguing over interpretation -- if he has really done what's required he can easily make a completely clear, unequivocated statement to that fact, at least as a starting point. Mangojuicetalk 14:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just establish that he is not engaged in legal action arising from Wikipedia editing, and is not threatening to do so. No weasel words, no abstract conditionals, etc. Legal action is not compatible with one's status as a Wikipedia editor. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting talk page, especially the latest response. Oppose unblock until..see post right above mine. Garion96 (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The policy is quite clear to me: Editors engaged in, pursuing, or threatening legal action will be blocked until such actions are withdrawn or confirmed non-existent. No one is asking him to surrender any future right to pursue legal action. Oppose unblock. xeno (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having not looked at the policy in some time, my intial response would be that as long as it is not affecting editing here, I would see no problem. My mental image was that NLT existed to ensure an editting environment free from the "T" part, that is to say it was the threatening that was the problem as it created an assymetrical environment. However, the policy is pretty clear, and appears to have widespread support... although I'm not clear on if people are supporting the idea of the current policy (which I'm not) or simply saying that we should follow it as it stands (which I am). This is probably more appropiately placed first on the talk page of NLT then perhaps the V-pump. - brenneman 07:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The argument that while it is not acceptable to threaten legal action on Wikipedia against fellow Wikipedia editors, it is nonetheless OK to actually pursue it, shows a clear need to continue the block. I find it hard to beleive that can have been said in good faith. DGG (talk) 09:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:BenBurch has put up a "Retired" sign, saying he's not going to edit any more if he has to defend against legal threats. Apparently, the subject of Violet Blue (author) and her boyfriend, User:Wikiwikimoore, are threatening to get a restraining order against Ben for his edits to her article and his efforts to expose Moore's COI, claiming that they constitute "domestic violence"?! --129.89.246.127 (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mr IP, where are these legal threats? Can you post diffs, please? I had a look and I'm willing to block if necessary but I couldn't find them. Thanks, Sarah 23:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ask User:R. Baley, he knows "apparently". Mion (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What does that mean? I dropped Ben a note asking if he had any differences showing legal threats. I also left a note for an admin who has had past experience with this article. KnightLago (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's about this one [11], if User:129.89.246.127 has some other diffs to support his question, that would be welcome. Mion (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, well I dropped R. Baley a note as well as he blocked the IP as a banned editor. KnightLago (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks KnightLago, saw this earlier and recognized BenBurch's name, but did not connect it to the Roskam article stuff from earlier. I am still not sure how the diff given by Mion above, or my IP block, is connected to the VioletBlue article, and I am in the dark about any legal threats with regard to this situation. If there are any diffs showing any legal threats (I didn't find any) I will block the account that made them. . . R. Baley (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Has anybody asked Ben about this? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I have. I emailed him and he has replied to me but I'll leave it up to Ben to decide what, if anything, is said publicly. I don't think there's any benefit in leaving this discussion open anymore. Sarah 02:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. It can be closed. KnightLago (talk) 02:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've exchanged a few emails with Ben. As the IP said, he has been served papers by Violet Blue (author) who apparently is requesting a court order preventing Ben from editing her bio on Wikipedia. I'm going to block User:Wikiwikimoore under NLT: "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we require that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels." Sarah 03:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If those edits were good edits, by Ben, I'm willing to reinstate them. Wikipedia will not be threatened to stop writing good articles on my watch. Beam 04:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't had a chance to go through that article yet, but there seems to be an awful lot of bullying going on. See this Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ninavizz where, apparently, the same pair that are now harassing Ben also harassed and publicly outed another editor. Sarah 04:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've emailed Mike Godwin with a link to this topic, so he's aware of what's going on. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 07:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Nwwaew. I did actually suggest to Ben that he might email the legal queue so they're aware of what is going on as there are potentially some big implications for Wikipedia and WMF in general but I don't know if he has or not. He has an attorney, though, and is doing as he's advised at this point, as far as I can tell. Sarah 10:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There aren't any edits to the article by Ben that were removed due to a lawsuit that I'm aware of. The current version is mostly consensus, to which BenBurch was a part of. The primary point of contention was inserting information about the subject having a different birth name, but without a source it just wasn't appropriate. -Chunky Rice (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I know nothing was removed because of the lawsuit and it's not about the name either but I'm not going to go into the details of the lawsuit here. It's basically as the IP says at the top. Anyways, I'm going to archive this section because I don't think anything else of benefit can come from discussing this further here. The relevant account is blocked until the legal matters have been resolved per WP:NLT. Ben says he intends staying retired and I don't think anything else can be done so I think it is best to let this go to archive now. Sarah 15:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:FuturestarMatt

    Resolved
     – Message left for user. –xeno (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, so I can across some very disturbing videos posted on YouTube.com by FuturestarMatt (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) on his account channel at http://www.youtube.com/user/FuturestarMatt

    It is pretty obvious according to the videos that he hates Wikipedia. This all came about yesterday when I reverted the edits he made to the article Internet celebrity, by adding himself to the page claiming he is a YouTube celebrity. I believe other RC editors reverted his edits multiple times before he actually stopped putting it back up when he got his final warning, has shown here, [12]. Anywho, I found these videos when he acutally decieded to subscribe to my channel, for what reason? I have no clue. So, I'd thought I would bring this issue up to the admins and other editors to give a heads up and warning about this particular user. Also, I actually left the reason why his edits kept being undone on his talk page at the bottom when he came to me asking a question, here. He has yet to respond to it on here or on YouTube. --Eric (mailbox) 22:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Firstly, I'm not an admin, but I don't think we can do anything about the guy when he's on YT. On the other hand, an admin certainly has the power to do something about his editing rights. IceUnshattered[ t | c ] 23:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So you want the admins to... do what? Calvin 1998 (t-c) 23:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I haven't watched the Youtubes, but if he understands that he's not to edit in a conflict of interests, I don't really see a reason to make any blocks for off-wiki business. The explanation Eric gave was sound and he seems to want to improve his edits. as long as he observes WP:3RR and WP:COI. –xeno (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a message for him, so I'm tagging this resolved. Thanks, –xeno (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Coolio. Thanks xeno. --Eric (mailbox) 00:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to let you guys know that I dont hate wikipedia but I dislike the editors--FuturestarMatt (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)FuturestarMatt[reply]

    Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Log and image oversight

    I've just made a proposal here, and I'd appreciate a few admins to weigh into it. Many thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 00:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikizlle948 (talk · contribs)

    Wikizlle948 (talk · contribs) repeatedly inserts copyrighted images uploaded under various accounts ([13] [14] [15] [16]), and has ignored multiple requests to stop, both here on English Wiki and at Commons. The user has also ignored requests to provide reliable sources with edits. --Mosmof (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No uploads here, so we can't do anything about that. Edits, while all wrong, are not blockable offenses or anything like that so I doubt there's anything we can do. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You may question the adequacy of the warnings (I don't), but surely repetitively mislinking images is a blockable offense. Violation of WP:IUP is blockable, even if the offense is creating a to a legitimate image from an article that isn't permitted to have it, like including a character image to illustrate an actor's biography.
    Kww (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough that it's disruptive (I need to remember that is a blockable thing), but it looks like nothing short of an indef will stop the guy. It could be done, but it still seems a bit extreme. Blocking for 24 hours to prevent more abuse for right now, but next time take it to WP:ANI, which is where things like this are supposed to go technically. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that's where I thought I posted this - I got lost on the vast interwebs. Thanks. --Mosmof (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleting many redirect pages

    Resolved
     – Retargeting work done by Nihiltres & yours truly. The DRV discussion shall continue there. –xeno (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a technical question directed at experienced administrators. Pokémon types (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), now deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon types (3rd nomination), has a zillion redirects pointing to it. Is there a practical method of deleting them automatically, or will a bot take care of most of them? Thanks,  Sandstein  17:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Only 51, shouldn't be that hard. Just to confirm, none of these should be retargeted? –xeno (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is why the site was so laggy for a while... As a note, you missed the talk page in all the excitement. As for the redirects, there's User:RedirectCleanupBot, the only bot with the +sysop bit. You could ask WJBscribe to run it for you. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The list is here. –xeno (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The bot can't act on the redirects with more than 1 entry in the history. –xeno (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Thanks. I knew that there was a bot that does this sort of thing. Actually, Xenocidic, you're right: a redirect to Pokémon game mechanics would probably be better, and the same goes for Special:WhatLinksHere/List of Pokémon items, whose article is now also deleted per AfD. Could someone who has WP:AWB do this? I'd be grateful.  Sandstein  18:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Doing.... –xeno (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    err, Nihiltres has already deleted 'em all =) –xeno (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, can't we still make redirects from your permanent list? I've added the crudely regexed redirect list of the other article to your sandbox.  Sandstein  18:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, with loss of the prior edit history though. (GFDL concern?) –xeno (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As indicated at User talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.2FPok.C3.A9mon types .283rd nomination.29, I'm not sure the article in question is totally hopeless and thus perhaps we should relist it taking the published sources into account and hold off on deleting the redirects for the time being. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We usually don't relist a closed nom; frankly, I'll be surprised if that ever legitimately happened. The two available routes are DRV and userfication, and neither require the restoration of the redirects at the moment. —Kurykh 18:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems as good a reason as any to reform AfD then. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reform it how? —Kurykh 18:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that we are a volunteer site, we should not expect volunteer editors to have to come up with sources in a mere five days and if they don't then the discussion stops. If they do find sources and as in this case return to the disucssion only to see it closed, instead of having to start an all new discussion at DRV, we should merely relist the old discussion as a more efficient and considerate way of finding consensus. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please pardon my idiocy; I'll undelete the articles I've deleted and repoint them all to Pokémon game mechanics. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 18:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! It was not idiocy, I was close to doing it myself :-) Redirects can be created for all links in User:Xenocidic/sandbox‎. I'd do it myself if I had the automated tools for it.  Sandstein  18:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

    Resolved
     – CSD no longer backlogged. Pew pew pew. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A HUGE backlog exists. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Doing... I dunno about "HUGE", 116 is pretty typical. –xeno (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that bad - working in it. Pedro :  Chat  20:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Time to get out my raygun and join the fun, I guess. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MagdelenaDiArco - 2

    Despite being blocked, she seems to have immediately created one new account, User:Gianovito and to have started editing with permanently changing UK-based IP addresses (User:78.151.145.115, User:84.13.166.223, User:89.243.39.216 - identical to User:89.242.104.114, who was blocked earlier today), their common focus being the Maltese language talk page and, oddly, banned user User:Giovanni Giove and his various blocked sock puppets that seemed to be her obsession before she was blocked. She is mostly mocking us, as far as I can understand the meaning of her comments to talk pages, where she comments on her own sock puppetry. --Anonymous44 (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Per checkuser, MagdelenaDiArco (including those IPs, and User:Fone4My and his sockpuppets) is likely the return of banned user User:Iamandrewrice, and, therefore, any sockpuppets should be reverted and blocked on sight. For the record - and please take this in - Giovanni Giove does not have "various blocked sock puppets", although Magdelena et al would very much like you to think that. I can only speculate what their interest in Giove is. – Steel 23:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be helpful if someone would clarify the Giovanni Giove situation. There was a recent checkuser which, in spite of its name, actually implicated Generalmesse rather than Giovanni Giove. The true scoop on Giovanni Giove, a supposed edit warrior in Italian/Croatian nationalist disputes, would be helpful. Both Generalmesse and Giovanni Giove are indef blocked. There are some related SSP reports that can be found via [17]. I think the problem may be that nobody has gone around and tagged the blocked accounts that are supposed to be socks of GG. Maybe there are none? EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock puppet of Lawinformationhelper

    Resolved
     – Sock of Lawinformationhelper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indef.  Sandstein  07:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Howdy, folks. You remember that guy I complained about here? Well, it seems he's back under a new name.

    I'll leave you to decide how to handle this matter. --Eastlaw (talk) 06:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone...

    please point me to the correct page to report vandalism on other language Wikipedias? (Im guessing somewhere at meta). Thanks. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 06:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For reference, the vandalism is on-going here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 06:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you looking for this? Gary King (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep! Thanks a lot Gary, its been an interesting day... « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Australian MPs

    http://andrewlanderyou.blogspot.com/2008/07/exclusive-federal-mp-tutored-in-art-of.html

    More or less self-explanatory, but the biggest problem is that some bio articles are being replaced with copyrighted articles from the Aussie parliament website. Just a heads-up. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Largely, situation is, the Australian politics editors are handling it reasonably well, and all edits to date are we believe accounted for, but some articles may not be on our watchlists and may evade detection. If you see an editor making an edit like this or this, or making a seemingly unnecessary page protection request at RFPP, you now know the background situation as to why it may be happening. If you see anything you think we should know about, drop a note at WT:AUSPOL or WP:AWNB where most Australian editors regularly read. Orderinchaos 13:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion on giving accountcreators override-antispoof right

    There's a discussion ongoing at WT:ACC regarding giving account creators the ability to override the anti-spoof block during account creation. As far as I can see from a search of the archives, it's never been noted here, so I am leaving this notice. –xeno (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    BMD-2 created from content of BMD-1 without following Wikipedia:SPLIT#Procedure

    Part of the content of BMD-1 article has been split off into BMD-2, but the new edit history never included a GFDL attribution notice. How to fix this? —Michael Z. 2008-07-23 16:09 z

    Doesn't look like a split the way it's defined at WP:SPLIT, but the proper action would probably be a null edit with the summary "Split from BMD-1" or "Created from BMD-1". I'll go do that now. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much. —Michael Z. 2008-07-23 16:54 z
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=227474471"